Quality

Alert emails can be a simple, low-cost means of improving quality in a hospital, as the Department of Medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston learned. The trial there is summarized in “Alert Emails Improve Quality in a Large Academic Hospitalist Group,” an abstract by Warren Chuang, MD, and Bijay Acharya, MD.

When each of the hospital’s divisions was asked to designate important quality goals, the Hospital Medicine Division chose pre-noon discharge rate and discharge summary completion timeliness. Group emails were deployed first: Monthly alerts went to the entire unit emphasizing target numbers, reporting the group’s current performance, and outlining future performance needed to meet the targets. This led to an improvement in discharge summary completion rate from 89.1% to 94.8%.

The same improvement was not seen in the pre-noon discharge rate, so the next step was to send individual emails to every attending whose pre-noon discharge rate was below target levels. This resulted in dramatic improvement: Having fallen to 16.0%, the rate rose to 19.5% after the email campaign.

The authors’ conclusion? Periodic individual email alerts that make individual performance transparent may prove to be the most effective way to achieve quality improvement in operational measures.

Reference

1. Chuang W, Acharya B. Alert emails improve quality in a large academic hospitalist group [abstract]. J Hosp Med. 2015;10(suppl2). Available at: http://www.shmabstracts.com/abstract/alert-emails-improve-quality-in-a-large-academic-hospitalist-group/. Accessed February 14, 2016.

Alert emails can be a simple, low-cost means of improving quality in a hospital, as the Department of Medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston learned. The trial there is summarized in “Alert Emails Improve Quality in a Large Academic Hospitalist Group,” an abstract by Warren Chuang, MD, and Bijay Acharya, MD.

When each of the hospital’s divisions was asked to designate important quality goals, the Hospital Medicine Division chose pre-noon discharge rate and discharge summary completion timeliness. Group emails were deployed first: Monthly alerts went to the entire unit emphasizing target numbers, reporting the group’s current performance, and outlining future performance needed to meet the targets. This led to an improvement in discharge summary completion rate from 89.1% to 94.8%.

The same improvement was not seen in the pre-noon discharge rate, so the next step was to send individual emails to every attending whose pre-noon discharge rate was below target levels. This resulted in dramatic improvement: Having fallen to 16.0%, the rate rose to 19.5% after the email campaign.

The authors’ conclusion? Periodic individual email alerts that make individual performance transparent may prove to be the most effective way to achieve quality improvement in operational measures.

Reference

1. Chuang W, Acharya B. Alert emails improve quality in a large academic hospitalist group [abstract]. J Hosp Med. 2015;10(suppl2). Available at: http://www.shmabstracts.com/abstract/alert-emails-improve-quality-in-a-large-academic-hospitalist-group/. Accessed February 14, 2016.

Alert emails can be a simple, low-cost means of improving quality in a hospital, as the Department of Medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston learned. The trial there is summarized in “Alert Emails Improve Quality in a Large Academic Hospitalist Group,” an abstract by Warren Chuang, MD, and Bijay Acharya, MD.

When each of the hospital’s divisions was asked to designate important quality goals, the Hospital Medicine Division chose pre-noon discharge rate and discharge summary completion timeliness. Group emails were deployed first: Monthly alerts went to the entire unit emphasizing target numbers, reporting the group’s current performance, and outlining future performance needed to meet the targets. This led to an improvement in discharge summary completion rate from 89.1% to 94.8%.

The same improvement was not seen in the pre-noon discharge rate, so the next step was to send individual emails to every attending whose pre-noon discharge rate was below target levels. This resulted in dramatic improvement: Having fallen to 16.0%, the rate rose to 19.5% after the email campaign.

The authors’ conclusion? Periodic individual email alerts that make individual performance transparent may prove to be the most effective way to achieve quality improvement in operational measures.

Reference

1. Chuang W, Acharya B. Alert emails improve quality in a large academic hospitalist group [abstract]. J Hosp Med. 2015;10(suppl2). Available at: http://www.shmabstracts.com/abstract/alert-emails-improve-quality-in-a-large-academic-hospitalist-group/. Accessed February 14, 2016.

To promote achievable solutions in the ongoing debate on drug financing, Anthem, Inc. and Eli Lilly and Company are offering two policy proposals, which are detailed in “Discovering New Medicines and New Ways to Pay for Them,” published on the Health Affairs blog.

The first proposal calls for clarifying federal regulation to reduce perceived barriers impeding conversations between health benefit companies and biopharmaceutical companies about drugs prior to the drugs being approved for sale.

The second proposal calls for changes to federal laws and regulations to mitigate the barriers that make it difficult to move toward value-based contracting.

“A change in policies could open the door to new opportunities for hospitalists and their employers to create more high-value care,” says Sam Nussbaum, MD, Anthem clinical advisor. “Today, hospitals are paid for seeing patients. What if hospitals participated in a value-based arrangement with manufacturers and insurers that included treating patients with a specific condition with a new therapy proven to be more effective in producing better health outcomes, including keeping patients out of the hospital?”

Reference

1. Nussbaum S, Ricks D. Discovering new medicines and new ways to pay for them. Health Policy Lab. Available at: http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2016/01/29/discovering-new-medicines-and-new-ways-to-pay-for-them/. Accessed February 15, 2016.

To promote achievable solutions in the ongoing debate on drug financing, Anthem, Inc. and Eli Lilly and Company are offering two policy proposals, which are detailed in “Discovering New Medicines and New Ways to Pay for Them,” published on the Health Affairs blog.

The first proposal calls for clarifying federal regulation to reduce perceived barriers impeding conversations between health benefit companies and biopharmaceutical companies about drugs prior to the drugs being approved for sale.

The second proposal calls for changes to federal laws and regulations to mitigate the barriers that make it difficult to move toward value-based contracting.

“A change in policies could open the door to new opportunities for hospitalists and their employers to create more high-value care,” says Sam Nussbaum, MD, Anthem clinical advisor. “Today, hospitals are paid for seeing patients. What if hospitals participated in a value-based arrangement with manufacturers and insurers that included treating patients with a specific condition with a new therapy proven to be more effective in producing better health outcomes, including keeping patients out of the hospital?”

Reference

1. Nussbaum S, Ricks D. Discovering new medicines and new ways to pay for them. Health Policy Lab. Available at: http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2016/01/29/discovering-new-medicines-and-new-ways-to-pay-for-them/. Accessed February 15, 2016.

To promote achievable solutions in the ongoing debate on drug financing, Anthem, Inc. and Eli Lilly and Company are offering two policy proposals, which are detailed in “Discovering New Medicines and New Ways to Pay for Them,” published on the Health Affairs blog.

The first proposal calls for clarifying federal regulation to reduce perceived barriers impeding conversations between health benefit companies and biopharmaceutical companies about drugs prior to the drugs being approved for sale.

The second proposal calls for changes to federal laws and regulations to mitigate the barriers that make it difficult to move toward value-based contracting.

“A change in policies could open the door to new opportunities for hospitalists and their employers to create more high-value care,” says Sam Nussbaum, MD, Anthem clinical advisor. “Today, hospitals are paid for seeing patients. What if hospitals participated in a value-based arrangement with manufacturers and insurers that included treating patients with a specific condition with a new therapy proven to be more effective in producing better health outcomes, including keeping patients out of the hospital?”

Reference

1. Nussbaum S, Ricks D. Discovering new medicines and new ways to pay for them. Health Policy Lab. Available at: http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2016/01/29/discovering-new-medicines-and-new-ways-to-pay-for-them/. Accessed February 15, 2016.

Procedures are the most expensive item in healthcare, but tremendous variation remains in quality.

“In part that’ s because we have weak systems of peer support and in part because medicine sanctions a physician to do procedures, and then for the next 40 or 50 years, a surgeon can receive no input and not change their technique even though the field changes,” says Martin Makary, MD, MPH, professor of surgery and health policy and management at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.

Video could be used to address this, he suggests in an editorial called “Video Transparency: A Powerful Tool for Patient Safety and Quality Improvement” in the January 2016 BMJ Quality & Safety.

“In areas of excellence outside of medicine—football, aviation—they use video and video feedback for educational purposes. In healthcare, we can also use video to learn,” he says. “In surgical care, we can actually predict outcomes based on independent review of procedure video, but we just choose not to record videos because we don’ t have the infrastructure set up to provide feedback.”

When it has been done, he says, it’ s been received with enthusiasm. This doesn’ t mean cameras in primary-care clinics monitoring physicians.

“We’ re talking about the video-based procedures being recorded, not being erased with the next procedure that’ s done,” he says. “In the past, we couldn’ t do this with videotapes, but now with the capacity of memory and video data storage, there’ s an opportunity to leave the ‘ record’ button on on the video-based procedures that are already taking place.”

Reference

1. Joo S, Xu T, Makary MA. Video transparency: a powerful tool for patient safety and quality improvement [published online ahead of print January 12, 2016]. BMJ Qual Saf,doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2015-005058.

Procedures are the most expensive item in healthcare, but tremendous variation remains in quality.

“In part that’ s because we have weak systems of peer support and in part because medicine sanctions a physician to do procedures, and then for the next 40 or 50 years, a surgeon can receive no input and not change their technique even though the field changes,” says Martin Makary, MD, MPH, professor of surgery and health policy and management at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.

Video could be used to address this, he suggests in an editorial called “Video Transparency: A Powerful Tool for Patient Safety and Quality Improvement” in the January 2016 BMJ Quality & Safety.

“In areas of excellence outside of medicine—football, aviation—they use video and video feedback for educational purposes. In healthcare, we can also use video to learn,” he says. “In surgical care, we can actually predict outcomes based on independent review of procedure video, but we just choose not to record videos because we don’ t have the infrastructure set up to provide feedback.”

When it has been done, he says, it’ s been received with enthusiasm. This doesn’ t mean cameras in primary-care clinics monitoring physicians.

“We’ re talking about the video-based procedures being recorded, not being erased with the next procedure that’ s done,” he says. “In the past, we couldn’ t do this with videotapes, but now with the capacity of memory and video data storage, there’ s an opportunity to leave the ‘ record’ button on on the video-based procedures that are already taking place.”

Reference

1. Joo S, Xu T, Makary MA. Video transparency: a powerful tool for patient safety and quality improvement [published online ahead of print January 12, 2016]. BMJ Qual Saf,doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2015-005058.

Procedures are the most expensive item in healthcare, but tremendous variation remains in quality.

“In part that’ s because we have weak systems of peer support and in part because medicine sanctions a physician to do procedures, and then for the next 40 or 50 years, a surgeon can receive no input and not change their technique even though the field changes,” says Martin Makary, MD, MPH, professor of surgery and health policy and management at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.

Video could be used to address this, he suggests in an editorial called “Video Transparency: A Powerful Tool for Patient Safety and Quality Improvement” in the January 2016 BMJ Quality & Safety.

“In areas of excellence outside of medicine—football, aviation—they use video and video feedback for educational purposes. In healthcare, we can also use video to learn,” he says. “In surgical care, we can actually predict outcomes based on independent review of procedure video, but we just choose not to record videos because we don’ t have the infrastructure set up to provide feedback.”

When it has been done, he says, it’ s been received with enthusiasm. This doesn’ t mean cameras in primary-care clinics monitoring physicians.

“We’ re talking about the video-based procedures being recorded, not being erased with the next procedure that’ s done,” he says. “In the past, we couldn’ t do this with videotapes, but now with the capacity of memory and video data storage, there’ s an opportunity to leave the ‘ record’ button on on the video-based procedures that are already taking place.”

Reference

1. Joo S, Xu T, Makary MA. Video transparency: a powerful tool for patient safety and quality improvement [published online ahead of print January 12, 2016]. BMJ Qual Saf,doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2015-005058.

In the first two installments of my own list of attributes that are important underpinnings of successful hospitalist groups, I covered group culture and decision making, recruiting, the importance of a written policy and procedure manual and performance dashboard, and roles for advanced practice clinicians. I’ll continue numbering from last month and complete the list in this column.

7. Clear Reporting Relationships

Most hospitalists are employed by one entity, usually a hospital subcorporation or staffing company, yet in many respects they report to someone else, such as a hospital CMO. For many, this can feel like serving two masters.

As an example, a hospitalist is employed by St. Excellence Medical Group (SEMG), a subsidiary of St. Excellence Hospital. Yet the hospital CMO is the key person establishing hospitalist performance targets, mediating disagreements between hospitalists and cardiologists, etc. So the hospitalists and CMO might jointly make plans for changes in the hospitalist practice that have staffing or budgetary implications only to find that the SEMG president resists spending more on the hospitalist program. For some hospitalist groups, this problem of being stuck between two masters can be a real barrier to getting things done.

Because the employed physician group nearly always directs most of its attention to outpatient care, the hospitalists are sometimes an afterthought, sort of a like a neglected stepchild. And worse, I’ve worked with more than one organization in which the CMO and physician president of the employed physician group are engaged in a power struggle, with the hospitalist group (and other physician specialties) caught in the middle and suffering as a result.

I think the best way out of this dilemma is for the employed physician group to function as a management services organization, providing human resources (payroll, etc.) and revenue cycle functions to the hospitalist groups. But for nearly all other issues, such as policies and procedures, staffing, strategic planning, hiring and firing, etc., the lead hospitalist should report to the CMO.

8. Well-Organized Group Meetings

My experience is that nearly every hospitalist group has periodic meetings to discuss and make decisions on operational and clinical issues. But the effectiveness of the meetings varies a lot. In some cases, they’re little more than disorganized gripe sessions.

I think most groups should have monthly meetings scheduled for about an hour or a little longer. Attendance at most meetings should be the expectation; that means even those not working clinically that day should be expected to attend unless away on vacation or some other meaningful conflict. Simply not being on clinical service that day should not be a reason to miss the meeting. Attendance by phone periodically is usually fine, especially for those who would otherwise have a long drive to attend in person or have child care duties, etc.

An agenda should be circulated in advance of the meeting; minutes, afterward. The best minutes highlight any “to-do” items, including person responsible and target completion date. Tasks occurring over longer than a month should be tracked in the minutes of every meeting until resolved. All past meeting minutes should be readily accessible via a network computer drive for review by any member of the group at any time.

Although some of every meeting will typically need to be devoted to one-way communication from the group leader or others, ideally in every meeting meaningful time should be devoted to joint problem-solving by all in attendance to ensure all are engaged in the meetings and find them useful. Some one-way communication (e.g., regular reports of performance data) typically can be distributed via email and other means rather than devoting meeting time to review it.

 

9. Effective Compensation

The amount of compensation should be competitive with your market, but because compensation is typically seen as an entitlement, unusually high compensation amounts usually have little impact on performance. But the method of compensation can matter, that is, the portion of total dollars that are fixed, tied to production, or tied to performance.

I think it’s best if the compensation method is generally similar to the way Medicare and other payors reimburse physician services. As payors tie increasing portions of compensation to performance and bundled payments, it makes sense for these changes to be mirrored in hospitalist compensation formulas to the extent that is practical. As I’ve written in February 2014 and many other times, I think there will always be a role for a portion of compensation tied to individual productivity.

According to SHM’s 2014 State of Hospital Medicine report, 64% of hospitalist groups have some component of compensation tied to citizenship activities such as committee participation, grand rounds presentations, community talks, publications, etc. I described a citizenship bonus program in detail in my November 2011 column. And while I was once an advocate of it, I’m now ambivalent. My anecdotal experience with the group I’m part of and many others I’ve worked with makes me suspect that a bonus for good citizenship might just squash intrinsic motivation as described in Daniel Pink’s book Drive.

If you do tie some portion of compensation to citizenship, I strongly encourage not connecting it to basic expectations like meeting attendance or turning in billing data on time. These are standard parts of the job, and citizenship pay should be reserved for going beyond the basics.

10. Good Social Connections

The way things look to me, doctors across all specialties have historically enjoyed robust and rewarding social connections with one another. But with each passing year, the nature of the work, financial pressures, and even clinical vocabulary become more and more different; that is, our Venn diagrams overlap less and less.

I think doctors in different specialties are becoming less connected, and disagreements or new stresses can more easily divide us.

Although all hospitals and medical groups are working hard to implement operational and technical adjustments to keep up with changing clinical practice and reimbursement models, I see very few deliberately focused on maintaining or strengthening the social connections and feeling of occupational solidarity and shared mission across doctors and other providers (see my June 2010 column). Those that do so—to my way of thinking—will be uniquely positioned to weather the storm of rapid change much more effectively. TH

---

Dr. Nelson has been a practicing hospitalist since 1988. He is co-founder and past president of SHM, and principal in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants. He is co-director for SHM’s “Best Practices in Managing a Hospital Medicine Program” course. Write to him at [email protected].

In the first two installments of my own list of attributes that are important underpinnings of successful hospitalist groups, I covered group culture and decision making, recruiting, the importance of a written policy and procedure manual and performance dashboard, and roles for advanced practice clinicians. I’ll continue numbering from last month and complete the list in this column.

7. Clear Reporting Relationships

Most hospitalists are employed by one entity, usually a hospital subcorporation or staffing company, yet in many respects they report to someone else, such as a hospital CMO. For many, this can feel like serving two masters.

As an example, a hospitalist is employed by St. Excellence Medical Group (SEMG), a subsidiary of St. Excellence Hospital. Yet the hospital CMO is the key person establishing hospitalist performance targets, mediating disagreements between hospitalists and cardiologists, etc. So the hospitalists and CMO might jointly make plans for changes in the hospitalist practice that have staffing or budgetary implications only to find that the SEMG president resists spending more on the hospitalist program. For some hospitalist groups, this problem of being stuck between two masters can be a real barrier to getting things done.

Because the employed physician group nearly always directs most of its attention to outpatient care, the hospitalists are sometimes an afterthought, sort of a like a neglected stepchild. And worse, I’ve worked with more than one organization in which the CMO and physician president of the employed physician group are engaged in a power struggle, with the hospitalist group (and other physician specialties) caught in the middle and suffering as a result.

I think the best way out of this dilemma is for the employed physician group to function as a management services organization, providing human resources (payroll, etc.) and revenue cycle functions to the hospitalist groups. But for nearly all other issues, such as policies and procedures, staffing, strategic planning, hiring and firing, etc., the lead hospitalist should report to the CMO.

8. Well-Organized Group Meetings

My experience is that nearly every hospitalist group has periodic meetings to discuss and make decisions on operational and clinical issues. But the effectiveness of the meetings varies a lot. In some cases, they’re little more than disorganized gripe sessions.

I think most groups should have monthly meetings scheduled for about an hour or a little longer. Attendance at most meetings should be the expectation; that means even those not working clinically that day should be expected to attend unless away on vacation or some other meaningful conflict. Simply not being on clinical service that day should not be a reason to miss the meeting. Attendance by phone periodically is usually fine, especially for those who would otherwise have a long drive to attend in person or have child care duties, etc.

An agenda should be circulated in advance of the meeting; minutes, afterward. The best minutes highlight any “to-do” items, including person responsible and target completion date. Tasks occurring over longer than a month should be tracked in the minutes of every meeting until resolved. All past meeting minutes should be readily accessible via a network computer drive for review by any member of the group at any time.

Although some of every meeting will typically need to be devoted to one-way communication from the group leader or others, ideally in every meeting meaningful time should be devoted to joint problem-solving by all in attendance to ensure all are engaged in the meetings and find them useful. Some one-way communication (e.g., regular reports of performance data) typically can be distributed via email and other means rather than devoting meeting time to review it.

 

9. Effective Compensation

The amount of compensation should be competitive with your market, but because compensation is typically seen as an entitlement, unusually high compensation amounts usually have little impact on performance. But the method of compensation can matter, that is, the portion of total dollars that are fixed, tied to production, or tied to performance.

I think it’s best if the compensation method is generally similar to the way Medicare and other payors reimburse physician services. As payors tie increasing portions of compensation to performance and bundled payments, it makes sense for these changes to be mirrored in hospitalist compensation formulas to the extent that is practical. As I’ve written in February 2014 and many other times, I think there will always be a role for a portion of compensation tied to individual productivity.

According to SHM’s 2014 State of Hospital Medicine report, 64% of hospitalist groups have some component of compensation tied to citizenship activities such as committee participation, grand rounds presentations, community talks, publications, etc. I described a citizenship bonus program in detail in my November 2011 column. And while I was once an advocate of it, I’m now ambivalent. My anecdotal experience with the group I’m part of and many others I’ve worked with makes me suspect that a bonus for good citizenship might just squash intrinsic motivation as described in Daniel Pink’s book Drive.

If you do tie some portion of compensation to citizenship, I strongly encourage not connecting it to basic expectations like meeting attendance or turning in billing data on time. These are standard parts of the job, and citizenship pay should be reserved for going beyond the basics.

10. Good Social Connections

The way things look to me, doctors across all specialties have historically enjoyed robust and rewarding social connections with one another. But with each passing year, the nature of the work, financial pressures, and even clinical vocabulary become more and more different; that is, our Venn diagrams overlap less and less.

I think doctors in different specialties are becoming less connected, and disagreements or new stresses can more easily divide us.

Although all hospitals and medical groups are working hard to implement operational and technical adjustments to keep up with changing clinical practice and reimbursement models, I see very few deliberately focused on maintaining or strengthening the social connections and feeling of occupational solidarity and shared mission across doctors and other providers (see my June 2010 column). Those that do so—to my way of thinking—will be uniquely positioned to weather the storm of rapid change much more effectively. TH

---

Dr. Nelson has been a practicing hospitalist since 1988. He is co-founder and past president of SHM, and principal in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants. He is co-director for SHM’s “Best Practices in Managing a Hospital Medicine Program” course. Write to him at [email protected].

In the first two installments of my own list of attributes that are important underpinnings of successful hospitalist groups, I covered group culture and decision making, recruiting, the importance of a written policy and procedure manual and performance dashboard, and roles for advanced practice clinicians. I’ll continue numbering from last month and complete the list in this column.

7. Clear Reporting Relationships

Most hospitalists are employed by one entity, usually a hospital subcorporation or staffing company, yet in many respects they report to someone else, such as a hospital CMO. For many, this can feel like serving two masters.

As an example, a hospitalist is employed by St. Excellence Medical Group (SEMG), a subsidiary of St. Excellence Hospital. Yet the hospital CMO is the key person establishing hospitalist performance targets, mediating disagreements between hospitalists and cardiologists, etc. So the hospitalists and CMO might jointly make plans for changes in the hospitalist practice that have staffing or budgetary implications only to find that the SEMG president resists spending more on the hospitalist program. For some hospitalist groups, this problem of being stuck between two masters can be a real barrier to getting things done.

Because the employed physician group nearly always directs most of its attention to outpatient care, the hospitalists are sometimes an afterthought, sort of a like a neglected stepchild. And worse, I’ve worked with more than one organization in which the CMO and physician president of the employed physician group are engaged in a power struggle, with the hospitalist group (and other physician specialties) caught in the middle and suffering as a result.

I think the best way out of this dilemma is for the employed physician group to function as a management services organization, providing human resources (payroll, etc.) and revenue cycle functions to the hospitalist groups. But for nearly all other issues, such as policies and procedures, staffing, strategic planning, hiring and firing, etc., the lead hospitalist should report to the CMO.

8. Well-Organized Group Meetings

My experience is that nearly every hospitalist group has periodic meetings to discuss and make decisions on operational and clinical issues. But the effectiveness of the meetings varies a lot. In some cases, they’re little more than disorganized gripe sessions.

I think most groups should have monthly meetings scheduled for about an hour or a little longer. Attendance at most meetings should be the expectation; that means even those not working clinically that day should be expected to attend unless away on vacation or some other meaningful conflict. Simply not being on clinical service that day should not be a reason to miss the meeting. Attendance by phone periodically is usually fine, especially for those who would otherwise have a long drive to attend in person or have child care duties, etc.

An agenda should be circulated in advance of the meeting; minutes, afterward. The best minutes highlight any “to-do” items, including person responsible and target completion date. Tasks occurring over longer than a month should be tracked in the minutes of every meeting until resolved. All past meeting minutes should be readily accessible via a network computer drive for review by any member of the group at any time.

Although some of every meeting will typically need to be devoted to one-way communication from the group leader or others, ideally in every meeting meaningful time should be devoted to joint problem-solving by all in attendance to ensure all are engaged in the meetings and find them useful. Some one-way communication (e.g., regular reports of performance data) typically can be distributed via email and other means rather than devoting meeting time to review it.

 

9. Effective Compensation

The amount of compensation should be competitive with your market, but because compensation is typically seen as an entitlement, unusually high compensation amounts usually have little impact on performance. But the method of compensation can matter, that is, the portion of total dollars that are fixed, tied to production, or tied to performance.

I think it’s best if the compensation method is generally similar to the way Medicare and other payors reimburse physician services. As payors tie increasing portions of compensation to performance and bundled payments, it makes sense for these changes to be mirrored in hospitalist compensation formulas to the extent that is practical. As I’ve written in February 2014 and many other times, I think there will always be a role for a portion of compensation tied to individual productivity.

According to SHM’s 2014 State of Hospital Medicine report, 64% of hospitalist groups have some component of compensation tied to citizenship activities such as committee participation, grand rounds presentations, community talks, publications, etc. I described a citizenship bonus program in detail in my November 2011 column. And while I was once an advocate of it, I’m now ambivalent. My anecdotal experience with the group I’m part of and many others I’ve worked with makes me suspect that a bonus for good citizenship might just squash intrinsic motivation as described in Daniel Pink’s book Drive.

If you do tie some portion of compensation to citizenship, I strongly encourage not connecting it to basic expectations like meeting attendance or turning in billing data on time. These are standard parts of the job, and citizenship pay should be reserved for going beyond the basics.

10. Good Social Connections

The way things look to me, doctors across all specialties have historically enjoyed robust and rewarding social connections with one another. But with each passing year, the nature of the work, financial pressures, and even clinical vocabulary become more and more different; that is, our Venn diagrams overlap less and less.

I think doctors in different specialties are becoming less connected, and disagreements or new stresses can more easily divide us.

Although all hospitals and medical groups are working hard to implement operational and technical adjustments to keep up with changing clinical practice and reimbursement models, I see very few deliberately focused on maintaining or strengthening the social connections and feeling of occupational solidarity and shared mission across doctors and other providers (see my June 2010 column). Those that do so—to my way of thinking—will be uniquely positioned to weather the storm of rapid change much more effectively. TH

---

Dr. Nelson has been a practicing hospitalist since 1988. He is co-founder and past president of SHM, and principal in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants. He is co-director for SHM’s “Best Practices in Managing a Hospital Medicine Program” course. Write to him at [email protected].

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - A breakfast rich in whey protein may help people with type 2 diabetes manage their illness better, new research from Israel suggests.

"Whey protein, a byproduct of cheese manufacturing, lowers postprandial glycemia more than other protein sources," said lead author Dr. Daniela Jakubowicz from Wolfson Medical Center at Tel Aviv University."

We found that in type 2 diabetes, increasing protein content at breakfast has a greater impact on weight loss, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1C), satiety and postprandial glycemia when the protein source is whey protein, compared with other protein sources, such as eggs, tuna and soy," she told Reuters Health by email.

Dr. Jakubowicz and her group presented their findings April 1 at ENDO 2016, the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society, in Boston.

They randomly assigned 48 overweight and obese patients with type 2 diabetes to one of three isocaloric diets. Over 12 weeks, everyone ate a large breakfast, a medium-sized lunch and a small dinner, but the amount and source of each group's breakfast proteins differed.

At breakfast, the 17 participants in the whey group ate 36 g of protein as part of a whey protein shake consisting of 40% carbohydrate, 40% protein and 20% fat. The 16 participants in the high-protein group ate 36 g of protein in the form of eggs, tuna and cheese (40% carbs; 40% protein; 20% fat). The 15 in the high-carbohydrate group ate 13 g of protein in ready-to-eat cereals (65% carbs; 15% protein; 20% fat).

All three diets included a 660 kcal breakfast, a 567 cal lunch and a 276 cal dinner, with the same composition at lunch and dinner.

After 12 weeks, the participants in the whey protein group lost the most weight (7.6 kg vs. 6.1 kg for participants in the high-protein group and 3.5 kg for those in the high-carbohydrate group (p<0.0001).

Participants on the whey protein diet were less hungry during the day and had lower glucose spikes after meals compared with those on the other two diets.

The drop in HbA1C was 11.5% in the whey group, 7.7% in the protein group and 4.6% in the carbohydrate group (p<0.0001). Compared with the carbohydrate group, the percentage drop in HbA1c was greater by 41% in the protein group and by 64% in the whey group (p<0.0001).

"Whey protein was consumed only at breakfast; however, the improvement of glucose, insulin and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) was also observed after lunch and dinner. The mechanism of this persistent beneficial effect of whey protein needs further research," Dr. Jakubowicz said.

Co-author Dr. Julio Wainstein, also at Wolfson Medical Center, added by email, "Usually, patients with type 2 diabetes are treated with a combination of several antidiabetic drugs to achieve adequate glucose regulation and decrease HbA1c. Whey protein should be considered an important adjuvant in the management of type 2 diabetes."

"Furthermore," Dr. Wainstein added, "it is possible that by adding whey protein to the diet, glucose regulation might be achieved with less medication, which is a valuable advantage in type 2 diabetes treatment."

The study had no commercial funding, and the authors declared no conflicts of interest.

 

 

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - A breakfast rich in whey protein may help people with type 2 diabetes manage their illness better, new research from Israel suggests.

"Whey protein, a byproduct of cheese manufacturing, lowers postprandial glycemia more than other protein sources," said lead author Dr. Daniela Jakubowicz from Wolfson Medical Center at Tel Aviv University."

We found that in type 2 diabetes, increasing protein content at breakfast has a greater impact on weight loss, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1C), satiety and postprandial glycemia when the protein source is whey protein, compared with other protein sources, such as eggs, tuna and soy," she told Reuters Health by email.

Dr. Jakubowicz and her group presented their findings April 1 at ENDO 2016, the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society, in Boston.

They randomly assigned 48 overweight and obese patients with type 2 diabetes to one of three isocaloric diets. Over 12 weeks, everyone ate a large breakfast, a medium-sized lunch and a small dinner, but the amount and source of each group's breakfast proteins differed.

At breakfast, the 17 participants in the whey group ate 36 g of protein as part of a whey protein shake consisting of 40% carbohydrate, 40% protein and 20% fat. The 16 participants in the high-protein group ate 36 g of protein in the form of eggs, tuna and cheese (40% carbs; 40% protein; 20% fat). The 15 in the high-carbohydrate group ate 13 g of protein in ready-to-eat cereals (65% carbs; 15% protein; 20% fat).

All three diets included a 660 kcal breakfast, a 567 cal lunch and a 276 cal dinner, with the same composition at lunch and dinner.

After 12 weeks, the participants in the whey protein group lost the most weight (7.6 kg vs. 6.1 kg for participants in the high-protein group and 3.5 kg for those in the high-carbohydrate group (p<0.0001).

Participants on the whey protein diet were less hungry during the day and had lower glucose spikes after meals compared with those on the other two diets.

The drop in HbA1C was 11.5% in the whey group, 7.7% in the protein group and 4.6% in the carbohydrate group (p<0.0001). Compared with the carbohydrate group, the percentage drop in HbA1c was greater by 41% in the protein group and by 64% in the whey group (p<0.0001).

"Whey protein was consumed only at breakfast; however, the improvement of glucose, insulin and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) was also observed after lunch and dinner. The mechanism of this persistent beneficial effect of whey protein needs further research," Dr. Jakubowicz said.

Co-author Dr. Julio Wainstein, also at Wolfson Medical Center, added by email, "Usually, patients with type 2 diabetes are treated with a combination of several antidiabetic drugs to achieve adequate glucose regulation and decrease HbA1c. Whey protein should be considered an important adjuvant in the management of type 2 diabetes."

"Furthermore," Dr. Wainstein added, "it is possible that by adding whey protein to the diet, glucose regulation might be achieved with less medication, which is a valuable advantage in type 2 diabetes treatment."

The study had no commercial funding, and the authors declared no conflicts of interest.

 

 

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - A breakfast rich in whey protein may help people with type 2 diabetes manage their illness better, new research from Israel suggests.

"Whey protein, a byproduct of cheese manufacturing, lowers postprandial glycemia more than other protein sources," said lead author Dr. Daniela Jakubowicz from Wolfson Medical Center at Tel Aviv University."

We found that in type 2 diabetes, increasing protein content at breakfast has a greater impact on weight loss, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1C), satiety and postprandial glycemia when the protein source is whey protein, compared with other protein sources, such as eggs, tuna and soy," she told Reuters Health by email.

Dr. Jakubowicz and her group presented their findings April 1 at ENDO 2016, the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society, in Boston.

They randomly assigned 48 overweight and obese patients with type 2 diabetes to one of three isocaloric diets. Over 12 weeks, everyone ate a large breakfast, a medium-sized lunch and a small dinner, but the amount and source of each group's breakfast proteins differed.

At breakfast, the 17 participants in the whey group ate 36 g of protein as part of a whey protein shake consisting of 40% carbohydrate, 40% protein and 20% fat. The 16 participants in the high-protein group ate 36 g of protein in the form of eggs, tuna and cheese (40% carbs; 40% protein; 20% fat). The 15 in the high-carbohydrate group ate 13 g of protein in ready-to-eat cereals (65% carbs; 15% protein; 20% fat).

All three diets included a 660 kcal breakfast, a 567 cal lunch and a 276 cal dinner, with the same composition at lunch and dinner.

After 12 weeks, the participants in the whey protein group lost the most weight (7.6 kg vs. 6.1 kg for participants in the high-protein group and 3.5 kg for those in the high-carbohydrate group (p<0.0001).

Participants on the whey protein diet were less hungry during the day and had lower glucose spikes after meals compared with those on the other two diets.

The drop in HbA1C was 11.5% in the whey group, 7.7% in the protein group and 4.6% in the carbohydrate group (p<0.0001). Compared with the carbohydrate group, the percentage drop in HbA1c was greater by 41% in the protein group and by 64% in the whey group (p<0.0001).

"Whey protein was consumed only at breakfast; however, the improvement of glucose, insulin and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) was also observed after lunch and dinner. The mechanism of this persistent beneficial effect of whey protein needs further research," Dr. Jakubowicz said.

Co-author Dr. Julio Wainstein, also at Wolfson Medical Center, added by email, "Usually, patients with type 2 diabetes are treated with a combination of several antidiabetic drugs to achieve adequate glucose regulation and decrease HbA1c. Whey protein should be considered an important adjuvant in the management of type 2 diabetes."

"Furthermore," Dr. Wainstein added, "it is possible that by adding whey protein to the diet, glucose regulation might be achieved with less medication, which is a valuable advantage in type 2 diabetes treatment."

The study had no commercial funding, and the authors declared no conflicts of interest.

 

 

The healthcare industry is not yet at zero when it comes to healthcare-associated infections—and that’s a problem. Hand hygiene compliance remains a major cause.

The Joint Commission addresses that problem with the Hand Hygiene Targeted Solutions Tool (TST), an online application that guides the user through collecting and analyzing data, with suggested solutions based on the root causes revealed. “It’s based on robust process improvement, what we refer to as RPI, that brings in Lean, Six Sigma, and change management,” says Erin DuPree, MD, chief medical officer and vice president, The Joint Commission Center for Transforming Healthcare.

The tool was tested in a pilot program summarized in an article in the January 2016 issue of The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Safety, “Hand Hygiene Tool Linked to Decrease in Health Care-Associated Infections at Memorial Hermann Health System,” by M. Michael Shabot, MD, of Memorial Hermann Health System, Mark R. Chassin, MD, MPP, MPH, of The Joint Commission, and their co-authors. In more than 31,600 observations, the organization’s average hand hygiene compliance improved from 58.1% to 95.6%. Rates of central line–associated bloodstream infections and ventilator-associated pneumonia in adult ICUs decreased by 49% and 45%, respectively.

Dr. DuPree encourages hospitalists to champion hand hygiene at their own organizations. “The more physicians lead and participate, the higher performing the organization is.”

The healthcare industry is not yet at zero when it comes to healthcare-associated infections—and that’s a problem. Hand hygiene compliance remains a major cause.

The Joint Commission addresses that problem with the Hand Hygiene Targeted Solutions Tool (TST), an online application that guides the user through collecting and analyzing data, with suggested solutions based on the root causes revealed. “It’s based on robust process improvement, what we refer to as RPI, that brings in Lean, Six Sigma, and change management,” says Erin DuPree, MD, chief medical officer and vice president, The Joint Commission Center for Transforming Healthcare.

The tool was tested in a pilot program summarized in an article in the January 2016 issue of The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Safety, “Hand Hygiene Tool Linked to Decrease in Health Care-Associated Infections at Memorial Hermann Health System,” by M. Michael Shabot, MD, of Memorial Hermann Health System, Mark R. Chassin, MD, MPP, MPH, of The Joint Commission, and their co-authors. In more than 31,600 observations, the organization’s average hand hygiene compliance improved from 58.1% to 95.6%. Rates of central line–associated bloodstream infections and ventilator-associated pneumonia in adult ICUs decreased by 49% and 45%, respectively.

Dr. DuPree encourages hospitalists to champion hand hygiene at their own organizations. “The more physicians lead and participate, the higher performing the organization is.”

The healthcare industry is not yet at zero when it comes to healthcare-associated infections—and that’s a problem. Hand hygiene compliance remains a major cause.

The Joint Commission addresses that problem with the Hand Hygiene Targeted Solutions Tool (TST), an online application that guides the user through collecting and analyzing data, with suggested solutions based on the root causes revealed. “It’s based on robust process improvement, what we refer to as RPI, that brings in Lean, Six Sigma, and change management,” says Erin DuPree, MD, chief medical officer and vice president, The Joint Commission Center for Transforming Healthcare.

The tool was tested in a pilot program summarized in an article in the January 2016 issue of The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Safety, “Hand Hygiene Tool Linked to Decrease in Health Care-Associated Infections at Memorial Hermann Health System,” by M. Michael Shabot, MD, of Memorial Hermann Health System, Mark R. Chassin, MD, MPP, MPH, of The Joint Commission, and their co-authors. In more than 31,600 observations, the organization’s average hand hygiene compliance improved from 58.1% to 95.6%. Rates of central line–associated bloodstream infections and ventilator-associated pneumonia in adult ICUs decreased by 49% and 45%, respectively.

Dr. DuPree encourages hospitalists to champion hand hygiene at their own organizations. “The more physicians lead and participate, the higher performing the organization is.”

Are we overlooking factors that could help bring about necessary changes to the healthcare industry? Elliott S. Fisher, MD, MPH, of the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, thinks so.

“We are missing an important opportunity to learn from what is going on in health systems every day that could tell us how to make healthcare better and cheaper,” says Dr. Fisher, lead author of a January 2016 JAMA “Viewpoint” called “Implementation Science: A Potential Catalyst for Delivery System Reform.” “That’s the argument for the the field of implementation science.”

Implementation science studies ways to promote the integration of research findings and evidence into the healthcare system. Dr. Fisher says that integration is influenced by multiple factors: the characteristic of the innovation itself, the organizational setting, and the policy or community environment within which that organization is working. Context matters.

“We tend to think about adopting innovations like a new blood pressure medication or a new device,” Dr. Fisher says. “Those decisions rest almost entirely on the shoulders of physicians, so adoption requires thinking about the attributes of biomedical innovations and how physicians think.”

With care delivery innovations—for example, how to provide optimal care for people with heart failure across home, hospital, and nursing home—those are often developed with clinical input but by people who are fundamentally managers.

“It’s a more complex set of actors,” he says, “so you have to think about those decision makers if you’re going to get the best evidence-based practice into their setting.”

A third category of innovation focuses on individual behavior change, where the decision makers are the clinician and the patient and family. “You’ve got to persuade the patient the innovation is worth doing, so different factors may influence the successful adoptions of those interventions,” Dr. Fisher says.

Reference

1. Fisher ES, Shortell SM, Savitz LA. Implementation science: a potential catalyst for delivery system reform. JAMA. 2016;315(4):339-340. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.17949.

Are we overlooking factors that could help bring about necessary changes to the healthcare industry? Elliott S. Fisher, MD, MPH, of the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, thinks so.

“We are missing an important opportunity to learn from what is going on in health systems every day that could tell us how to make healthcare better and cheaper,” says Dr. Fisher, lead author of a January 2016 JAMA “Viewpoint” called “Implementation Science: A Potential Catalyst for Delivery System Reform.” “That’s the argument for the the field of implementation science.”

Implementation science studies ways to promote the integration of research findings and evidence into the healthcare system. Dr. Fisher says that integration is influenced by multiple factors: the characteristic of the innovation itself, the organizational setting, and the policy or community environment within which that organization is working. Context matters.

“We tend to think about adopting innovations like a new blood pressure medication or a new device,” Dr. Fisher says. “Those decisions rest almost entirely on the shoulders of physicians, so adoption requires thinking about the attributes of biomedical innovations and how physicians think.”

With care delivery innovations—for example, how to provide optimal care for people with heart failure across home, hospital, and nursing home—those are often developed with clinical input but by people who are fundamentally managers.

“It’s a more complex set of actors,” he says, “so you have to think about those decision makers if you’re going to get the best evidence-based practice into their setting.”

A third category of innovation focuses on individual behavior change, where the decision makers are the clinician and the patient and family. “You’ve got to persuade the patient the innovation is worth doing, so different factors may influence the successful adoptions of those interventions,” Dr. Fisher says.

Reference

1. Fisher ES, Shortell SM, Savitz LA. Implementation science: a potential catalyst for delivery system reform. JAMA. 2016;315(4):339-340. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.17949.

Are we overlooking factors that could help bring about necessary changes to the healthcare industry? Elliott S. Fisher, MD, MPH, of the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, thinks so.

“We are missing an important opportunity to learn from what is going on in health systems every day that could tell us how to make healthcare better and cheaper,” says Dr. Fisher, lead author of a January 2016 JAMA “Viewpoint” called “Implementation Science: A Potential Catalyst for Delivery System Reform.” “That’s the argument for the the field of implementation science.”

Implementation science studies ways to promote the integration of research findings and evidence into the healthcare system. Dr. Fisher says that integration is influenced by multiple factors: the characteristic of the innovation itself, the organizational setting, and the policy or community environment within which that organization is working. Context matters.

“We tend to think about adopting innovations like a new blood pressure medication or a new device,” Dr. Fisher says. “Those decisions rest almost entirely on the shoulders of physicians, so adoption requires thinking about the attributes of biomedical innovations and how physicians think.”

With care delivery innovations—for example, how to provide optimal care for people with heart failure across home, hospital, and nursing home—those are often developed with clinical input but by people who are fundamentally managers.

“It’s a more complex set of actors,” he says, “so you have to think about those decision makers if you’re going to get the best evidence-based practice into their setting.”

A third category of innovation focuses on individual behavior change, where the decision makers are the clinician and the patient and family. “You’ve got to persuade the patient the innovation is worth doing, so different factors may influence the successful adoptions of those interventions,” Dr. Fisher says.

Reference

1. Fisher ES, Shortell SM, Savitz LA. Implementation science: a potential catalyst for delivery system reform. JAMA. 2016;315(4):339-340. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.17949.

Hopefully, many of you were able to attend the Society of Hospital Medicine’s annual meeting this year in San Diego. (I know at least 4,000 of you made it!) Each year, the annual meeting is a time of catching up with hospitalists from around the country (many of whom I only see once a year) and catching up on what is going on in the medical industry.

This year was not particularly unique in that many sessions focused on the myriad challenges we should expect to see in the medical industry in the coming years. There was much discussion about future payment models; although there is ongoing ambiguity about exactly how these models are going to be operationalized, there is certainly no ambiguity that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is hard driving the amount of payments that will be tied to some form of alternative payment model (50% by 2018).

We also heard about ongoing challenges in quality and safety, where a stunning number of patients continue to suffer preventable harm on a daily basis within our hospital walls. And we heard much about the ongoing and mounting opiate abuse epidemic. All of these are monumentally difficult challenges that remain unsolved and without a clear path forward to resolution.

Contrast that with the message from the U.S. Surgeon General during the opening plenary of the annual meeting. Vivek Murthy, MD, was named Surgeon General at a time in the U.S. when all of the above challenges are being added to the abounding issues of chronic disease, mental illness, and extraordinary healthcare costs. He is the highest leader in the nation ordained with trying to improve the health of all Americans at a time when we have never been unhealthier. But despite these monumental challenges, his message was not about the average American body mass index (BMI), smoking status, or heroin addiction. Much different, his message was chock full of amazing stories of community engagement and resilience, focused on innovation and fresh thinking, and about creative problem-solving despite lean and unforgiving budgets.

What Dr. Murthy offered were endless stories of hope and goodness, which he was able to find in each and every city he has visited in his short time as the nation’s “top doc.”

During his tenure, he has visited innumerable communities and engaged with locals in listening sessions. His takeaway from these sessions is “you wouldn’t believe how much good is out there.” One of his many stories was of a hospital and a YMCA that joined forces to improve the health and well-being of the hospital patients, employees, and entire community. This was at a time when both were struggling with lean budgets and stagnant progress in healthy living.

This pragmatic optimism reminds me a bit of one of my life mentors, my Aunt Karen. She is extremely realistic and grounded and knows in great detail the trials and tribulations of being alive for 66 years (including being a 10-year survivor of recurrent ovarian rhabdomyosarcoma). What Aunt Karen does that is so uniquely different than anyone else I know is that she creates goodness. I did not fully understand this until a few years ago, but I noticed that she goes out of her way to create extreme goodness out of extreme ordinariness. I have often joked that she purposely befriends pregnant women just to have an excuse to host a baby shower. She goes overboard to make any and every excuse to celebrate relatively ordinary life milestones (anniversaries, Valentine’s Day, St. Patrick’s Day). In her words, “you have to have a buffer for the funerals.”

 

Flip Your Switch

And so while Dr. Murthy and Aunt Karen have little else in common, they do share the priceless ability to help others see the goodness in everything around them even when surrounded by remarkable challenges and uncertainty. What a unique gift they have.

But are there simple ways we can all incorporate such goodness into our lives and start to routinely build in these buffers?

In your own personal life and work life, what are your buffers? How could you routinely and repeatedly “find the good” in all things around you?

A few months ago, I started searching for what I call “inbox buffers” as I noticed my email inbox was routinely chock full of requests for time, advice, or resources (all of which can be limited). I found a daily email called “The Daily Good.” It comes into my inbox early each morning and typically covers a human-interest story that is short, interesting, and inspiring. I have found these help me reset my mindset and attitude toward one that is more resilient and forgiving; in other words, it helps me find the good even within the crevices of a cranky email inbox. I have many other buffers, but I cite this one as it is simple, easy, free, predictable, dependable, and routinely inspiring!

So in this time when hospitalists are facing monumental change, unpredictable conflict, and unending challenges, we all need to purposely and repeatedly build in buffers to keep us hopeful and motivated and to seamlessly and routinely find the good in all we do. TH

---

Dr. Scheurer is a hospitalist and chief quality officer at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston. She is physician editor of The Hospitalist. Email her at [email protected].

Hopefully, many of you were able to attend the Society of Hospital Medicine’s annual meeting this year in San Diego. (I know at least 4,000 of you made it!) Each year, the annual meeting is a time of catching up with hospitalists from around the country (many of whom I only see once a year) and catching up on what is going on in the medical industry.

This year was not particularly unique in that many sessions focused on the myriad challenges we should expect to see in the medical industry in the coming years. There was much discussion about future payment models; although there is ongoing ambiguity about exactly how these models are going to be operationalized, there is certainly no ambiguity that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is hard driving the amount of payments that will be tied to some form of alternative payment model (50% by 2018).

We also heard about ongoing challenges in quality and safety, where a stunning number of patients continue to suffer preventable harm on a daily basis within our hospital walls. And we heard much about the ongoing and mounting opiate abuse epidemic. All of these are monumentally difficult challenges that remain unsolved and without a clear path forward to resolution.

Contrast that with the message from the U.S. Surgeon General during the opening plenary of the annual meeting. Vivek Murthy, MD, was named Surgeon General at a time in the U.S. when all of the above challenges are being added to the abounding issues of chronic disease, mental illness, and extraordinary healthcare costs. He is the highest leader in the nation ordained with trying to improve the health of all Americans at a time when we have never been unhealthier. But despite these monumental challenges, his message was not about the average American body mass index (BMI), smoking status, or heroin addiction. Much different, his message was chock full of amazing stories of community engagement and resilience, focused on innovation and fresh thinking, and about creative problem-solving despite lean and unforgiving budgets.

What Dr. Murthy offered were endless stories of hope and goodness, which he was able to find in each and every city he has visited in his short time as the nation’s “top doc.”

During his tenure, he has visited innumerable communities and engaged with locals in listening sessions. His takeaway from these sessions is “you wouldn’t believe how much good is out there.” One of his many stories was of a hospital and a YMCA that joined forces to improve the health and well-being of the hospital patients, employees, and entire community. This was at a time when both were struggling with lean budgets and stagnant progress in healthy living.

This pragmatic optimism reminds me a bit of one of my life mentors, my Aunt Karen. She is extremely realistic and grounded and knows in great detail the trials and tribulations of being alive for 66 years (including being a 10-year survivor of recurrent ovarian rhabdomyosarcoma). What Aunt Karen does that is so uniquely different than anyone else I know is that she creates goodness. I did not fully understand this until a few years ago, but I noticed that she goes out of her way to create extreme goodness out of extreme ordinariness. I have often joked that she purposely befriends pregnant women just to have an excuse to host a baby shower. She goes overboard to make any and every excuse to celebrate relatively ordinary life milestones (anniversaries, Valentine’s Day, St. Patrick’s Day). In her words, “you have to have a buffer for the funerals.”

 

Flip Your Switch

And so while Dr. Murthy and Aunt Karen have little else in common, they do share the priceless ability to help others see the goodness in everything around them even when surrounded by remarkable challenges and uncertainty. What a unique gift they have.

But are there simple ways we can all incorporate such goodness into our lives and start to routinely build in these buffers?

In your own personal life and work life, what are your buffers? How could you routinely and repeatedly “find the good” in all things around you?

A few months ago, I started searching for what I call “inbox buffers” as I noticed my email inbox was routinely chock full of requests for time, advice, or resources (all of which can be limited). I found a daily email called “The Daily Good.” It comes into my inbox early each morning and typically covers a human-interest story that is short, interesting, and inspiring. I have found these help me reset my mindset and attitude toward one that is more resilient and forgiving; in other words, it helps me find the good even within the crevices of a cranky email inbox. I have many other buffers, but I cite this one as it is simple, easy, free, predictable, dependable, and routinely inspiring!

So in this time when hospitalists are facing monumental change, unpredictable conflict, and unending challenges, we all need to purposely and repeatedly build in buffers to keep us hopeful and motivated and to seamlessly and routinely find the good in all we do. TH

---

Dr. Scheurer is a hospitalist and chief quality officer at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston. She is physician editor of The Hospitalist. Email her at [email protected].

Hopefully, many of you were able to attend the Society of Hospital Medicine’s annual meeting this year in San Diego. (I know at least 4,000 of you made it!) Each year, the annual meeting is a time of catching up with hospitalists from around the country (many of whom I only see once a year) and catching up on what is going on in the medical industry.

This year was not particularly unique in that many sessions focused on the myriad challenges we should expect to see in the medical industry in the coming years. There was much discussion about future payment models; although there is ongoing ambiguity about exactly how these models are going to be operationalized, there is certainly no ambiguity that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is hard driving the amount of payments that will be tied to some form of alternative payment model (50% by 2018).

We also heard about ongoing challenges in quality and safety, where a stunning number of patients continue to suffer preventable harm on a daily basis within our hospital walls. And we heard much about the ongoing and mounting opiate abuse epidemic. All of these are monumentally difficult challenges that remain unsolved and without a clear path forward to resolution.

Contrast that with the message from the U.S. Surgeon General during the opening plenary of the annual meeting. Vivek Murthy, MD, was named Surgeon General at a time in the U.S. when all of the above challenges are being added to the abounding issues of chronic disease, mental illness, and extraordinary healthcare costs. He is the highest leader in the nation ordained with trying to improve the health of all Americans at a time when we have never been unhealthier. But despite these monumental challenges, his message was not about the average American body mass index (BMI), smoking status, or heroin addiction. Much different, his message was chock full of amazing stories of community engagement and resilience, focused on innovation and fresh thinking, and about creative problem-solving despite lean and unforgiving budgets.

What Dr. Murthy offered were endless stories of hope and goodness, which he was able to find in each and every city he has visited in his short time as the nation’s “top doc.”

During his tenure, he has visited innumerable communities and engaged with locals in listening sessions. His takeaway from these sessions is “you wouldn’t believe how much good is out there.” One of his many stories was of a hospital and a YMCA that joined forces to improve the health and well-being of the hospital patients, employees, and entire community. This was at a time when both were struggling with lean budgets and stagnant progress in healthy living.

This pragmatic optimism reminds me a bit of one of my life mentors, my Aunt Karen. She is extremely realistic and grounded and knows in great detail the trials and tribulations of being alive for 66 years (including being a 10-year survivor of recurrent ovarian rhabdomyosarcoma). What Aunt Karen does that is so uniquely different than anyone else I know is that she creates goodness. I did not fully understand this until a few years ago, but I noticed that she goes out of her way to create extreme goodness out of extreme ordinariness. I have often joked that she purposely befriends pregnant women just to have an excuse to host a baby shower. She goes overboard to make any and every excuse to celebrate relatively ordinary life milestones (anniversaries, Valentine’s Day, St. Patrick’s Day). In her words, “you have to have a buffer for the funerals.”

 

Flip Your Switch

And so while Dr. Murthy and Aunt Karen have little else in common, they do share the priceless ability to help others see the goodness in everything around them even when surrounded by remarkable challenges and uncertainty. What a unique gift they have.

But are there simple ways we can all incorporate such goodness into our lives and start to routinely build in these buffers?

In your own personal life and work life, what are your buffers? How could you routinely and repeatedly “find the good” in all things around you?

A few months ago, I started searching for what I call “inbox buffers” as I noticed my email inbox was routinely chock full of requests for time, advice, or resources (all of which can be limited). I found a daily email called “The Daily Good.” It comes into my inbox early each morning and typically covers a human-interest story that is short, interesting, and inspiring. I have found these help me reset my mindset and attitude toward one that is more resilient and forgiving; in other words, it helps me find the good even within the crevices of a cranky email inbox. I have many other buffers, but I cite this one as it is simple, easy, free, predictable, dependable, and routinely inspiring!

So in this time when hospitalists are facing monumental change, unpredictable conflict, and unending challenges, we all need to purposely and repeatedly build in buffers to keep us hopeful and motivated and to seamlessly and routinely find the good in all we do. TH

---

Dr. Scheurer is a hospitalist and chief quality officer at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston. She is physician editor of The Hospitalist. Email her at [email protected].

One of the things that Jennifer Feighner, MD, cheerfully came away with at HM16 was how to better complete a task that is distinctly uncheerful but also important to any high-performing hospital: how to collect the data of the dead.

The quality improvement session “Reducing Inpatient Mortality: A Standardized Approach to Identify Preventable Deaths” demonstrated still evolving but, so far, well-performing projects that have been rolled out at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Duke University Health System.

“I was struck by the methodology for getting input from multiple providers and the nursing staff,” said Dr. Feighner, director of hospital medicine at Marcus Daly Memorial Hospital in Hamilton, Mont.

As the role of the hospitalist as agent of change and improvement continues to grow, the topic of quality improvement (QI) maintained a high profile at the annual meeting, with talks on the latest literature, sustaining motivation to complete projects, and dealing with issues such as handoffs and frequent fliers.

In the mortality review session, presenters set out to give details that could be a model to be used elsewhere. At Brigham and Women’s, all of the frontline clinicians are asked by email to fill out a report when a death occurs in any case with which they’ve been involved, with the Web-based reports to be completed within 48 to 72 hours of the death.

The number of deaths, the report completion rate, death “preventability,” and issues that arose for the patient during hospitalization are some of the data that are tracked. So far, the system has identified such themes as “alarm fatigue,” high oxygen requirements on non-intensive-care floors, handoffs, and transfers from other hospitals, said Kiran Gupta, MD, MPH, who completed her residency at Brigham and is now assistant professor of clinical medicine at the University of California San Francisco.

At Duke, where the mortality review system improvements have been led by Jonathan Bae, MD, assistant professor of medicine, self-nicknamed “Dr. Death,” inpatient deaths undergo a similarly comprehensive review, with an enhanced end-of-life section to cover issues particular to those cases and flags for cases that need independent review.

Dr. Gupta and Dr. Bae emphasized the confidentiality of the reviews and that they are non-discoverable in the event of litigation, which they hope give clinicians the freedom to fully report their observations.

Dr. Feighner said that her 23-bed hospital is far smaller than either Brigham or Duke, of course, but that the overall ideas can translate.

“I am the medical director of our hospitalist program, and our chief of staff and I’ve created a peer-review medical staff quality improvement committee,” she said. “So this obviously has a lot of interest to me.”

With only 4.2 full-time equivalents (FTEs) in her department, she said changes would be even easier to put into place.

“I think that will be really helpful for our peer-review committee and our quality and safety committee. I could see how we could take this and kind of revise it a little bit,” she said. “When you’re in charge of that few people, it’s easy to get processes implemented. We are more limited in monetary resources, but we make up for that in manpower-to-problem ratio, I guess.”

In another session, Jordan Messler, MD, SFHM, a hospitalist and former medical director of the hospitalist group at Morton Plant Hospital in Clearwater, Fla., confronted the startling statistic that 80% of initiatives in hospitals never meet their objectives. Hurdles such as burnout and disengagement, he said, often stand in the way of successful QI projects.

He emphasized the importance of intrinsic motivation (a sense of ownership and passion for the work) over extrinsic motivation (a fear of reprisal if something isn’t done). A step as simple as assigning a title (e.g., “head of readmissions”) can be a motivator, he said. But he also emphasized that project ideas need to be timed correctly and the ideas should ideally come from the physicians leading them.

 

Robert Clothier, RN, a practice manager for the hospitalist group at ThedaCare in Wisconsin, said he was struck by the lessons gleaned in a workshop on the I-PASS system of handoffs—a standardized system with a handoff sheet, studied prospectively, in which medical errors decreased by 23% and preventable adverse events fell by 30%.1 The system was created in pediatric departments but was deliberately made to be translatable to other settings.

“Instead of focusing on the outcome of the quality of the handoff, they focus on the quality of the feedback sessions,” Clothier said. “So it’s not the person giving the handoff or receiving the handoff that actually assesses it. It’s just the person who’s sitting there watching.”

He said the workshop underscored the importance of standardization, a concept with which he was familiar but which now seemed particularly vital.

“If you do the process and everybody does it the same, then it’s not only the person that’s giving the information who can do it in a very standardized way but the person who’s listening already knows what they’re going to be listening for so they hear it more clearly because they don’t have to discern what’s coming next,” Clothier said. “They already know what’s coming next.” TH

Reference

1. Starmer AJ, Spector ND, Srivastava R, et al. Changes in medical errors after implementation of a handoff program. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:1803-1812.

One of the things that Jennifer Feighner, MD, cheerfully came away with at HM16 was how to better complete a task that is distinctly uncheerful but also important to any high-performing hospital: how to collect the data of the dead.

The quality improvement session “Reducing Inpatient Mortality: A Standardized Approach to Identify Preventable Deaths” demonstrated still evolving but, so far, well-performing projects that have been rolled out at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Duke University Health System.

“I was struck by the methodology for getting input from multiple providers and the nursing staff,” said Dr. Feighner, director of hospital medicine at Marcus Daly Memorial Hospital in Hamilton, Mont.

As the role of the hospitalist as agent of change and improvement continues to grow, the topic of quality improvement (QI) maintained a high profile at the annual meeting, with talks on the latest literature, sustaining motivation to complete projects, and dealing with issues such as handoffs and frequent fliers.

In the mortality review session, presenters set out to give details that could be a model to be used elsewhere. At Brigham and Women’s, all of the frontline clinicians are asked by email to fill out a report when a death occurs in any case with which they’ve been involved, with the Web-based reports to be completed within 48 to 72 hours of the death.

The number of deaths, the report completion rate, death “preventability,” and issues that arose for the patient during hospitalization are some of the data that are tracked. So far, the system has identified such themes as “alarm fatigue,” high oxygen requirements on non-intensive-care floors, handoffs, and transfers from other hospitals, said Kiran Gupta, MD, MPH, who completed her residency at Brigham and is now assistant professor of clinical medicine at the University of California San Francisco.

At Duke, where the mortality review system improvements have been led by Jonathan Bae, MD, assistant professor of medicine, self-nicknamed “Dr. Death,” inpatient deaths undergo a similarly comprehensive review, with an enhanced end-of-life section to cover issues particular to those cases and flags for cases that need independent review.

Dr. Gupta and Dr. Bae emphasized the confidentiality of the reviews and that they are non-discoverable in the event of litigation, which they hope give clinicians the freedom to fully report their observations.

Dr. Feighner said that her 23-bed hospital is far smaller than either Brigham or Duke, of course, but that the overall ideas can translate.

“I am the medical director of our hospitalist program, and our chief of staff and I’ve created a peer-review medical staff quality improvement committee,” she said. “So this obviously has a lot of interest to me.”

With only 4.2 full-time equivalents (FTEs) in her department, she said changes would be even easier to put into place.

“I think that will be really helpful for our peer-review committee and our quality and safety committee. I could see how we could take this and kind of revise it a little bit,” she said. “When you’re in charge of that few people, it’s easy to get processes implemented. We are more limited in monetary resources, but we make up for that in manpower-to-problem ratio, I guess.”

In another session, Jordan Messler, MD, SFHM, a hospitalist and former medical director of the hospitalist group at Morton Plant Hospital in Clearwater, Fla., confronted the startling statistic that 80% of initiatives in hospitals never meet their objectives. Hurdles such as burnout and disengagement, he said, often stand in the way of successful QI projects.

He emphasized the importance of intrinsic motivation (a sense of ownership and passion for the work) over extrinsic motivation (a fear of reprisal if something isn’t done). A step as simple as assigning a title (e.g., “head of readmissions”) can be a motivator, he said. But he also emphasized that project ideas need to be timed correctly and the ideas should ideally come from the physicians leading them.

 

Robert Clothier, RN, a practice manager for the hospitalist group at ThedaCare in Wisconsin, said he was struck by the lessons gleaned in a workshop on the I-PASS system of handoffs—a standardized system with a handoff sheet, studied prospectively, in which medical errors decreased by 23% and preventable adverse events fell by 30%.1 The system was created in pediatric departments but was deliberately made to be translatable to other settings.

“Instead of focusing on the outcome of the quality of the handoff, they focus on the quality of the feedback sessions,” Clothier said. “So it’s not the person giving the handoff or receiving the handoff that actually assesses it. It’s just the person who’s sitting there watching.”

He said the workshop underscored the importance of standardization, a concept with which he was familiar but which now seemed particularly vital.

“If you do the process and everybody does it the same, then it’s not only the person that’s giving the information who can do it in a very standardized way but the person who’s listening already knows what they’re going to be listening for so they hear it more clearly because they don’t have to discern what’s coming next,” Clothier said. “They already know what’s coming next.” TH

Reference

1. Starmer AJ, Spector ND, Srivastava R, et al. Changes in medical errors after implementation of a handoff program. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:1803-1812.

One of the things that Jennifer Feighner, MD, cheerfully came away with at HM16 was how to better complete a task that is distinctly uncheerful but also important to any high-performing hospital: how to collect the data of the dead.

The quality improvement session “Reducing Inpatient Mortality: A Standardized Approach to Identify Preventable Deaths” demonstrated still evolving but, so far, well-performing projects that have been rolled out at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Duke University Health System.

“I was struck by the methodology for getting input from multiple providers and the nursing staff,” said Dr. Feighner, director of hospital medicine at Marcus Daly Memorial Hospital in Hamilton, Mont.

As the role of the hospitalist as agent of change and improvement continues to grow, the topic of quality improvement (QI) maintained a high profile at the annual meeting, with talks on the latest literature, sustaining motivation to complete projects, and dealing with issues such as handoffs and frequent fliers.

In the mortality review session, presenters set out to give details that could be a model to be used elsewhere. At Brigham and Women’s, all of the frontline clinicians are asked by email to fill out a report when a death occurs in any case with which they’ve been involved, with the Web-based reports to be completed within 48 to 72 hours of the death.

The number of deaths, the report completion rate, death “preventability,” and issues that arose for the patient during hospitalization are some of the data that are tracked. So far, the system has identified such themes as “alarm fatigue,” high oxygen requirements on non-intensive-care floors, handoffs, and transfers from other hospitals, said Kiran Gupta, MD, MPH, who completed her residency at Brigham and is now assistant professor of clinical medicine at the University of California San Francisco.

At Duke, where the mortality review system improvements have been led by Jonathan Bae, MD, assistant professor of medicine, self-nicknamed “Dr. Death,” inpatient deaths undergo a similarly comprehensive review, with an enhanced end-of-life section to cover issues particular to those cases and flags for cases that need independent review.

Dr. Gupta and Dr. Bae emphasized the confidentiality of the reviews and that they are non-discoverable in the event of litigation, which they hope give clinicians the freedom to fully report their observations.

Dr. Feighner said that her 23-bed hospital is far smaller than either Brigham or Duke, of course, but that the overall ideas can translate.

“I am the medical director of our hospitalist program, and our chief of staff and I’ve created a peer-review medical staff quality improvement committee,” she said. “So this obviously has a lot of interest to me.”

With only 4.2 full-time equivalents (FTEs) in her department, she said changes would be even easier to put into place.

“I think that will be really helpful for our peer-review committee and our quality and safety committee. I could see how we could take this and kind of revise it a little bit,” she said. “When you’re in charge of that few people, it’s easy to get processes implemented. We are more limited in monetary resources, but we make up for that in manpower-to-problem ratio, I guess.”

In another session, Jordan Messler, MD, SFHM, a hospitalist and former medical director of the hospitalist group at Morton Plant Hospital in Clearwater, Fla., confronted the startling statistic that 80% of initiatives in hospitals never meet their objectives. Hurdles such as burnout and disengagement, he said, often stand in the way of successful QI projects.

He emphasized the importance of intrinsic motivation (a sense of ownership and passion for the work) over extrinsic motivation (a fear of reprisal if something isn’t done). A step as simple as assigning a title (e.g., “head of readmissions”) can be a motivator, he said. But he also emphasized that project ideas need to be timed correctly and the ideas should ideally come from the physicians leading them.

 

Robert Clothier, RN, a practice manager for the hospitalist group at ThedaCare in Wisconsin, said he was struck by the lessons gleaned in a workshop on the I-PASS system of handoffs—a standardized system with a handoff sheet, studied prospectively, in which medical errors decreased by 23% and preventable adverse events fell by 30%.1 The system was created in pediatric departments but was deliberately made to be translatable to other settings.

“Instead of focusing on the outcome of the quality of the handoff, they focus on the quality of the feedback sessions,” Clothier said. “So it’s not the person giving the handoff or receiving the handoff that actually assesses it. It’s just the person who’s sitting there watching.”

He said the workshop underscored the importance of standardization, a concept with which he was familiar but which now seemed particularly vital.

“If you do the process and everybody does it the same, then it’s not only the person that’s giving the information who can do it in a very standardized way but the person who’s listening already knows what they’re going to be listening for so they hear it more clearly because they don’t have to discern what’s coming next,” Clothier said. “They already know what’s coming next.” TH

Reference

1. Starmer AJ, Spector ND, Srivastava R, et al. Changes in medical errors after implementation of a handoff program. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:1803-1812.

[WpProQuiz 6]

[WpProQuiz_toplist 6]

[WpProQuiz 6]

[WpProQuiz_toplist 6]

[WpProQuiz 6]

[WpProQuiz_toplist 6]