Managing Your Practice

Hospice care” and “palliative care” are not synonymous terms. Hospice care is defined as a comprehensive set of services (see “Hospice Coverage,” below) identified and coordinated by an interdisciplinary group to provide for the physical, psychosocial, spiritual, and emotional needs of a terminally ill patient and/or family members, as delineated in a specific patient plan of care.¹ Palliative care is defined as patient- and family-centered care that optimizes quality of life by anticipating, preventing, and treating suffering. Palliative care throughout the continuum of illness involves addressing physical, intellectual, emotional, social, and spiritual needs, and facilitates patient autonomy, access to information, and choice.¹

As an approach, hospice care of terminally ill individuals involves palliative care (relief of pain and uncomfortable symptoms), and emphasizes maintaining the patient at home with family and friends as long as possible. Hospice services can be provided in a home, center, skilled-nursing facility, or hospital setting. In contrast, palliative-care services can be provided during hospice care, or coincide with care that is focused on a cure.

Many hospitalists provide both hospice care and palliative-care services to their patients. Different factors affect how to report these services. These programs can be quite costly, as they involve several team members and a substantial amount of time delivering these services. Capturing services appropriately and obtaining reimbursement to help continue program initiatives are significant issues.

Hospice Care

When a patient enrolls in hospice, all rights to Medicare Part B payments are waived during the benefit period involving professional services related to the treatment and management of the terminal illness. Payment is made through the Part A benefit for the associated costs of daily care and the services provided by the hospice-employed physician. An exception occurs for professional services of an independent attending physician who is not an employee of the designated hospice and does not receive compensation from the hospice for those services. The “attending physician” for hospice services must be an individual who is a doctor of medicine or osteopathy, or a nurse practitioner identified by the individual, at the time they elect hospice coverage, as having the most significant role in the determination and delivery of their medical care.²

Patients often receive hospice in the hospital setting, where the hospitalist manages the patient’s daily care. If the hospitalist is designated as the “attending physician” for hospice services, the visits should be reported to Medicare Part B with modifier GV (e.g. 99232-GV).3 This will allow for separate payment to the hospitalist (the independent attending physician), while the hospice agency maintains its daily-care rate. Reporting services absent this modifier will result in denial.

In some cases, the hospitalist is not identified as the “attending physician” for hospice services but occasionally provides care related to the terminal illness. This situation proves most difficult. Although the hospitalist might be the most accessible physician to the staff and is putting the patient’s needs first, reimbursement is unlikely. Regulations stipulate that patients must not see independent physicians other than their “attending physician” for care related to their terminal illness unless the hospice arranges it. When the service is related to the hospice patient’s terminal illness but was furnished by someone other than the designated “attending physician,” this “other physician” must look to the hospice for payment.³

Nonhospice Palliative Care

Members of the palliative-care team often are called to provide management options to assist in reducing pain and suffering. When the palliative-care specialist is asked to provide opinions or advice, the initial service may qualify as a consultation for those payors that still recognize these codes. However, all of the requirements⁴ must be met in order to report the service as an inpatient consultation (99251-99255):³

• There must be a written request from a qualified healthcare provider who is involved in the patient’s care (e.g. physician, resident, nurse practitioner); this may be documented as a physician order or in the assessment/plan of the requesting provider’s progress note. Standing orders for consultation are not permitted.
• The requesting provider should clearly and accurately identify the reason for consult request to support the medical necessity of the service.
• The palliative-care physician renders and documents the service.
• The palliative-care physician reports his or her findings to the requesting physician via written communication; because the requesting physician and the consultant share a common inpatient medical record, the consultant’s inpatient progress note satisfies the “written report” requirement.

Consider the nature of the request when reporting a consultation. If the request demonstrates the need for opinions or advice from the palliative-care specialist, the service can be reported as a consultation. If the indication cites “medical management” or “palliative management,” payors are less likely to consider the service as a consultation because the physician is not seeking opinions or advice from the consultant to incorporate into his or her own plan of care for the patient and would rather the consultant just take over that portion of patient care. When consultations do not meet the requirements, subsequent hospital care services should be reported (99231-99233).³

The requesting physician can be in the same or a different provider group as the consultant. The consultant must possess expertise in an area that is beyond that of the requesting provider. Because most hospitalists carry a specialty designation of internal medicine (physician specialty code 11), hospitalists providing palliative-care services can distinguish themselves by their own code (physician specialty code 17, hospice and palliative care).⁵ Payor concerns arise when physicians of the same designated specialty submit a claim for the same patient on the same date. The payor is likely to pay the first claim received and deny the second claim received pending review of documentation. If this occurs, submit a copy of both progress notes for the date in question to distinguish the services provided. The payor may still require that both encounters be reported as one cumulative service under one physician.

Consultations are not an option for Medicare beneficiaries. Hospitalists providing palliative care can report initial hospital care codes (99221-99223) for their first encounter with the patient.³ This is only acceptable when no other hospitalist from the group has reported initial hospital care during the patient stay, unless the palliative-care hospitalist carries the corresponding designation (i.e. enrolled with Medicare as physician specialty code 17). Without this separate designation, the palliative-care hospitalist can only report subsequent hospital care codes (99231-99233) as the patient was seen previously by a hospitalist in the same group.³

Carol Pohlig is a billing and coding expert with the University of Pennsylvania Medical Center, Philadelphia. She is also on the faculty of SHM’s inpatient coding course.

References

1. U.S. Government Printing Office. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: Title 42: Public Health, Part 418: Hospice Care, §418.3. June 2012. U.S. Government Printing Office website. Available at: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=818258235647b14d2961ad30fa3e68e6&rgn=div5&view=text&node=42:3.0.1.1.5&idno=42#42:3.0.1.1.5.1.3.3. Accessed June 23, 2012.
2. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Medicare Claims Processing Manual: Chapter 11: processing hospice claims. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services website. Available at: http://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/Manuals/Downloads/clm104c11.pdf. Accessed June 23, 2012.
3. Abraham M, Ahlman J, Anderson C, Boudreau A, Connelly J. Current Procedural Terminology 2012 Professional Edition. Chicago: American Medical Association Press; 2011.
4. American Medical Association. Consultation services and transfer of care. American Medical Association website. Available at: http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/cpt/cpt-consultation-services.pdf. Accessed June 23, 2012.
5. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Medicare Claims Processing Manual: Chapter 26: completing and processing form CMS-1500 data set. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services website. Available at: http://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/Manuals/downloads/clm104c26.pdf. Accessed June 23, 2012. Department of Health and Human Services.
6. Hospice Payment System: payment system fact sheet series. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services website. Available at: http://www.cms.gov/Outreach-and-Education/Medicare-Learning-Network-MLN/MLNProducts/downloads/hospice_pay_sys_fs.pdf. Accessed June 23, 2012.

Hospice care” and “palliative care” are not synonymous terms. Hospice care is defined as a comprehensive set of services (see “Hospice Coverage,” below) identified and coordinated by an interdisciplinary group to provide for the physical, psychosocial, spiritual, and emotional needs of a terminally ill patient and/or family members, as delineated in a specific patient plan of care.¹ Palliative care is defined as patient- and family-centered care that optimizes quality of life by anticipating, preventing, and treating suffering. Palliative care throughout the continuum of illness involves addressing physical, intellectual, emotional, social, and spiritual needs, and facilitates patient autonomy, access to information, and choice.¹

As an approach, hospice care of terminally ill individuals involves palliative care (relief of pain and uncomfortable symptoms), and emphasizes maintaining the patient at home with family and friends as long as possible. Hospice services can be provided in a home, center, skilled-nursing facility, or hospital setting. In contrast, palliative-care services can be provided during hospice care, or coincide with care that is focused on a cure.

Many hospitalists provide both hospice care and palliative-care services to their patients. Different factors affect how to report these services. These programs can be quite costly, as they involve several team members and a substantial amount of time delivering these services. Capturing services appropriately and obtaining reimbursement to help continue program initiatives are significant issues.

Hospice Care

When a patient enrolls in hospice, all rights to Medicare Part B payments are waived during the benefit period involving professional services related to the treatment and management of the terminal illness. Payment is made through the Part A benefit for the associated costs of daily care and the services provided by the hospice-employed physician. An exception occurs for professional services of an independent attending physician who is not an employee of the designated hospice and does not receive compensation from the hospice for those services. The “attending physician” for hospice services must be an individual who is a doctor of medicine or osteopathy, or a nurse practitioner identified by the individual, at the time they elect hospice coverage, as having the most significant role in the determination and delivery of their medical care.²

Patients often receive hospice in the hospital setting, where the hospitalist manages the patient’s daily care. If the hospitalist is designated as the “attending physician” for hospice services, the visits should be reported to Medicare Part B with modifier GV (e.g. 99232-GV).3 This will allow for separate payment to the hospitalist (the independent attending physician), while the hospice agency maintains its daily-care rate. Reporting services absent this modifier will result in denial.

In some cases, the hospitalist is not identified as the “attending physician” for hospice services but occasionally provides care related to the terminal illness. This situation proves most difficult. Although the hospitalist might be the most accessible physician to the staff and is putting the patient’s needs first, reimbursement is unlikely. Regulations stipulate that patients must not see independent physicians other than their “attending physician” for care related to their terminal illness unless the hospice arranges it. When the service is related to the hospice patient’s terminal illness but was furnished by someone other than the designated “attending physician,” this “other physician” must look to the hospice for payment.³

Nonhospice Palliative Care

Members of the palliative-care team often are called to provide management options to assist in reducing pain and suffering. When the palliative-care specialist is asked to provide opinions or advice, the initial service may qualify as a consultation for those payors that still recognize these codes. However, all of the requirements⁴ must be met in order to report the service as an inpatient consultation (99251-99255):³

• There must be a written request from a qualified healthcare provider who is involved in the patient’s care (e.g. physician, resident, nurse practitioner); this may be documented as a physician order or in the assessment/plan of the requesting provider’s progress note. Standing orders for consultation are not permitted.
• The requesting provider should clearly and accurately identify the reason for consult request to support the medical necessity of the service.
• The palliative-care physician renders and documents the service.
• The palliative-care physician reports his or her findings to the requesting physician via written communication; because the requesting physician and the consultant share a common inpatient medical record, the consultant’s inpatient progress note satisfies the “written report” requirement.

Consider the nature of the request when reporting a consultation. If the request demonstrates the need for opinions or advice from the palliative-care specialist, the service can be reported as a consultation. If the indication cites “medical management” or “palliative management,” payors are less likely to consider the service as a consultation because the physician is not seeking opinions or advice from the consultant to incorporate into his or her own plan of care for the patient and would rather the consultant just take over that portion of patient care. When consultations do not meet the requirements, subsequent hospital care services should be reported (99231-99233).³

The requesting physician can be in the same or a different provider group as the consultant. The consultant must possess expertise in an area that is beyond that of the requesting provider. Because most hospitalists carry a specialty designation of internal medicine (physician specialty code 11), hospitalists providing palliative-care services can distinguish themselves by their own code (physician specialty code 17, hospice and palliative care).⁵ Payor concerns arise when physicians of the same designated specialty submit a claim for the same patient on the same date. The payor is likely to pay the first claim received and deny the second claim received pending review of documentation. If this occurs, submit a copy of both progress notes for the date in question to distinguish the services provided. The payor may still require that both encounters be reported as one cumulative service under one physician.

Consultations are not an option for Medicare beneficiaries. Hospitalists providing palliative care can report initial hospital care codes (99221-99223) for their first encounter with the patient.³ This is only acceptable when no other hospitalist from the group has reported initial hospital care during the patient stay, unless the palliative-care hospitalist carries the corresponding designation (i.e. enrolled with Medicare as physician specialty code 17). Without this separate designation, the palliative-care hospitalist can only report subsequent hospital care codes (99231-99233) as the patient was seen previously by a hospitalist in the same group.³

Carol Pohlig is a billing and coding expert with the University of Pennsylvania Medical Center, Philadelphia. She is also on the faculty of SHM’s inpatient coding course.

References

1. U.S. Government Printing Office. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: Title 42: Public Health, Part 418: Hospice Care, §418.3. June 2012. U.S. Government Printing Office website. Available at: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=818258235647b14d2961ad30fa3e68e6&rgn=div5&view=text&node=42:3.0.1.1.5&idno=42#42:3.0.1.1.5.1.3.3. Accessed June 23, 2012.
2. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Medicare Claims Processing Manual: Chapter 11: processing hospice claims. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services website. Available at: http://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/Manuals/Downloads/clm104c11.pdf. Accessed June 23, 2012.
3. Abraham M, Ahlman J, Anderson C, Boudreau A, Connelly J. Current Procedural Terminology 2012 Professional Edition. Chicago: American Medical Association Press; 2011.
4. American Medical Association. Consultation services and transfer of care. American Medical Association website. Available at: http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/cpt/cpt-consultation-services.pdf. Accessed June 23, 2012.
5. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Medicare Claims Processing Manual: Chapter 26: completing and processing form CMS-1500 data set. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services website. Available at: http://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/Manuals/downloads/clm104c26.pdf. Accessed June 23, 2012. Department of Health and Human Services.
6. Hospice Payment System: payment system fact sheet series. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services website. Available at: http://www.cms.gov/Outreach-and-Education/Medicare-Learning-Network-MLN/MLNProducts/downloads/hospice_pay_sys_fs.pdf. Accessed June 23, 2012.

Hospice care” and “palliative care” are not synonymous terms. Hospice care is defined as a comprehensive set of services (see “Hospice Coverage,” below) identified and coordinated by an interdisciplinary group to provide for the physical, psychosocial, spiritual, and emotional needs of a terminally ill patient and/or family members, as delineated in a specific patient plan of care.¹ Palliative care is defined as patient- and family-centered care that optimizes quality of life by anticipating, preventing, and treating suffering. Palliative care throughout the continuum of illness involves addressing physical, intellectual, emotional, social, and spiritual needs, and facilitates patient autonomy, access to information, and choice.¹

As an approach, hospice care of terminally ill individuals involves palliative care (relief of pain and uncomfortable symptoms), and emphasizes maintaining the patient at home with family and friends as long as possible. Hospice services can be provided in a home, center, skilled-nursing facility, or hospital setting. In contrast, palliative-care services can be provided during hospice care, or coincide with care that is focused on a cure.

Many hospitalists provide both hospice care and palliative-care services to their patients. Different factors affect how to report these services. These programs can be quite costly, as they involve several team members and a substantial amount of time delivering these services. Capturing services appropriately and obtaining reimbursement to help continue program initiatives are significant issues.

Hospice Care

When a patient enrolls in hospice, all rights to Medicare Part B payments are waived during the benefit period involving professional services related to the treatment and management of the terminal illness. Payment is made through the Part A benefit for the associated costs of daily care and the services provided by the hospice-employed physician. An exception occurs for professional services of an independent attending physician who is not an employee of the designated hospice and does not receive compensation from the hospice for those services. The “attending physician” for hospice services must be an individual who is a doctor of medicine or osteopathy, or a nurse practitioner identified by the individual, at the time they elect hospice coverage, as having the most significant role in the determination and delivery of their medical care.²

Patients often receive hospice in the hospital setting, where the hospitalist manages the patient’s daily care. If the hospitalist is designated as the “attending physician” for hospice services, the visits should be reported to Medicare Part B with modifier GV (e.g. 99232-GV).3 This will allow for separate payment to the hospitalist (the independent attending physician), while the hospice agency maintains its daily-care rate. Reporting services absent this modifier will result in denial.

In some cases, the hospitalist is not identified as the “attending physician” for hospice services but occasionally provides care related to the terminal illness. This situation proves most difficult. Although the hospitalist might be the most accessible physician to the staff and is putting the patient’s needs first, reimbursement is unlikely. Regulations stipulate that patients must not see independent physicians other than their “attending physician” for care related to their terminal illness unless the hospice arranges it. When the service is related to the hospice patient’s terminal illness but was furnished by someone other than the designated “attending physician,” this “other physician” must look to the hospice for payment.³

Nonhospice Palliative Care

Members of the palliative-care team often are called to provide management options to assist in reducing pain and suffering. When the palliative-care specialist is asked to provide opinions or advice, the initial service may qualify as a consultation for those payors that still recognize these codes. However, all of the requirements⁴ must be met in order to report the service as an inpatient consultation (99251-99255):³

• There must be a written request from a qualified healthcare provider who is involved in the patient’s care (e.g. physician, resident, nurse practitioner); this may be documented as a physician order or in the assessment/plan of the requesting provider’s progress note. Standing orders for consultation are not permitted.
• The requesting provider should clearly and accurately identify the reason for consult request to support the medical necessity of the service.
• The palliative-care physician renders and documents the service.
• The palliative-care physician reports his or her findings to the requesting physician via written communication; because the requesting physician and the consultant share a common inpatient medical record, the consultant’s inpatient progress note satisfies the “written report” requirement.

Consider the nature of the request when reporting a consultation. If the request demonstrates the need for opinions or advice from the palliative-care specialist, the service can be reported as a consultation. If the indication cites “medical management” or “palliative management,” payors are less likely to consider the service as a consultation because the physician is not seeking opinions or advice from the consultant to incorporate into his or her own plan of care for the patient and would rather the consultant just take over that portion of patient care. When consultations do not meet the requirements, subsequent hospital care services should be reported (99231-99233).³

The requesting physician can be in the same or a different provider group as the consultant. The consultant must possess expertise in an area that is beyond that of the requesting provider. Because most hospitalists carry a specialty designation of internal medicine (physician specialty code 11), hospitalists providing palliative-care services can distinguish themselves by their own code (physician specialty code 17, hospice and palliative care).⁵ Payor concerns arise when physicians of the same designated specialty submit a claim for the same patient on the same date. The payor is likely to pay the first claim received and deny the second claim received pending review of documentation. If this occurs, submit a copy of both progress notes for the date in question to distinguish the services provided. The payor may still require that both encounters be reported as one cumulative service under one physician.

Consultations are not an option for Medicare beneficiaries. Hospitalists providing palliative care can report initial hospital care codes (99221-99223) for their first encounter with the patient.³ This is only acceptable when no other hospitalist from the group has reported initial hospital care during the patient stay, unless the palliative-care hospitalist carries the corresponding designation (i.e. enrolled with Medicare as physician specialty code 17). Without this separate designation, the palliative-care hospitalist can only report subsequent hospital care codes (99231-99233) as the patient was seen previously by a hospitalist in the same group.³

Carol Pohlig is a billing and coding expert with the University of Pennsylvania Medical Center, Philadelphia. She is also on the faculty of SHM’s inpatient coding course.

References

1. U.S. Government Printing Office. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: Title 42: Public Health, Part 418: Hospice Care, §418.3. June 2012. U.S. Government Printing Office website. Available at: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=818258235647b14d2961ad30fa3e68e6&rgn=div5&view=text&node=42:3.0.1.1.5&idno=42#42:3.0.1.1.5.1.3.3. Accessed June 23, 2012.
2. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Medicare Claims Processing Manual: Chapter 11: processing hospice claims. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services website. Available at: http://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/Manuals/Downloads/clm104c11.pdf. Accessed June 23, 2012.
3. Abraham M, Ahlman J, Anderson C, Boudreau A, Connelly J. Current Procedural Terminology 2012 Professional Edition. Chicago: American Medical Association Press; 2011.
4. American Medical Association. Consultation services and transfer of care. American Medical Association website. Available at: http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/cpt/cpt-consultation-services.pdf. Accessed June 23, 2012.
5. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Medicare Claims Processing Manual: Chapter 26: completing and processing form CMS-1500 data set. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services website. Available at: http://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/Manuals/downloads/clm104c26.pdf. Accessed June 23, 2012. Department of Health and Human Services.
6. Hospice Payment System: payment system fact sheet series. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services website. Available at: http://www.cms.gov/Outreach-and-Education/Medicare-Learning-Network-MLN/MLNProducts/downloads/hospice_pay_sys_fs.pdf. Accessed June 23, 2012.

Infant’s brain damage blamed on delayed delivery

DURING DELIVERY, THE MOTHER’S PERINATOLOGIST recognized a severe shoulder dystocia. The perinatologist abandoned vaginal delivery and ordered an emergency cesarean delivery. The mother was transferred to an operating room (OR) with the baby’s head out between her legs. In the OR, the perinatologist pushed the baby’s head back into the uterus and performed a cesarean extraction. Nineteen minutes elapsed from when the vaginal delivery was abandoned and the baby was delivered.

The child was unresponsive at birth with no spontaneous movement or respiration. She was intubated and transferred to the NICU, where she was resuscitated. MRI confirmed that the child had hypoxic ischemia and severe, permanent brain damage from acute birth asphyxia. The child is blind, deaf, hypertensive, and has diffuse spasticity. She has a tracheostomy, a gastrostomy tube, and requires 24-hour care.

PARENTS’ CLAIM The perinatologist was negligent for abandoning vaginal delivery when delivery was progressing appropriately and there was no fetal distress. If the perinatologist had rotated the baby’s shoulder to the oblique position and/or used suprapubic pressure, the shoulder would have become disimpacted and the baby would have been safely delivered within seconds. Delay in delivery allowed for 19 minutes of umbilical cord compression, resulting in brain damage.

PHYSICIAN’S DEFENSE Cesarean delivery was appropriate; the baby did not suffer cord compression. Injury to the brain occurred days before delivery, based on prenatal ultrasonography.

VERDICT A $5.5 million California settlement was reached.

Failure to diagnose breast cancer: death

A 38-YEAR-OLD WOMAN went to her primary care physician (PCP) 3 years after giving birth. She reported breast pain, nipple discharge, and a dime-sized lump. The woman was still breastfeeding. An exam by the nurse practitioner (NP) was limited because the patient had breast implants. The NP suspected a galactocele and advised the patient to stop breastfeeding and apply ice packs. When the patient returned in 2 weeks, only the lump remained. The PCP determined that she had mastitis.

Five months later, she returned with additional lumps in both breasts, and was referred to a gynecologist. Ultrasonography (US) was ordered, but the patient never followed up. A year later, the patient was found to have metastatic breast cancer and died after 3 years of treatment.

ESTATE’S CLAIM The PCP and NP were negligent for not referring her for a breast biopsy when a lump was first detected.

DEFENDANTS’ DEFENSE Proper care was given. An earlier diagnosis would not have changed the outcome.

VERDICT A $750,000 Massachusetts settlement was reached.

What caused this child’s autism?

AFTER 33 HOURS OF LABOR, a baby was delivered vaginally by an ObGyn, nurse, and midwife. The child was diagnosed with autism several years later. His development is delayed, and he suffers cognitive impairment.

PARENTS’ CLAIM The child’s autism is due to a prolonged hypoxic event during labor. Fetal heart-rate monitoring demonstrated fetal distress, with a bradycardia. A cesarean delivery should have been performed.

PHYSICIAN’S DEFENSE The child has genetic autism unrelated to the birth process.

VERDICT A $1.35 million New York settlement was reached.

Was oxytocin the culprit?

DURING AN EXTENDED LABOR, the ObGyn continued to give the mother oxytocin, although there were signs of fetal distress. The child was born with brain damage, cannot walk, talk, or see, and requires 24-hour care.

PATIENT’S CLAIM The use of oxytocin was inappropriate given the signs of fetal distress. Oxytocin caused a lack of oxygen to the child, resulting in brain damage. A cesarean delivery should have been performed when fetal distress was identified.

DEFENDANTS’ DEFENSE The case was settled before trial.

VERDICT A $12 million Illinois settlement was reached: $11 million from the hospital and $1 million from the ObGyn.

Bowel perforation, sepsis after ovary removal

DURING LEFT OOPHORECTOMY, the ObGyn encountered adhesions. Five days later, the 41-year-old patient reported severe pain. A second procedure revealed sepsis and perforation of the large bowel. A colostomy was performed. The patient underwent additional corrective operations.

PATIENT’S CLAIM The ObGyn was negligent for causing tissue damage to the colon that perforated and escalated into sepsis. A surgeon should have been consulted when the ObGyn found the adhesions, so the bowel could be properly inspected before the abdomen was closed. The physician was also negligent for not recognizing symptoms of sepsis earlier.

PHYSICIAN’S DEFENSE Bowel injury is a known complication of oophorectomy. The patient appeared to be making a fairly good recovery until infection became evident; she was immediately treated.

VERDICT A $6.3 million New Jersey verdict was returned, including $300,000 for the husband’s loss of consortium.

Traumatic delivery causes seizures

DURING CESAREAN DELIVERY, the ObGyn rotated the baby from a transverse to a cephalic lie, and used a vacuum extractor to deliver the head through the hysterotomy incision.

When the child was 25 hours old, he suffered a seizure that lasted 6 minutes. Focal seizure activity involving the left side of his body and a skull fracture were identified. He was transferred to another hospital, where radiologic studies indicated a middle right cerebral artery infarct. The child developed an ongoing seizure disorder, speech and language delays, and mild, left-sided weakness.

PARENTS’ CLAIM The baby’s head was not properly delivered through the cesarean incision nor should the ObGyn have used vacuum extraction. The combination of the rotation and use of vacuum caused trauma to the infant’s head. In addition, the baby was placed in the well-baby nursery, which was inappropriate because he was born through thick meconium, resuscitated by a neonatal nurse, and had a depressed skull fracture.

PHYSICIAN’S DEFENSE Delivery was not traumatic; all treatment was appropriate.

VERDICT A $4.6 million New York settlement was reached with the hospital and ObGyn’s insurer.

Mother gets severe headache during birth

A 35-YEAR-OLD WOMAN began having a severe headache during delivery that continued after birth. She was discharged from the hospital and collapsed at home a day later. She was returned to the ED, where she was left in a hallway for 6 hours. She lost consciousness while in the hallway. Imaging and neurologic evaluation determined that she suffered a hypoxic brain injury from intracranial bleeding. She has slow response time, difficulty with all aspects of everyday life, and requires full-time attendant care.

PATIENT’S CLAIM Although she complained of a headache, no testing was done prior to her hospital discharge. Treatment was extremely delayed in the ED; an earlier diagnosis could have prevented brain damage.

PHYSICIAN’S DEFENSE Nothing could have prevented the brain damage.

VERDICT A $3.5 million California settlement was mediated.

Shoulder dystocia; brachial plexus injury

WHEN SHOULDER DYSTOCIA was encountered during delivery, the ObGyn applied gentle pressure to deliver the head. He was assisted by an ObGyn resident. The child was born with a brachial plexus injury, causing left-arm paralysis. She underwent surgery that increased her range of motion, but she will need years of physical therapy.

PATIENT’S CLAIM The ObGyn applied excessive traction and the resident improperly applied fundal pressure.

DEFENDANTS’ DEFENSE Only gentle traction was used. The resident did not apply fundal pressure.

VERDICT A New York jury found the ObGyn at fault and awarded the patient $3.5 million. The resident was vindicated.

Was premature baby viable?

AN EXPECTANT MOTHER MISCARRIED AT HOME at 6 months’ gestation, and an ambulance was called. After the EMTs helped the mother to the ambulance, they retrieved the fetus. When the baby was seen moving its head, the EMTs requested assistance from the advanced life support (ALS) team. ALS personnel visually assessed the fetus, determined it was nonviable, and placed the baby in a small container. The mother and baby arrived at the hospital 17 minutes after the ambulance was called.

At the hospital, a nurse noticed that the fetus was warm and had a heartbeat. The baby was taken to a special-care nursery for resuscitation and then transferred to another hospital’s NICU. The baby died after 46 days from severe brain damage due to lack of oxygen.

PARENTS’ CLAIM The EMTs and ALS team should have provided better evaluation and treatment for the infant; they were not trained to determine an infant’s viability. Placing the infant inside a plastic bag inside a box with a lid further deprived the baby of oxygen.

DEFENDANTS’ DEFENSE The case was settled before trial.

VERDICT A $1 million Massachusetts settlement was reached.

Were records altered because of a delayed diagnosis?

A WOMAN FOUND A LUMP in her left breast. A gynecologist ordered mammography. In January 2006, the radiologist requested ultrasonography (US), and reported that it conclusively indicated that the mass was a cyst. The gynecologist told the patient the tests were normal; further action was unnecessary. The patient saw the gynecologist four more times before being referred to a breast surgeon. In June 2006, she underwent surgical resection and chemotherapy for a malignant breast tumor.

PATIENT’S CLAIM The gynecologist was negligent for not referring the patient to a surgeon earlier. The gynecologist altered records: excerpts from the mammogram and US reports had been scanned in with a notation that the gynecologist had told the patient to follow up with a surgeon. When the gynecologist faxed the same reports to the surgeon, the annotations were absent. The gynecologist also changed the December 2005 chart, which referred to an US she never ordered.

PHYSICIAN’S DEFENSE The gynecologist stated that she regularly “merged” two reports into one document in her practice.

VERDICT A $700,000 Pennsylvania verdict was returned.

Excessive force or standard of care?

SHOULDER DYSTOCIA occurred during labor. The child sustained left brachial plexus palsy. At age 6, his left arm is paralyzed and smaller than the right arm. He has trouble performing normal daily tasks.

PATIENT’S CLAIM The ObGyn used excessive force by pulling on the baby’s head to complete the delivery. Standard of care required the ObGyn to take a more gentle approach to achieve delivery.

PHYSICIAN’S DEFENSE Delivery was performed appropriately, and did not deviate from standard of care.

VERDICT A $20.881 million Maryland verdict was returned, including $20 million for pain and suffering. The total award was reduced to $1,531,082 when the pain and suffering award was cut to $650,000 under the state’s statutory cap.

Preterm birth from an asymptomatic UTI?

A BABY WAS BORN AT 31 WEEKS’ gestation. The child has cerebral palsy, spastic quadriplegia, and requires assistance in all aspects of life.

PARENTS’ CLAIM Chorioamnionitis from a urinary tract infection (UTI) caused preterm birth. Urinalysis performed 7 weeks earlier indicated an infection, but the second-year resident caring for the mother failed to treat the UTI. The resident should have obtained a confirming urine culture, prescribed antibiotics, and monitored the mother more closely. The resident was poorly supervised.

DEFENDANTS’ DEFENSE Chorioamnionitis developed just before birth and could not be detected or prevented. A UTI cannot remain asymptomatic for 7 weeks and still cause premature birth. The mother was at increased risk of premature delivery because she had given birth to an anencephalic infant a year earlier. She began prenatal care in the middle of her pregnancy and ignored a referral to a high-risk maternal fetal specialist.

VERDICT A New York defense verdict was returned.

Infant’s brain damage blamed on delayed delivery

DURING DELIVERY, THE MOTHER’S PERINATOLOGIST recognized a severe shoulder dystocia. The perinatologist abandoned vaginal delivery and ordered an emergency cesarean delivery. The mother was transferred to an operating room (OR) with the baby’s head out between her legs. In the OR, the perinatologist pushed the baby’s head back into the uterus and performed a cesarean extraction. Nineteen minutes elapsed from when the vaginal delivery was abandoned and the baby was delivered.

The child was unresponsive at birth with no spontaneous movement or respiration. She was intubated and transferred to the NICU, where she was resuscitated. MRI confirmed that the child had hypoxic ischemia and severe, permanent brain damage from acute birth asphyxia. The child is blind, deaf, hypertensive, and has diffuse spasticity. She has a tracheostomy, a gastrostomy tube, and requires 24-hour care.

PARENTS’ CLAIM The perinatologist was negligent for abandoning vaginal delivery when delivery was progressing appropriately and there was no fetal distress. If the perinatologist had rotated the baby’s shoulder to the oblique position and/or used suprapubic pressure, the shoulder would have become disimpacted and the baby would have been safely delivered within seconds. Delay in delivery allowed for 19 minutes of umbilical cord compression, resulting in brain damage.

PHYSICIAN’S DEFENSE Cesarean delivery was appropriate; the baby did not suffer cord compression. Injury to the brain occurred days before delivery, based on prenatal ultrasonography.

VERDICT A $5.5 million California settlement was reached.

Failure to diagnose breast cancer: death

A 38-YEAR-OLD WOMAN went to her primary care physician (PCP) 3 years after giving birth. She reported breast pain, nipple discharge, and a dime-sized lump. The woman was still breastfeeding. An exam by the nurse practitioner (NP) was limited because the patient had breast implants. The NP suspected a galactocele and advised the patient to stop breastfeeding and apply ice packs. When the patient returned in 2 weeks, only the lump remained. The PCP determined that she had mastitis.

Five months later, she returned with additional lumps in both breasts, and was referred to a gynecologist. Ultrasonography (US) was ordered, but the patient never followed up. A year later, the patient was found to have metastatic breast cancer and died after 3 years of treatment.

ESTATE’S CLAIM The PCP and NP were negligent for not referring her for a breast biopsy when a lump was first detected.

DEFENDANTS’ DEFENSE Proper care was given. An earlier diagnosis would not have changed the outcome.

VERDICT A $750,000 Massachusetts settlement was reached.

What caused this child’s autism?

AFTER 33 HOURS OF LABOR, a baby was delivered vaginally by an ObGyn, nurse, and midwife. The child was diagnosed with autism several years later. His development is delayed, and he suffers cognitive impairment.

PARENTS’ CLAIM The child’s autism is due to a prolonged hypoxic event during labor. Fetal heart-rate monitoring demonstrated fetal distress, with a bradycardia. A cesarean delivery should have been performed.

PHYSICIAN’S DEFENSE The child has genetic autism unrelated to the birth process.

VERDICT A $1.35 million New York settlement was reached.

Was oxytocin the culprit?

DURING AN EXTENDED LABOR, the ObGyn continued to give the mother oxytocin, although there were signs of fetal distress. The child was born with brain damage, cannot walk, talk, or see, and requires 24-hour care.

PATIENT’S CLAIM The use of oxytocin was inappropriate given the signs of fetal distress. Oxytocin caused a lack of oxygen to the child, resulting in brain damage. A cesarean delivery should have been performed when fetal distress was identified.

DEFENDANTS’ DEFENSE The case was settled before trial.

VERDICT A $12 million Illinois settlement was reached: $11 million from the hospital and $1 million from the ObGyn.

Bowel perforation, sepsis after ovary removal

DURING LEFT OOPHORECTOMY, the ObGyn encountered adhesions. Five days later, the 41-year-old patient reported severe pain. A second procedure revealed sepsis and perforation of the large bowel. A colostomy was performed. The patient underwent additional corrective operations.

PATIENT’S CLAIM The ObGyn was negligent for causing tissue damage to the colon that perforated and escalated into sepsis. A surgeon should have been consulted when the ObGyn found the adhesions, so the bowel could be properly inspected before the abdomen was closed. The physician was also negligent for not recognizing symptoms of sepsis earlier.

PHYSICIAN’S DEFENSE Bowel injury is a known complication of oophorectomy. The patient appeared to be making a fairly good recovery until infection became evident; she was immediately treated.

VERDICT A $6.3 million New Jersey verdict was returned, including $300,000 for the husband’s loss of consortium.

Traumatic delivery causes seizures

DURING CESAREAN DELIVERY, the ObGyn rotated the baby from a transverse to a cephalic lie, and used a vacuum extractor to deliver the head through the hysterotomy incision.

When the child was 25 hours old, he suffered a seizure that lasted 6 minutes. Focal seizure activity involving the left side of his body and a skull fracture were identified. He was transferred to another hospital, where radiologic studies indicated a middle right cerebral artery infarct. The child developed an ongoing seizure disorder, speech and language delays, and mild, left-sided weakness.

PARENTS’ CLAIM The baby’s head was not properly delivered through the cesarean incision nor should the ObGyn have used vacuum extraction. The combination of the rotation and use of vacuum caused trauma to the infant’s head. In addition, the baby was placed in the well-baby nursery, which was inappropriate because he was born through thick meconium, resuscitated by a neonatal nurse, and had a depressed skull fracture.

PHYSICIAN’S DEFENSE Delivery was not traumatic; all treatment was appropriate.

VERDICT A $4.6 million New York settlement was reached with the hospital and ObGyn’s insurer.

Mother gets severe headache during birth

A 35-YEAR-OLD WOMAN began having a severe headache during delivery that continued after birth. She was discharged from the hospital and collapsed at home a day later. She was returned to the ED, where she was left in a hallway for 6 hours. She lost consciousness while in the hallway. Imaging and neurologic evaluation determined that she suffered a hypoxic brain injury from intracranial bleeding. She has slow response time, difficulty with all aspects of everyday life, and requires full-time attendant care.

PATIENT’S CLAIM Although she complained of a headache, no testing was done prior to her hospital discharge. Treatment was extremely delayed in the ED; an earlier diagnosis could have prevented brain damage.

PHYSICIAN’S DEFENSE Nothing could have prevented the brain damage.

VERDICT A $3.5 million California settlement was mediated.

Shoulder dystocia; brachial plexus injury

WHEN SHOULDER DYSTOCIA was encountered during delivery, the ObGyn applied gentle pressure to deliver the head. He was assisted by an ObGyn resident. The child was born with a brachial plexus injury, causing left-arm paralysis. She underwent surgery that increased her range of motion, but she will need years of physical therapy.

PATIENT’S CLAIM The ObGyn applied excessive traction and the resident improperly applied fundal pressure.

DEFENDANTS’ DEFENSE Only gentle traction was used. The resident did not apply fundal pressure.

VERDICT A New York jury found the ObGyn at fault and awarded the patient $3.5 million. The resident was vindicated.

Was premature baby viable?

AN EXPECTANT MOTHER MISCARRIED AT HOME at 6 months’ gestation, and an ambulance was called. After the EMTs helped the mother to the ambulance, they retrieved the fetus. When the baby was seen moving its head, the EMTs requested assistance from the advanced life support (ALS) team. ALS personnel visually assessed the fetus, determined it was nonviable, and placed the baby in a small container. The mother and baby arrived at the hospital 17 minutes after the ambulance was called.

At the hospital, a nurse noticed that the fetus was warm and had a heartbeat. The baby was taken to a special-care nursery for resuscitation and then transferred to another hospital’s NICU. The baby died after 46 days from severe brain damage due to lack of oxygen.

PARENTS’ CLAIM The EMTs and ALS team should have provided better evaluation and treatment for the infant; they were not trained to determine an infant’s viability. Placing the infant inside a plastic bag inside a box with a lid further deprived the baby of oxygen.

DEFENDANTS’ DEFENSE The case was settled before trial.

VERDICT A $1 million Massachusetts settlement was reached.

Were records altered because of a delayed diagnosis?

A WOMAN FOUND A LUMP in her left breast. A gynecologist ordered mammography. In January 2006, the radiologist requested ultrasonography (US), and reported that it conclusively indicated that the mass was a cyst. The gynecologist told the patient the tests were normal; further action was unnecessary. The patient saw the gynecologist four more times before being referred to a breast surgeon. In June 2006, she underwent surgical resection and chemotherapy for a malignant breast tumor.

PATIENT’S CLAIM The gynecologist was negligent for not referring the patient to a surgeon earlier. The gynecologist altered records: excerpts from the mammogram and US reports had been scanned in with a notation that the gynecologist had told the patient to follow up with a surgeon. When the gynecologist faxed the same reports to the surgeon, the annotations were absent. The gynecologist also changed the December 2005 chart, which referred to an US she never ordered.

PHYSICIAN’S DEFENSE The gynecologist stated that she regularly “merged” two reports into one document in her practice.

VERDICT A $700,000 Pennsylvania verdict was returned.

Excessive force or standard of care?

SHOULDER DYSTOCIA occurred during labor. The child sustained left brachial plexus palsy. At age 6, his left arm is paralyzed and smaller than the right arm. He has trouble performing normal daily tasks.

PATIENT’S CLAIM The ObGyn used excessive force by pulling on the baby’s head to complete the delivery. Standard of care required the ObGyn to take a more gentle approach to achieve delivery.

PHYSICIAN’S DEFENSE Delivery was performed appropriately, and did not deviate from standard of care.

VERDICT A $20.881 million Maryland verdict was returned, including $20 million for pain and suffering. The total award was reduced to $1,531,082 when the pain and suffering award was cut to $650,000 under the state’s statutory cap.

Preterm birth from an asymptomatic UTI?

A BABY WAS BORN AT 31 WEEKS’ gestation. The child has cerebral palsy, spastic quadriplegia, and requires assistance in all aspects of life.

PARENTS’ CLAIM Chorioamnionitis from a urinary tract infection (UTI) caused preterm birth. Urinalysis performed 7 weeks earlier indicated an infection, but the second-year resident caring for the mother failed to treat the UTI. The resident should have obtained a confirming urine culture, prescribed antibiotics, and monitored the mother more closely. The resident was poorly supervised.

DEFENDANTS’ DEFENSE Chorioamnionitis developed just before birth and could not be detected or prevented. A UTI cannot remain asymptomatic for 7 weeks and still cause premature birth. The mother was at increased risk of premature delivery because she had given birth to an anencephalic infant a year earlier. She began prenatal care in the middle of her pregnancy and ignored a referral to a high-risk maternal fetal specialist.

VERDICT A New York defense verdict was returned.

Infant’s brain damage blamed on delayed delivery

DURING DELIVERY, THE MOTHER’S PERINATOLOGIST recognized a severe shoulder dystocia. The perinatologist abandoned vaginal delivery and ordered an emergency cesarean delivery. The mother was transferred to an operating room (OR) with the baby’s head out between her legs. In the OR, the perinatologist pushed the baby’s head back into the uterus and performed a cesarean extraction. Nineteen minutes elapsed from when the vaginal delivery was abandoned and the baby was delivered.

The child was unresponsive at birth with no spontaneous movement or respiration. She was intubated and transferred to the NICU, where she was resuscitated. MRI confirmed that the child had hypoxic ischemia and severe, permanent brain damage from acute birth asphyxia. The child is blind, deaf, hypertensive, and has diffuse spasticity. She has a tracheostomy, a gastrostomy tube, and requires 24-hour care.

PARENTS’ CLAIM The perinatologist was negligent for abandoning vaginal delivery when delivery was progressing appropriately and there was no fetal distress. If the perinatologist had rotated the baby’s shoulder to the oblique position and/or used suprapubic pressure, the shoulder would have become disimpacted and the baby would have been safely delivered within seconds. Delay in delivery allowed for 19 minutes of umbilical cord compression, resulting in brain damage.

PHYSICIAN’S DEFENSE Cesarean delivery was appropriate; the baby did not suffer cord compression. Injury to the brain occurred days before delivery, based on prenatal ultrasonography.

VERDICT A $5.5 million California settlement was reached.

Failure to diagnose breast cancer: death

A 38-YEAR-OLD WOMAN went to her primary care physician (PCP) 3 years after giving birth. She reported breast pain, nipple discharge, and a dime-sized lump. The woman was still breastfeeding. An exam by the nurse practitioner (NP) was limited because the patient had breast implants. The NP suspected a galactocele and advised the patient to stop breastfeeding and apply ice packs. When the patient returned in 2 weeks, only the lump remained. The PCP determined that she had mastitis.

Five months later, she returned with additional lumps in both breasts, and was referred to a gynecologist. Ultrasonography (US) was ordered, but the patient never followed up. A year later, the patient was found to have metastatic breast cancer and died after 3 years of treatment.

ESTATE’S CLAIM The PCP and NP were negligent for not referring her for a breast biopsy when a lump was first detected.

DEFENDANTS’ DEFENSE Proper care was given. An earlier diagnosis would not have changed the outcome.

VERDICT A $750,000 Massachusetts settlement was reached.

What caused this child’s autism?

AFTER 33 HOURS OF LABOR, a baby was delivered vaginally by an ObGyn, nurse, and midwife. The child was diagnosed with autism several years later. His development is delayed, and he suffers cognitive impairment.

PARENTS’ CLAIM The child’s autism is due to a prolonged hypoxic event during labor. Fetal heart-rate monitoring demonstrated fetal distress, with a bradycardia. A cesarean delivery should have been performed.

PHYSICIAN’S DEFENSE The child has genetic autism unrelated to the birth process.

VERDICT A $1.35 million New York settlement was reached.

Was oxytocin the culprit?

DURING AN EXTENDED LABOR, the ObGyn continued to give the mother oxytocin, although there were signs of fetal distress. The child was born with brain damage, cannot walk, talk, or see, and requires 24-hour care.

PATIENT’S CLAIM The use of oxytocin was inappropriate given the signs of fetal distress. Oxytocin caused a lack of oxygen to the child, resulting in brain damage. A cesarean delivery should have been performed when fetal distress was identified.

DEFENDANTS’ DEFENSE The case was settled before trial.

VERDICT A $12 million Illinois settlement was reached: $11 million from the hospital and $1 million from the ObGyn.

Bowel perforation, sepsis after ovary removal

DURING LEFT OOPHORECTOMY, the ObGyn encountered adhesions. Five days later, the 41-year-old patient reported severe pain. A second procedure revealed sepsis and perforation of the large bowel. A colostomy was performed. The patient underwent additional corrective operations.

PATIENT’S CLAIM The ObGyn was negligent for causing tissue damage to the colon that perforated and escalated into sepsis. A surgeon should have been consulted when the ObGyn found the adhesions, so the bowel could be properly inspected before the abdomen was closed. The physician was also negligent for not recognizing symptoms of sepsis earlier.

PHYSICIAN’S DEFENSE Bowel injury is a known complication of oophorectomy. The patient appeared to be making a fairly good recovery until infection became evident; she was immediately treated.

VERDICT A $6.3 million New Jersey verdict was returned, including $300,000 for the husband’s loss of consortium.

Traumatic delivery causes seizures

DURING CESAREAN DELIVERY, the ObGyn rotated the baby from a transverse to a cephalic lie, and used a vacuum extractor to deliver the head through the hysterotomy incision.

When the child was 25 hours old, he suffered a seizure that lasted 6 minutes. Focal seizure activity involving the left side of his body and a skull fracture were identified. He was transferred to another hospital, where radiologic studies indicated a middle right cerebral artery infarct. The child developed an ongoing seizure disorder, speech and language delays, and mild, left-sided weakness.

PARENTS’ CLAIM The baby’s head was not properly delivered through the cesarean incision nor should the ObGyn have used vacuum extraction. The combination of the rotation and use of vacuum caused trauma to the infant’s head. In addition, the baby was placed in the well-baby nursery, which was inappropriate because he was born through thick meconium, resuscitated by a neonatal nurse, and had a depressed skull fracture.

PHYSICIAN’S DEFENSE Delivery was not traumatic; all treatment was appropriate.

VERDICT A $4.6 million New York settlement was reached with the hospital and ObGyn’s insurer.

Mother gets severe headache during birth

A 35-YEAR-OLD WOMAN began having a severe headache during delivery that continued after birth. She was discharged from the hospital and collapsed at home a day later. She was returned to the ED, where she was left in a hallway for 6 hours. She lost consciousness while in the hallway. Imaging and neurologic evaluation determined that she suffered a hypoxic brain injury from intracranial bleeding. She has slow response time, difficulty with all aspects of everyday life, and requires full-time attendant care.

PATIENT’S CLAIM Although she complained of a headache, no testing was done prior to her hospital discharge. Treatment was extremely delayed in the ED; an earlier diagnosis could have prevented brain damage.

PHYSICIAN’S DEFENSE Nothing could have prevented the brain damage.

VERDICT A $3.5 million California settlement was mediated.

Shoulder dystocia; brachial plexus injury

WHEN SHOULDER DYSTOCIA was encountered during delivery, the ObGyn applied gentle pressure to deliver the head. He was assisted by an ObGyn resident. The child was born with a brachial plexus injury, causing left-arm paralysis. She underwent surgery that increased her range of motion, but she will need years of physical therapy.

PATIENT’S CLAIM The ObGyn applied excessive traction and the resident improperly applied fundal pressure.

DEFENDANTS’ DEFENSE Only gentle traction was used. The resident did not apply fundal pressure.

VERDICT A New York jury found the ObGyn at fault and awarded the patient $3.5 million. The resident was vindicated.

Was premature baby viable?

AN EXPECTANT MOTHER MISCARRIED AT HOME at 6 months’ gestation, and an ambulance was called. After the EMTs helped the mother to the ambulance, they retrieved the fetus. When the baby was seen moving its head, the EMTs requested assistance from the advanced life support (ALS) team. ALS personnel visually assessed the fetus, determined it was nonviable, and placed the baby in a small container. The mother and baby arrived at the hospital 17 minutes after the ambulance was called.

At the hospital, a nurse noticed that the fetus was warm and had a heartbeat. The baby was taken to a special-care nursery for resuscitation and then transferred to another hospital’s NICU. The baby died after 46 days from severe brain damage due to lack of oxygen.

PARENTS’ CLAIM The EMTs and ALS team should have provided better evaluation and treatment for the infant; they were not trained to determine an infant’s viability. Placing the infant inside a plastic bag inside a box with a lid further deprived the baby of oxygen.

DEFENDANTS’ DEFENSE The case was settled before trial.

VERDICT A $1 million Massachusetts settlement was reached.

Were records altered because of a delayed diagnosis?

A WOMAN FOUND A LUMP in her left breast. A gynecologist ordered mammography. In January 2006, the radiologist requested ultrasonography (US), and reported that it conclusively indicated that the mass was a cyst. The gynecologist told the patient the tests were normal; further action was unnecessary. The patient saw the gynecologist four more times before being referred to a breast surgeon. In June 2006, she underwent surgical resection and chemotherapy for a malignant breast tumor.

PATIENT’S CLAIM The gynecologist was negligent for not referring the patient to a surgeon earlier. The gynecologist altered records: excerpts from the mammogram and US reports had been scanned in with a notation that the gynecologist had told the patient to follow up with a surgeon. When the gynecologist faxed the same reports to the surgeon, the annotations were absent. The gynecologist also changed the December 2005 chart, which referred to an US she never ordered.

PHYSICIAN’S DEFENSE The gynecologist stated that she regularly “merged” two reports into one document in her practice.

VERDICT A $700,000 Pennsylvania verdict was returned.

Excessive force or standard of care?

SHOULDER DYSTOCIA occurred during labor. The child sustained left brachial plexus palsy. At age 6, his left arm is paralyzed and smaller than the right arm. He has trouble performing normal daily tasks.

PATIENT’S CLAIM The ObGyn used excessive force by pulling on the baby’s head to complete the delivery. Standard of care required the ObGyn to take a more gentle approach to achieve delivery.

PHYSICIAN’S DEFENSE Delivery was performed appropriately, and did not deviate from standard of care.

VERDICT A $20.881 million Maryland verdict was returned, including $20 million for pain and suffering. The total award was reduced to $1,531,082 when the pain and suffering award was cut to $650,000 under the state’s statutory cap.

Preterm birth from an asymptomatic UTI?

A BABY WAS BORN AT 31 WEEKS’ gestation. The child has cerebral palsy, spastic quadriplegia, and requires assistance in all aspects of life.

PARENTS’ CLAIM Chorioamnionitis from a urinary tract infection (UTI) caused preterm birth. Urinalysis performed 7 weeks earlier indicated an infection, but the second-year resident caring for the mother failed to treat the UTI. The resident should have obtained a confirming urine culture, prescribed antibiotics, and monitored the mother more closely. The resident was poorly supervised.

DEFENDANTS’ DEFENSE Chorioamnionitis developed just before birth and could not be detected or prevented. A UTI cannot remain asymptomatic for 7 weeks and still cause premature birth. The mother was at increased risk of premature delivery because she had given birth to an anencephalic infant a year earlier. She began prenatal care in the middle of her pregnancy and ignored a referral to a high-risk maternal fetal specialist.

VERDICT A New York defense verdict was returned.

Click here to listen to Dr. Angus

Click here to listen to Dr. Angus

Click here to listen to Dr. Angus

Bringing a neurohospitalist service into an academic medical center can reduce neurological patients' length of stay (LOS) at the facility, according to a study in Neurology.

The retrospective cohort study, "Effect of a Neurohospitalist Service on Outcomes at an Academic Medical Center," found that the mean LOS dropped to 4.6 days while the neurohospitalist service was in place, compared with 6.3 days during the pre-neurohospitalist period. However, adding the service didn't significantly reduce the median cost of care delivery ($6,758 vs. $7,241; P=0.25) or in-hospital mortality rate (1.6% vs. 1.2%; P=0.61), the study noted.

Lead author Vanja Douglas, MD, health sciences assistant clinical professor in the department of neurology at the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF) School of Medicine, says the study's impact is limited by its single-center universe of data. The study was conducted at a UCSF Medical Center in October 2006, but Dr. Douglas hopes similar studies at other academic or community centers will replicate the findings.

"If the current model people have in place is not necessarily focused on outcomes like LOS and cost, then making a change to a neurohospitalist model is likely to positively affect those outcomes," says Dr. Douglas, editor in chief of The Neurohospitalist.

Investigators tracked administrative data starting 21 months before UCSF added a neurohospitalist service and 27 months after. The service was comprised of one neurohospitalist focused solely on inpatients, which allowed other staff neurologists to focus on consultative cases throughout the hospital. Dr. Douglas says as HM groups look to improve their scope of practice and bottom line, studies such as his can lay the groundwork to make the investment.

"A lot of the groups that contract with hospitals are interested in partnering with subspecialty hospitalists," Dr. Douglas adds. "A neurohospitalist model has the potential to work, and the potential to improve outcomes."

Bringing a neurohospitalist service into an academic medical center can reduce neurological patients' length of stay (LOS) at the facility, according to a study in Neurology.

The retrospective cohort study, "Effect of a Neurohospitalist Service on Outcomes at an Academic Medical Center," found that the mean LOS dropped to 4.6 days while the neurohospitalist service was in place, compared with 6.3 days during the pre-neurohospitalist period. However, adding the service didn't significantly reduce the median cost of care delivery ($6,758 vs. $7,241; P=0.25) or in-hospital mortality rate (1.6% vs. 1.2%; P=0.61), the study noted.

Lead author Vanja Douglas, MD, health sciences assistant clinical professor in the department of neurology at the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF) School of Medicine, says the study's impact is limited by its single-center universe of data. The study was conducted at a UCSF Medical Center in October 2006, but Dr. Douglas hopes similar studies at other academic or community centers will replicate the findings.

"If the current model people have in place is not necessarily focused on outcomes like LOS and cost, then making a change to a neurohospitalist model is likely to positively affect those outcomes," says Dr. Douglas, editor in chief of The Neurohospitalist.

Investigators tracked administrative data starting 21 months before UCSF added a neurohospitalist service and 27 months after. The service was comprised of one neurohospitalist focused solely on inpatients, which allowed other staff neurologists to focus on consultative cases throughout the hospital. Dr. Douglas says as HM groups look to improve their scope of practice and bottom line, studies such as his can lay the groundwork to make the investment.

"A lot of the groups that contract with hospitals are interested in partnering with subspecialty hospitalists," Dr. Douglas adds. "A neurohospitalist model has the potential to work, and the potential to improve outcomes."

Bringing a neurohospitalist service into an academic medical center can reduce neurological patients' length of stay (LOS) at the facility, according to a study in Neurology.

The retrospective cohort study, "Effect of a Neurohospitalist Service on Outcomes at an Academic Medical Center," found that the mean LOS dropped to 4.6 days while the neurohospitalist service was in place, compared with 6.3 days during the pre-neurohospitalist period. However, adding the service didn't significantly reduce the median cost of care delivery ($6,758 vs. $7,241; P=0.25) or in-hospital mortality rate (1.6% vs. 1.2%; P=0.61), the study noted.

Lead author Vanja Douglas, MD, health sciences assistant clinical professor in the department of neurology at the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF) School of Medicine, says the study's impact is limited by its single-center universe of data. The study was conducted at a UCSF Medical Center in October 2006, but Dr. Douglas hopes similar studies at other academic or community centers will replicate the findings.

"If the current model people have in place is not necessarily focused on outcomes like LOS and cost, then making a change to a neurohospitalist model is likely to positively affect those outcomes," says Dr. Douglas, editor in chief of The Neurohospitalist.

Investigators tracked administrative data starting 21 months before UCSF added a neurohospitalist service and 27 months after. The service was comprised of one neurohospitalist focused solely on inpatients, which allowed other staff neurologists to focus on consultative cases throughout the hospital. Dr. Douglas says as HM groups look to improve their scope of practice and bottom line, studies such as his can lay the groundwork to make the investment.

"A lot of the groups that contract with hospitals are interested in partnering with subspecialty hospitalists," Dr. Douglas adds. "A neurohospitalist model has the potential to work, and the potential to improve outcomes."

Did you notice that your practice was slower than normal last February? In fact, if you plot your patient census over a few years, you will probably discover that it dips every February. And you will discover other slow periods, like December, and busy months during other parts of the year.

Seasonal fluctuations are a reality in every business, including private medical practices. Why are people more or less willing to spend money at certain times of the year? Analysts usually blame slow business during January and February on reluctance to buy products or services after the holiday season. They attribute summer peaks to everything from warm weather to an increased propensity to buy when students are on vacation. It is not always easy – or necessary – to explain seasonality. The point is that such behavior patterns do exist.

It would seem that this behavior would be easy to change through advertising or by sending out an e-mail blast, but, unfortunately, altering a seasonal pattern is not an option for a small private practice. It can be done, but it is a deep-pockets game requiring long, expensive campaigns that are only practical for a large, nationwide corporation.

Take soup, for example. For many years, canned soup was purchased and consumed almost exclusively during the winter months because it was universally perceived as a cold-weather product. After years of pervasive advertising extolling its nutritional virtues (remember Campbell’s slogan "Soup is good food"?), the soup industry succeeded in convincing the public to buy their product year round. Obviously, that kind of large-scale behavior modification is not practical for a local medical practice.

Does that mean that there is nothing we can do about our practices’ seasonal variations? Not at all, but we must work within the realities of our patients’ seasonal behavior, rather than attempting to change that behavior outright.

Plotting seasonality is easy: You can make a graph using Microsoft Excel in a few minutes. Ask your office manager or accountant for month-by-month billing figures for the last 2-3 years. (Make sure it’s the amount billed, not collected, since the latter lags the former by several weeks at least.) Plot those figures on the vertical arm and time (in months) on the horizontal. Alternatively, you can plot patient visits per month. I do both.

Once you know your seasonality, review your options, which could mean modifying your own habits when necessary. If you typically take a vacation in August, for example, you many want to reconsider if August is one of your busiest months. Consider vacationing during predictable slow periods instead.

Although I have said that you can’t change most seasonal behavior, it is possible to "retrain" some of your long-time, loyal patients to come in during slower periods for at least some of their care. Use insurance company rules as a financial incentive, where possible. Many of my patients are on Medicare, so I send a notice to all of them in early November, encouraging them to come in during December (one of my light months) before their deductible has to be paid again.

If you advertise your services, do the bulk of it during your busiest months. That might seem counterintuitive: Why not advertise during slow periods to fill the empty slots? Because you cannot change seasonal behavior with a low-budget, local advertising campaign; physicians who attempt it invariably get a poor response. Advertise during your busy periods, when seasonal patterns predict that potential patients are more willing to spend money and are more likely to respond to your message.

Then, try to flatten your seasonal dips by persuading as many existing patients as possible to return during slower seasons. You can then encourage new patients to make appointments when they are receptive to purchasing new services, which would be the seasonal peaks. Once in your practice, some of them can then be shifted into slower periods, especially for predictable, periodic care.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. To respond to this column, e-mail Dr. Eastern at our editorial offices at [email protected].

Did you notice that your practice was slower than normal last February? In fact, if you plot your patient census over a few years, you will probably discover that it dips every February. And you will discover other slow periods, like December, and busy months during other parts of the year.

Seasonal fluctuations are a reality in every business, including private medical practices. Why are people more or less willing to spend money at certain times of the year? Analysts usually blame slow business during January and February on reluctance to buy products or services after the holiday season. They attribute summer peaks to everything from warm weather to an increased propensity to buy when students are on vacation. It is not always easy – or necessary – to explain seasonality. The point is that such behavior patterns do exist.

It would seem that this behavior would be easy to change through advertising or by sending out an e-mail blast, but, unfortunately, altering a seasonal pattern is not an option for a small private practice. It can be done, but it is a deep-pockets game requiring long, expensive campaigns that are only practical for a large, nationwide corporation.

Take soup, for example. For many years, canned soup was purchased and consumed almost exclusively during the winter months because it was universally perceived as a cold-weather product. After years of pervasive advertising extolling its nutritional virtues (remember Campbell’s slogan "Soup is good food"?), the soup industry succeeded in convincing the public to buy their product year round. Obviously, that kind of large-scale behavior modification is not practical for a local medical practice.

Does that mean that there is nothing we can do about our practices’ seasonal variations? Not at all, but we must work within the realities of our patients’ seasonal behavior, rather than attempting to change that behavior outright.

Plotting seasonality is easy: You can make a graph using Microsoft Excel in a few minutes. Ask your office manager or accountant for month-by-month billing figures for the last 2-3 years. (Make sure it’s the amount billed, not collected, since the latter lags the former by several weeks at least.) Plot those figures on the vertical arm and time (in months) on the horizontal. Alternatively, you can plot patient visits per month. I do both.

Once you know your seasonality, review your options, which could mean modifying your own habits when necessary. If you typically take a vacation in August, for example, you many want to reconsider if August is one of your busiest months. Consider vacationing during predictable slow periods instead.

Although I have said that you can’t change most seasonal behavior, it is possible to "retrain" some of your long-time, loyal patients to come in during slower periods for at least some of their care. Use insurance company rules as a financial incentive, where possible. Many of my patients are on Medicare, so I send a notice to all of them in early November, encouraging them to come in during December (one of my light months) before their deductible has to be paid again.

If you advertise your services, do the bulk of it during your busiest months. That might seem counterintuitive: Why not advertise during slow periods to fill the empty slots? Because you cannot change seasonal behavior with a low-budget, local advertising campaign; physicians who attempt it invariably get a poor response. Advertise during your busy periods, when seasonal patterns predict that potential patients are more willing to spend money and are more likely to respond to your message.

Then, try to flatten your seasonal dips by persuading as many existing patients as possible to return during slower seasons. You can then encourage new patients to make appointments when they are receptive to purchasing new services, which would be the seasonal peaks. Once in your practice, some of them can then be shifted into slower periods, especially for predictable, periodic care.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. To respond to this column, e-mail Dr. Eastern at our editorial offices at [email protected].

Did you notice that your practice was slower than normal last February? In fact, if you plot your patient census over a few years, you will probably discover that it dips every February. And you will discover other slow periods, like December, and busy months during other parts of the year.

Seasonal fluctuations are a reality in every business, including private medical practices. Why are people more or less willing to spend money at certain times of the year? Analysts usually blame slow business during January and February on reluctance to buy products or services after the holiday season. They attribute summer peaks to everything from warm weather to an increased propensity to buy when students are on vacation. It is not always easy – or necessary – to explain seasonality. The point is that such behavior patterns do exist.

It would seem that this behavior would be easy to change through advertising or by sending out an e-mail blast, but, unfortunately, altering a seasonal pattern is not an option for a small private practice. It can be done, but it is a deep-pockets game requiring long, expensive campaigns that are only practical for a large, nationwide corporation.

Take soup, for example. For many years, canned soup was purchased and consumed almost exclusively during the winter months because it was universally perceived as a cold-weather product. After years of pervasive advertising extolling its nutritional virtues (remember Campbell’s slogan "Soup is good food"?), the soup industry succeeded in convincing the public to buy their product year round. Obviously, that kind of large-scale behavior modification is not practical for a local medical practice.

Does that mean that there is nothing we can do about our practices’ seasonal variations? Not at all, but we must work within the realities of our patients’ seasonal behavior, rather than attempting to change that behavior outright.

Plotting seasonality is easy: You can make a graph using Microsoft Excel in a few minutes. Ask your office manager or accountant for month-by-month billing figures for the last 2-3 years. (Make sure it’s the amount billed, not collected, since the latter lags the former by several weeks at least.) Plot those figures on the vertical arm and time (in months) on the horizontal. Alternatively, you can plot patient visits per month. I do both.

Once you know your seasonality, review your options, which could mean modifying your own habits when necessary. If you typically take a vacation in August, for example, you many want to reconsider if August is one of your busiest months. Consider vacationing during predictable slow periods instead.

Although I have said that you can’t change most seasonal behavior, it is possible to "retrain" some of your long-time, loyal patients to come in during slower periods for at least some of their care. Use insurance company rules as a financial incentive, where possible. Many of my patients are on Medicare, so I send a notice to all of them in early November, encouraging them to come in during December (one of my light months) before their deductible has to be paid again.

If you advertise your services, do the bulk of it during your busiest months. That might seem counterintuitive: Why not advertise during slow periods to fill the empty slots? Because you cannot change seasonal behavior with a low-budget, local advertising campaign; physicians who attempt it invariably get a poor response. Advertise during your busy periods, when seasonal patterns predict that potential patients are more willing to spend money and are more likely to respond to your message.

Then, try to flatten your seasonal dips by persuading as many existing patients as possible to return during slower seasons. You can then encourage new patients to make appointments when they are receptive to purchasing new services, which would be the seasonal peaks. Once in your practice, some of them can then be shifted into slower periods, especially for predictable, periodic care.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. To respond to this column, e-mail Dr. Eastern at our editorial offices at [email protected].

The long-simmering debate over whether and how hospitalists might help solve the worsening shortage of critical-care physicians is beginning to boil over.

In June, SHM and the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) issued a joint position paper proposing an expedited, one-year, critical-care fellowship for hospitalists with at least three years of clinical job experience, in lieu of the two-year fellowship now required for board certification.¹

“Bringing qualified hospitalists into the critical-care workforce through rigorous sanctioned and accredited one-year training programs,” the paper asserted, “will open a new intensivist training pipeline and potentially offer more critically ill patients the benefits of providers who are unequivocally qualified to care for them.”

The backlash was swift and sharp. In a strongly worded editorial response published in July, the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) and the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses (AACN) declared that one year of fellowship training is inadequate for HM physicians to achieve competence in critical-care medicine.² “No, the perfect should not be the enemy of the good in our efforts to craft solutions,” the editorial stated. “But the current imperfect SCCM/SHM proposal is an enemy of the existing good training processes already in place.”

HM leaders counter that the current strategies for bolstering the ranks of board-certified intensivists simply aren’t working, and that creative, outside-the-box thinking is required to solve the dilemma.

Dr. Siegal

“Hospitalists are rapidly becoming a dominant, if not the dominant, block of physicians who are providing critical care in the United States. You can decide, if you want, whether that’s good or bad, but that’s the reality,” says Eric Siegal, MD, SFHM, lead author of the SHM/SCCM position paper, director of critical-care medicine at Aurora St. Luke’s Medical Center in Milwaukee, and an SHM board member. Given the escalating shortage of intensivists, he says, he believes that concerned stakeholders can either try to help develop the skills and knowledge of those hospitalists already in the ICU or “hope that a whole bunch of hospitalists suddenly decide to abandon their practices and complete two-year medical

critical-care fellowships.”

Intensivist leaders say that less training will do nothing to improve patient outcomes. “The reality is that hospitalists are doing it. The question should be, ‘Are they doing it well or at the detriment of the patient?’” asks Michael Baumann, MD, MS, FCCP, professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary, critical-care, and sleep medicine at the University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson. “The patient is the one who loses if we have somebody pinch-hitting, which is really what we’re talking about here,” adds Dr. Baumann, lead author of the ACCP/AACN editorial.

Staffing Shortfall

Despite the heated rhetoric, interviews with leaders on both sides suggest an eagerness to move forward in trying to collectively solve a problem that has vexed the entire medical community.

In 2000, the Leapfrog Group, a Washington, D.C.-based consortium of major healthcare purchasers focused on improving the safety, quality, and value of care, recommended that all ICUs should be staffed with physicians certified in critical-care medicine.³ As part of its rationale, the group cited research suggesting that greater intensivist use can yield better patient outcomes.

But a seminal study published the same year hinted at just how difficult meeting Leapfrog’s ambitious goal might be. Based on the trajectory of supply and demand, the authors forecast a 22% shortfall in intensivist hours by 2020, and a 35% shortfall by 2030, mainly due to a surge in demand from an aging U.S. population.⁴ A follow-up report in 2006 estimated that 53% of the nation’s ICU units had no intensivist coverage at all, and that only 4% of adult ICUs were meeting the full Leapfrog standards of high-intensity ICU staffing, dedicated attending physician coverage during the day, and dedicated coverage by any physician at night.⁵

No one in their right mind will say one year [of fellowship training] is as good as two years. That would be folly. On the other hand, that’s not the question. The question is, “Can we structure training that is competency-focused, so that the majority of people who enter the training will achieve the necessary levels of competency within a year?”

—Timothy Buchman, PhD, MD, director, Emory University Center for Critical Care, Atlanta

Given the recent push for more outpatient treatment of less-critically-ill patients, many observers say the increased acuity of hospitalized patients—with more comorbidities—only exacerbates the mismatch between supply and demand. Making matters worse, providers are not evenly distributed throughout the country, with many smaller and rural hospitals already facing an acute shortage of intensivist services.

As a result, many hospitalists have been forced to step into the breach. According to SHM’s 2012 State of Hospital Medicine survey, 83.5% of responding nonacademic adult medicine groups said they routinely provide care for patients in an ICU setting, along with 27.9% of academic HM groups.

“So we have hospitalists who, either by choice or by default, care for patients who they may or may not be fully qualified to manage,” Dr. Siegal says. Practically speaking, he and his coauthors assert, the question of whether hospitalists should be in the ICU is now moot. The real question is how to ensure that those providers can deliver safe and effective care.

Experience vs. Training

Currently, internists who have completed fellowships in such specialties as pulmonary medicine, nephrology, and infectious disease can complete a one-year critical-care fellowship to obtain board certification. Experienced hospitalists have questioned the requirement that they instead complete a two-year fellowship, with no consideration given to the relevant clinical experience and maturity gained after years of hospitalist practice. In addition, they argue, it is logistically and financially unrealistic to expect a large cadre of experienced hospitalists to abandon their practices for two years to pursue critical-care training.

But Dr. Baumann says subpar internal-medicine residency requirements deserve much of the blame for offering inadequate training. “Critical care is a blend of critical thinking skills and procedural skills. Both of those are diminished tremendously in the current programs for internal medicine,” he says. “It’s really an indictment of our current training of internal-medicine residents now.”

SCCM, for its part, is sticking to its guns, albeit more quietly. When asked for comment, a spokesman issued a carefully worded statement that reads, “The paper reflects the society’s concerns regarding workforce shortages and the realities of today’s environment.”

The SHM/SCCM proposal makes sense provided that hospitalists are realistic about the types of patients they’ll see, says Timothy Buchman, PhD, MD, director of Emory University’s Center for Critical Care in Atlanta. “No one in their right mind will say one year is as good as two years. That would be folly,” he says. “On the other hand, that’s not the question. The question is, ‘Can we structure training that is competency-focused, so that the majority of people who enter the training will achieve the necessary levels of competency within a year?’”

Derek Angus, MD, chair of critical-care medicine at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and lead author of the 2000 study chronicling the intensivist shortfall, is more ambivalent. “Hospitalists and intensivists have to work hand in hand. In many ways, they are the two groups that run inpatient hospital medicine,” he says. In that respect, sorting out and streamlining training pathways might be a good idea.

“On the other hand, all of intensive-care training in the United States is a little thin in comparison to what goes on in many other countries,” Dr. Angus adds. “If anything, I would like to be seeing more vigorous training. So creating one more pathway that helps reinforce pretty light training feels like accreditation, in general, may be moving slightly in the wrong direction.”

Dr. Buchman and other observers view the debate as a difference in opinion among well-meaning people who are passionate about patient care. And they concede that no one knows yet who may be right.

“We do know that advanced training is required. We do know that it should be competency-focused,” Dr. Buchman says. “But what we don’t know is how long it’s really going to take to get to the competency levels that we believe are necessary to care for the patients.”

That point may provide one important opening for further discussions. Dr. Baumann agrees that the real issues are how to define critical-care competencies, how to measure them, and how to ensure that trainees prove their mettle as competent providers. “It really shouldn’t be time-based; it should be outcome-based,” he says.

The SHM/SCCM proposal, Dr. Siegal says, should be viewed as a conversation-starter. The true test will be whether everyone can reach an agreement on how to evaluate whether an ICU caregiver has attained the necessary knowledge, skills, and attitudes—and how relevant professional experience should factor into discussions over the length of training required for intensivist certification.

A Tiered Solution

The concept of tiered ICU care—already used in neonatal ICUs—might offer another opening for productive debate. “Can patients who are not that critically ill be managed by someone who hasn’t done that much critical-care training?” Dr. Angus asks. He believes it’s possible, provided patients are properly sorted and that hospitalists aren’t put in the uncomfortable position of managing medical conditions that they see only rarely. He has no problem, though, envisioning a tiered system in which fully trained intensivists spend most of their time managing the sickest patients, while other providers—including hospitalists—care for patients at intermediate risk.

Hospitalists have greeted the idea cautiously, noting that a two-tiered model might be difficult to define and standardize, and that it could present logistical challenges around transferring patients. However, Daniel D. Dressler, MD, MSc, SFHM, FACP, associate professor of internal medicine at Emory University School of Medicine and coauthor of the SHM/SCCM position paper, led a recent study that offers at least some support for a risk-based system.⁶

Overall, the study found no statistically significant difference in the length of stay or inpatient mortality rates for ICU patients cared for by hospitalist-led or intensivist-led teams. Among mechanically ventilated patients with intermediate illness severity, though, the study suggested that intensivist-led care resulted in a lower length of stay in both the hospital and ICU, as well as in a trend toward reduced inpatient mortality. “There may be some value in designing or developing a stratification system,” Dr. Dressler says, “but it definitely needs more study.”

In the meantime, Dr. Dressler says, more rapid solutions are needed. And although he says he understands and respects many of the doubts expressed about the SHM/SCCM proposal, he also believes some of the fear might be based on anecdotes about individual hospitalists who were deemed unlikely to thrive in an ICU environment. “For each person like that, we also know 10 or 20 people who might do really well” with just a year of additional training, says Dr. Dressler, a former SHM board member.

Now that both sides clearly have the attention of the other, leaders say they hope the opening salvos give way to more temperate discussions about how to move more skilled providers to the front lines.

“Health professionals are a smart and clever lot,” says Mary Stahl, RN, MSN, ACNS-BC, CCNS-CMC, CCRN, immediate past president of AACN and a clinical nurse specialist at the Mid America Heart Institute at Saint Luke’s Hospital in Kansas City, Mo. “I’m confident we’ll develop an effective solution—maybe several—by focusing on the fundamental belief that patients’ needs must drive caregivers’ knowledge and skills.”

Bryn Nelson is a freelance medical writer in Seattle.

References

1. Siegal EM, Dressler DD, Dichter JR, Gorman MJ, Lipsett PA. Training a hospitalist workforce to address the intensivist shortage in American hospitals: a position paper from the Society of Hospital Medicine and the Society of Critical Care Medicine. J Hosp Med. 2012;7:359-364.
2. Baumann MH, Simpson SQ, Stahl M, et al. First, do no harm: less training ≠ quality care. Chest. 2012;142:5-7.
3. Milstein A, Galvin RS, Delbanco SF, et al. Improving the safety of health care: the Leapfrog initiative. Eff Clin Pract. 2000;3:313-316.
4. Angus DC, Kelley MA, Schmitz RJ, et al. Caring for the critically ill patient. Current and projected workforce requirements for care of the critically ill and patients with pulmonary disease: can we meet the requirements of an aging population? JAMA. 2000;284:2762-2770.
5. Angus DC, Shorr AF, White A, et al. Critical care delivery in the United States: distribution of services and compliance with Leapfrog recommendations. Crit Care Med. 2006;34:1016-1024.
6. Wise KR, Akopov VA, Williams BR Jr., Ido MS, Leeper KV, Dressler DD. Hospitalists and intensivists in the medical ICU: a prospective observational study comparing mortality and length of stay between two staffing models. J Hosp Med. 2012;7:183-189.

The long-simmering debate over whether and how hospitalists might help solve the worsening shortage of critical-care physicians is beginning to boil over.

In June, SHM and the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) issued a joint position paper proposing an expedited, one-year, critical-care fellowship for hospitalists with at least three years of clinical job experience, in lieu of the two-year fellowship now required for board certification.¹

“Bringing qualified hospitalists into the critical-care workforce through rigorous sanctioned and accredited one-year training programs,” the paper asserted, “will open a new intensivist training pipeline and potentially offer more critically ill patients the benefits of providers who are unequivocally qualified to care for them.”

The backlash was swift and sharp. In a strongly worded editorial response published in July, the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) and the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses (AACN) declared that one year of fellowship training is inadequate for HM physicians to achieve competence in critical-care medicine.² “No, the perfect should not be the enemy of the good in our efforts to craft solutions,” the editorial stated. “But the current imperfect SCCM/SHM proposal is an enemy of the existing good training processes already in place.”

HM leaders counter that the current strategies for bolstering the ranks of board-certified intensivists simply aren’t working, and that creative, outside-the-box thinking is required to solve the dilemma.

Dr. Siegal

“Hospitalists are rapidly becoming a dominant, if not the dominant, block of physicians who are providing critical care in the United States. You can decide, if you want, whether that’s good or bad, but that’s the reality,” says Eric Siegal, MD, SFHM, lead author of the SHM/SCCM position paper, director of critical-care medicine at Aurora St. Luke’s Medical Center in Milwaukee, and an SHM board member. Given the escalating shortage of intensivists, he says, he believes that concerned stakeholders can either try to help develop the skills and knowledge of those hospitalists already in the ICU or “hope that a whole bunch of hospitalists suddenly decide to abandon their practices and complete two-year medical

critical-care fellowships.”

Intensivist leaders say that less training will do nothing to improve patient outcomes. “The reality is that hospitalists are doing it. The question should be, ‘Are they doing it well or at the detriment of the patient?’” asks Michael Baumann, MD, MS, FCCP, professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary, critical-care, and sleep medicine at the University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson. “The patient is the one who loses if we have somebody pinch-hitting, which is really what we’re talking about here,” adds Dr. Baumann, lead author of the ACCP/AACN editorial.

Staffing Shortfall

Despite the heated rhetoric, interviews with leaders on both sides suggest an eagerness to move forward in trying to collectively solve a problem that has vexed the entire medical community.

In 2000, the Leapfrog Group, a Washington, D.C.-based consortium of major healthcare purchasers focused on improving the safety, quality, and value of care, recommended that all ICUs should be staffed with physicians certified in critical-care medicine.³ As part of its rationale, the group cited research suggesting that greater intensivist use can yield better patient outcomes.

But a seminal study published the same year hinted at just how difficult meeting Leapfrog’s ambitious goal might be. Based on the trajectory of supply and demand, the authors forecast a 22% shortfall in intensivist hours by 2020, and a 35% shortfall by 2030, mainly due to a surge in demand from an aging U.S. population.⁴ A follow-up report in 2006 estimated that 53% of the nation’s ICU units had no intensivist coverage at all, and that only 4% of adult ICUs were meeting the full Leapfrog standards of high-intensity ICU staffing, dedicated attending physician coverage during the day, and dedicated coverage by any physician at night.⁵

No one in their right mind will say one year [of fellowship training] is as good as two years. That would be folly. On the other hand, that’s not the question. The question is, “Can we structure training that is competency-focused, so that the majority of people who enter the training will achieve the necessary levels of competency within a year?”

—Timothy Buchman, PhD, MD, director, Emory University Center for Critical Care, Atlanta

Given the recent push for more outpatient treatment of less-critically-ill patients, many observers say the increased acuity of hospitalized patients—with more comorbidities—only exacerbates the mismatch between supply and demand. Making matters worse, providers are not evenly distributed throughout the country, with many smaller and rural hospitals already facing an acute shortage of intensivist services.

As a result, many hospitalists have been forced to step into the breach. According to SHM’s 2012 State of Hospital Medicine survey, 83.5% of responding nonacademic adult medicine groups said they routinely provide care for patients in an ICU setting, along with 27.9% of academic HM groups.

“So we have hospitalists who, either by choice or by default, care for patients who they may or may not be fully qualified to manage,” Dr. Siegal says. Practically speaking, he and his coauthors assert, the question of whether hospitalists should be in the ICU is now moot. The real question is how to ensure that those providers can deliver safe and effective care.

Experience vs. Training

Currently, internists who have completed fellowships in such specialties as pulmonary medicine, nephrology, and infectious disease can complete a one-year critical-care fellowship to obtain board certification. Experienced hospitalists have questioned the requirement that they instead complete a two-year fellowship, with no consideration given to the relevant clinical experience and maturity gained after years of hospitalist practice. In addition, they argue, it is logistically and financially unrealistic to expect a large cadre of experienced hospitalists to abandon their practices for two years to pursue critical-care training.

But Dr. Baumann says subpar internal-medicine residency requirements deserve much of the blame for offering inadequate training. “Critical care is a blend of critical thinking skills and procedural skills. Both of those are diminished tremendously in the current programs for internal medicine,” he says. “It’s really an indictment of our current training of internal-medicine residents now.”

SCCM, for its part, is sticking to its guns, albeit more quietly. When asked for comment, a spokesman issued a carefully worded statement that reads, “The paper reflects the society’s concerns regarding workforce shortages and the realities of today’s environment.”

The SHM/SCCM proposal makes sense provided that hospitalists are realistic about the types of patients they’ll see, says Timothy Buchman, PhD, MD, director of Emory University’s Center for Critical Care in Atlanta. “No one in their right mind will say one year is as good as two years. That would be folly,” he says. “On the other hand, that’s not the question. The question is, ‘Can we structure training that is competency-focused, so that the majority of people who enter the training will achieve the necessary levels of competency within a year?’”

Derek Angus, MD, chair of critical-care medicine at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and lead author of the 2000 study chronicling the intensivist shortfall, is more ambivalent. “Hospitalists and intensivists have to work hand in hand. In many ways, they are the two groups that run inpatient hospital medicine,” he says. In that respect, sorting out and streamlining training pathways might be a good idea.

“On the other hand, all of intensive-care training in the United States is a little thin in comparison to what goes on in many other countries,” Dr. Angus adds. “If anything, I would like to be seeing more vigorous training. So creating one more pathway that helps reinforce pretty light training feels like accreditation, in general, may be moving slightly in the wrong direction.”

Dr. Buchman and other observers view the debate as a difference in opinion among well-meaning people who are passionate about patient care. And they concede that no one knows yet who may be right.

“We do know that advanced training is required. We do know that it should be competency-focused,” Dr. Buchman says. “But what we don’t know is how long it’s really going to take to get to the competency levels that we believe are necessary to care for the patients.”

That point may provide one important opening for further discussions. Dr. Baumann agrees that the real issues are how to define critical-care competencies, how to measure them, and how to ensure that trainees prove their mettle as competent providers. “It really shouldn’t be time-based; it should be outcome-based,” he says.

The SHM/SCCM proposal, Dr. Siegal says, should be viewed as a conversation-starter. The true test will be whether everyone can reach an agreement on how to evaluate whether an ICU caregiver has attained the necessary knowledge, skills, and attitudes—and how relevant professional experience should factor into discussions over the length of training required for intensivist certification.

A Tiered Solution

The concept of tiered ICU care—already used in neonatal ICUs—might offer another opening for productive debate. “Can patients who are not that critically ill be managed by someone who hasn’t done that much critical-care training?” Dr. Angus asks. He believes it’s possible, provided patients are properly sorted and that hospitalists aren’t put in the uncomfortable position of managing medical conditions that they see only rarely. He has no problem, though, envisioning a tiered system in which fully trained intensivists spend most of their time managing the sickest patients, while other providers—including hospitalists—care for patients at intermediate risk.

Hospitalists have greeted the idea cautiously, noting that a two-tiered model might be difficult to define and standardize, and that it could present logistical challenges around transferring patients. However, Daniel D. Dressler, MD, MSc, SFHM, FACP, associate professor of internal medicine at Emory University School of Medicine and coauthor of the SHM/SCCM position paper, led a recent study that offers at least some support for a risk-based system.⁶

Overall, the study found no statistically significant difference in the length of stay or inpatient mortality rates for ICU patients cared for by hospitalist-led or intensivist-led teams. Among mechanically ventilated patients with intermediate illness severity, though, the study suggested that intensivist-led care resulted in a lower length of stay in both the hospital and ICU, as well as in a trend toward reduced inpatient mortality. “There may be some value in designing or developing a stratification system,” Dr. Dressler says, “but it definitely needs more study.”

In the meantime, Dr. Dressler says, more rapid solutions are needed. And although he says he understands and respects many of the doubts expressed about the SHM/SCCM proposal, he also believes some of the fear might be based on anecdotes about individual hospitalists who were deemed unlikely to thrive in an ICU environment. “For each person like that, we also know 10 or 20 people who might do really well” with just a year of additional training, says Dr. Dressler, a former SHM board member.

Now that both sides clearly have the attention of the other, leaders say they hope the opening salvos give way to more temperate discussions about how to move more skilled providers to the front lines.

“Health professionals are a smart and clever lot,” says Mary Stahl, RN, MSN, ACNS-BC, CCNS-CMC, CCRN, immediate past president of AACN and a clinical nurse specialist at the Mid America Heart Institute at Saint Luke’s Hospital in Kansas City, Mo. “I’m confident we’ll develop an effective solution—maybe several—by focusing on the fundamental belief that patients’ needs must drive caregivers’ knowledge and skills.”

Bryn Nelson is a freelance medical writer in Seattle.

References

1. Siegal EM, Dressler DD, Dichter JR, Gorman MJ, Lipsett PA. Training a hospitalist workforce to address the intensivist shortage in American hospitals: a position paper from the Society of Hospital Medicine and the Society of Critical Care Medicine. J Hosp Med. 2012;7:359-364.
2. Baumann MH, Simpson SQ, Stahl M, et al. First, do no harm: less training ≠ quality care. Chest. 2012;142:5-7.
3. Milstein A, Galvin RS, Delbanco SF, et al. Improving the safety of health care: the Leapfrog initiative. Eff Clin Pract. 2000;3:313-316.
4. Angus DC, Kelley MA, Schmitz RJ, et al. Caring for the critically ill patient. Current and projected workforce requirements for care of the critically ill and patients with pulmonary disease: can we meet the requirements of an aging population? JAMA. 2000;284:2762-2770.
5. Angus DC, Shorr AF, White A, et al. Critical care delivery in the United States: distribution of services and compliance with Leapfrog recommendations. Crit Care Med. 2006;34:1016-1024.
6. Wise KR, Akopov VA, Williams BR Jr., Ido MS, Leeper KV, Dressler DD. Hospitalists and intensivists in the medical ICU: a prospective observational study comparing mortality and length of stay between two staffing models. J Hosp Med. 2012;7:183-189.

The long-simmering debate over whether and how hospitalists might help solve the worsening shortage of critical-care physicians is beginning to boil over.

In June, SHM and the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) issued a joint position paper proposing an expedited, one-year, critical-care fellowship for hospitalists with at least three years of clinical job experience, in lieu of the two-year fellowship now required for board certification.¹

“Bringing qualified hospitalists into the critical-care workforce through rigorous sanctioned and accredited one-year training programs,” the paper asserted, “will open a new intensivist training pipeline and potentially offer more critically ill patients the benefits of providers who are unequivocally qualified to care for them.”

The backlash was swift and sharp. In a strongly worded editorial response published in July, the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) and the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses (AACN) declared that one year of fellowship training is inadequate for HM physicians to achieve competence in critical-care medicine.² “No, the perfect should not be the enemy of the good in our efforts to craft solutions,” the editorial stated. “But the current imperfect SCCM/SHM proposal is an enemy of the existing good training processes already in place.”

HM leaders counter that the current strategies for bolstering the ranks of board-certified intensivists simply aren’t working, and that creative, outside-the-box thinking is required to solve the dilemma.

Dr. Siegal

“Hospitalists are rapidly becoming a dominant, if not the dominant, block of physicians who are providing critical care in the United States. You can decide, if you want, whether that’s good or bad, but that’s the reality,” says Eric Siegal, MD, SFHM, lead author of the SHM/SCCM position paper, director of critical-care medicine at Aurora St. Luke’s Medical Center in Milwaukee, and an SHM board member. Given the escalating shortage of intensivists, he says, he believes that concerned stakeholders can either try to help develop the skills and knowledge of those hospitalists already in the ICU or “hope that a whole bunch of hospitalists suddenly decide to abandon their practices and complete two-year medical

critical-care fellowships.”

Intensivist leaders say that less training will do nothing to improve patient outcomes. “The reality is that hospitalists are doing it. The question should be, ‘Are they doing it well or at the detriment of the patient?’” asks Michael Baumann, MD, MS, FCCP, professor of medicine in the division of pulmonary, critical-care, and sleep medicine at the University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson. “The patient is the one who loses if we have somebody pinch-hitting, which is really what we’re talking about here,” adds Dr. Baumann, lead author of the ACCP/AACN editorial.

Staffing Shortfall

Despite the heated rhetoric, interviews with leaders on both sides suggest an eagerness to move forward in trying to collectively solve a problem that has vexed the entire medical community.

In 2000, the Leapfrog Group, a Washington, D.C.-based consortium of major healthcare purchasers focused on improving the safety, quality, and value of care, recommended that all ICUs should be staffed with physicians certified in critical-care medicine.³ As part of its rationale, the group cited research suggesting that greater intensivist use can yield better patient outcomes.

But a seminal study published the same year hinted at just how difficult meeting Leapfrog’s ambitious goal might be. Based on the trajectory of supply and demand, the authors forecast a 22% shortfall in intensivist hours by 2020, and a 35% shortfall by 2030, mainly due to a surge in demand from an aging U.S. population.⁴ A follow-up report in 2006 estimated that 53% of the nation’s ICU units had no intensivist coverage at all, and that only 4% of adult ICUs were meeting the full Leapfrog standards of high-intensity ICU staffing, dedicated attending physician coverage during the day, and dedicated coverage by any physician at night.⁵

No one in their right mind will say one year [of fellowship training] is as good as two years. That would be folly. On the other hand, that’s not the question. The question is, “Can we structure training that is competency-focused, so that the majority of people who enter the training will achieve the necessary levels of competency within a year?”

—Timothy Buchman, PhD, MD, director, Emory University Center for Critical Care, Atlanta

Given the recent push for more outpatient treatment of less-critically-ill patients, many observers say the increased acuity of hospitalized patients—with more comorbidities—only exacerbates the mismatch between supply and demand. Making matters worse, providers are not evenly distributed throughout the country, with many smaller and rural hospitals already facing an acute shortage of intensivist services.

As a result, many hospitalists have been forced to step into the breach. According to SHM’s 2012 State of Hospital Medicine survey, 83.5% of responding nonacademic adult medicine groups said they routinely provide care for patients in an ICU setting, along with 27.9% of academic HM groups.

“So we have hospitalists who, either by choice or by default, care for patients who they may or may not be fully qualified to manage,” Dr. Siegal says. Practically speaking, he and his coauthors assert, the question of whether hospitalists should be in the ICU is now moot. The real question is how to ensure that those providers can deliver safe and effective care.

Experience vs. Training

Currently, internists who have completed fellowships in such specialties as pulmonary medicine, nephrology, and infectious disease can complete a one-year critical-care fellowship to obtain board certification. Experienced hospitalists have questioned the requirement that they instead complete a two-year fellowship, with no consideration given to the relevant clinical experience and maturity gained after years of hospitalist practice. In addition, they argue, it is logistically and financially unrealistic to expect a large cadre of experienced hospitalists to abandon their practices for two years to pursue critical-care training.

But Dr. Baumann says subpar internal-medicine residency requirements deserve much of the blame for offering inadequate training. “Critical care is a blend of critical thinking skills and procedural skills. Both of those are diminished tremendously in the current programs for internal medicine,” he says. “It’s really an indictment of our current training of internal-medicine residents now.”

SCCM, for its part, is sticking to its guns, albeit more quietly. When asked for comment, a spokesman issued a carefully worded statement that reads, “The paper reflects the society’s concerns regarding workforce shortages and the realities of today’s environment.”

The SHM/SCCM proposal makes sense provided that hospitalists are realistic about the types of patients they’ll see, says Timothy Buchman, PhD, MD, director of Emory University’s Center for Critical Care in Atlanta. “No one in their right mind will say one year is as good as two years. That would be folly,” he says. “On the other hand, that’s not the question. The question is, ‘Can we structure training that is competency-focused, so that the majority of people who enter the training will achieve the necessary levels of competency within a year?’”

Derek Angus, MD, chair of critical-care medicine at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and lead author of the 2000 study chronicling the intensivist shortfall, is more ambivalent. “Hospitalists and intensivists have to work hand in hand. In many ways, they are the two groups that run inpatient hospital medicine,” he says. In that respect, sorting out and streamlining training pathways might be a good idea.

“On the other hand, all of intensive-care training in the United States is a little thin in comparison to what goes on in many other countries,” Dr. Angus adds. “If anything, I would like to be seeing more vigorous training. So creating one more pathway that helps reinforce pretty light training feels like accreditation, in general, may be moving slightly in the wrong direction.”

Dr. Buchman and other observers view the debate as a difference in opinion among well-meaning people who are passionate about patient care. And they concede that no one knows yet who may be right.

“We do know that advanced training is required. We do know that it should be competency-focused,” Dr. Buchman says. “But what we don’t know is how long it’s really going to take to get to the competency levels that we believe are necessary to care for the patients.”

That point may provide one important opening for further discussions. Dr. Baumann agrees that the real issues are how to define critical-care competencies, how to measure them, and how to ensure that trainees prove their mettle as competent providers. “It really shouldn’t be time-based; it should be outcome-based,” he says.

The SHM/SCCM proposal, Dr. Siegal says, should be viewed as a conversation-starter. The true test will be whether everyone can reach an agreement on how to evaluate whether an ICU caregiver has attained the necessary knowledge, skills, and attitudes—and how relevant professional experience should factor into discussions over the length of training required for intensivist certification.

A Tiered Solution

The concept of tiered ICU care—already used in neonatal ICUs—might offer another opening for productive debate. “Can patients who are not that critically ill be managed by someone who hasn’t done that much critical-care training?” Dr. Angus asks. He believes it’s possible, provided patients are properly sorted and that hospitalists aren’t put in the uncomfortable position of managing medical conditions that they see only rarely. He has no problem, though, envisioning a tiered system in which fully trained intensivists spend most of their time managing the sickest patients, while other providers—including hospitalists—care for patients at intermediate risk.

Hospitalists have greeted the idea cautiously, noting that a two-tiered model might be difficult to define and standardize, and that it could present logistical challenges around transferring patients. However, Daniel D. Dressler, MD, MSc, SFHM, FACP, associate professor of internal medicine at Emory University School of Medicine and coauthor of the SHM/SCCM position paper, led a recent study that offers at least some support for a risk-based system.⁶

Overall, the study found no statistically significant difference in the length of stay or inpatient mortality rates for ICU patients cared for by hospitalist-led or intensivist-led teams. Among mechanically ventilated patients with intermediate illness severity, though, the study suggested that intensivist-led care resulted in a lower length of stay in both the hospital and ICU, as well as in a trend toward reduced inpatient mortality. “There may be some value in designing or developing a stratification system,” Dr. Dressler says, “but it definitely needs more study.”

In the meantime, Dr. Dressler says, more rapid solutions are needed. And although he says he understands and respects many of the doubts expressed about the SHM/SCCM proposal, he also believes some of the fear might be based on anecdotes about individual hospitalists who were deemed unlikely to thrive in an ICU environment. “For each person like that, we also know 10 or 20 people who might do really well” with just a year of additional training, says Dr. Dressler, a former SHM board member.

Now that both sides clearly have the attention of the other, leaders say they hope the opening salvos give way to more temperate discussions about how to move more skilled providers to the front lines.

“Health professionals are a smart and clever lot,” says Mary Stahl, RN, MSN, ACNS-BC, CCNS-CMC, CCRN, immediate past president of AACN and a clinical nurse specialist at the Mid America Heart Institute at Saint Luke’s Hospital in Kansas City, Mo. “I’m confident we’ll develop an effective solution—maybe several—by focusing on the fundamental belief that patients’ needs must drive caregivers’ knowledge and skills.”

Bryn Nelson is a freelance medical writer in Seattle.

References

1. Siegal EM, Dressler DD, Dichter JR, Gorman MJ, Lipsett PA. Training a hospitalist workforce to address the intensivist shortage in American hospitals: a position paper from the Society of Hospital Medicine and the Society of Critical Care Medicine. J Hosp Med. 2012;7:359-364.
2. Baumann MH, Simpson SQ, Stahl M, et al. First, do no harm: less training ≠ quality care. Chest. 2012;142:5-7.
3. Milstein A, Galvin RS, Delbanco SF, et al. Improving the safety of health care: the Leapfrog initiative. Eff Clin Pract. 2000;3:313-316.
4. Angus DC, Kelley MA, Schmitz RJ, et al. Caring for the critically ill patient. Current and projected workforce requirements for care of the critically ill and patients with pulmonary disease: can we meet the requirements of an aging population? JAMA. 2000;284:2762-2770.
5. Angus DC, Shorr AF, White A, et al. Critical care delivery in the United States: distribution of services and compliance with Leapfrog recommendations. Crit Care Med. 2006;34:1016-1024.
6. Wise KR, Akopov VA, Williams BR Jr., Ido MS, Leeper KV, Dressler DD. Hospitalists and intensivists in the medical ICU: a prospective observational study comparing mortality and length of stay between two staffing models. J Hosp Med. 2012;7:183-189.

Dr. Hospitalist

One of our providers wants to use adult hospitalists for coverage of inpatient orthopedic surgery patients. Is this acceptable practice? Are there qualifiers?

–Libby Gardner

Dr. Hospitalist responds:

Let’s see how far we can tackle this open-ended question. There has been lots of discussion on the topic of comanagement in the past by people eminently more qualified than I am. Still, it never hurts to take a fresh look at things.

For one, on the subject of admissions, I am a firm believer that hospitalists should admit all adult hip fractures. The overwhelming majority of the time, these patients are elderly with comorbid conditions. Sure, they are going to get their hip fixed, because the alternative is usually unacceptable, but some thought needs to go into the process. The orthopedic surgeon sees a hip that needs fixing and not much else. When issues like renal failure, afib, CHF, prior DVT, or dementia are present, hospitalists should take charge of the case. It is the best way to ensure that the patient receives optimal medical care and the documentation that goes along with it. I love our orthopedic surgeons, but I don’t want them primarily admitting, managing, and discharging my elderly patients. Let the surgeon do what they do best, which is operate, and leave the rest to us.

On the subject of orthopedic trauma, I take the exact opposite tack—this is not something for which I or most of my colleagues have expertise. A young, healthy patient with trauma should be admitted by the orthopedic service; that patient population’s complications are much more likely to be directly related to their trauma.

When it comes to elective surgery, when the admitting surgeon (orthopedic or otherwise) wants the help of a hospitalist, then I think it is of paramount importance to have clear “rules of engagement.” I think with good expectations, you can have a fantastic working relationship with your surgeons. Without them, it becomes a nightmare.

Here are my HM group’s rules for elective orthopedic surgery:

• Orthopedics handles all pain medications and VTE prophylaxis, including discharge prescriptions.
• Medicine handles all admit and discharge medication reconciliation (“med rec”).
• There is shared discussion on:

  • Need for transfusion; and
  • The VTE prophylaxis when a patient already is on chronic anticoagulation.

We do not vary from this protocol. I never adjust a patient’s pain medications. Even the floor nurses know this. Because I’m doing the admit med rec, it also means that the patient doesn’t have their HCTZ continued after 600cc of EBL and spinal anesthesia.

The system works because the rules are clear and the communication is consistent. This does not mean that we cover the orthopedic service at night. They are equally responsible for their patients under the items outlined above. In my view—and this might sound simplistic—the surgeon caused the post-op pain, so they should be responsible for managing it. On VTE prophylaxis, I might take a more nuanced view, but for our surgeons, they own the wound and the post-op follow-up, so they get the choice on what agent to use.

Would I accept an arrangement in which I covered all the orthopedic issues out of regular hours? Nope—not when they have primary responsibility for the case; they should always be directly available to the nurse. I think that anything else would be a system ripe for abuse.

Our exact rules will not work for every situation, but I would strongly encourage the two basic tenets from above: No. 1, the hospitalist should primarily admit and manage elderly hip fractures, and No. 2, clear rules of engagement should be established with your orthopedic or surgery group. It’s a discussion worth having during daylight hours, because trying to figure out the rules at 3 in the morning rarely ends well.

Dr. Hospitalist

One of our providers wants to use adult hospitalists for coverage of inpatient orthopedic surgery patients. Is this acceptable practice? Are there qualifiers?

–Libby Gardner

Dr. Hospitalist responds:

Let’s see how far we can tackle this open-ended question. There has been lots of discussion on the topic of comanagement in the past by people eminently more qualified than I am. Still, it never hurts to take a fresh look at things.

For one, on the subject of admissions, I am a firm believer that hospitalists should admit all adult hip fractures. The overwhelming majority of the time, these patients are elderly with comorbid conditions. Sure, they are going to get their hip fixed, because the alternative is usually unacceptable, but some thought needs to go into the process. The orthopedic surgeon sees a hip that needs fixing and not much else. When issues like renal failure, afib, CHF, prior DVT, or dementia are present, hospitalists should take charge of the case. It is the best way to ensure that the patient receives optimal medical care and the documentation that goes along with it. I love our orthopedic surgeons, but I don’t want them primarily admitting, managing, and discharging my elderly patients. Let the surgeon do what they do best, which is operate, and leave the rest to us.

On the subject of orthopedic trauma, I take the exact opposite tack—this is not something for which I or most of my colleagues have expertise. A young, healthy patient with trauma should be admitted by the orthopedic service; that patient population’s complications are much more likely to be directly related to their trauma.

When it comes to elective surgery, when the admitting surgeon (orthopedic or otherwise) wants the help of a hospitalist, then I think it is of paramount importance to have clear “rules of engagement.” I think with good expectations, you can have a fantastic working relationship with your surgeons. Without them, it becomes a nightmare.

Here are my HM group’s rules for elective orthopedic surgery:

• Orthopedics handles all pain medications and VTE prophylaxis, including discharge prescriptions.
• Medicine handles all admit and discharge medication reconciliation (“med rec”).
• There is shared discussion on:

  • Need for transfusion; and
  • The VTE prophylaxis when a patient already is on chronic anticoagulation.

We do not vary from this protocol. I never adjust a patient’s pain medications. Even the floor nurses know this. Because I’m doing the admit med rec, it also means that the patient doesn’t have their HCTZ continued after 600cc of EBL and spinal anesthesia.

The system works because the rules are clear and the communication is consistent. This does not mean that we cover the orthopedic service at night. They are equally responsible for their patients under the items outlined above. In my view—and this might sound simplistic—the surgeon caused the post-op pain, so they should be responsible for managing it. On VTE prophylaxis, I might take a more nuanced view, but for our surgeons, they own the wound and the post-op follow-up, so they get the choice on what agent to use.

Would I accept an arrangement in which I covered all the orthopedic issues out of regular hours? Nope—not when they have primary responsibility for the case; they should always be directly available to the nurse. I think that anything else would be a system ripe for abuse.

Our exact rules will not work for every situation, but I would strongly encourage the two basic tenets from above: No. 1, the hospitalist should primarily admit and manage elderly hip fractures, and No. 2, clear rules of engagement should be established with your orthopedic or surgery group. It’s a discussion worth having during daylight hours, because trying to figure out the rules at 3 in the morning rarely ends well.

Dr. Hospitalist

One of our providers wants to use adult hospitalists for coverage of inpatient orthopedic surgery patients. Is this acceptable practice? Are there qualifiers?

–Libby Gardner

Dr. Hospitalist responds:

Let’s see how far we can tackle this open-ended question. There has been lots of discussion on the topic of comanagement in the past by people eminently more qualified than I am. Still, it never hurts to take a fresh look at things.

For one, on the subject of admissions, I am a firm believer that hospitalists should admit all adult hip fractures. The overwhelming majority of the time, these patients are elderly with comorbid conditions. Sure, they are going to get their hip fixed, because the alternative is usually unacceptable, but some thought needs to go into the process. The orthopedic surgeon sees a hip that needs fixing and not much else. When issues like renal failure, afib, CHF, prior DVT, or dementia are present, hospitalists should take charge of the case. It is the best way to ensure that the patient receives optimal medical care and the documentation that goes along with it. I love our orthopedic surgeons, but I don’t want them primarily admitting, managing, and discharging my elderly patients. Let the surgeon do what they do best, which is operate, and leave the rest to us.

On the subject of orthopedic trauma, I take the exact opposite tack—this is not something for which I or most of my colleagues have expertise. A young, healthy patient with trauma should be admitted by the orthopedic service; that patient population’s complications are much more likely to be directly related to their trauma.

When it comes to elective surgery, when the admitting surgeon (orthopedic or otherwise) wants the help of a hospitalist, then I think it is of paramount importance to have clear “rules of engagement.” I think with good expectations, you can have a fantastic working relationship with your surgeons. Without them, it becomes a nightmare.

Here are my HM group’s rules for elective orthopedic surgery:

• Orthopedics handles all pain medications and VTE prophylaxis, including discharge prescriptions.
• Medicine handles all admit and discharge medication reconciliation (“med rec”).
• There is shared discussion on:

  • Need for transfusion; and
  • The VTE prophylaxis when a patient already is on chronic anticoagulation.

We do not vary from this protocol. I never adjust a patient’s pain medications. Even the floor nurses know this. Because I’m doing the admit med rec, it also means that the patient doesn’t have their HCTZ continued after 600cc of EBL and spinal anesthesia.

The system works because the rules are clear and the communication is consistent. This does not mean that we cover the orthopedic service at night. They are equally responsible for their patients under the items outlined above. In my view—and this might sound simplistic—the surgeon caused the post-op pain, so they should be responsible for managing it. On VTE prophylaxis, I might take a more nuanced view, but for our surgeons, they own the wound and the post-op follow-up, so they get the choice on what agent to use.

Would I accept an arrangement in which I covered all the orthopedic issues out of regular hours? Nope—not when they have primary responsibility for the case; they should always be directly available to the nurse. I think that anything else would be a system ripe for abuse.

Our exact rules will not work for every situation, but I would strongly encourage the two basic tenets from above: No. 1, the hospitalist should primarily admit and manage elderly hip fractures, and No. 2, clear rules of engagement should be established with your orthopedic or surgery group. It’s a discussion worth having during daylight hours, because trying to figure out the rules at 3 in the morning rarely ends well.

Physicians often have medical interests other than clinical practice. A restrictive employment agreement could quash those endeavors. Physician employment agreements play an integral role in establishing the legal, financial, and operational structure of the relationship between employer and physician/employee.

One clause of particular interest to many physicians is the clause defining what a physician can and cannot do outside of providing medical services on behalf of their employer—meaning, can the physician engage in such outside activities as moonlighting, volunteering, or serving as an expert witness? Moreover, if income is generated from these outside activities, who does that income belong to—the physician or the employer?

These questions should be clearly answered in the employment agreement. And if the answers in the employment agreement do not mirror the physician’s wishes, then these terms should be negotiated with the employer and memorialized in the employment agreement.

Consult Your Contract

The first question is whether the physician is even permitted under their employment agreement to participate in activities or perform services outside of employment. Some employers prohibit engagement in outside activities and services altogether, while other employers permit certain activities that do not interfere with the physician’s day-to-day responsibilities. Physicians should be aware of requirements that give the employer the right to approve or reject outside activities. If the physician wants to be able to engage in moonlighting, expert witness consultations and testimony, speaking opportunities, volunteer efforts, teaching, research, or publishing, the physician’s desired activities should be specifically identified in the employment agreement as permitted activities.

For example: Dr. A was joining a medical practice and was presented with the group’s template employment agreement. The draft agreement precluded Dr. A from participating in any medically related outside activities. In the past, Dr. A had served as a volunteer doctor for the local marathon, a medical expert witness, and was a frequent paid speaker at conferences. For Dr. A, a prohibition on outside medical activities did not align with his interests. With minimal discussion, the practice permitted Dr. A to identify the outside activities that he could conduct without violating his employment agreement:

If a physician is permitted to engage in outside activities or services, the second question is whether income generated from such activities belongs to the physician or the employer. This often is a topic of negotiation. Physician and employer frequently do not see eye to eye on this issue. Physicians, on the one hand, often view the income generated from permitted outside activities to be separate and apart from his or her services on behalf of the employer, and thus are outside the reach of the practice. This position is strengthened if the activity occurs on the physician’s own time and outside of the employer’s hours of operation. Employers, on the other hand, often view income from outside activities as part of the employment relationship with the physician. Some employers are of the belief that the physician would not have had the opportunity to participate in the outside activity but for the physician’s employment with the particular employer.

Dr. A’s employer felt that it already was conceding by allowing Dr. A to engage in outside activities and insisted that any payment received by him for these services should be remitted to the practice. Dr. A agreed to this and negotiated for the outside activity monies to be included in his collection amounts, which was a factor in calculating Dr. A’s compensation:

The last question is whether outside activities are covered by the physician’s malpractice insurance policy. If the employer provides the policy for the benefit of the physician, the employer—and the malpractice insurance carrier—may exclude activities performed by the physician outside of his or her employment with that employer. This often is an issue for physicians who want to moonlight, as moonlighting for a third party frequently is excluded from coverage. It is important that the physician consult the malpractice insurance carrier to confirm whether certain activities are covered under the policy. It may be the case that a separate policy is required to insure the physician’s outside activities, even those activities that are unpaid.

Contract clauses describing what the physician can and cannot do outside of the employment relationship are of key importance. These clauses should mirror the individual physician’s medically related and extracurricular interests, and the financial benefits of these activities—if any—should be addressed in the employment agreement. Don’t forget to check with the insurance carrier to ensure that the activity is covered by the policy, as even volunteering medical services could expose a physician. It is best to address these issues at the onset of the employer-employee relationship. That way, all parties are on the same page from the beginning.

Steven Harris is a nationally recognized healthcare attorney and a member of the law firm McDonald Hopkins LLC in Chicago. Write to him at [email protected].

Physicians often have medical interests other than clinical practice. A restrictive employment agreement could quash those endeavors. Physician employment agreements play an integral role in establishing the legal, financial, and operational structure of the relationship between employer and physician/employee.

One clause of particular interest to many physicians is the clause defining what a physician can and cannot do outside of providing medical services on behalf of their employer—meaning, can the physician engage in such outside activities as moonlighting, volunteering, or serving as an expert witness? Moreover, if income is generated from these outside activities, who does that income belong to—the physician or the employer?

These questions should be clearly answered in the employment agreement. And if the answers in the employment agreement do not mirror the physician’s wishes, then these terms should be negotiated with the employer and memorialized in the employment agreement.

Consult Your Contract

The first question is whether the physician is even permitted under their employment agreement to participate in activities or perform services outside of employment. Some employers prohibit engagement in outside activities and services altogether, while other employers permit certain activities that do not interfere with the physician’s day-to-day responsibilities. Physicians should be aware of requirements that give the employer the right to approve or reject outside activities. If the physician wants to be able to engage in moonlighting, expert witness consultations and testimony, speaking opportunities, volunteer efforts, teaching, research, or publishing, the physician’s desired activities should be specifically identified in the employment agreement as permitted activities.

For example: Dr. A was joining a medical practice and was presented with the group’s template employment agreement. The draft agreement precluded Dr. A from participating in any medically related outside activities. In the past, Dr. A had served as a volunteer doctor for the local marathon, a medical expert witness, and was a frequent paid speaker at conferences. For Dr. A, a prohibition on outside medical activities did not align with his interests. With minimal discussion, the practice permitted Dr. A to identify the outside activities that he could conduct without violating his employment agreement:

If a physician is permitted to engage in outside activities or services, the second question is whether income generated from such activities belongs to the physician or the employer. This often is a topic of negotiation. Physician and employer frequently do not see eye to eye on this issue. Physicians, on the one hand, often view the income generated from permitted outside activities to be separate and apart from his or her services on behalf of the employer, and thus are outside the reach of the practice. This position is strengthened if the activity occurs on the physician’s own time and outside of the employer’s hours of operation. Employers, on the other hand, often view income from outside activities as part of the employment relationship with the physician. Some employers are of the belief that the physician would not have had the opportunity to participate in the outside activity but for the physician’s employment with the particular employer.

Dr. A’s employer felt that it already was conceding by allowing Dr. A to engage in outside activities and insisted that any payment received by him for these services should be remitted to the practice. Dr. A agreed to this and negotiated for the outside activity monies to be included in his collection amounts, which was a factor in calculating Dr. A’s compensation:

The last question is whether outside activities are covered by the physician’s malpractice insurance policy. If the employer provides the policy for the benefit of the physician, the employer—and the malpractice insurance carrier—may exclude activities performed by the physician outside of his or her employment with that employer. This often is an issue for physicians who want to moonlight, as moonlighting for a third party frequently is excluded from coverage. It is important that the physician consult the malpractice insurance carrier to confirm whether certain activities are covered under the policy. It may be the case that a separate policy is required to insure the physician’s outside activities, even those activities that are unpaid.

Contract clauses describing what the physician can and cannot do outside of the employment relationship are of key importance. These clauses should mirror the individual physician’s medically related and extracurricular interests, and the financial benefits of these activities—if any—should be addressed in the employment agreement. Don’t forget to check with the insurance carrier to ensure that the activity is covered by the policy, as even volunteering medical services could expose a physician. It is best to address these issues at the onset of the employer-employee relationship. That way, all parties are on the same page from the beginning.

Steven Harris is a nationally recognized healthcare attorney and a member of the law firm McDonald Hopkins LLC in Chicago. Write to him at [email protected].

Physicians often have medical interests other than clinical practice. A restrictive employment agreement could quash those endeavors. Physician employment agreements play an integral role in establishing the legal, financial, and operational structure of the relationship between employer and physician/employee.

One clause of particular interest to many physicians is the clause defining what a physician can and cannot do outside of providing medical services on behalf of their employer—meaning, can the physician engage in such outside activities as moonlighting, volunteering, or serving as an expert witness? Moreover, if income is generated from these outside activities, who does that income belong to—the physician or the employer?

These questions should be clearly answered in the employment agreement. And if the answers in the employment agreement do not mirror the physician’s wishes, then these terms should be negotiated with the employer and memorialized in the employment agreement.

Consult Your Contract

The first question is whether the physician is even permitted under their employment agreement to participate in activities or perform services outside of employment. Some employers prohibit engagement in outside activities and services altogether, while other employers permit certain activities that do not interfere with the physician’s day-to-day responsibilities. Physicians should be aware of requirements that give the employer the right to approve or reject outside activities. If the physician wants to be able to engage in moonlighting, expert witness consultations and testimony, speaking opportunities, volunteer efforts, teaching, research, or publishing, the physician’s desired activities should be specifically identified in the employment agreement as permitted activities.

For example: Dr. A was joining a medical practice and was presented with the group’s template employment agreement. The draft agreement precluded Dr. A from participating in any medically related outside activities. In the past, Dr. A had served as a volunteer doctor for the local marathon, a medical expert witness, and was a frequent paid speaker at conferences. For Dr. A, a prohibition on outside medical activities did not align with his interests. With minimal discussion, the practice permitted Dr. A to identify the outside activities that he could conduct without violating his employment agreement:

If a physician is permitted to engage in outside activities or services, the second question is whether income generated from such activities belongs to the physician or the employer. This often is a topic of negotiation. Physician and employer frequently do not see eye to eye on this issue. Physicians, on the one hand, often view the income generated from permitted outside activities to be separate and apart from his or her services on behalf of the employer, and thus are outside the reach of the practice. This position is strengthened if the activity occurs on the physician’s own time and outside of the employer’s hours of operation. Employers, on the other hand, often view income from outside activities as part of the employment relationship with the physician. Some employers are of the belief that the physician would not have had the opportunity to participate in the outside activity but for the physician’s employment with the particular employer.

Dr. A’s employer felt that it already was conceding by allowing Dr. A to engage in outside activities and insisted that any payment received by him for these services should be remitted to the practice. Dr. A agreed to this and negotiated for the outside activity monies to be included in his collection amounts, which was a factor in calculating Dr. A’s compensation:

The last question is whether outside activities are covered by the physician’s malpractice insurance policy. If the employer provides the policy for the benefit of the physician, the employer—and the malpractice insurance carrier—may exclude activities performed by the physician outside of his or her employment with that employer. This often is an issue for physicians who want to moonlight, as moonlighting for a third party frequently is excluded from coverage. It is important that the physician consult the malpractice insurance carrier to confirm whether certain activities are covered under the policy. It may be the case that a separate policy is required to insure the physician’s outside activities, even those activities that are unpaid.

Contract clauses describing what the physician can and cannot do outside of the employment relationship are of key importance. These clauses should mirror the individual physician’s medically related and extracurricular interests, and the financial benefits of these activities—if any—should be addressed in the employment agreement. Don’t forget to check with the insurance carrier to ensure that the activity is covered by the policy, as even volunteering medical services could expose a physician. It is best to address these issues at the onset of the employer-employee relationship. That way, all parties are on the same page from the beginning.

Steven Harris is a nationally recognized healthcare attorney and a member of the law firm McDonald Hopkins LLC in Chicago. Write to him at [email protected].