Latest News for HOSP

The new edition of national palliative care guidelines provide updated clinical strategies and guidance relevant to all clinicians providing care for critically ill patients, not just those clinicians actively specialized in palliative care.

Thomas Northcut/Thinkstock

The Clinical Practice Guidelines for Quality Palliative Care, 4th Edition, emphasizes the importance of palliative care provided by “clinicians in primary care and specialty care practices, such as oncologists,” the guideline authors stated.

The latest revision of the guideline aims to establish a foundation for “gold-standard” palliative care for people living with serious illness, regardless of diagnosis, prognosis, setting, or age, according to the National Coalition for Hospice and Palliative Care, which published the clinical practice guidelines.

The update was developed by the National Consensus Project for Quality Palliative Care (NCP), which includes 16 national organizations with palliative care and hospice expertise, and is endorsed by more than 80 national organizations, including the American Society of Hematology and the Oncology Nurses Society.

One key reason for the update, according to the NCP, was to acknowledge that today’s health care system may not be meeting patients’ palliative care needs.

Specifically, the guidelines call on all clinicians who are not palliative specialists to integrate palliative care principles into their routine assessment of seriously ill patients with conditions such as heart failure, lung disease, and cancer.

This approach differs from the way palliative care is traditionally practiced, often by fellowship-trained physicians, trained nurses, and other specialists who provide that support.

The guidelines are organized into sections covering palliative care structure and processes, care for the patient nearing the end of life, and specific aspects of palliative care, including physical, psychological, and psychiatric; social; cultural, ethical, and legal; and spiritual, religious, and existential aspects.

“The expectation is that all clinicians caring for seriously ill patients will integrate palliative care competencies, such as safe and effective pain and symptom management and expert communication skills in their practice, and palliative care specialists will provide expertise for those with the most complex needs,” the guideline authors wrote.

Implications for treatment of oncology patients

These new guidelines represent a “blueprint for what it looks like to provide high-quality, comprehensive palliative care to people with serious illness,” said Thomas W. LeBlanc, MD, who is a medical oncologist, palliative care physician, and patient experience researcher at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

“Part of this report to is about trying to raise the game of everybody in medicine and provide a higher basic level of primary palliative care to all people with serious illness, but then also to figure out who has higher levels of needs where the specialists should be applied, since they are a scarce resource,” said Dr. LeBlanc.

An issue with that traditional model is a shortage of specialized clinicians to meet palliative care needs, said Dr. LeBlanc, whose clinical practice and research focuses on palliative care needs of patients with hematologic malignancies.

“Palliative care has matured as a field such that we are now actually facing workforce shortage issues and really fundamental questions about who needs us the most, and how we increase our reach to improve the lives of more patients and families facing serious illness,” he said in an interview.

That’s a major driver behind the emphasis in these latest guidelines on providing palliative care in the community, coordinating care, and dealing with care transitions, he added.

“I hope that this document will help to demonstrate the value and the need for palliative care specialists, and for improvements in primary care in the care of patients with hematologic diseases in general,” he said. “To me, this adds increasing legitimacy to this whole field.”

Palliative care in surgical care

These guidelines are particularly useful to surgeons in part because of their focus on what’s known as primary palliative care, said to Geoffrey P. Dunn, MD, former chair of the American College of Surgeons Committee on Surgical Palliative Care. Palliative care, the new guidelines suggest, can be implemented by nonspecialists.

Primary palliative care includes diverse skills such as breaking adverse news to patients, managing uncomplicated pain, and being able to recognize signs and symptoms of imminent demise. “These are the minimum deliverables for all people dealing with seriously ill patients,” Dr. Dunn said in an interview. “It’s palliative care that any practicing physician should be able to handle.”

Dr. Dunn concurred with Dr. LaBlanc about the workforce shortage in the palliative field. The traditional model has created a shortage of specialized clinicians to meet palliative care needs. Across the board, “staffing for palliative teams is very inconsistent,” said Dr. Dunn. “It’s a classic unfunded mandate.”

While these guidelines are a step forward in recognizing the importance of palliative care outside of the palliative care specialty, there is no reference to surgery anywhere in the text of the 141-page prepublication draft provided by the NCP, Dr. Dunn noted in the interview.

“There’s still a danger of parallel universes, where surgery is developing its own understanding of this in parallel with the more general national palliative care movement,” he said. Despite that, there is a growing connection between surgery and the broader palliative care community. That linkage is especially important given the number of seriously ill patients with high symptom burden that are seen in surgery.

“I think where surgeons are beginning to find [palliative principles] very helpful is dealing with these protracted serial discussions with families in difficult circumstances, such as how long is the life support going to be prolonged in someone with a devastating head injury, or multiple system organ failure in the elderly,” Dr. Dunn added.

The new edition of national palliative care guidelines provide updated clinical strategies and guidance relevant to all clinicians providing care for critically ill patients, not just those clinicians actively specialized in palliative care.

Thomas Northcut/Thinkstock

The Clinical Practice Guidelines for Quality Palliative Care, 4th Edition, emphasizes the importance of palliative care provided by “clinicians in primary care and specialty care practices, such as oncologists,” the guideline authors stated.

The latest revision of the guideline aims to establish a foundation for “gold-standard” palliative care for people living with serious illness, regardless of diagnosis, prognosis, setting, or age, according to the National Coalition for Hospice and Palliative Care, which published the clinical practice guidelines.

The update was developed by the National Consensus Project for Quality Palliative Care (NCP), which includes 16 national organizations with palliative care and hospice expertise, and is endorsed by more than 80 national organizations, including the American Society of Hematology and the Oncology Nurses Society.

One key reason for the update, according to the NCP, was to acknowledge that today’s health care system may not be meeting patients’ palliative care needs.

Specifically, the guidelines call on all clinicians who are not palliative specialists to integrate palliative care principles into their routine assessment of seriously ill patients with conditions such as heart failure, lung disease, and cancer.

This approach differs from the way palliative care is traditionally practiced, often by fellowship-trained physicians, trained nurses, and other specialists who provide that support.

The guidelines are organized into sections covering palliative care structure and processes, care for the patient nearing the end of life, and specific aspects of palliative care, including physical, psychological, and psychiatric; social; cultural, ethical, and legal; and spiritual, religious, and existential aspects.

“The expectation is that all clinicians caring for seriously ill patients will integrate palliative care competencies, such as safe and effective pain and symptom management and expert communication skills in their practice, and palliative care specialists will provide expertise for those with the most complex needs,” the guideline authors wrote.

Implications for treatment of oncology patients

These new guidelines represent a “blueprint for what it looks like to provide high-quality, comprehensive palliative care to people with serious illness,” said Thomas W. LeBlanc, MD, who is a medical oncologist, palliative care physician, and patient experience researcher at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

“Part of this report to is about trying to raise the game of everybody in medicine and provide a higher basic level of primary palliative care to all people with serious illness, but then also to figure out who has higher levels of needs where the specialists should be applied, since they are a scarce resource,” said Dr. LeBlanc.

An issue with that traditional model is a shortage of specialized clinicians to meet palliative care needs, said Dr. LeBlanc, whose clinical practice and research focuses on palliative care needs of patients with hematologic malignancies.

“Palliative care has matured as a field such that we are now actually facing workforce shortage issues and really fundamental questions about who needs us the most, and how we increase our reach to improve the lives of more patients and families facing serious illness,” he said in an interview.

That’s a major driver behind the emphasis in these latest guidelines on providing palliative care in the community, coordinating care, and dealing with care transitions, he added.

“I hope that this document will help to demonstrate the value and the need for palliative care specialists, and for improvements in primary care in the care of patients with hematologic diseases in general,” he said. “To me, this adds increasing legitimacy to this whole field.”

Palliative care in surgical care

These guidelines are particularly useful to surgeons in part because of their focus on what’s known as primary palliative care, said to Geoffrey P. Dunn, MD, former chair of the American College of Surgeons Committee on Surgical Palliative Care. Palliative care, the new guidelines suggest, can be implemented by nonspecialists.

Primary palliative care includes diverse skills such as breaking adverse news to patients, managing uncomplicated pain, and being able to recognize signs and symptoms of imminent demise. “These are the minimum deliverables for all people dealing with seriously ill patients,” Dr. Dunn said in an interview. “It’s palliative care that any practicing physician should be able to handle.”

Dr. Dunn concurred with Dr. LaBlanc about the workforce shortage in the palliative field. The traditional model has created a shortage of specialized clinicians to meet palliative care needs. Across the board, “staffing for palliative teams is very inconsistent,” said Dr. Dunn. “It’s a classic unfunded mandate.”

While these guidelines are a step forward in recognizing the importance of palliative care outside of the palliative care specialty, there is no reference to surgery anywhere in the text of the 141-page prepublication draft provided by the NCP, Dr. Dunn noted in the interview.

“There’s still a danger of parallel universes, where surgery is developing its own understanding of this in parallel with the more general national palliative care movement,” he said. Despite that, there is a growing connection between surgery and the broader palliative care community. That linkage is especially important given the number of seriously ill patients with high symptom burden that are seen in surgery.

“I think where surgeons are beginning to find [palliative principles] very helpful is dealing with these protracted serial discussions with families in difficult circumstances, such as how long is the life support going to be prolonged in someone with a devastating head injury, or multiple system organ failure in the elderly,” Dr. Dunn added.

The new edition of national palliative care guidelines provide updated clinical strategies and guidance relevant to all clinicians providing care for critically ill patients, not just those clinicians actively specialized in palliative care.

Thomas Northcut/Thinkstock

The Clinical Practice Guidelines for Quality Palliative Care, 4th Edition, emphasizes the importance of palliative care provided by “clinicians in primary care and specialty care practices, such as oncologists,” the guideline authors stated.

The latest revision of the guideline aims to establish a foundation for “gold-standard” palliative care for people living with serious illness, regardless of diagnosis, prognosis, setting, or age, according to the National Coalition for Hospice and Palliative Care, which published the clinical practice guidelines.

The update was developed by the National Consensus Project for Quality Palliative Care (NCP), which includes 16 national organizations with palliative care and hospice expertise, and is endorsed by more than 80 national organizations, including the American Society of Hematology and the Oncology Nurses Society.

One key reason for the update, according to the NCP, was to acknowledge that today’s health care system may not be meeting patients’ palliative care needs.

Specifically, the guidelines call on all clinicians who are not palliative specialists to integrate palliative care principles into their routine assessment of seriously ill patients with conditions such as heart failure, lung disease, and cancer.

This approach differs from the way palliative care is traditionally practiced, often by fellowship-trained physicians, trained nurses, and other specialists who provide that support.

The guidelines are organized into sections covering palliative care structure and processes, care for the patient nearing the end of life, and specific aspects of palliative care, including physical, psychological, and psychiatric; social; cultural, ethical, and legal; and spiritual, religious, and existential aspects.

“The expectation is that all clinicians caring for seriously ill patients will integrate palliative care competencies, such as safe and effective pain and symptom management and expert communication skills in their practice, and palliative care specialists will provide expertise for those with the most complex needs,” the guideline authors wrote.

Implications for treatment of oncology patients

These new guidelines represent a “blueprint for what it looks like to provide high-quality, comprehensive palliative care to people with serious illness,” said Thomas W. LeBlanc, MD, who is a medical oncologist, palliative care physician, and patient experience researcher at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

“Part of this report to is about trying to raise the game of everybody in medicine and provide a higher basic level of primary palliative care to all people with serious illness, but then also to figure out who has higher levels of needs where the specialists should be applied, since they are a scarce resource,” said Dr. LeBlanc.

An issue with that traditional model is a shortage of specialized clinicians to meet palliative care needs, said Dr. LeBlanc, whose clinical practice and research focuses on palliative care needs of patients with hematologic malignancies.

“Palliative care has matured as a field such that we are now actually facing workforce shortage issues and really fundamental questions about who needs us the most, and how we increase our reach to improve the lives of more patients and families facing serious illness,” he said in an interview.

That’s a major driver behind the emphasis in these latest guidelines on providing palliative care in the community, coordinating care, and dealing with care transitions, he added.

“I hope that this document will help to demonstrate the value and the need for palliative care specialists, and for improvements in primary care in the care of patients with hematologic diseases in general,” he said. “To me, this adds increasing legitimacy to this whole field.”

Palliative care in surgical care

These guidelines are particularly useful to surgeons in part because of their focus on what’s known as primary palliative care, said to Geoffrey P. Dunn, MD, former chair of the American College of Surgeons Committee on Surgical Palliative Care. Palliative care, the new guidelines suggest, can be implemented by nonspecialists.

Primary palliative care includes diverse skills such as breaking adverse news to patients, managing uncomplicated pain, and being able to recognize signs and symptoms of imminent demise. “These are the minimum deliverables for all people dealing with seriously ill patients,” Dr. Dunn said in an interview. “It’s palliative care that any practicing physician should be able to handle.”

Dr. Dunn concurred with Dr. LaBlanc about the workforce shortage in the palliative field. The traditional model has created a shortage of specialized clinicians to meet palliative care needs. Across the board, “staffing for palliative teams is very inconsistent,” said Dr. Dunn. “It’s a classic unfunded mandate.”

While these guidelines are a step forward in recognizing the importance of palliative care outside of the palliative care specialty, there is no reference to surgery anywhere in the text of the 141-page prepublication draft provided by the NCP, Dr. Dunn noted in the interview.

“There’s still a danger of parallel universes, where surgery is developing its own understanding of this in parallel with the more general national palliative care movement,” he said. Despite that, there is a growing connection between surgery and the broader palliative care community. That linkage is especially important given the number of seriously ill patients with high symptom burden that are seen in surgery.

“I think where surgeons are beginning to find [palliative principles] very helpful is dealing with these protracted serial discussions with families in difficult circumstances, such as how long is the life support going to be prolonged in someone with a devastating head injury, or multiple system organ failure in the elderly,” Dr. Dunn added.

Clinicians and even the general public are aware of the dangers of sepsis, the life-threatening illness caused by a body’s response to an infection. Irrespective of one’s perception of pharmaceutical marketing materials or the evidence-based medicine used, awareness about sepsis has led to earlier diagnosis and interventions that have likely saved countless patients’ lives.

Moreover, hospitalists have played a key role in sepsis prevention. In their research, “Improving Survival from Sepsis in Noncritical Units: Role of Hospitalists and Sepsis Team in Early Detection and Initial Treatment of Septic Patients,” Adriana Ducci, MD, and her colleagues showed that a hospitalist-managed sepsis protocol improved sepsis case notifications and patient outcomes.

Although sepsis and respiratory compromise are clearly very different conditions, I believe that greater awareness about respiratory compromise will lead to earlier diagnosis and interventions, which will theoretically improve patient outcomes. Moreover, as with the sepsis awareness campaign, hospitalists can play a key role in recognizing respiratory compromise and in the implementation of appropriate interventions.

As defined by the Respiratory Compromise Institute, “respiratory compromise” is defined as a state in which there is a high likelihood of decompensation into respiratory failure and/or death, but, in which specific interventions – be it therapeutic and/or monitoring – might prevent or mitigate this decompensation.

A significant segment of patients who may be at risk for respiratory compromise are those receiving opioids. The cost of opioid-related adverse events, in terms of both human life and hospital expenses, remains at the forefront of the public eye. It has been estimated that yearly costs in the United States associated with opioid-related postoperative respiratory failure were estimated at $2 billion.

Thomas W. Frederickson MD, FACP, SFHM, MBA, the lead author of the Society of Hospital Medicine guide for Reducing Adverse Drug Events Related to Opioids (RADEO), emphasized in a podcast with the Physician-Patient Alliance for Health & Safety the need to identify patient conditions that pose a greater risk of respiratory compromise.

In particular, Dr. Frederickson pointed out the need to screen for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA): “Patients with obstructive sleep apnea are dependent upon their arousal mechanism in order to avoid respiratory depression and eventual respiratory failure. When these patients receive opioid medication, it decreases this ability for arousal. That puts them at risk for a sudden spiral that includes respiratory insufficiency and respiratory arrest. This can happen very quickly and part of the risk is that the traditional monitoring for sedation that we use in the hospital – that is on a periodic basis and depends upon nursing interventions and questioning – really becomes much less effective in this patient population that can have a respiratory arrest, because of failure to arouse, very quickly. So, a monitoring regimen that takes place every 60 minutes is likely to be ineffective.”

Patient conditions such as OSA should be considered, along with other comorbidities. As the RADEO Guide states: “Before starting opioid therapy, either in surgical or non-surgical settings, it is important to identify any real or potential risks of respiratory depression or other opioid-related adverse effects. Patient comorbidities such as OSA, neurologic disorders, organ impairment, substance abuse history, and other medication use are important aspects to consider.”

Although we have clearly recognized a significant increase in respiratory complications associated with opioid administration, there are other areas, which are non–opioid related, that can create respiratory compromise. We view many patients with stable or underlying respiratory conditions, whether it be COPD, sleep apnea, or preexisting pathophysiology, where either due to sedative agents, or an acute illness – like pneumonia – they can go from a stable condition to respiratory compromise and become at risk for respiratory failure.

A classic example of that in my world of anesthesia has been the well-recognized area of non–operating room anesthesia – in particular, in endoscopy suites where numerous endoscopy procedures are performed under the administration of propofol or other anxiolytic-like drugs. There has been a well-recognized incidence of sentinel events related to oxygenation and ventilation, including death.

Many clinicians see sedation as a benign introduction of relatively limited-effect drugs, which isn’t always true. So, therefore, it is essential that clinicians understand three things:

1. The drugs we employ as sedative agents can have variable effects on individuals depending on their tolerance and their underlying medical condition.

2. The dosages and particular combination of drugs employed may cause an adverse event – for example, the combination of opioids and benzodiazepines.

3. There are factors that can distract from the clinical assessment of routine vital signs, such as respiratory rate, heart rate, and blood pressure. For example, when pulse oximetry is administered with oxygen therapy, there can often be a delay in the recognition of hypoventilation. Consequently, that’s why more and more clinicians are beginning to utilize capnography, or CO₂ monitoring, in the expired gas to earlier detect depressed respiratory rate and/or apnea, as well as signs of hypoventilation or inadequate ventilation.

There clearly are obstacles to continuous patient monitoring, such as the associated cost, familiarity with the utilization, the benefit, as well as the limitations of specific monitors in different clinical situations, which mandates an educational process to employ these. However, currently, patient monitoring provides the best early indicator of a patient’s deterioration and the possibility of respiratory compromise.

In my field, we have become very comfortable with capnography and patient monitoring, because for decades it’s been a standard of care for monitoring in the operating room. The role for utilization of capnography for patients who are receiving an opioid or sedative agent outside of the operating room needs to be further assessed. However, technology is not a silver bullet and should be used as an adjunct to clinical judgment in at-risk populations.

Simple recognition and greater awareness of respiratory compromise, just as with sepsis awareness campaigns, will mean more patients are diagnosed earlier, more appropriate interventions are made, and hopefully more adverse events and patient deaths are averted.

Dr. Vender is the emeritus Harris Family Foundation chairman of the department of anesthesiology at NorthShore University Health System in Evanston, Ill. He is clinical professor at the University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine and chairman, Clinical Advisory Committee, Respiratory Compromise Institute. Dr. Vender has consulted with Medtronic.

Clinicians and even the general public are aware of the dangers of sepsis, the life-threatening illness caused by a body’s response to an infection. Irrespective of one’s perception of pharmaceutical marketing materials or the evidence-based medicine used, awareness about sepsis has led to earlier diagnosis and interventions that have likely saved countless patients’ lives.

Moreover, hospitalists have played a key role in sepsis prevention. In their research, “Improving Survival from Sepsis in Noncritical Units: Role of Hospitalists and Sepsis Team in Early Detection and Initial Treatment of Septic Patients,” Adriana Ducci, MD, and her colleagues showed that a hospitalist-managed sepsis protocol improved sepsis case notifications and patient outcomes.

Although sepsis and respiratory compromise are clearly very different conditions, I believe that greater awareness about respiratory compromise will lead to earlier diagnosis and interventions, which will theoretically improve patient outcomes. Moreover, as with the sepsis awareness campaign, hospitalists can play a key role in recognizing respiratory compromise and in the implementation of appropriate interventions.

As defined by the Respiratory Compromise Institute, “respiratory compromise” is defined as a state in which there is a high likelihood of decompensation into respiratory failure and/or death, but, in which specific interventions – be it therapeutic and/or monitoring – might prevent or mitigate this decompensation.

A significant segment of patients who may be at risk for respiratory compromise are those receiving opioids. The cost of opioid-related adverse events, in terms of both human life and hospital expenses, remains at the forefront of the public eye. It has been estimated that yearly costs in the United States associated with opioid-related postoperative respiratory failure were estimated at $2 billion.

Thomas W. Frederickson MD, FACP, SFHM, MBA, the lead author of the Society of Hospital Medicine guide for Reducing Adverse Drug Events Related to Opioids (RADEO), emphasized in a podcast with the Physician-Patient Alliance for Health & Safety the need to identify patient conditions that pose a greater risk of respiratory compromise.

In particular, Dr. Frederickson pointed out the need to screen for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA): “Patients with obstructive sleep apnea are dependent upon their arousal mechanism in order to avoid respiratory depression and eventual respiratory failure. When these patients receive opioid medication, it decreases this ability for arousal. That puts them at risk for a sudden spiral that includes respiratory insufficiency and respiratory arrest. This can happen very quickly and part of the risk is that the traditional monitoring for sedation that we use in the hospital – that is on a periodic basis and depends upon nursing interventions and questioning – really becomes much less effective in this patient population that can have a respiratory arrest, because of failure to arouse, very quickly. So, a monitoring regimen that takes place every 60 minutes is likely to be ineffective.”

Patient conditions such as OSA should be considered, along with other comorbidities. As the RADEO Guide states: “Before starting opioid therapy, either in surgical or non-surgical settings, it is important to identify any real or potential risks of respiratory depression or other opioid-related adverse effects. Patient comorbidities such as OSA, neurologic disorders, organ impairment, substance abuse history, and other medication use are important aspects to consider.”

Although we have clearly recognized a significant increase in respiratory complications associated with opioid administration, there are other areas, which are non–opioid related, that can create respiratory compromise. We view many patients with stable or underlying respiratory conditions, whether it be COPD, sleep apnea, or preexisting pathophysiology, where either due to sedative agents, or an acute illness – like pneumonia – they can go from a stable condition to respiratory compromise and become at risk for respiratory failure.

A classic example of that in my world of anesthesia has been the well-recognized area of non–operating room anesthesia – in particular, in endoscopy suites where numerous endoscopy procedures are performed under the administration of propofol or other anxiolytic-like drugs. There has been a well-recognized incidence of sentinel events related to oxygenation and ventilation, including death.

Many clinicians see sedation as a benign introduction of relatively limited-effect drugs, which isn’t always true. So, therefore, it is essential that clinicians understand three things:

1. The drugs we employ as sedative agents can have variable effects on individuals depending on their tolerance and their underlying medical condition.

2. The dosages and particular combination of drugs employed may cause an adverse event – for example, the combination of opioids and benzodiazepines.

3. There are factors that can distract from the clinical assessment of routine vital signs, such as respiratory rate, heart rate, and blood pressure. For example, when pulse oximetry is administered with oxygen therapy, there can often be a delay in the recognition of hypoventilation. Consequently, that’s why more and more clinicians are beginning to utilize capnography, or CO₂ monitoring, in the expired gas to earlier detect depressed respiratory rate and/or apnea, as well as signs of hypoventilation or inadequate ventilation.

There clearly are obstacles to continuous patient monitoring, such as the associated cost, familiarity with the utilization, the benefit, as well as the limitations of specific monitors in different clinical situations, which mandates an educational process to employ these. However, currently, patient monitoring provides the best early indicator of a patient’s deterioration and the possibility of respiratory compromise.

In my field, we have become very comfortable with capnography and patient monitoring, because for decades it’s been a standard of care for monitoring in the operating room. The role for utilization of capnography for patients who are receiving an opioid or sedative agent outside of the operating room needs to be further assessed. However, technology is not a silver bullet and should be used as an adjunct to clinical judgment in at-risk populations.

Simple recognition and greater awareness of respiratory compromise, just as with sepsis awareness campaigns, will mean more patients are diagnosed earlier, more appropriate interventions are made, and hopefully more adverse events and patient deaths are averted.

Dr. Vender is the emeritus Harris Family Foundation chairman of the department of anesthesiology at NorthShore University Health System in Evanston, Ill. He is clinical professor at the University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine and chairman, Clinical Advisory Committee, Respiratory Compromise Institute. Dr. Vender has consulted with Medtronic.

Clinicians and even the general public are aware of the dangers of sepsis, the life-threatening illness caused by a body’s response to an infection. Irrespective of one’s perception of pharmaceutical marketing materials or the evidence-based medicine used, awareness about sepsis has led to earlier diagnosis and interventions that have likely saved countless patients’ lives.

Moreover, hospitalists have played a key role in sepsis prevention. In their research, “Improving Survival from Sepsis in Noncritical Units: Role of Hospitalists and Sepsis Team in Early Detection and Initial Treatment of Septic Patients,” Adriana Ducci, MD, and her colleagues showed that a hospitalist-managed sepsis protocol improved sepsis case notifications and patient outcomes.

Although sepsis and respiratory compromise are clearly very different conditions, I believe that greater awareness about respiratory compromise will lead to earlier diagnosis and interventions, which will theoretically improve patient outcomes. Moreover, as with the sepsis awareness campaign, hospitalists can play a key role in recognizing respiratory compromise and in the implementation of appropriate interventions.

As defined by the Respiratory Compromise Institute, “respiratory compromise” is defined as a state in which there is a high likelihood of decompensation into respiratory failure and/or death, but, in which specific interventions – be it therapeutic and/or monitoring – might prevent or mitigate this decompensation.

A significant segment of patients who may be at risk for respiratory compromise are those receiving opioids. The cost of opioid-related adverse events, in terms of both human life and hospital expenses, remains at the forefront of the public eye. It has been estimated that yearly costs in the United States associated with opioid-related postoperative respiratory failure were estimated at $2 billion.

Thomas W. Frederickson MD, FACP, SFHM, MBA, the lead author of the Society of Hospital Medicine guide for Reducing Adverse Drug Events Related to Opioids (RADEO), emphasized in a podcast with the Physician-Patient Alliance for Health & Safety the need to identify patient conditions that pose a greater risk of respiratory compromise.

In particular, Dr. Frederickson pointed out the need to screen for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA): “Patients with obstructive sleep apnea are dependent upon their arousal mechanism in order to avoid respiratory depression and eventual respiratory failure. When these patients receive opioid medication, it decreases this ability for arousal. That puts them at risk for a sudden spiral that includes respiratory insufficiency and respiratory arrest. This can happen very quickly and part of the risk is that the traditional monitoring for sedation that we use in the hospital – that is on a periodic basis and depends upon nursing interventions and questioning – really becomes much less effective in this patient population that can have a respiratory arrest, because of failure to arouse, very quickly. So, a monitoring regimen that takes place every 60 minutes is likely to be ineffective.”

Patient conditions such as OSA should be considered, along with other comorbidities. As the RADEO Guide states: “Before starting opioid therapy, either in surgical or non-surgical settings, it is important to identify any real or potential risks of respiratory depression or other opioid-related adverse effects. Patient comorbidities such as OSA, neurologic disorders, organ impairment, substance abuse history, and other medication use are important aspects to consider.”

Although we have clearly recognized a significant increase in respiratory complications associated with opioid administration, there are other areas, which are non–opioid related, that can create respiratory compromise. We view many patients with stable or underlying respiratory conditions, whether it be COPD, sleep apnea, or preexisting pathophysiology, where either due to sedative agents, or an acute illness – like pneumonia – they can go from a stable condition to respiratory compromise and become at risk for respiratory failure.

A classic example of that in my world of anesthesia has been the well-recognized area of non–operating room anesthesia – in particular, in endoscopy suites where numerous endoscopy procedures are performed under the administration of propofol or other anxiolytic-like drugs. There has been a well-recognized incidence of sentinel events related to oxygenation and ventilation, including death.

Many clinicians see sedation as a benign introduction of relatively limited-effect drugs, which isn’t always true. So, therefore, it is essential that clinicians understand three things:

1. The drugs we employ as sedative agents can have variable effects on individuals depending on their tolerance and their underlying medical condition.

2. The dosages and particular combination of drugs employed may cause an adverse event – for example, the combination of opioids and benzodiazepines.

3. There are factors that can distract from the clinical assessment of routine vital signs, such as respiratory rate, heart rate, and blood pressure. For example, when pulse oximetry is administered with oxygen therapy, there can often be a delay in the recognition of hypoventilation. Consequently, that’s why more and more clinicians are beginning to utilize capnography, or CO₂ monitoring, in the expired gas to earlier detect depressed respiratory rate and/or apnea, as well as signs of hypoventilation or inadequate ventilation.

There clearly are obstacles to continuous patient monitoring, such as the associated cost, familiarity with the utilization, the benefit, as well as the limitations of specific monitors in different clinical situations, which mandates an educational process to employ these. However, currently, patient monitoring provides the best early indicator of a patient’s deterioration and the possibility of respiratory compromise.

In my field, we have become very comfortable with capnography and patient monitoring, because for decades it’s been a standard of care for monitoring in the operating room. The role for utilization of capnography for patients who are receiving an opioid or sedative agent outside of the operating room needs to be further assessed. However, technology is not a silver bullet and should be used as an adjunct to clinical judgment in at-risk populations.

Simple recognition and greater awareness of respiratory compromise, just as with sepsis awareness campaigns, will mean more patients are diagnosed earlier, more appropriate interventions are made, and hopefully more adverse events and patient deaths are averted.

Dr. Vender is the emeritus Harris Family Foundation chairman of the department of anesthesiology at NorthShore University Health System in Evanston, Ill. He is clinical professor at the University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine and chairman, Clinical Advisory Committee, Respiratory Compromise Institute. Dr. Vender has consulted with Medtronic.

When hospital medicine and surgical departments (usually orthopedics or neurosurgery) have joined in comanagement programs, improvements in quality metrics and patient satisfaction have often resulted.

At the Level 1 regional trauma center in which he works, Charles L. Kast, MD, and his colleagues wanted to try a comanagement agreement between hospital medicine and trauma surgery.

“The surgical team identified a need within their own department, which was to improve patient mortality and satisfaction in the inpatient setting,” said Dr. Kast, who is based at North Shore University Hospital, Manhasset, N.Y. “Their leadership sought out our hospital medicine leadership team, who then worked together to synthesize their metrics. We were able to identify other quality indicators, such as readmission rates and hospital-acquired conditions, which we felt could also benefit from our services in order to help them improve.”

Five hospitalists became members of the comanagement team. A single hospitalist rotated for 2 weeks at a time, during which they were relieved of routine hospital medicine rounding responsibilities. The hospitalist attended daily interdisciplinary rounds with the trauma surgery team, during which he/she identified patients that could benefit from hospital medicine comanagement: Patients who were over age 65 years, had multiple chronic medical conditions, or were on high-risk medications were preferentially selected. Approximately 10 patients were seen daily.

The comanagement program was well received by trauma surgeons, who talked about improved patient communication and a fostered sense of collegiality. Preliminary quality and patient satisfaction metrics were also positive.

A top takeaway is that the benefits of surgical comanagement can be demonstrated in “atypical” collaborations, depending on the needs of the department and the hospital’s vision.

“The gains in improved patient quality metrics are only half of the story,” Dr. Kast said. “Collaborating in surgical comanagement improves the satisfaction of the hospitalists and surgeons involved and can lead to future quality improvement projects or original research, both of which we are currently pursuing.”
 

Reference

Kast C et al. The successful development of a hospital medicine-trauma surgery co-management program [abstract]. J Hosp Med. 2017;12(suppl 2). Accessed Feb. 2, 2018.

When hospital medicine and surgical departments (usually orthopedics or neurosurgery) have joined in comanagement programs, improvements in quality metrics and patient satisfaction have often resulted.

At the Level 1 regional trauma center in which he works, Charles L. Kast, MD, and his colleagues wanted to try a comanagement agreement between hospital medicine and trauma surgery.

“The surgical team identified a need within their own department, which was to improve patient mortality and satisfaction in the inpatient setting,” said Dr. Kast, who is based at North Shore University Hospital, Manhasset, N.Y. “Their leadership sought out our hospital medicine leadership team, who then worked together to synthesize their metrics. We were able to identify other quality indicators, such as readmission rates and hospital-acquired conditions, which we felt could also benefit from our services in order to help them improve.”

Five hospitalists became members of the comanagement team. A single hospitalist rotated for 2 weeks at a time, during which they were relieved of routine hospital medicine rounding responsibilities. The hospitalist attended daily interdisciplinary rounds with the trauma surgery team, during which he/she identified patients that could benefit from hospital medicine comanagement: Patients who were over age 65 years, had multiple chronic medical conditions, or were on high-risk medications were preferentially selected. Approximately 10 patients were seen daily.

The comanagement program was well received by trauma surgeons, who talked about improved patient communication and a fostered sense of collegiality. Preliminary quality and patient satisfaction metrics were also positive.

A top takeaway is that the benefits of surgical comanagement can be demonstrated in “atypical” collaborations, depending on the needs of the department and the hospital’s vision.

“The gains in improved patient quality metrics are only half of the story,” Dr. Kast said. “Collaborating in surgical comanagement improves the satisfaction of the hospitalists and surgeons involved and can lead to future quality improvement projects or original research, both of which we are currently pursuing.”
 

Reference

Kast C et al. The successful development of a hospital medicine-trauma surgery co-management program [abstract]. J Hosp Med. 2017;12(suppl 2). Accessed Feb. 2, 2018.

When hospital medicine and surgical departments (usually orthopedics or neurosurgery) have joined in comanagement programs, improvements in quality metrics and patient satisfaction have often resulted.

At the Level 1 regional trauma center in which he works, Charles L. Kast, MD, and his colleagues wanted to try a comanagement agreement between hospital medicine and trauma surgery.

“The surgical team identified a need within their own department, which was to improve patient mortality and satisfaction in the inpatient setting,” said Dr. Kast, who is based at North Shore University Hospital, Manhasset, N.Y. “Their leadership sought out our hospital medicine leadership team, who then worked together to synthesize their metrics. We were able to identify other quality indicators, such as readmission rates and hospital-acquired conditions, which we felt could also benefit from our services in order to help them improve.”

Five hospitalists became members of the comanagement team. A single hospitalist rotated for 2 weeks at a time, during which they were relieved of routine hospital medicine rounding responsibilities. The hospitalist attended daily interdisciplinary rounds with the trauma surgery team, during which he/she identified patients that could benefit from hospital medicine comanagement: Patients who were over age 65 years, had multiple chronic medical conditions, or were on high-risk medications were preferentially selected. Approximately 10 patients were seen daily.

The comanagement program was well received by trauma surgeons, who talked about improved patient communication and a fostered sense of collegiality. Preliminary quality and patient satisfaction metrics were also positive.

A top takeaway is that the benefits of surgical comanagement can be demonstrated in “atypical” collaborations, depending on the needs of the department and the hospital’s vision.

“The gains in improved patient quality metrics are only half of the story,” Dr. Kast said. “Collaborating in surgical comanagement improves the satisfaction of the hospitalists and surgeons involved and can lead to future quality improvement projects or original research, both of which we are currently pursuing.”
 

Reference

Kast C et al. The successful development of a hospital medicine-trauma surgery co-management program [abstract]. J Hosp Med. 2017;12(suppl 2). Accessed Feb. 2, 2018.

BOSTON–Vitamin C, angiotensin-II, and methylene blue are emerging options on the cutting edge of refractory septic shock treatment that require more investigation, but nevertheless appear promising, Rishi Rattan, MD, said at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons.

Andrew Bowser/MDedge News

Trials evaluating vitamin C in this setting have demonstrated a large mortality impact with an absence of side effects, according to Dr. Rattan, a trauma and critical care surgeon with the Ryder Trauma Center at the University of Miami.

“It’s something that I have decided to start early adopting, and many of my colleagues at University of Miami do as well,” Dr. Rattan said in a panel session on updates in septic shock. “We’re anecdotally so far at least seeing good results and are going to be excited to see what these ongoing trials show.”

As an antioxidant, vitamin C has anti-inflammatory properties that may possibly attenuate the overly exuberant inflammatory response seen in septic shock, Dr. Rattan said in his presentation.

The limited clinical data for vitamin C in refractory shock include three studies, of which two are randomized controlled trials, comprising a total of 146 patients, he added.

“I will admit an N of 146 is hardly practice-changing for most people,” Dr. Rattan said. “There’s still a significant and sustained large mortality effect for the use of vitamin C, with nearly no adverse effects.”

Pooled analysis of all three studies revealed a marked reduction in mortality with the use of vitamin C (odds ratio, 0.17, 95% confidence interval 0.07–0.40; P less than .001), according to a meta-analysis recently just published in Critical Care that Dr. Rattan referenced in his presentation (Critical Care 2018;22:258, DOI:10.1186/s13054-018-2191-x).

When taken in recommended dosages, vitamin C given with corticosteroids and thiamine is without known side effects, researcher Paul E. Marik wrote earlier this year in an editorial in Pharmacology & Therapeutics (2018;189[9]:63-70, DOI:10.1016/j.pharmthera.2018.04.007) noted Dr. Rattan, who said he uses the intravenous vitamin C, thiamine, and hydrocortisone protocol previously reported by Dr. Marik and colleagues.

There are 13 ongoing trials, including some prospective blinded, randomized trials, looking at the role of vitamin C in refractory shock, he added.

Angiotensin-II is another intervention that may be promising in refractory septic shock, Dr. Rattan told attendees, pointing to the 2017 publication of the ATHOS-3 trial in the New England Journal of Medicine (2017; 377:419-430,DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1704154) showing that treatment increased blood pressure in patients with vasodilatory shock not responding to conventional vasopressors at high doses.

Likewise, methylene blue has shown promise in septic shock, at least in some limited clinical investigations and anecdotally in patients not improving despite standard interventions. “I’ve been able to have a couple patients walk out of the hospital with the use of methylene blue,” Dr. Rattan said. “Again, the plural of ‘anecdote’ is not ‘data,’ but it’s something to consider for the early adopters.”

Dr. Rattan had no disclosures related to his presentation.

BOSTON–Vitamin C, angiotensin-II, and methylene blue are emerging options on the cutting edge of refractory septic shock treatment that require more investigation, but nevertheless appear promising, Rishi Rattan, MD, said at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons.

Andrew Bowser/MDedge News

Trials evaluating vitamin C in this setting have demonstrated a large mortality impact with an absence of side effects, according to Dr. Rattan, a trauma and critical care surgeon with the Ryder Trauma Center at the University of Miami.

“It’s something that I have decided to start early adopting, and many of my colleagues at University of Miami do as well,” Dr. Rattan said in a panel session on updates in septic shock. “We’re anecdotally so far at least seeing good results and are going to be excited to see what these ongoing trials show.”

As an antioxidant, vitamin C has anti-inflammatory properties that may possibly attenuate the overly exuberant inflammatory response seen in septic shock, Dr. Rattan said in his presentation.

The limited clinical data for vitamin C in refractory shock include three studies, of which two are randomized controlled trials, comprising a total of 146 patients, he added.

“I will admit an N of 146 is hardly practice-changing for most people,” Dr. Rattan said. “There’s still a significant and sustained large mortality effect for the use of vitamin C, with nearly no adverse effects.”

Pooled analysis of all three studies revealed a marked reduction in mortality with the use of vitamin C (odds ratio, 0.17, 95% confidence interval 0.07–0.40; P less than .001), according to a meta-analysis recently just published in Critical Care that Dr. Rattan referenced in his presentation (Critical Care 2018;22:258, DOI:10.1186/s13054-018-2191-x).

When taken in recommended dosages, vitamin C given with corticosteroids and thiamine is without known side effects, researcher Paul E. Marik wrote earlier this year in an editorial in Pharmacology & Therapeutics (2018;189[9]:63-70, DOI:10.1016/j.pharmthera.2018.04.007) noted Dr. Rattan, who said he uses the intravenous vitamin C, thiamine, and hydrocortisone protocol previously reported by Dr. Marik and colleagues.

There are 13 ongoing trials, including some prospective blinded, randomized trials, looking at the role of vitamin C in refractory shock, he added.

Angiotensin-II is another intervention that may be promising in refractory septic shock, Dr. Rattan told attendees, pointing to the 2017 publication of the ATHOS-3 trial in the New England Journal of Medicine (2017; 377:419-430,DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1704154) showing that treatment increased blood pressure in patients with vasodilatory shock not responding to conventional vasopressors at high doses.

Likewise, methylene blue has shown promise in septic shock, at least in some limited clinical investigations and anecdotally in patients not improving despite standard interventions. “I’ve been able to have a couple patients walk out of the hospital with the use of methylene blue,” Dr. Rattan said. “Again, the plural of ‘anecdote’ is not ‘data,’ but it’s something to consider for the early adopters.”

Dr. Rattan had no disclosures related to his presentation.

BOSTON–Vitamin C, angiotensin-II, and methylene blue are emerging options on the cutting edge of refractory septic shock treatment that require more investigation, but nevertheless appear promising, Rishi Rattan, MD, said at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons.

Andrew Bowser/MDedge News

Trials evaluating vitamin C in this setting have demonstrated a large mortality impact with an absence of side effects, according to Dr. Rattan, a trauma and critical care surgeon with the Ryder Trauma Center at the University of Miami.

“It’s something that I have decided to start early adopting, and many of my colleagues at University of Miami do as well,” Dr. Rattan said in a panel session on updates in septic shock. “We’re anecdotally so far at least seeing good results and are going to be excited to see what these ongoing trials show.”

As an antioxidant, vitamin C has anti-inflammatory properties that may possibly attenuate the overly exuberant inflammatory response seen in septic shock, Dr. Rattan said in his presentation.

The limited clinical data for vitamin C in refractory shock include three studies, of which two are randomized controlled trials, comprising a total of 146 patients, he added.

“I will admit an N of 146 is hardly practice-changing for most people,” Dr. Rattan said. “There’s still a significant and sustained large mortality effect for the use of vitamin C, with nearly no adverse effects.”

Pooled analysis of all three studies revealed a marked reduction in mortality with the use of vitamin C (odds ratio, 0.17, 95% confidence interval 0.07–0.40; P less than .001), according to a meta-analysis recently just published in Critical Care that Dr. Rattan referenced in his presentation (Critical Care 2018;22:258, DOI:10.1186/s13054-018-2191-x).

When taken in recommended dosages, vitamin C given with corticosteroids and thiamine is without known side effects, researcher Paul E. Marik wrote earlier this year in an editorial in Pharmacology & Therapeutics (2018;189[9]:63-70, DOI:10.1016/j.pharmthera.2018.04.007) noted Dr. Rattan, who said he uses the intravenous vitamin C, thiamine, and hydrocortisone protocol previously reported by Dr. Marik and colleagues.

There are 13 ongoing trials, including some prospective blinded, randomized trials, looking at the role of vitamin C in refractory shock, he added.

Angiotensin-II is another intervention that may be promising in refractory septic shock, Dr. Rattan told attendees, pointing to the 2017 publication of the ATHOS-3 trial in the New England Journal of Medicine (2017; 377:419-430,DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1704154) showing that treatment increased blood pressure in patients with vasodilatory shock not responding to conventional vasopressors at high doses.

Likewise, methylene blue has shown promise in septic shock, at least in some limited clinical investigations and anecdotally in patients not improving despite standard interventions. “I’ve been able to have a couple patients walk out of the hospital with the use of methylene blue,” Dr. Rattan said. “Again, the plural of ‘anecdote’ is not ‘data,’ but it’s something to consider for the early adopters.”

Dr. Rattan had no disclosures related to his presentation.

ATLANTA – The risk of infection from flexible endoscopes is far greater than generally believed, despite the excessive use of prophylactic antimicrobials in patients undergoing endoscopy, recent studies show.

romaset/Getty Images

Many gastroenterologists and guidelines from professional organizations use a reference point of “less than one per million” regarding the risk of infection from scopes, but a Johns Hopkins University study of more than 2.3 million patients in 6 states showed that the infection risk with colonoscopy is about 1 per 1,000, the risk for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy is about 3 per 1,000, and the risk with cystoscopy is about 4 per 1,000, Cori Ofstead said at the International Conference on Emerging Infectious Diseases.

“For bronchoscopy [the infection risk] was 15.6 in 1,000, which is 1.6% – not anywhere in the 1 in a million range,” said Ms. Ofstead, president and chief executive officer of Ofstead & Associates, a St. Paul, Minn. health care research firm.

It also turns out that prophylactic antibiotics are frequently given to patients undergoing routine endoscopy procedures, she said, noting that four major associations – two gastroenterology associations and two urology associations in the United States and Europe – recommend that prophylactic antimicrobials be given with routine endoscopies for certain patients undergoing certain types of procedures.

One U.S. organization is recommending prophylactic antimicrobials for every patient undergoing ureteroscopy, she added.

A Cleveland Clinic study looking at the impact of those American Urological Association guidelines for prophylactic antimicrobials showed that in a subset of patients with negative urine cultures before ureteroscopy, 100% received the prophylaxis, and 68% were also given other antimicrobials to take home.

“So the question, of course, is how well does this work...,” Ms. Ofstead said. “They found 3%-4% infection, with the rates exactly the same – no statistically significant differences – between patients who got prophylaxis just in the hospital or who went home with prophylactic meds, and they concluded that there was no benefit to the extra take-home antimicrobials.”

Others studies in multiple countries show either no impact or only minor impact of this prophylaxis on infection rates, and yet all show infection rates after endoscopy that are not one in a million, but in “the percentage point range,” she said.

“As we move toward more of these minimally invasive procedures, we need to be aware that we’re using extremely complex instruments that are very difficult to clean and disinfect or sterilize,” she said, adding that “in the field we’re seeing that improper reprocessing is actually business as usual.”

Infections have been seen with all kinds of scopes, Ms. Ofstead noted.

“The potential for this becoming a bit of a monster is enhanced by the widespread use of prophylactic antimicrobials during endoscopy, and I’m also troubled by the quick reaction of giving people antimicrobials when they have a positive culture from a scope rather than making sure the scope is clean,” she said, explaining that while most scopes have microbes and patients could be getting infections, they also may be reacting to soil and endotoxins in the scope rather than microbes.

“In any case, to reduce risks there are a number of things people can do,” she said. When using reusable scopes, proper cleaning is essential. “I think we should be moving toward scopes that can be disassembled so we can see inside and get those channels clean,” adding that efforts should also be made to move toward single-use scopes.

“Particularly in these outbreak situations where we’re using bronchoscopy on multiple patients, there’s just no excuse for reusing bronchoscopes and not sterilizing them between uses and making darn sure that they’re not full of whatever our outbreak pathogen is,” Ms. Ofstead said. “And lastly, I’m hoping that some folks here can talk some sense into people at the professional associations who are recommending prophylactic antimicrobial use, because if we don’t get some stewardship going, we’re going to be in big trouble.”

The guidelines create a conundrum for doctors who are torn between that stewardship and a failure to follow the recommendations.

“Their professional organization is telling them to give prophylactic antimicrobials. If they don’t do it and a patients gets an infection, that’s a malpractice issue. So we’ve got to go through those associations and get them to stop recommending prophylactic antimicrobials when there is no evidence of their effectiveness,” she said.

Ms. Ofstead has been a consultant for 3M Company, Ambu, Auris, Boston Scientific, Cogentix, Convergascent, Healthmark, Invendo Medical, Nanosonics, and Advanced Sterilization Products, and has received grant/research support from 3M Company, Advanced Sterilization Products, Ambu, Boston Scientific, Cogentix, Healthmark, Invendo Medical, Medivators, and Steris.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Ofstead C., ICEID 2018 Presentation.

ATLANTA – The risk of infection from flexible endoscopes is far greater than generally believed, despite the excessive use of prophylactic antimicrobials in patients undergoing endoscopy, recent studies show.

romaset/Getty Images

Many gastroenterologists and guidelines from professional organizations use a reference point of “less than one per million” regarding the risk of infection from scopes, but a Johns Hopkins University study of more than 2.3 million patients in 6 states showed that the infection risk with colonoscopy is about 1 per 1,000, the risk for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy is about 3 per 1,000, and the risk with cystoscopy is about 4 per 1,000, Cori Ofstead said at the International Conference on Emerging Infectious Diseases.

“For bronchoscopy [the infection risk] was 15.6 in 1,000, which is 1.6% – not anywhere in the 1 in a million range,” said Ms. Ofstead, president and chief executive officer of Ofstead & Associates, a St. Paul, Minn. health care research firm.

It also turns out that prophylactic antibiotics are frequently given to patients undergoing routine endoscopy procedures, she said, noting that four major associations – two gastroenterology associations and two urology associations in the United States and Europe – recommend that prophylactic antimicrobials be given with routine endoscopies for certain patients undergoing certain types of procedures.

One U.S. organization is recommending prophylactic antimicrobials for every patient undergoing ureteroscopy, she added.

A Cleveland Clinic study looking at the impact of those American Urological Association guidelines for prophylactic antimicrobials showed that in a subset of patients with negative urine cultures before ureteroscopy, 100% received the prophylaxis, and 68% were also given other antimicrobials to take home.

“So the question, of course, is how well does this work...,” Ms. Ofstead said. “They found 3%-4% infection, with the rates exactly the same – no statistically significant differences – between patients who got prophylaxis just in the hospital or who went home with prophylactic meds, and they concluded that there was no benefit to the extra take-home antimicrobials.”

Others studies in multiple countries show either no impact or only minor impact of this prophylaxis on infection rates, and yet all show infection rates after endoscopy that are not one in a million, but in “the percentage point range,” she said.

“As we move toward more of these minimally invasive procedures, we need to be aware that we’re using extremely complex instruments that are very difficult to clean and disinfect or sterilize,” she said, adding that “in the field we’re seeing that improper reprocessing is actually business as usual.”

Infections have been seen with all kinds of scopes, Ms. Ofstead noted.

“The potential for this becoming a bit of a monster is enhanced by the widespread use of prophylactic antimicrobials during endoscopy, and I’m also troubled by the quick reaction of giving people antimicrobials when they have a positive culture from a scope rather than making sure the scope is clean,” she said, explaining that while most scopes have microbes and patients could be getting infections, they also may be reacting to soil and endotoxins in the scope rather than microbes.

“In any case, to reduce risks there are a number of things people can do,” she said. When using reusable scopes, proper cleaning is essential. “I think we should be moving toward scopes that can be disassembled so we can see inside and get those channels clean,” adding that efforts should also be made to move toward single-use scopes.

“Particularly in these outbreak situations where we’re using bronchoscopy on multiple patients, there’s just no excuse for reusing bronchoscopes and not sterilizing them between uses and making darn sure that they’re not full of whatever our outbreak pathogen is,” Ms. Ofstead said. “And lastly, I’m hoping that some folks here can talk some sense into people at the professional associations who are recommending prophylactic antimicrobial use, because if we don’t get some stewardship going, we’re going to be in big trouble.”

The guidelines create a conundrum for doctors who are torn between that stewardship and a failure to follow the recommendations.

“Their professional organization is telling them to give prophylactic antimicrobials. If they don’t do it and a patients gets an infection, that’s a malpractice issue. So we’ve got to go through those associations and get them to stop recommending prophylactic antimicrobials when there is no evidence of their effectiveness,” she said.

Ms. Ofstead has been a consultant for 3M Company, Ambu, Auris, Boston Scientific, Cogentix, Convergascent, Healthmark, Invendo Medical, Nanosonics, and Advanced Sterilization Products, and has received grant/research support from 3M Company, Advanced Sterilization Products, Ambu, Boston Scientific, Cogentix, Healthmark, Invendo Medical, Medivators, and Steris.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Ofstead C., ICEID 2018 Presentation.

ATLANTA – The risk of infection from flexible endoscopes is far greater than generally believed, despite the excessive use of prophylactic antimicrobials in patients undergoing endoscopy, recent studies show.

romaset/Getty Images

Many gastroenterologists and guidelines from professional organizations use a reference point of “less than one per million” regarding the risk of infection from scopes, but a Johns Hopkins University study of more than 2.3 million patients in 6 states showed that the infection risk with colonoscopy is about 1 per 1,000, the risk for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy is about 3 per 1,000, and the risk with cystoscopy is about 4 per 1,000, Cori Ofstead said at the International Conference on Emerging Infectious Diseases.

“For bronchoscopy [the infection risk] was 15.6 in 1,000, which is 1.6% – not anywhere in the 1 in a million range,” said Ms. Ofstead, president and chief executive officer of Ofstead & Associates, a St. Paul, Minn. health care research firm.

It also turns out that prophylactic antibiotics are frequently given to patients undergoing routine endoscopy procedures, she said, noting that four major associations – two gastroenterology associations and two urology associations in the United States and Europe – recommend that prophylactic antimicrobials be given with routine endoscopies for certain patients undergoing certain types of procedures.

One U.S. organization is recommending prophylactic antimicrobials for every patient undergoing ureteroscopy, she added.

A Cleveland Clinic study looking at the impact of those American Urological Association guidelines for prophylactic antimicrobials showed that in a subset of patients with negative urine cultures before ureteroscopy, 100% received the prophylaxis, and 68% were also given other antimicrobials to take home.

“So the question, of course, is how well does this work...,” Ms. Ofstead said. “They found 3%-4% infection, with the rates exactly the same – no statistically significant differences – between patients who got prophylaxis just in the hospital or who went home with prophylactic meds, and they concluded that there was no benefit to the extra take-home antimicrobials.”

Others studies in multiple countries show either no impact or only minor impact of this prophylaxis on infection rates, and yet all show infection rates after endoscopy that are not one in a million, but in “the percentage point range,” she said.

“As we move toward more of these minimally invasive procedures, we need to be aware that we’re using extremely complex instruments that are very difficult to clean and disinfect or sterilize,” she said, adding that “in the field we’re seeing that improper reprocessing is actually business as usual.”

Infections have been seen with all kinds of scopes, Ms. Ofstead noted.

“The potential for this becoming a bit of a monster is enhanced by the widespread use of prophylactic antimicrobials during endoscopy, and I’m also troubled by the quick reaction of giving people antimicrobials when they have a positive culture from a scope rather than making sure the scope is clean,” she said, explaining that while most scopes have microbes and patients could be getting infections, they also may be reacting to soil and endotoxins in the scope rather than microbes.

“In any case, to reduce risks there are a number of things people can do,” she said. When using reusable scopes, proper cleaning is essential. “I think we should be moving toward scopes that can be disassembled so we can see inside and get those channels clean,” adding that efforts should also be made to move toward single-use scopes.

“Particularly in these outbreak situations where we’re using bronchoscopy on multiple patients, there’s just no excuse for reusing bronchoscopes and not sterilizing them between uses and making darn sure that they’re not full of whatever our outbreak pathogen is,” Ms. Ofstead said. “And lastly, I’m hoping that some folks here can talk some sense into people at the professional associations who are recommending prophylactic antimicrobial use, because if we don’t get some stewardship going, we’re going to be in big trouble.”

The guidelines create a conundrum for doctors who are torn between that stewardship and a failure to follow the recommendations.

“Their professional organization is telling them to give prophylactic antimicrobials. If they don’t do it and a patients gets an infection, that’s a malpractice issue. So we’ve got to go through those associations and get them to stop recommending prophylactic antimicrobials when there is no evidence of their effectiveness,” she said.

Ms. Ofstead has been a consultant for 3M Company, Ambu, Auris, Boston Scientific, Cogentix, Convergascent, Healthmark, Invendo Medical, Nanosonics, and Advanced Sterilization Products, and has received grant/research support from 3M Company, Advanced Sterilization Products, Ambu, Boston Scientific, Cogentix, Healthmark, Invendo Medical, Medivators, and Steris.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Ofstead C., ICEID 2018 Presentation.

BOSTON – Avoiding missed doses of venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis could result in a reduction in VTE rates, a speaker said at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons.

Andrew Bowser/MDedge News

The VTE rate dropped by about one-quarter in the trauma care pathway at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) after implementation of algorithms to risk-stratify patients and guide nursing staff, said Matthew D. Neal, MD, FACS, the Roberta G. Simmons Assistant Professor of Surgery at the University of Pittsburgh.

By incorporating algorithms into the electronic health record (EHR), UPMC was able to realize a “dramatic” 72% reduction in missed doses, from 4,331 missed doses in 2014 to 1,193 in 2015, Dr. Neal told attendees in a session focused on hot topics in surgical patient safety.

That decrease in missed doses has translated into a decreased rate of VTE, from an already relatively low rate of 1.5% in 2015, to 1.1% in 2017, representing a 26.7% reduction, according to data Dr. Neal shared in his podium presentation.

“This has been a sustainable event for us, largely linked to the implementation of an EHR-guided risk assessment pathway to guide the implementation of VTE prophylaxis,” he said.

The change was safe, he added, noting that, since utilization of this pathway, there have been no significant increases in the rate of bleeding events among patients who have mandatory orders.

These results corroborate those of some previous investigations, including one key study from the Johns Hopkins Hospital that described the adoption of a mandatory computerized clinical decision support tool to improve adherence to best practices for VTE prophylaxis.

After incorporation of the tool in the computerized order entry system, there was a significant increase in VTE prophylaxis, translating into a significant drop in preventable harm from VTE, from 1.0% to 0.17% (P = .04), investigators reported in JAMA Surgery.

Reducing missed doses is one of the major contributing factors to decreased VTE rates, according to Dr. Neal.



Missed doses of enoxaparin correlate with increased incidence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in trauma and general surgery patients, according to results of one prospective study Dr. Neal described. In that study of 202 patients, reported in JAMA Surgery, DVTs were seen in 23.5% of patients with missed doses, compared with 4.8 for patients with no missed doses (P < .01).

“We need to understand how to risk assess and how to utilize our EHR as a tool,” Dr. Neal told attendees.

Dr. Neal reported disclosures related to Janssen Pharmaceuticals, CSL Behring, Accriva Diagnostics, and Haemonetics, as well as a U.S. patent for a treatment of infectious and inflammatory disorders, and laboratory funding from the National Institutes of Health, Department of Defense, and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority.
 

SOURCE: Neal MD. Presentation at the American College of Surgeons Clinical Congress. 2018 Oct 25.

BOSTON – Avoiding missed doses of venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis could result in a reduction in VTE rates, a speaker said at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons.

Andrew Bowser/MDedge News

The VTE rate dropped by about one-quarter in the trauma care pathway at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) after implementation of algorithms to risk-stratify patients and guide nursing staff, said Matthew D. Neal, MD, FACS, the Roberta G. Simmons Assistant Professor of Surgery at the University of Pittsburgh.

By incorporating algorithms into the electronic health record (EHR), UPMC was able to realize a “dramatic” 72% reduction in missed doses, from 4,331 missed doses in 2014 to 1,193 in 2015, Dr. Neal told attendees in a session focused on hot topics in surgical patient safety.

That decrease in missed doses has translated into a decreased rate of VTE, from an already relatively low rate of 1.5% in 2015, to 1.1% in 2017, representing a 26.7% reduction, according to data Dr. Neal shared in his podium presentation.

“This has been a sustainable event for us, largely linked to the implementation of an EHR-guided risk assessment pathway to guide the implementation of VTE prophylaxis,” he said.

The change was safe, he added, noting that, since utilization of this pathway, there have been no significant increases in the rate of bleeding events among patients who have mandatory orders.

These results corroborate those of some previous investigations, including one key study from the Johns Hopkins Hospital that described the adoption of a mandatory computerized clinical decision support tool to improve adherence to best practices for VTE prophylaxis.

After incorporation of the tool in the computerized order entry system, there was a significant increase in VTE prophylaxis, translating into a significant drop in preventable harm from VTE, from 1.0% to 0.17% (P = .04), investigators reported in JAMA Surgery.

Reducing missed doses is one of the major contributing factors to decreased VTE rates, according to Dr. Neal.



Missed doses of enoxaparin correlate with increased incidence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in trauma and general surgery patients, according to results of one prospective study Dr. Neal described. In that study of 202 patients, reported in JAMA Surgery, DVTs were seen in 23.5% of patients with missed doses, compared with 4.8 for patients with no missed doses (P < .01).

“We need to understand how to risk assess and how to utilize our EHR as a tool,” Dr. Neal told attendees.

Dr. Neal reported disclosures related to Janssen Pharmaceuticals, CSL Behring, Accriva Diagnostics, and Haemonetics, as well as a U.S. patent for a treatment of infectious and inflammatory disorders, and laboratory funding from the National Institutes of Health, Department of Defense, and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority.
 

SOURCE: Neal MD. Presentation at the American College of Surgeons Clinical Congress. 2018 Oct 25.

BOSTON – Avoiding missed doses of venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis could result in a reduction in VTE rates, a speaker said at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons.

Andrew Bowser/MDedge News

The VTE rate dropped by about one-quarter in the trauma care pathway at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) after implementation of algorithms to risk-stratify patients and guide nursing staff, said Matthew D. Neal, MD, FACS, the Roberta G. Simmons Assistant Professor of Surgery at the University of Pittsburgh.

By incorporating algorithms into the electronic health record (EHR), UPMC was able to realize a “dramatic” 72% reduction in missed doses, from 4,331 missed doses in 2014 to 1,193 in 2015, Dr. Neal told attendees in a session focused on hot topics in surgical patient safety.

That decrease in missed doses has translated into a decreased rate of VTE, from an already relatively low rate of 1.5% in 2015, to 1.1% in 2017, representing a 26.7% reduction, according to data Dr. Neal shared in his podium presentation.

“This has been a sustainable event for us, largely linked to the implementation of an EHR-guided risk assessment pathway to guide the implementation of VTE prophylaxis,” he said.

The change was safe, he added, noting that, since utilization of this pathway, there have been no significant increases in the rate of bleeding events among patients who have mandatory orders.

These results corroborate those of some previous investigations, including one key study from the Johns Hopkins Hospital that described the adoption of a mandatory computerized clinical decision support tool to improve adherence to best practices for VTE prophylaxis.

After incorporation of the tool in the computerized order entry system, there was a significant increase in VTE prophylaxis, translating into a significant drop in preventable harm from VTE, from 1.0% to 0.17% (P = .04), investigators reported in JAMA Surgery.

Reducing missed doses is one of the major contributing factors to decreased VTE rates, according to Dr. Neal.



Missed doses of enoxaparin correlate with increased incidence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in trauma and general surgery patients, according to results of one prospective study Dr. Neal described. In that study of 202 patients, reported in JAMA Surgery, DVTs were seen in 23.5% of patients with missed doses, compared with 4.8 for patients with no missed doses (P < .01).

“We need to understand how to risk assess and how to utilize our EHR as a tool,” Dr. Neal told attendees.

Dr. Neal reported disclosures related to Janssen Pharmaceuticals, CSL Behring, Accriva Diagnostics, and Haemonetics, as well as a U.S. patent for a treatment of infectious and inflammatory disorders, and laboratory funding from the National Institutes of Health, Department of Defense, and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority.
 

SOURCE: Neal MD. Presentation at the American College of Surgeons Clinical Congress. 2018 Oct 25.

The dogma

Patients with alcohol use disorders (AUD) are at risk for nutritional and vitamin deficiencies and may suffer from linked disease states, including Wernicke’s encephalopathy. These conditions may be underrecognized; for instance, an autopsy study suggests that Wernicke’s encephalopathy may have a prevalence rate of 12.5% among alcoholics.¹

When patients with AUD are hospitalized, they have often already received a standard IV solution (100 mg of thiamine, 1 mg of folate, 1-2 g of magnesium, and a multivitamin dissolved in saline or dextrose). The practice is common enough that the solution is informally referred to as a “banana bag,” due to the yellow hue imparted by thiamine and multivitamin. These fluids might then be readministered daily during the inpatient stay. But what is the evidence supporting this widespread practice?
 

The evidence

While the banana bag (or “rally pack”, as it’s also colloquially known) hanging at the patient’s side may look cool, it may not be helping her. Let’s break down the ingredients:

• Folate: Patients with alcohol use disorder are at higher risk for folate deficiency (attributable to poor intake and decreased absorption), but overall rates of folate deficiency are still quite low.² In addition, most oral and parenteral multivitamins already contain at least 400 mcg folate – the benefit of adding further intravenous folate is not clear.
• Magnesium. Patients with AUD are also at higher risk for magnesium deficiency attributable to increased excretion. While decreased magnesium levels could theoretically increase the risk of alcohol withdrawal symptoms, a Cochrane review found no evidence to support routine supplementation.³
• Multivitamin. Despite theoretical advantages in these (often) malnourished patients, there are no published studies on the benefit or harm of administering a “pan-vitamin” injection. The standard IV formulation is slightly different than an oral vitamin (the IV contains vitamin K, for instance, and lacks calcium), but the bioavailability should be roughly the same, except in rare patients with intestinal malabsorption.⁴
• IV fluids. Pharmacies typically mix these ingredients in a liter of normal saline or 5% dextrose. Once again, though, individual patients will have different needs. A dehydrated patient would benefit more from normal saline, a patient with alcoholic ketoacidosis would benefit more from dextrose, and a patient with alcohol-related cardiomyopathy likely shouldn’t be getting large volume IV fluids at all.
• Thiamine. Thiamine deficiency is likely the most common and most concerning vitamin deficiency in this patient population. The typical banana bag contains 100 mg of thiamine, which has been the traditional recommended daily amount for Wernicke’s treatment. This dosage, however, was apparently chosen arbitrarily in the 1950s (based on what the authors considered to be a high dose) and current recommendations suggest higher doses given more frequently because of the relatively short half-life of parenteral thiamine.⁵

Takeaway

The banana bag is a “one-size-fits-all” approach that offers too much of some of its ingredients and not enough of others. It’s better to individualize treatment based on a patient’s needs and consider high-dose thiamine (500 mg one to three times daily) for those at risk for, or showing signs of, Wernicke’s encephalopathy.

Dr. Sehgal and Dr. Hanson are clinical associate professors of medicine in the division of general and hospital medicine at the South Texas Veterans Health Care System and UT-Health San Antonio. Dr. Sehgal (@rtsehgal) is a member of the editorial advisory board for The Hospitalist.

References

1. Torvik A et al. Brain lesions in alcoholics: a neuropathological study with clinical correlation. J Neurol Sci. 1982 Nov;56(2-3):233-48.

2. Schwab RA et al. Prevalence in folate deficiency in emergency department patients with alcohol-related illness or injury. Am J Emerg Med. 1992 May;10(3):203-7.

3. Sarai M et al. Magnesium for alcohol withdrawal. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Jun 5;(6):CD008358.

4. Krishel S et al. Intravenous vitamins for alcoholics in the emergency department: a review. J Emerg Med. 1998 May-Jun;16(3):419-24.

5. Donnino MW et al. Myths and misconceptions of Wernicke’s encephalopathy: what every emergency physician should know. Ann Emerg Med. 2007;50(6): 715-21.

The dogma

Patients with alcohol use disorders (AUD) are at risk for nutritional and vitamin deficiencies and may suffer from linked disease states, including Wernicke’s encephalopathy. These conditions may be underrecognized; for instance, an autopsy study suggests that Wernicke’s encephalopathy may have a prevalence rate of 12.5% among alcoholics.¹

When patients with AUD are hospitalized, they have often already received a standard IV solution (100 mg of thiamine, 1 mg of folate, 1-2 g of magnesium, and a multivitamin dissolved in saline or dextrose). The practice is common enough that the solution is informally referred to as a “banana bag,” due to the yellow hue imparted by thiamine and multivitamin. These fluids might then be readministered daily during the inpatient stay. But what is the evidence supporting this widespread practice?
 

The evidence

While the banana bag (or “rally pack”, as it’s also colloquially known) hanging at the patient’s side may look cool, it may not be helping her. Let’s break down the ingredients:

• Folate: Patients with alcohol use disorder are at higher risk for folate deficiency (attributable to poor intake and decreased absorption), but overall rates of folate deficiency are still quite low.² In addition, most oral and parenteral multivitamins already contain at least 400 mcg folate – the benefit of adding further intravenous folate is not clear.
• Magnesium. Patients with AUD are also at higher risk for magnesium deficiency attributable to increased excretion. While decreased magnesium levels could theoretically increase the risk of alcohol withdrawal symptoms, a Cochrane review found no evidence to support routine supplementation.³
• Multivitamin. Despite theoretical advantages in these (often) malnourished patients, there are no published studies on the benefit or harm of administering a “pan-vitamin” injection. The standard IV formulation is slightly different than an oral vitamin (the IV contains vitamin K, for instance, and lacks calcium), but the bioavailability should be roughly the same, except in rare patients with intestinal malabsorption.⁴
• IV fluids. Pharmacies typically mix these ingredients in a liter of normal saline or 5% dextrose. Once again, though, individual patients will have different needs. A dehydrated patient would benefit more from normal saline, a patient with alcoholic ketoacidosis would benefit more from dextrose, and a patient with alcohol-related cardiomyopathy likely shouldn’t be getting large volume IV fluids at all.
• Thiamine. Thiamine deficiency is likely the most common and most concerning vitamin deficiency in this patient population. The typical banana bag contains 100 mg of thiamine, which has been the traditional recommended daily amount for Wernicke’s treatment. This dosage, however, was apparently chosen arbitrarily in the 1950s (based on what the authors considered to be a high dose) and current recommendations suggest higher doses given more frequently because of the relatively short half-life of parenteral thiamine.⁵

Takeaway

The banana bag is a “one-size-fits-all” approach that offers too much of some of its ingredients and not enough of others. It’s better to individualize treatment based on a patient’s needs and consider high-dose thiamine (500 mg one to three times daily) for those at risk for, or showing signs of, Wernicke’s encephalopathy.

Dr. Sehgal and Dr. Hanson are clinical associate professors of medicine in the division of general and hospital medicine at the South Texas Veterans Health Care System and UT-Health San Antonio. Dr. Sehgal (@rtsehgal) is a member of the editorial advisory board for The Hospitalist.

References

1. Torvik A et al. Brain lesions in alcoholics: a neuropathological study with clinical correlation. J Neurol Sci. 1982 Nov;56(2-3):233-48.

2. Schwab RA et al. Prevalence in folate deficiency in emergency department patients with alcohol-related illness or injury. Am J Emerg Med. 1992 May;10(3):203-7.

3. Sarai M et al. Magnesium for alcohol withdrawal. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Jun 5;(6):CD008358.

4. Krishel S et al. Intravenous vitamins for alcoholics in the emergency department: a review. J Emerg Med. 1998 May-Jun;16(3):419-24.

5. Donnino MW et al. Myths and misconceptions of Wernicke’s encephalopathy: what every emergency physician should know. Ann Emerg Med. 2007;50(6): 715-21.

The dogma

Patients with alcohol use disorders (AUD) are at risk for nutritional and vitamin deficiencies and may suffer from linked disease states, including Wernicke’s encephalopathy. These conditions may be underrecognized; for instance, an autopsy study suggests that Wernicke’s encephalopathy may have a prevalence rate of 12.5% among alcoholics.¹

When patients with AUD are hospitalized, they have often already received a standard IV solution (100 mg of thiamine, 1 mg of folate, 1-2 g of magnesium, and a multivitamin dissolved in saline or dextrose). The practice is common enough that the solution is informally referred to as a “banana bag,” due to the yellow hue imparted by thiamine and multivitamin. These fluids might then be readministered daily during the inpatient stay. But what is the evidence supporting this widespread practice?
 

The evidence

While the banana bag (or “rally pack”, as it’s also colloquially known) hanging at the patient’s side may look cool, it may not be helping her. Let’s break down the ingredients:

• Folate: Patients with alcohol use disorder are at higher risk for folate deficiency (attributable to poor intake and decreased absorption), but overall rates of folate deficiency are still quite low.² In addition, most oral and parenteral multivitamins already contain at least 400 mcg folate – the benefit of adding further intravenous folate is not clear.
• Magnesium. Patients with AUD are also at higher risk for magnesium deficiency attributable to increased excretion. While decreased magnesium levels could theoretically increase the risk of alcohol withdrawal symptoms, a Cochrane review found no evidence to support routine supplementation.³
• Multivitamin. Despite theoretical advantages in these (often) malnourished patients, there are no published studies on the benefit or harm of administering a “pan-vitamin” injection. The standard IV formulation is slightly different than an oral vitamin (the IV contains vitamin K, for instance, and lacks calcium), but the bioavailability should be roughly the same, except in rare patients with intestinal malabsorption.⁴
• IV fluids. Pharmacies typically mix these ingredients in a liter of normal saline or 5% dextrose. Once again, though, individual patients will have different needs. A dehydrated patient would benefit more from normal saline, a patient with alcoholic ketoacidosis would benefit more from dextrose, and a patient with alcohol-related cardiomyopathy likely shouldn’t be getting large volume IV fluids at all.
• Thiamine. Thiamine deficiency is likely the most common and most concerning vitamin deficiency in this patient population. The typical banana bag contains 100 mg of thiamine, which has been the traditional recommended daily amount for Wernicke’s treatment. This dosage, however, was apparently chosen arbitrarily in the 1950s (based on what the authors considered to be a high dose) and current recommendations suggest higher doses given more frequently because of the relatively short half-life of parenteral thiamine.⁵

Takeaway

The banana bag is a “one-size-fits-all” approach that offers too much of some of its ingredients and not enough of others. It’s better to individualize treatment based on a patient’s needs and consider high-dose thiamine (500 mg one to three times daily) for those at risk for, or showing signs of, Wernicke’s encephalopathy.

Dr. Sehgal and Dr. Hanson are clinical associate professors of medicine in the division of general and hospital medicine at the South Texas Veterans Health Care System and UT-Health San Antonio. Dr. Sehgal (@rtsehgal) is a member of the editorial advisory board for The Hospitalist.

References

1. Torvik A et al. Brain lesions in alcoholics: a neuropathological study with clinical correlation. J Neurol Sci. 1982 Nov;56(2-3):233-48.

2. Schwab RA et al. Prevalence in folate deficiency in emergency department patients with alcohol-related illness or injury. Am J Emerg Med. 1992 May;10(3):203-7.

3. Sarai M et al. Magnesium for alcohol withdrawal. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Jun 5;(6):CD008358.

4. Krishel S et al. Intravenous vitamins for alcoholics in the emergency department: a review. J Emerg Med. 1998 May-Jun;16(3):419-24.

5. Donnino MW et al. Myths and misconceptions of Wernicke’s encephalopathy: what every emergency physician should know. Ann Emerg Med. 2007;50(6): 715-21.

The antipsychotic medications haloperidol and ziprasidone are no better than placebo in altering the duration of delirium in patients in intensive care, new research has found.

copyright Andrei Malov/Thinkstock

In a paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers reported the results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in 566 patients with acute respiratory failure or shock and hypoactive or hyperactive delirium. Participants were randomized either to a maximum of 20 mg IV haloperidol daily, maximum 40 mg ziprasidone daily, or placebo.

At the end of the 14-day intervention period, the placebo group had a median of 8.5 days alive without delirium or coma, the haloperidol group had a median of 7.9 days, and the ziprasidone group had a median of 8.7 days. The difference between groups was not statistically significant.

There were also no significant differences between the three groups in the secondary end point of duration of delirium and coma, 30-day and 90-day survival, time to freedom from mechanical ventilation, ICU discharge, ICU readmission, or hospital discharge.

Timothy D. Girard, MD, from the department of critical care at the University of Pittsburgh, and his coauthors wrote that their findings echoed those of two previous placebo-controlled trials in smaller numbers of ICU patients.

“One possible reason that we found no evidence that the use of haloperidol or ziprasidone resulted in a fewer days with delirium or coma than placebo is that the mechanism of brain dysfunction that is considered to be targeted by antipsychotic medications – increased dopamine signaling – may not play a major role in the pathogenesis of delirium during critical illness,” they wrote.

“In the current trial, approximately 90% of the patients received one or more doses of sedatives or analgesics, and the doses of sedatives and offtrial antipsychotic medications and the durations of exposures to those agents were similar in all trial groups,” the authors added.

Most of the patients in the trial had hypotensive delirium, which made it difficult to assess the effects of antipsychotics on hypertensive delirium.

The authors also commented that the patients enrolled were a mixed group, so their findings did not rule out the possibility that certain subgroups of patients – such as nonintubated patients with hyperactive delirium, those with alcohol withdrawal, or with other delirium phenotypes – may still benefit from antipsychotics.

Patients treated with ziprasidone were more likely to experience prolongation of the corrected QT interval. Two patients in the haloperidol group developed torsades de pointes but neither had received haloperidol in the 4 days preceding the onset of the arrhythmia.

One patient in each group – including the placebo group – experienced extrapyramidal symptoms and had treatment withheld. One patient in the haloperidol group also had the trial drug withheld because of suspected neuroleptic malignant syndrome, but this was later ruled out, and one patient had haloperidol withheld because of dystonia.

The dose of haloperidol used in the study was considered high, the authors said, but they left open the possibility that even higher doses might help. However, they also noted that doses of 25 mg and above were known to have adverse effects on cognition, which is why they chose the 20-mg dosage.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Veterans Affairs Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center. Most authors declared support from the NIH or VA during the course of the study. Four authors also reported fees and grants from private industry outside the context of the study.

SOURCE: Girard TD et al. N Engl J Med.2018 Oct 22. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1808217.

The antipsychotic medications haloperidol and ziprasidone are no better than placebo in altering the duration of delirium in patients in intensive care, new research has found.

copyright Andrei Malov/Thinkstock

In a paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers reported the results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in 566 patients with acute respiratory failure or shock and hypoactive or hyperactive delirium. Participants were randomized either to a maximum of 20 mg IV haloperidol daily, maximum 40 mg ziprasidone daily, or placebo.

At the end of the 14-day intervention period, the placebo group had a median of 8.5 days alive without delirium or coma, the haloperidol group had a median of 7.9 days, and the ziprasidone group had a median of 8.7 days. The difference between groups was not statistically significant.

There were also no significant differences between the three groups in the secondary end point of duration of delirium and coma, 30-day and 90-day survival, time to freedom from mechanical ventilation, ICU discharge, ICU readmission, or hospital discharge.

Timothy D. Girard, MD, from the department of critical care at the University of Pittsburgh, and his coauthors wrote that their findings echoed those of two previous placebo-controlled trials in smaller numbers of ICU patients.

“One possible reason that we found no evidence that the use of haloperidol or ziprasidone resulted in a fewer days with delirium or coma than placebo is that the mechanism of brain dysfunction that is considered to be targeted by antipsychotic medications – increased dopamine signaling – may not play a major role in the pathogenesis of delirium during critical illness,” they wrote.

“In the current trial, approximately 90% of the patients received one or more doses of sedatives or analgesics, and the doses of sedatives and offtrial antipsychotic medications and the durations of exposures to those agents were similar in all trial groups,” the authors added.

Most of the patients in the trial had hypotensive delirium, which made it difficult to assess the effects of antipsychotics on hypertensive delirium.

The authors also commented that the patients enrolled were a mixed group, so their findings did not rule out the possibility that certain subgroups of patients – such as nonintubated patients with hyperactive delirium, those with alcohol withdrawal, or with other delirium phenotypes – may still benefit from antipsychotics.

Patients treated with ziprasidone were more likely to experience prolongation of the corrected QT interval. Two patients in the haloperidol group developed torsades de pointes but neither had received haloperidol in the 4 days preceding the onset of the arrhythmia.

One patient in each group – including the placebo group – experienced extrapyramidal symptoms and had treatment withheld. One patient in the haloperidol group also had the trial drug withheld because of suspected neuroleptic malignant syndrome, but this was later ruled out, and one patient had haloperidol withheld because of dystonia.

The dose of haloperidol used in the study was considered high, the authors said, but they left open the possibility that even higher doses might help. However, they also noted that doses of 25 mg and above were known to have adverse effects on cognition, which is why they chose the 20-mg dosage.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Veterans Affairs Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center. Most authors declared support from the NIH or VA during the course of the study. Four authors also reported fees and grants from private industry outside the context of the study.

SOURCE: Girard TD et al. N Engl J Med.2018 Oct 22. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1808217.

The antipsychotic medications haloperidol and ziprasidone are no better than placebo in altering the duration of delirium in patients in intensive care, new research has found.

copyright Andrei Malov/Thinkstock

In a paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers reported the results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in 566 patients with acute respiratory failure or shock and hypoactive or hyperactive delirium. Participants were randomized either to a maximum of 20 mg IV haloperidol daily, maximum 40 mg ziprasidone daily, or placebo.

At the end of the 14-day intervention period, the placebo group had a median of 8.5 days alive without delirium or coma, the haloperidol group had a median of 7.9 days, and the ziprasidone group had a median of 8.7 days. The difference between groups was not statistically significant.

There were also no significant differences between the three groups in the secondary end point of duration of delirium and coma, 30-day and 90-day survival, time to freedom from mechanical ventilation, ICU discharge, ICU readmission, or hospital discharge.

Timothy D. Girard, MD, from the department of critical care at the University of Pittsburgh, and his coauthors wrote that their findings echoed those of two previous placebo-controlled trials in smaller numbers of ICU patients.

“One possible reason that we found no evidence that the use of haloperidol or ziprasidone resulted in a fewer days with delirium or coma than placebo is that the mechanism of brain dysfunction that is considered to be targeted by antipsychotic medications – increased dopamine signaling – may not play a major role in the pathogenesis of delirium during critical illness,” they wrote.

“In the current trial, approximately 90% of the patients received one or more doses of sedatives or analgesics, and the doses of sedatives and offtrial antipsychotic medications and the durations of exposures to those agents were similar in all trial groups,” the authors added.

Most of the patients in the trial had hypotensive delirium, which made it difficult to assess the effects of antipsychotics on hypertensive delirium.

The authors also commented that the patients enrolled were a mixed group, so their findings did not rule out the possibility that certain subgroups of patients – such as nonintubated patients with hyperactive delirium, those with alcohol withdrawal, or with other delirium phenotypes – may still benefit from antipsychotics.

Patients treated with ziprasidone were more likely to experience prolongation of the corrected QT interval. Two patients in the haloperidol group developed torsades de pointes but neither had received haloperidol in the 4 days preceding the onset of the arrhythmia.

One patient in each group – including the placebo group – experienced extrapyramidal symptoms and had treatment withheld. One patient in the haloperidol group also had the trial drug withheld because of suspected neuroleptic malignant syndrome, but this was later ruled out, and one patient had haloperidol withheld because of dystonia.

The dose of haloperidol used in the study was considered high, the authors said, but they left open the possibility that even higher doses might help. However, they also noted that doses of 25 mg and above were known to have adverse effects on cognition, which is why they chose the 20-mg dosage.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Veterans Affairs Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center. Most authors declared support from the NIH or VA during the course of the study. Four authors also reported fees and grants from private industry outside the context of the study.

SOURCE: Girard TD et al. N Engl J Med.2018 Oct 22. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1808217.

For hospitalists, burnout is a widespread and ongoing problem. In 2011, a Mayo Clinic study found that 45% of U.S. physicians had at least one symptom of professional burnout; by 2014, that number had risen to 54%.

shutteratakan/Thinkstock

“Burnout among physicians has been shown to be linked to quality of care, impacting medical errors, mortality ratios in hospitalized patients, and lower patient satisfaction,” said Ingrid T. Katz, MD, MHS, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and coauthor of a recent column on the subject published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Widespread burnout is caused by systemic factors, not individual failures. “These systemic factors range from excessive clerical burden to ‘work beyond work,’ where people end up taking work home at night and are often found interfacing with the EHR well after their normal work day,” Dr. Katz said. “Many also express their disdain for the model of practice that no longer values autonomy, which was seen as inherent in the profession prior to the current model of care.”

Moving towards a better framework would require an inherent trust in physicians, limiting unnecessary intrusions into a physician’s practice that do not impact medical care. “It would remove the burden of excessive documentation and allow for physicians to get reinspired by the practice of medicine, an inherently altruistic profession,” Dr. Katz said.

Changes might include eliminating excessive clerical demands and improving EHRs to allow physicians to return to the bedside. Workloads would be geared towards quality in care and not focused on improving the bottom line of a health care system. One health system Dr. Katz wrote about instituted a team-based model; under this system medical assistants gather data and reconcile medications, allowing physicians to focus on performing physical exams and making medical decisions.

“Burnout will diminish when physicians are empowered to be part of the solution and hospital systems make changes that recognize the totality of the challenges that physicians face,” Dr. Katz said, adding that hospitalists are in a unique position to promote such changes on a systemic level. “Leadership needs to be willing to inform and engage their physicians, monitor well-being of physicians as closely as they monitor quality in care, and implement changes when needed.”

Reference

1. Katz IT et al. Beyond Burnout – Redesigning Care to Restore Meaning and Sanity for Physicians. N Engl J Med. 2018 Jan 25. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1716845.

For hospitalists, burnout is a widespread and ongoing problem. In 2011, a Mayo Clinic study found that 45% of U.S. physicians had at least one symptom of professional burnout; by 2014, that number had risen to 54%.

shutteratakan/Thinkstock

“Burnout among physicians has been shown to be linked to quality of care, impacting medical errors, mortality ratios in hospitalized patients, and lower patient satisfaction,” said Ingrid T. Katz, MD, MHS, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and coauthor of a recent column on the subject published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Widespread burnout is caused by systemic factors, not individual failures. “These systemic factors range from excessive clerical burden to ‘work beyond work,’ where people end up taking work home at night and are often found interfacing with the EHR well after their normal work day,” Dr. Katz said. “Many also express their disdain for the model of practice that no longer values autonomy, which was seen as inherent in the profession prior to the current model of care.”

Moving towards a better framework would require an inherent trust in physicians, limiting unnecessary intrusions into a physician’s practice that do not impact medical care. “It would remove the burden of excessive documentation and allow for physicians to get reinspired by the practice of medicine, an inherently altruistic profession,” Dr. Katz said.

Changes might include eliminating excessive clerical demands and improving EHRs to allow physicians to return to the bedside. Workloads would be geared towards quality in care and not focused on improving the bottom line of a health care system. One health system Dr. Katz wrote about instituted a team-based model; under this system medical assistants gather data and reconcile medications, allowing physicians to focus on performing physical exams and making medical decisions.

“Burnout will diminish when physicians are empowered to be part of the solution and hospital systems make changes that recognize the totality of the challenges that physicians face,” Dr. Katz said, adding that hospitalists are in a unique position to promote such changes on a systemic level. “Leadership needs to be willing to inform and engage their physicians, monitor well-being of physicians as closely as they monitor quality in care, and implement changes when needed.”

Reference

1. Katz IT et al. Beyond Burnout – Redesigning Care to Restore Meaning and Sanity for Physicians. N Engl J Med. 2018 Jan 25. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1716845.

For hospitalists, burnout is a widespread and ongoing problem. In 2011, a Mayo Clinic study found that 45% of U.S. physicians had at least one symptom of professional burnout; by 2014, that number had risen to 54%.

shutteratakan/Thinkstock

“Burnout among physicians has been shown to be linked to quality of care, impacting medical errors, mortality ratios in hospitalized patients, and lower patient satisfaction,” said Ingrid T. Katz, MD, MHS, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and coauthor of a recent column on the subject published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Widespread burnout is caused by systemic factors, not individual failures. “These systemic factors range from excessive clerical burden to ‘work beyond work,’ where people end up taking work home at night and are often found interfacing with the EHR well after their normal work day,” Dr. Katz said. “Many also express their disdain for the model of practice that no longer values autonomy, which was seen as inherent in the profession prior to the current model of care.”

Moving towards a better framework would require an inherent trust in physicians, limiting unnecessary intrusions into a physician’s practice that do not impact medical care. “It would remove the burden of excessive documentation and allow for physicians to get reinspired by the practice of medicine, an inherently altruistic profession,” Dr. Katz said.

Changes might include eliminating excessive clerical demands and improving EHRs to allow physicians to return to the bedside. Workloads would be geared towards quality in care and not focused on improving the bottom line of a health care system. One health system Dr. Katz wrote about instituted a team-based model; under this system medical assistants gather data and reconcile medications, allowing physicians to focus on performing physical exams and making medical decisions.

“Burnout will diminish when physicians are empowered to be part of the solution and hospital systems make changes that recognize the totality of the challenges that physicians face,” Dr. Katz said, adding that hospitalists are in a unique position to promote such changes on a systemic level. “Leadership needs to be willing to inform and engage their physicians, monitor well-being of physicians as closely as they monitor quality in care, and implement changes when needed.”

Reference

1. Katz IT et al. Beyond Burnout – Redesigning Care to Restore Meaning and Sanity for Physicians. N Engl J Med. 2018 Jan 25. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1716845.

Editor’s note: Each month, the Society of Hospitalist Medicine puts the spotlight on some of our most active members who are making substantial contributions to hospital medicine. Visit www.hospitalmedicine.org for more information on how you can lend your expertise to help improve the care of hospitalized patients.

This month, The Hospitalist spotlights Barbara Egan, MD, FACP, SFHM, chief of the hospital medicine service in the department of medicine at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. Barbara has been a member of SHM since 2005, is dual certified in hospital medicine and palliative care, and is the chair of SHM’s Palliative Care Work Group.

When did you first hear about SHM, and why did you decide to become a member?

I first learned about SHM when I was an internal medicine resident at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, in the early 2000s. BWH had an extremely strong hospitalist group; the staff I worked with served as powerful role models for me and inspired my interest in becoming a hospitalist. One of my attendings suggested that I join SHM, which I did right after I graduated from residency. I attended my first SHM Annual Conference in 2005. By then, I was working as a hospitalist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. SHM and the field of hospital medicine have exploded since my career first began, and I am happy to have grown alongside them. Similarly, our hospital medicine group here at MSKCC has dramatically grown, from 1 hospitalist (me) to more than 30!

How did you get involved with SHM’s Palliative Care Work Group, and what has the work group accomplished since you joined?

I was honored to be invited to join SHM’s Palliative Care Work Group in 2017 by Wendy Anderson, MD, a colleague and now a friend from University of California, San Francisco. Wendy is a visionary leader who practices and researches at the intersection of palliative care and hospital medicine. She and I met during 2015, when we were both invited to join a collaboration between SHM and the Hastings Center in Garrison, N.Y., which was aimed at improving hospitalists’ ability to provide outstanding care to hospitalized patients with life-limiting illnesses. That collaboration resulted in the Improving Communication about Serious Illness–Implementation Guide, a compilation of resources and best practices.

Wendy was chairing the SHM Palliative Care Work Group and invited me to join, which I did with great enthusiasm. This group consists of several passionate and brilliant hospitalists whose practices, in a variety of ways, involve both hospital medicine and palliative medicine. I was so honored when Wendy passed the baton to me last spring and invited me to chair the Work Group. I am lucky to have the opportunity to collaborate with this group of dynamic individuals, and we are well supported by an outstanding SHM staff member, Nick Marzano.
 

Are there any new projects that the work group is currently focusing on?

The primary focus of SHM’s Palliative Care Work Group is educational. That is, we aim to assess and help meet the educational needs of hospitalists, thereby helping to empower them to be outstanding providers of primary palliative care to seriously ill, hospitalized patients. To that end, we were very proud to orchestrate a palliative care mini-track for the first time at HM18. To our group’s delight, the attendance and reviews of that track were great. Thus, we were invited to further expand the palliative care offerings at HM19. We are busy planning for HM19: a full-day pre-course in palliative medicine; several podium presentations which will touch on ethical challenges, symptom management, prognostication, and other important topics; and a workshop in communication skills.
 

What led to your dual certification and how do your two specialties overlap?

I am board certified in internal medicine with Focused Practice in Hospital Medicine by virtue of my clinical training and my primary clinical practice as a hospitalist. As a hospitalist in a cancer center, I spend most of my time caring for patients with late- and end-stage malignancy. As such, early in my career, I had to develop a broad base of palliative medical skills, such as pain and symptom management and communication skills. I find this work extremely rewarding, albeit emotionally taxing. I have learned to redefine what clinical “success” looks like – my patients often have unfixable medical problems, but I can always strive to improve their lives in some way, even if that means helping to provide them with a painless, dignified death as opposed to curing them.

When the American Board of Medical Specialties established a board certification in Hospice and Palliative Medicine, there briefly existed a pathway to be “grandfathered” in, i.e., to qualify for board certification through an examination and clinical experience, as opposed to a fellowship. I jumped at the chance to formalize my palliative care skills and experience, and I attained board certification in 2012. This allowed me to further diversify my clinical practice here at MSKCC.

Hospital medicine is still my first love, and I spend most of my time practicing as a hospitalist on our solid tumor services. But now I also spend several weeks each year attending as a consultant on our inpatient supportive care service. In that role, I am able to collaborate with a fantastic multidisciplinary team consisting of MDs, NPs, a chaplain, a pharmacist, a social worker, and integrative medicine practitioners. I also love the opportunity to teach and mentor our palliative medicine fellows.

To me, the opportunity to marry hospital medicine and palliative medicine in my career was a natural fit. Hospitalists, particularly those caring exclusively for cancer patients like I do, need to provide excellent palliative care to our patients every day. The opportunity to further my training and to obtain board certification was a golden one, and I love being able to wear both hats here at MSKCC.
 

Ms. Steele is a marketing communications specialist at the Society of Hospital Medicine.

Editor’s note: Each month, the Society of Hospitalist Medicine puts the spotlight on some of our most active members who are making substantial contributions to hospital medicine. Visit www.hospitalmedicine.org for more information on how you can lend your expertise to help improve the care of hospitalized patients.

This month, The Hospitalist spotlights Barbara Egan, MD, FACP, SFHM, chief of the hospital medicine service in the department of medicine at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. Barbara has been a member of SHM since 2005, is dual certified in hospital medicine and palliative care, and is the chair of SHM’s Palliative Care Work Group.

When did you first hear about SHM, and why did you decide to become a member?

I first learned about SHM when I was an internal medicine resident at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, in the early 2000s. BWH had an extremely strong hospitalist group; the staff I worked with served as powerful role models for me and inspired my interest in becoming a hospitalist. One of my attendings suggested that I join SHM, which I did right after I graduated from residency. I attended my first SHM Annual Conference in 2005. By then, I was working as a hospitalist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. SHM and the field of hospital medicine have exploded since my career first began, and I am happy to have grown alongside them. Similarly, our hospital medicine group here at MSKCC has dramatically grown, from 1 hospitalist (me) to more than 30!

How did you get involved with SHM’s Palliative Care Work Group, and what has the work group accomplished since you joined?

I was honored to be invited to join SHM’s Palliative Care Work Group in 2017 by Wendy Anderson, MD, a colleague and now a friend from University of California, San Francisco. Wendy is a visionary leader who practices and researches at the intersection of palliative care and hospital medicine. She and I met during 2015, when we were both invited to join a collaboration between SHM and the Hastings Center in Garrison, N.Y., which was aimed at improving hospitalists’ ability to provide outstanding care to hospitalized patients with life-limiting illnesses. That collaboration resulted in the Improving Communication about Serious Illness–Implementation Guide, a compilation of resources and best practices.

Wendy was chairing the SHM Palliative Care Work Group and invited me to join, which I did with great enthusiasm. This group consists of several passionate and brilliant hospitalists whose practices, in a variety of ways, involve both hospital medicine and palliative medicine. I was so honored when Wendy passed the baton to me last spring and invited me to chair the Work Group. I am lucky to have the opportunity to collaborate with this group of dynamic individuals, and we are well supported by an outstanding SHM staff member, Nick Marzano.
 

Are there any new projects that the work group is currently focusing on?

The primary focus of SHM’s Palliative Care Work Group is educational. That is, we aim to assess and help meet the educational needs of hospitalists, thereby helping to empower them to be outstanding providers of primary palliative care to seriously ill, hospitalized patients. To that end, we were very proud to orchestrate a palliative care mini-track for the first time at HM18. To our group’s delight, the attendance and reviews of that track were great. Thus, we were invited to further expand the palliative care offerings at HM19. We are busy planning for HM19: a full-day pre-course in palliative medicine; several podium presentations which will touch on ethical challenges, symptom management, prognostication, and other important topics; and a workshop in communication skills.
 

What led to your dual certification and how do your two specialties overlap?

I am board certified in internal medicine with Focused Practice in Hospital Medicine by virtue of my clinical training and my primary clinical practice as a hospitalist. As a hospitalist in a cancer center, I spend most of my time caring for patients with late- and end-stage malignancy. As such, early in my career, I had to develop a broad base of palliative medical skills, such as pain and symptom management and communication skills. I find this work extremely rewarding, albeit emotionally taxing. I have learned to redefine what clinical “success” looks like – my patients often have unfixable medical problems, but I can always strive to improve their lives in some way, even if that means helping to provide them with a painless, dignified death as opposed to curing them.

When the American Board of Medical Specialties established a board certification in Hospice and Palliative Medicine, there briefly existed a pathway to be “grandfathered” in, i.e., to qualify for board certification through an examination and clinical experience, as opposed to a fellowship. I jumped at the chance to formalize my palliative care skills and experience, and I attained board certification in 2012. This allowed me to further diversify my clinical practice here at MSKCC.

Hospital medicine is still my first love, and I spend most of my time practicing as a hospitalist on our solid tumor services. But now I also spend several weeks each year attending as a consultant on our inpatient supportive care service. In that role, I am able to collaborate with a fantastic multidisciplinary team consisting of MDs, NPs, a chaplain, a pharmacist, a social worker, and integrative medicine practitioners. I also love the opportunity to teach and mentor our palliative medicine fellows.

To me, the opportunity to marry hospital medicine and palliative medicine in my career was a natural fit. Hospitalists, particularly those caring exclusively for cancer patients like I do, need to provide excellent palliative care to our patients every day. The opportunity to further my training and to obtain board certification was a golden one, and I love being able to wear both hats here at MSKCC.
 

Ms. Steele is a marketing communications specialist at the Society of Hospital Medicine.

Editor’s note: Each month, the Society of Hospitalist Medicine puts the spotlight on some of our most active members who are making substantial contributions to hospital medicine. Visit www.hospitalmedicine.org for more information on how you can lend your expertise to help improve the care of hospitalized patients.

This month, The Hospitalist spotlights Barbara Egan, MD, FACP, SFHM, chief of the hospital medicine service in the department of medicine at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. Barbara has been a member of SHM since 2005, is dual certified in hospital medicine and palliative care, and is the chair of SHM’s Palliative Care Work Group.

When did you first hear about SHM, and why did you decide to become a member?

I first learned about SHM when I was an internal medicine resident at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, in the early 2000s. BWH had an extremely strong hospitalist group; the staff I worked with served as powerful role models for me and inspired my interest in becoming a hospitalist. One of my attendings suggested that I join SHM, which I did right after I graduated from residency. I attended my first SHM Annual Conference in 2005. By then, I was working as a hospitalist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. SHM and the field of hospital medicine have exploded since my career first began, and I am happy to have grown alongside them. Similarly, our hospital medicine group here at MSKCC has dramatically grown, from 1 hospitalist (me) to more than 30!

How did you get involved with SHM’s Palliative Care Work Group, and what has the work group accomplished since you joined?

I was honored to be invited to join SHM’s Palliative Care Work Group in 2017 by Wendy Anderson, MD, a colleague and now a friend from University of California, San Francisco. Wendy is a visionary leader who practices and researches at the intersection of palliative care and hospital medicine. She and I met during 2015, when we were both invited to join a collaboration between SHM and the Hastings Center in Garrison, N.Y., which was aimed at improving hospitalists’ ability to provide outstanding care to hospitalized patients with life-limiting illnesses. That collaboration resulted in the Improving Communication about Serious Illness–Implementation Guide, a compilation of resources and best practices.

Wendy was chairing the SHM Palliative Care Work Group and invited me to join, which I did with great enthusiasm. This group consists of several passionate and brilliant hospitalists whose practices, in a variety of ways, involve both hospital medicine and palliative medicine. I was so honored when Wendy passed the baton to me last spring and invited me to chair the Work Group. I am lucky to have the opportunity to collaborate with this group of dynamic individuals, and we are well supported by an outstanding SHM staff member, Nick Marzano.
 

Are there any new projects that the work group is currently focusing on?

The primary focus of SHM’s Palliative Care Work Group is educational. That is, we aim to assess and help meet the educational needs of hospitalists, thereby helping to empower them to be outstanding providers of primary palliative care to seriously ill, hospitalized patients. To that end, we were very proud to orchestrate a palliative care mini-track for the first time at HM18. To our group’s delight, the attendance and reviews of that track were great. Thus, we were invited to further expand the palliative care offerings at HM19. We are busy planning for HM19: a full-day pre-course in palliative medicine; several podium presentations which will touch on ethical challenges, symptom management, prognostication, and other important topics; and a workshop in communication skills.
 

What led to your dual certification and how do your two specialties overlap?

I am board certified in internal medicine with Focused Practice in Hospital Medicine by virtue of my clinical training and my primary clinical practice as a hospitalist. As a hospitalist in a cancer center, I spend most of my time caring for patients with late- and end-stage malignancy. As such, early in my career, I had to develop a broad base of palliative medical skills, such as pain and symptom management and communication skills. I find this work extremely rewarding, albeit emotionally taxing. I have learned to redefine what clinical “success” looks like – my patients often have unfixable medical problems, but I can always strive to improve their lives in some way, even if that means helping to provide them with a painless, dignified death as opposed to curing them.

When the American Board of Medical Specialties established a board certification in Hospice and Palliative Medicine, there briefly existed a pathway to be “grandfathered” in, i.e., to qualify for board certification through an examination and clinical experience, as opposed to a fellowship. I jumped at the chance to formalize my palliative care skills and experience, and I attained board certification in 2012. This allowed me to further diversify my clinical practice here at MSKCC.

Hospital medicine is still my first love, and I spend most of my time practicing as a hospitalist on our solid tumor services. But now I also spend several weeks each year attending as a consultant on our inpatient supportive care service. In that role, I am able to collaborate with a fantastic multidisciplinary team consisting of MDs, NPs, a chaplain, a pharmacist, a social worker, and integrative medicine practitioners. I also love the opportunity to teach and mentor our palliative medicine fellows.

To me, the opportunity to marry hospital medicine and palliative medicine in my career was a natural fit. Hospitalists, particularly those caring exclusively for cancer patients like I do, need to provide excellent palliative care to our patients every day. The opportunity to further my training and to obtain board certification was a golden one, and I love being able to wear both hats here at MSKCC.
 

Ms. Steele is a marketing communications specialist at the Society of Hospital Medicine.