Health IT

Maybe you just returned from HM14 in Las Vegas and are ready to head back. Or maybe you missed out on SHM’s annual meeting but would like to meet up with an important part of the hospitalist team: hospital and health system pharmacists.

Regardless of your motivation, the American Society of Health-System Pharmacist’s (ASHP’s) combination of three meetings in one brings a wealth of information to hospitalists—physicians and pharmacists alike—and now SHM members can register for the Medication Safety Collaborative at the applicable ASHP member rates.

SHM members receive the ASHP member rate at ASHP’s meeting within a meeting for hospital and health system pharmacists, to be held May 31-June 4 in Las Vegas.

Many hospitalists will be especially interested in the Medication Safety Collaborative, which brings the entire hospital team together to share best practices in medication and patient safety.

The Medication Safety Collaborative consists of three meetings:

• ASHP Informatics Institute: An event for informaticists to innovate, interact, and improve the use of information technology in healthcare;
• The Medication Safety Collaborative: For inter-professional teams of health system-based clinicians, coordinators, managers, and administrators who focus on patient safety and quality; and
• Pharmacy Practice Policy: The most relevant issues affecting health system pharmacy practice today at ASHP’s first Pharmacy Practice and Policy Meeting.

Maybe you just returned from HM14 in Las Vegas and are ready to head back. Or maybe you missed out on SHM’s annual meeting but would like to meet up with an important part of the hospitalist team: hospital and health system pharmacists.

Regardless of your motivation, the American Society of Health-System Pharmacist’s (ASHP’s) combination of three meetings in one brings a wealth of information to hospitalists—physicians and pharmacists alike—and now SHM members can register for the Medication Safety Collaborative at the applicable ASHP member rates.

SHM members receive the ASHP member rate at ASHP’s meeting within a meeting for hospital and health system pharmacists, to be held May 31-June 4 in Las Vegas.

Many hospitalists will be especially interested in the Medication Safety Collaborative, which brings the entire hospital team together to share best practices in medication and patient safety.

The Medication Safety Collaborative consists of three meetings:

• ASHP Informatics Institute: An event for informaticists to innovate, interact, and improve the use of information technology in healthcare;
• The Medication Safety Collaborative: For inter-professional teams of health system-based clinicians, coordinators, managers, and administrators who focus on patient safety and quality; and
• Pharmacy Practice Policy: The most relevant issues affecting health system pharmacy practice today at ASHP’s first Pharmacy Practice and Policy Meeting.

Maybe you just returned from HM14 in Las Vegas and are ready to head back. Or maybe you missed out on SHM’s annual meeting but would like to meet up with an important part of the hospitalist team: hospital and health system pharmacists.

Regardless of your motivation, the American Society of Health-System Pharmacist’s (ASHP’s) combination of three meetings in one brings a wealth of information to hospitalists—physicians and pharmacists alike—and now SHM members can register for the Medication Safety Collaborative at the applicable ASHP member rates.

SHM members receive the ASHP member rate at ASHP’s meeting within a meeting for hospital and health system pharmacists, to be held May 31-June 4 in Las Vegas.

Many hospitalists will be especially interested in the Medication Safety Collaborative, which brings the entire hospital team together to share best practices in medication and patient safety.

The Medication Safety Collaborative consists of three meetings:

• ASHP Informatics Institute: An event for informaticists to innovate, interact, and improve the use of information technology in healthcare;
• The Medication Safety Collaborative: For inter-professional teams of health system-based clinicians, coordinators, managers, and administrators who focus on patient safety and quality; and
• Pharmacy Practice Policy: The most relevant issues affecting health system pharmacy practice today at ASHP’s first Pharmacy Practice and Policy Meeting.

HMX: Two New Communities, Lots of New Conversations

More than 2,500 hospitalists have logged in to HMX (www.hmxchange.org) to share their experiences and learn from the experiences of other hospitalists. And now, two other groups of hospitalists have a new reason to check out HMX.

The first community, for family medicine hospitalists, was launched in October. Approximately 10% of SHM’s active members are hospitalists trained in family medicine (HTFM), many of whom are very active within SHM. More than 60 hospitalists trained in family medicine are either Fellows in Hospital Medicine or Senior Fellows in Hospital Medicine.

And, in December, hospitalists who work in post-acute care can work together to tackle the challenges unique to post-acute care. This new community was an outgrowth of SHM’s Post-Acute Care Task Force.

Brendon Shank is SHM’s associate vice president of communications.

HMX: Two New Communities, Lots of New Conversations

More than 2,500 hospitalists have logged in to HMX (www.hmxchange.org) to share their experiences and learn from the experiences of other hospitalists. And now, two other groups of hospitalists have a new reason to check out HMX.

The first community, for family medicine hospitalists, was launched in October. Approximately 10% of SHM’s active members are hospitalists trained in family medicine (HTFM), many of whom are very active within SHM. More than 60 hospitalists trained in family medicine are either Fellows in Hospital Medicine or Senior Fellows in Hospital Medicine.

And, in December, hospitalists who work in post-acute care can work together to tackle the challenges unique to post-acute care. This new community was an outgrowth of SHM’s Post-Acute Care Task Force.

Brendon Shank is SHM’s associate vice president of communications.

HMX: Two New Communities, Lots of New Conversations

More than 2,500 hospitalists have logged in to HMX (www.hmxchange.org) to share their experiences and learn from the experiences of other hospitalists. And now, two other groups of hospitalists have a new reason to check out HMX.

The first community, for family medicine hospitalists, was launched in October. Approximately 10% of SHM’s active members are hospitalists trained in family medicine (HTFM), many of whom are very active within SHM. More than 60 hospitalists trained in family medicine are either Fellows in Hospital Medicine or Senior Fellows in Hospital Medicine.

And, in December, hospitalists who work in post-acute care can work together to tackle the challenges unique to post-acute care. This new community was an outgrowth of SHM’s Post-Acute Care Task Force.

Brendon Shank is SHM’s associate vice president of communications.

Prevent infections. This might be the most obvious way to fight antibiotic-resistance—if there’s no infection, there is no need to worry about one that can’t be treated. Hospitalists can help prevent infection by quickly and effectively treating those who are infected to prevent the spread, washing hands, and promoting effective cleaning habits.

Tracking. The CDC has programs to gather information on antibiotic-resistant infections, causes of infections, and risk factors for infections. With this information, hospitalists can stay aware of the threats. They can also help by remaining vigilant about signs of new resistance and helping to get that information to the CDC.

The CDC is now working on a new module that will collect antimicrobial-susceptibility data that’s generated in hospital labs, Dr. Patel says.

“This will be compiled in a national database and then made available to state and local public health departments that could track antimicrobial resistance trends in their own state,” she says. “We hope those data will then be used to identify new trends in anti-microbial resistance and used to strategize how to prevent resistance from being transmitted locally.”

Antibiotic stewardship. The CDC says prescribing antibiotics only when necessary and tailoring treatment as narrowly as possible might be the most important step in fighting antimicrobial resistance. The CDC estimates that up to half of antibiotic use in humans is unnecessary.

The CDC is working to capture data on antibiotic use in healthcare settings, which will be used for benchmarking antibiotic use among different institutions and regions.

“I think this additional information will really help healthcare institutions measure how well antibiotics are being used in their institutions and make appropriate adjustments,” Dr. Patel says.

New drugs and diagnostic tests. New antibiotics will be needed because, while resistance can be slowed, it cannot be stopped. However, the number of New Drug Application approvals for antibiotics has fallen drastically—nearly 20 from 1980 to 1984, but fewer than five from 2005 to 2012, according to the CDC report.

Prevent infections. This might be the most obvious way to fight antibiotic-resistance—if there’s no infection, there is no need to worry about one that can’t be treated. Hospitalists can help prevent infection by quickly and effectively treating those who are infected to prevent the spread, washing hands, and promoting effective cleaning habits.

Tracking. The CDC has programs to gather information on antibiotic-resistant infections, causes of infections, and risk factors for infections. With this information, hospitalists can stay aware of the threats. They can also help by remaining vigilant about signs of new resistance and helping to get that information to the CDC.

The CDC is now working on a new module that will collect antimicrobial-susceptibility data that’s generated in hospital labs, Dr. Patel says.

“This will be compiled in a national database and then made available to state and local public health departments that could track antimicrobial resistance trends in their own state,” she says. “We hope those data will then be used to identify new trends in anti-microbial resistance and used to strategize how to prevent resistance from being transmitted locally.”

Antibiotic stewardship. The CDC says prescribing antibiotics only when necessary and tailoring treatment as narrowly as possible might be the most important step in fighting antimicrobial resistance. The CDC estimates that up to half of antibiotic use in humans is unnecessary.

The CDC is working to capture data on antibiotic use in healthcare settings, which will be used for benchmarking antibiotic use among different institutions and regions.

“I think this additional information will really help healthcare institutions measure how well antibiotics are being used in their institutions and make appropriate adjustments,” Dr. Patel says.

New drugs and diagnostic tests. New antibiotics will be needed because, while resistance can be slowed, it cannot be stopped. However, the number of New Drug Application approvals for antibiotics has fallen drastically—nearly 20 from 1980 to 1984, but fewer than five from 2005 to 2012, according to the CDC report.

Prevent infections. This might be the most obvious way to fight antibiotic-resistance—if there’s no infection, there is no need to worry about one that can’t be treated. Hospitalists can help prevent infection by quickly and effectively treating those who are infected to prevent the spread, washing hands, and promoting effective cleaning habits.

Tracking. The CDC has programs to gather information on antibiotic-resistant infections, causes of infections, and risk factors for infections. With this information, hospitalists can stay aware of the threats. They can also help by remaining vigilant about signs of new resistance and helping to get that information to the CDC.

The CDC is now working on a new module that will collect antimicrobial-susceptibility data that’s generated in hospital labs, Dr. Patel says.

“This will be compiled in a national database and then made available to state and local public health departments that could track antimicrobial resistance trends in their own state,” she says. “We hope those data will then be used to identify new trends in anti-microbial resistance and used to strategize how to prevent resistance from being transmitted locally.”

Antibiotic stewardship. The CDC says prescribing antibiotics only when necessary and tailoring treatment as narrowly as possible might be the most important step in fighting antimicrobial resistance. The CDC estimates that up to half of antibiotic use in humans is unnecessary.

The CDC is working to capture data on antibiotic use in healthcare settings, which will be used for benchmarking antibiotic use among different institutions and regions.

“I think this additional information will really help healthcare institutions measure how well antibiotics are being used in their institutions and make appropriate adjustments,” Dr. Patel says.

New drugs and diagnostic tests. New antibiotics will be needed because, while resistance can be slowed, it cannot be stopped. However, the number of New Drug Application approvals for antibiotics has fallen drastically—nearly 20 from 1980 to 1984, but fewer than five from 2005 to 2012, according to the CDC report.

Wikipedia defines “industrial engineering” as a branch of engineering that deals with the optimization of complex processes or systems. It goes on to link industrial engineering to “operations” and use of quantitative methods to “specify, predict, and evaluate” results. Any hospitalist that’s been tapped to reduce length of stay, help manage readmissions, implement an electronic health record, or increase the quality of care likely can relate to that definition. It seems to me that hospitalists often are the de facto industrial engineers in many of our hospitals.

The hospitalist as an industrial engineer makes perfect sense. What other group of physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants provide services in virtually any clinical venue, from ED to DC, from (occasionally) PACU to ICU, the wards, and even post-discharge? Hospitalists see it all, from the first few hours of life (pediatrics) to life’s last stages (palliative care) and all stages in between. As a parody to “there’s an app for that,” Dr. Mindy Kantsiper, a hospitalist in Columbia, Md., says if there’s something that needs to be fixed, “there’s a hospitalist for that.” We are the Swiss Army knives of the medical world.

Looking through the HMX “Practice Management” discussions on the SHM website (www.hospitalmedicine.com/xchange) confirms my belief. Topics are as varied as using RNs in hospitalist practices, medication reconciliation, billing, outpatient orders (!!) after discharge, and patient-centered care/patient satisfaction. And that was just the last two weeks!

Type “hospitalist” into PubMed, and the words that auto-populate are: model, care, quality, discharge, communication, program, and handoff—all words I think of as system-related issues. Oh, sure, there are clinical-related topics, too, of course, just like for the “organ-based” specialties. However, none of the common organ-based specialties had any words auto-populate in PubMed that could be deemed related to “industrial engineering.”

Engineer Training

Like all engineers, we de facto industrial engineers need tools and skills to be effective at in our new engineering role. While we may not need slide rules and calculus like a more traditional engineer, many of the new skills we will need as industrial engineers were not taught in medical school, and the tools were not readily available for us to use in our training.

Fortunately, there are a plethora of options for us budding, de facto industrial engineers. Here are the ones I believe you will need and where to get them:

Skill No. 1: Negotiation.

HM is a team sport, and teams bring interpersonal dynamics and tension and conflict. Effective negotiation skills can help hospitalists use conflict to spur team growth and development rather than team dysfunction.

Tools: SHM’s Leadership Academies have effective negotiation modules in each of the leveled courses. If you can’t spare the time, then books to read include “Getting to Yes” by Fisher and Ury, or “Renegotiating Health Care” by Leonard Marcus (he lectures at SHM’s leadership academies).

Skill No. 2: Data analytics.

All engineers, including industrial engineers, need to be able to evaluate. Whether it’s quality and safety, clinical operations, or financial improvement, if you don’t measure it, you can’t change it. Some of the data will be handed to you, and you need to know the strengths and weaknesses to best interpret it. Some data you will need to define and develop measurement systems for on your own, and even basic dashboard development requires understanding data.

Tools: Wow. There are a lot here, so I am only going to mention the highlights. You could get your MBA, or MPH, or even a PhD! You certainly could train to become a “true” diploma-carrying industrial engineer. And I know of a few insightful hospitals that employ them. A less in-depth, but cheaper and faster, option is to take specific courses related to your area of interest.

The SHM-AAIM Quality and Safety Educators Academy and SHM’s Leadership Academies are two great examples. Participating in a mentored project (i.e., Project BOOST) provides structure and an experienced mentor with a cadre of experts to back them up. Many institutions have courses on data analytics, basic finance, and quality improvement. The easiest, cheapest, and probably the most common is to find a mentor at your own institution. CFOs, CNOs, CQOs, and CMOs often are eager to partner with clinicians—and frequently are delighted to talk about their areas of expertise.

Skill No. 3: Leadership.

I don’t know many leaders who were born that way. Most learned through experience and continuous self-improvement. Understanding your personality traits, the traits of others (as an introvert, I still am trying to understand how extroverts work, especially my wife), and how to get all of those different personalities to work together as a team is an important component of any team-based engineering success.

Tools: I have found the books “From Good to Great” by Jim Collins and “Switch” by Chip and Dan Heath to be invaluable. I think another one of my recent reads, “Drive” by Daniel Pink, had important lessons, too. Formal courses, such as SHM’s Leadership Academies, QSEA, and those offered by the American Hospital Association, are designed to provide hospitalists with the leadership skills they need in a variety of hospital environments.

Skill No. 4: Thinking “system” instead of “individual.”

So many of us were trained that to make improvements, we just need to “be better,” to know more, try harder, and to work longer. Good industrial engineers design systems that make it easier for our doctors, healthcare providers, and patients to succeed. Of course, we need to be accountable, too, but supportive systems are a key component to successful individuals. The airline industry learned this long ago.

Tools: I really think “Switch” is an excellent read for those of us trying to help re-engineer our complex systems. It discusses how humans are both rational and emotional, and how our environment can help both sides succeed. Another helpful tool for me is asking “why” whenever someone says “if only they would do something differently for a better outcome…”

For example, “if only the hospitalists would discharge before 2 p.m.,” or “if only the ED didn’t clump their admissions,” or “if only the nurse didn’t call during rounds”—these are all classic systems problems, not people problems, and the solution isn’t to mandate 2 p.m. discharges, or stand up in a meeting finger pointing at the ED, or admonish a nurse for calling during rounds. The solution is to find out why these behaviors occur, then eliminate, change, or minimize the reasons.

Hospitalists don’t discharge by 2 p.m. often because they are waiting on tests; ED docs work in an environment that has highly variable workloads, coupled with dysfunctional systems that promote “batching” work patterns; and nurses may not be included in rounds but still need to be able to manage minute-to-minute patient-care needs. Sure, there are a few bad apples that need to be scolded, but I bet most of the issues at your hospital aren’t related to evildoers but good people who are often trapped in dysfunctional, antiquated systems and are just trying to do the best they can for their patients.

In Closing

I’d like to say thank you to all of the “de facto” industrial engineers out there. Keep up the critically important work of that most complex system—the hospital.

Dr. Howell is president of SHM, chief of the division of hospital medicine at Johns Hopkins Bayview in Baltimore, and spends a significant part of his time and research on hospital operations. Email questions or comments to [email protected].

Wikipedia defines “industrial engineering” as a branch of engineering that deals with the optimization of complex processes or systems. It goes on to link industrial engineering to “operations” and use of quantitative methods to “specify, predict, and evaluate” results. Any hospitalist that’s been tapped to reduce length of stay, help manage readmissions, implement an electronic health record, or increase the quality of care likely can relate to that definition. It seems to me that hospitalists often are the de facto industrial engineers in many of our hospitals.

The hospitalist as an industrial engineer makes perfect sense. What other group of physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants provide services in virtually any clinical venue, from ED to DC, from (occasionally) PACU to ICU, the wards, and even post-discharge? Hospitalists see it all, from the first few hours of life (pediatrics) to life’s last stages (palliative care) and all stages in between. As a parody to “there’s an app for that,” Dr. Mindy Kantsiper, a hospitalist in Columbia, Md., says if there’s something that needs to be fixed, “there’s a hospitalist for that.” We are the Swiss Army knives of the medical world.

Looking through the HMX “Practice Management” discussions on the SHM website (www.hospitalmedicine.com/xchange) confirms my belief. Topics are as varied as using RNs in hospitalist practices, medication reconciliation, billing, outpatient orders (!!) after discharge, and patient-centered care/patient satisfaction. And that was just the last two weeks!

Type “hospitalist” into PubMed, and the words that auto-populate are: model, care, quality, discharge, communication, program, and handoff—all words I think of as system-related issues. Oh, sure, there are clinical-related topics, too, of course, just like for the “organ-based” specialties. However, none of the common organ-based specialties had any words auto-populate in PubMed that could be deemed related to “industrial engineering.”

Engineer Training

Like all engineers, we de facto industrial engineers need tools and skills to be effective at in our new engineering role. While we may not need slide rules and calculus like a more traditional engineer, many of the new skills we will need as industrial engineers were not taught in medical school, and the tools were not readily available for us to use in our training.

Fortunately, there are a plethora of options for us budding, de facto industrial engineers. Here are the ones I believe you will need and where to get them:

Skill No. 1: Negotiation.

HM is a team sport, and teams bring interpersonal dynamics and tension and conflict. Effective negotiation skills can help hospitalists use conflict to spur team growth and development rather than team dysfunction.

Tools: SHM’s Leadership Academies have effective negotiation modules in each of the leveled courses. If you can’t spare the time, then books to read include “Getting to Yes” by Fisher and Ury, or “Renegotiating Health Care” by Leonard Marcus (he lectures at SHM’s leadership academies).

Skill No. 2: Data analytics.

All engineers, including industrial engineers, need to be able to evaluate. Whether it’s quality and safety, clinical operations, or financial improvement, if you don’t measure it, you can’t change it. Some of the data will be handed to you, and you need to know the strengths and weaknesses to best interpret it. Some data you will need to define and develop measurement systems for on your own, and even basic dashboard development requires understanding data.

Tools: Wow. There are a lot here, so I am only going to mention the highlights. You could get your MBA, or MPH, or even a PhD! You certainly could train to become a “true” diploma-carrying industrial engineer. And I know of a few insightful hospitals that employ them. A less in-depth, but cheaper and faster, option is to take specific courses related to your area of interest.

The SHM-AAIM Quality and Safety Educators Academy and SHM’s Leadership Academies are two great examples. Participating in a mentored project (i.e., Project BOOST) provides structure and an experienced mentor with a cadre of experts to back them up. Many institutions have courses on data analytics, basic finance, and quality improvement. The easiest, cheapest, and probably the most common is to find a mentor at your own institution. CFOs, CNOs, CQOs, and CMOs often are eager to partner with clinicians—and frequently are delighted to talk about their areas of expertise.

Skill No. 3: Leadership.

I don’t know many leaders who were born that way. Most learned through experience and continuous self-improvement. Understanding your personality traits, the traits of others (as an introvert, I still am trying to understand how extroverts work, especially my wife), and how to get all of those different personalities to work together as a team is an important component of any team-based engineering success.

Tools: I have found the books “From Good to Great” by Jim Collins and “Switch” by Chip and Dan Heath to be invaluable. I think another one of my recent reads, “Drive” by Daniel Pink, had important lessons, too. Formal courses, such as SHM’s Leadership Academies, QSEA, and those offered by the American Hospital Association, are designed to provide hospitalists with the leadership skills they need in a variety of hospital environments.

Skill No. 4: Thinking “system” instead of “individual.”

So many of us were trained that to make improvements, we just need to “be better,” to know more, try harder, and to work longer. Good industrial engineers design systems that make it easier for our doctors, healthcare providers, and patients to succeed. Of course, we need to be accountable, too, but supportive systems are a key component to successful individuals. The airline industry learned this long ago.

Tools: I really think “Switch” is an excellent read for those of us trying to help re-engineer our complex systems. It discusses how humans are both rational and emotional, and how our environment can help both sides succeed. Another helpful tool for me is asking “why” whenever someone says “if only they would do something differently for a better outcome…”

For example, “if only the hospitalists would discharge before 2 p.m.,” or “if only the ED didn’t clump their admissions,” or “if only the nurse didn’t call during rounds”—these are all classic systems problems, not people problems, and the solution isn’t to mandate 2 p.m. discharges, or stand up in a meeting finger pointing at the ED, or admonish a nurse for calling during rounds. The solution is to find out why these behaviors occur, then eliminate, change, or minimize the reasons.

Hospitalists don’t discharge by 2 p.m. often because they are waiting on tests; ED docs work in an environment that has highly variable workloads, coupled with dysfunctional systems that promote “batching” work patterns; and nurses may not be included in rounds but still need to be able to manage minute-to-minute patient-care needs. Sure, there are a few bad apples that need to be scolded, but I bet most of the issues at your hospital aren’t related to evildoers but good people who are often trapped in dysfunctional, antiquated systems and are just trying to do the best they can for their patients.

In Closing

I’d like to say thank you to all of the “de facto” industrial engineers out there. Keep up the critically important work of that most complex system—the hospital.

Dr. Howell is president of SHM, chief of the division of hospital medicine at Johns Hopkins Bayview in Baltimore, and spends a significant part of his time and research on hospital operations. Email questions or comments to [email protected].

Wikipedia defines “industrial engineering” as a branch of engineering that deals with the optimization of complex processes or systems. It goes on to link industrial engineering to “operations” and use of quantitative methods to “specify, predict, and evaluate” results. Any hospitalist that’s been tapped to reduce length of stay, help manage readmissions, implement an electronic health record, or increase the quality of care likely can relate to that definition. It seems to me that hospitalists often are the de facto industrial engineers in many of our hospitals.

The hospitalist as an industrial engineer makes perfect sense. What other group of physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants provide services in virtually any clinical venue, from ED to DC, from (occasionally) PACU to ICU, the wards, and even post-discharge? Hospitalists see it all, from the first few hours of life (pediatrics) to life’s last stages (palliative care) and all stages in between. As a parody to “there’s an app for that,” Dr. Mindy Kantsiper, a hospitalist in Columbia, Md., says if there’s something that needs to be fixed, “there’s a hospitalist for that.” We are the Swiss Army knives of the medical world.

Looking through the HMX “Practice Management” discussions on the SHM website (www.hospitalmedicine.com/xchange) confirms my belief. Topics are as varied as using RNs in hospitalist practices, medication reconciliation, billing, outpatient orders (!!) after discharge, and patient-centered care/patient satisfaction. And that was just the last two weeks!

Type “hospitalist” into PubMed, and the words that auto-populate are: model, care, quality, discharge, communication, program, and handoff—all words I think of as system-related issues. Oh, sure, there are clinical-related topics, too, of course, just like for the “organ-based” specialties. However, none of the common organ-based specialties had any words auto-populate in PubMed that could be deemed related to “industrial engineering.”

Engineer Training

Like all engineers, we de facto industrial engineers need tools and skills to be effective at in our new engineering role. While we may not need slide rules and calculus like a more traditional engineer, many of the new skills we will need as industrial engineers were not taught in medical school, and the tools were not readily available for us to use in our training.

Fortunately, there are a plethora of options for us budding, de facto industrial engineers. Here are the ones I believe you will need and where to get them:

Skill No. 1: Negotiation.

HM is a team sport, and teams bring interpersonal dynamics and tension and conflict. Effective negotiation skills can help hospitalists use conflict to spur team growth and development rather than team dysfunction.

Tools: SHM’s Leadership Academies have effective negotiation modules in each of the leveled courses. If you can’t spare the time, then books to read include “Getting to Yes” by Fisher and Ury, or “Renegotiating Health Care” by Leonard Marcus (he lectures at SHM’s leadership academies).

Skill No. 2: Data analytics.

All engineers, including industrial engineers, need to be able to evaluate. Whether it’s quality and safety, clinical operations, or financial improvement, if you don’t measure it, you can’t change it. Some of the data will be handed to you, and you need to know the strengths and weaknesses to best interpret it. Some data you will need to define and develop measurement systems for on your own, and even basic dashboard development requires understanding data.

Tools: Wow. There are a lot here, so I am only going to mention the highlights. You could get your MBA, or MPH, or even a PhD! You certainly could train to become a “true” diploma-carrying industrial engineer. And I know of a few insightful hospitals that employ them. A less in-depth, but cheaper and faster, option is to take specific courses related to your area of interest.

The SHM-AAIM Quality and Safety Educators Academy and SHM’s Leadership Academies are two great examples. Participating in a mentored project (i.e., Project BOOST) provides structure and an experienced mentor with a cadre of experts to back them up. Many institutions have courses on data analytics, basic finance, and quality improvement. The easiest, cheapest, and probably the most common is to find a mentor at your own institution. CFOs, CNOs, CQOs, and CMOs often are eager to partner with clinicians—and frequently are delighted to talk about their areas of expertise.

Skill No. 3: Leadership.

I don’t know many leaders who were born that way. Most learned through experience and continuous self-improvement. Understanding your personality traits, the traits of others (as an introvert, I still am trying to understand how extroverts work, especially my wife), and how to get all of those different personalities to work together as a team is an important component of any team-based engineering success.

Tools: I have found the books “From Good to Great” by Jim Collins and “Switch” by Chip and Dan Heath to be invaluable. I think another one of my recent reads, “Drive” by Daniel Pink, had important lessons, too. Formal courses, such as SHM’s Leadership Academies, QSEA, and those offered by the American Hospital Association, are designed to provide hospitalists with the leadership skills they need in a variety of hospital environments.

Skill No. 4: Thinking “system” instead of “individual.”

So many of us were trained that to make improvements, we just need to “be better,” to know more, try harder, and to work longer. Good industrial engineers design systems that make it easier for our doctors, healthcare providers, and patients to succeed. Of course, we need to be accountable, too, but supportive systems are a key component to successful individuals. The airline industry learned this long ago.

Tools: I really think “Switch” is an excellent read for those of us trying to help re-engineer our complex systems. It discusses how humans are both rational and emotional, and how our environment can help both sides succeed. Another helpful tool for me is asking “why” whenever someone says “if only they would do something differently for a better outcome…”

For example, “if only the hospitalists would discharge before 2 p.m.,” or “if only the ED didn’t clump their admissions,” or “if only the nurse didn’t call during rounds”—these are all classic systems problems, not people problems, and the solution isn’t to mandate 2 p.m. discharges, or stand up in a meeting finger pointing at the ED, or admonish a nurse for calling during rounds. The solution is to find out why these behaviors occur, then eliminate, change, or minimize the reasons.

Hospitalists don’t discharge by 2 p.m. often because they are waiting on tests; ED docs work in an environment that has highly variable workloads, coupled with dysfunctional systems that promote “batching” work patterns; and nurses may not be included in rounds but still need to be able to manage minute-to-minute patient-care needs. Sure, there are a few bad apples that need to be scolded, but I bet most of the issues at your hospital aren’t related to evildoers but good people who are often trapped in dysfunctional, antiquated systems and are just trying to do the best they can for their patients.

In Closing

I’d like to say thank you to all of the “de facto” industrial engineers out there. Keep up the critically important work of that most complex system—the hospital.

Dr. Howell is president of SHM, chief of the division of hospital medicine at Johns Hopkins Bayview in Baltimore, and spends a significant part of his time and research on hospital operations. Email questions or comments to [email protected].

First, SHM’s new Learning Portal was the one-stop shop for free and discounted continuing medical education (CME) credits online. Now, the Learning Portal can help hospitalists report into the physician quality reporting system (PQRS) at a discounted individual rate.

And the time to start reporting measures in PQRS is now.

The PQRS was developed by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) in 2007 as a voluntary reporting program that provides a financial incentive to physicians and other eligible professionals who report data on quality measures for covered services furnished to Medicare beneficiaries. Starting in 2013, reporting in PQRS becomes mandatory for all eligible professionals.

SHM has encouraged its members to participate in the PQRS since the system’s inception in 2007. With the exciting launch of the SHM Learning Portal, it is easier than ever to get started. If you or your group are not currently reporting, there are still incentive payments available in 2013 and 2014. Beginning in 2015, there will be a penalty for not reporting quality measures based on 2013 performance.

Access the PQRIwizard through the SHM Learning Portal

SHM has secured a significant discount for members to report PQRS through the PQRIwizard. Located within the SHM Learning Portal, this online tool is a fast, convenient, and cost-effective solution to help collect and report quality measures data for the PQRS program. Similar to online tax-preparation software, the PQRIwizard guides you through a few easy steps to help rapidly collect, validate, report, and submit your results to CMS. The tool is powered by the CECity Registry, a CMS-qualified registry for PQRS reporting.

What Measures Are Available?

The SHM PQRIwizard features six individual quality measures in the areas of stroke and stroke rehabilitation, including measures on screening for dysphagia and thrombolytic therapy. To report on any of these measures, simply select three measures and report on 80 percent of your Medicare Part B fee-for-services patients who apply to the measures you selected.

PQRIwizard has a built-in progress monitor that validates your report by checking for missing data. The monitor also tracks your data to provide you with continuous feedback regarding valid patients. The system even calculates your measures and provides a printable report of your measure results in real time.

First, SHM’s new Learning Portal was the one-stop shop for free and discounted continuing medical education (CME) credits online. Now, the Learning Portal can help hospitalists report into the physician quality reporting system (PQRS) at a discounted individual rate.

And the time to start reporting measures in PQRS is now.

The PQRS was developed by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) in 2007 as a voluntary reporting program that provides a financial incentive to physicians and other eligible professionals who report data on quality measures for covered services furnished to Medicare beneficiaries. Starting in 2013, reporting in PQRS becomes mandatory for all eligible professionals.

SHM has encouraged its members to participate in the PQRS since the system’s inception in 2007. With the exciting launch of the SHM Learning Portal, it is easier than ever to get started. If you or your group are not currently reporting, there are still incentive payments available in 2013 and 2014. Beginning in 2015, there will be a penalty for not reporting quality measures based on 2013 performance.

Access the PQRIwizard through the SHM Learning Portal

SHM has secured a significant discount for members to report PQRS through the PQRIwizard. Located within the SHM Learning Portal, this online tool is a fast, convenient, and cost-effective solution to help collect and report quality measures data for the PQRS program. Similar to online tax-preparation software, the PQRIwizard guides you through a few easy steps to help rapidly collect, validate, report, and submit your results to CMS. The tool is powered by the CECity Registry, a CMS-qualified registry for PQRS reporting.

What Measures Are Available?

The SHM PQRIwizard features six individual quality measures in the areas of stroke and stroke rehabilitation, including measures on screening for dysphagia and thrombolytic therapy. To report on any of these measures, simply select three measures and report on 80 percent of your Medicare Part B fee-for-services patients who apply to the measures you selected.

PQRIwizard has a built-in progress monitor that validates your report by checking for missing data. The monitor also tracks your data to provide you with continuous feedback regarding valid patients. The system even calculates your measures and provides a printable report of your measure results in real time.

First, SHM’s new Learning Portal was the one-stop shop for free and discounted continuing medical education (CME) credits online. Now, the Learning Portal can help hospitalists report into the physician quality reporting system (PQRS) at a discounted individual rate.

And the time to start reporting measures in PQRS is now.

The PQRS was developed by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) in 2007 as a voluntary reporting program that provides a financial incentive to physicians and other eligible professionals who report data on quality measures for covered services furnished to Medicare beneficiaries. Starting in 2013, reporting in PQRS becomes mandatory for all eligible professionals.

SHM has encouraged its members to participate in the PQRS since the system’s inception in 2007. With the exciting launch of the SHM Learning Portal, it is easier than ever to get started. If you or your group are not currently reporting, there are still incentive payments available in 2013 and 2014. Beginning in 2015, there will be a penalty for not reporting quality measures based on 2013 performance.

Access the PQRIwizard through the SHM Learning Portal

SHM has secured a significant discount for members to report PQRS through the PQRIwizard. Located within the SHM Learning Portal, this online tool is a fast, convenient, and cost-effective solution to help collect and report quality measures data for the PQRS program. Similar to online tax-preparation software, the PQRIwizard guides you through a few easy steps to help rapidly collect, validate, report, and submit your results to CMS. The tool is powered by the CECity Registry, a CMS-qualified registry for PQRS reporting.

What Measures Are Available?

The SHM PQRIwizard features six individual quality measures in the areas of stroke and stroke rehabilitation, including measures on screening for dysphagia and thrombolytic therapy. To report on any of these measures, simply select three measures and report on 80 percent of your Medicare Part B fee-for-services patients who apply to the measures you selected.

PQRIwizard has a built-in progress monitor that validates your report by checking for missing data. The monitor also tracks your data to provide you with continuous feedback regarding valid patients. The system even calculates your measures and provides a printable report of your measure results in real time.

Can quality measurement and comparisons serve as the backbone for a major shift in the Medicare payment system to reward value instead of volume? That is the question being explored over the next few years as the Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS) and, by extension, the physician value-based payment modifier (VBPM) come fully into effect for all physicians.

There seems to be a consensus in the policy community that the fee-for-service model of payment is past its prime and needs to be replaced with a more dynamic and responsive payment system. Medicare hopes that PQRS and the VBPM will enable adjustments to physician payments to reward high-quality and low-cost care. Although these programs currently are add-ons to the fee-for-service system, they likely will serve as stepping stones to more radical departures from the existing payment system.

SHM advocates refinements to policies for PQRS and similar programs to make them more meaningful and productive for both hospitalists and the broader health-care system. Each year, SHM submits comments on the Physician Fee Schedule Rule, which creates and updates the regulatory framework for PQRS and the VBPM. SHM also provided feedback on Quality and Resource Use Reports (QRURs), the report cards for the modifier that were being tested over the past year.

From a practical standpoint, SHM engages with measure development and endorsement processes to ensure there are reportable quality measures in PQRS that fit hospitalist practice. In addition, SHM is helping to increase accessibility to PQRS reporting by offering members reduced fare access to registry reporting through the PQRI Wizard.

The comments range from the technical aspects of individual quality measures in PQRS to how hospitalists appear to be performing in these programs. SHM firmly believes that the unique positioning of hospitalists within the health-care system presents challenges for their identification and evaluation in Medicare programs. In some sense, hospitalists exist on the line between the inpatient and outpatient worlds, a location not adequately captured in pay-for-performance programs.

It’s imperative that pay-for-performance programs have reasonable and actionable outcomes for providers. If quality measures are not clinically meaningful and do not capture a plurality of the care provided by an individual hospitalist, it is difficult for the program to meet its stated aims. If payment is to be influenced by performance on quality measures, it follows that those measures should be relevant to the care provided.

There is a long way to go toward creating quality measurement and evaluation programs that are relevant and actionable for clinical quality improvement (QI). By becoming involved in SHM’s policy efforts, members are able to share their experiences and impressions of programs with SHM and lawmakers. This partnership helps create more responsive and intuitive programs, which in turn leads to greater participation and, hopefully, improved patient outcomes. As these programs continue to evolve and more health professionals are required to participate, SHM will be looking to its membership for their perspectives.

Join the grassroots network to stay involved and up to date by registering at www.hospitalmedicine.org/grassroots.

Joshua Lapps is SHM’s government relations specialist.

Can quality measurement and comparisons serve as the backbone for a major shift in the Medicare payment system to reward value instead of volume? That is the question being explored over the next few years as the Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS) and, by extension, the physician value-based payment modifier (VBPM) come fully into effect for all physicians.

There seems to be a consensus in the policy community that the fee-for-service model of payment is past its prime and needs to be replaced with a more dynamic and responsive payment system. Medicare hopes that PQRS and the VBPM will enable adjustments to physician payments to reward high-quality and low-cost care. Although these programs currently are add-ons to the fee-for-service system, they likely will serve as stepping stones to more radical departures from the existing payment system.

SHM advocates refinements to policies for PQRS and similar programs to make them more meaningful and productive for both hospitalists and the broader health-care system. Each year, SHM submits comments on the Physician Fee Schedule Rule, which creates and updates the regulatory framework for PQRS and the VBPM. SHM also provided feedback on Quality and Resource Use Reports (QRURs), the report cards for the modifier that were being tested over the past year.

From a practical standpoint, SHM engages with measure development and endorsement processes to ensure there are reportable quality measures in PQRS that fit hospitalist practice. In addition, SHM is helping to increase accessibility to PQRS reporting by offering members reduced fare access to registry reporting through the PQRI Wizard.

The comments range from the technical aspects of individual quality measures in PQRS to how hospitalists appear to be performing in these programs. SHM firmly believes that the unique positioning of hospitalists within the health-care system presents challenges for their identification and evaluation in Medicare programs. In some sense, hospitalists exist on the line between the inpatient and outpatient worlds, a location not adequately captured in pay-for-performance programs.

It’s imperative that pay-for-performance programs have reasonable and actionable outcomes for providers. If quality measures are not clinically meaningful and do not capture a plurality of the care provided by an individual hospitalist, it is difficult for the program to meet its stated aims. If payment is to be influenced by performance on quality measures, it follows that those measures should be relevant to the care provided.

There is a long way to go toward creating quality measurement and evaluation programs that are relevant and actionable for clinical quality improvement (QI). By becoming involved in SHM’s policy efforts, members are able to share their experiences and impressions of programs with SHM and lawmakers. This partnership helps create more responsive and intuitive programs, which in turn leads to greater participation and, hopefully, improved patient outcomes. As these programs continue to evolve and more health professionals are required to participate, SHM will be looking to its membership for their perspectives.

Join the grassroots network to stay involved and up to date by registering at www.hospitalmedicine.org/grassroots.

Joshua Lapps is SHM’s government relations specialist.

Can quality measurement and comparisons serve as the backbone for a major shift in the Medicare payment system to reward value instead of volume? That is the question being explored over the next few years as the Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS) and, by extension, the physician value-based payment modifier (VBPM) come fully into effect for all physicians.

There seems to be a consensus in the policy community that the fee-for-service model of payment is past its prime and needs to be replaced with a more dynamic and responsive payment system. Medicare hopes that PQRS and the VBPM will enable adjustments to physician payments to reward high-quality and low-cost care. Although these programs currently are add-ons to the fee-for-service system, they likely will serve as stepping stones to more radical departures from the existing payment system.

SHM advocates refinements to policies for PQRS and similar programs to make them more meaningful and productive for both hospitalists and the broader health-care system. Each year, SHM submits comments on the Physician Fee Schedule Rule, which creates and updates the regulatory framework for PQRS and the VBPM. SHM also provided feedback on Quality and Resource Use Reports (QRURs), the report cards for the modifier that were being tested over the past year.

From a practical standpoint, SHM engages with measure development and endorsement processes to ensure there are reportable quality measures in PQRS that fit hospitalist practice. In addition, SHM is helping to increase accessibility to PQRS reporting by offering members reduced fare access to registry reporting through the PQRI Wizard.

The comments range from the technical aspects of individual quality measures in PQRS to how hospitalists appear to be performing in these programs. SHM firmly believes that the unique positioning of hospitalists within the health-care system presents challenges for their identification and evaluation in Medicare programs. In some sense, hospitalists exist on the line between the inpatient and outpatient worlds, a location not adequately captured in pay-for-performance programs.

It’s imperative that pay-for-performance programs have reasonable and actionable outcomes for providers. If quality measures are not clinically meaningful and do not capture a plurality of the care provided by an individual hospitalist, it is difficult for the program to meet its stated aims. If payment is to be influenced by performance on quality measures, it follows that those measures should be relevant to the care provided.

There is a long way to go toward creating quality measurement and evaluation programs that are relevant and actionable for clinical quality improvement (QI). By becoming involved in SHM’s policy efforts, members are able to share their experiences and impressions of programs with SHM and lawmakers. This partnership helps create more responsive and intuitive programs, which in turn leads to greater participation and, hopefully, improved patient outcomes. As these programs continue to evolve and more health professionals are required to participate, SHM will be looking to its membership for their perspectives.

Join the grassroots network to stay involved and up to date by registering at www.hospitalmedicine.org/grassroots.

Joshua Lapps is SHM’s government relations specialist.

An electronic health record (EHR)—sometimes called an electronic medical record (EMR)—allows health-care providers to record patient information electronically instead of using paper records.¹ It also has the capability to perform various tasks that can assist in health-care delivery while maintaining standards of practice. The Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act, enacted under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), established a provision for incentive payments for eligible professionals (EPs), critical-access hospitals (CAHs), and eligible hospitals if they can demonstrate meaningful use of certified EHR technology:²

• The use of a certified EHR in a meaningful manner (e.g. e-prescribing);
• The use of certified EHR technology for electronic exchange of health information to improve quality of health care; and
• The use of certified EHR technology to submit clinical quality and other measures.

Eligible professionals must satisfy 20 of 25 meaningful-use objectives (15 required core objectives and five objectives chosen from a list of 10 menu-set objectives).³ Eligible hospitals and CAHs must achieve 19 of 24 objectives (14 required core objectives and five objectives chosen from a list of 10 menu-set objectives).³

It seems that any program implementation with the potential to generate new or additional payment also has the potential to generate new or additional scrutiny of its application to ensure the generated payment is appropriate.⁵ Issues with EHR that recently have been highlighted include copy-and-paste, pulling notes forward, and upcoding based on volume instead of necessity.

Consider the Case

A patient is admitted to the hospital for pain, warmth, and swelling in the left lower extremity; r/o deep vein thrombosis (DVT) versus cellulitis. The patient’s history includes peripheral vascular disease (PVD), chronic renal insufficiency (CRI), and allergic rhinitis (AR). Testing confirms DVT, and the patient begins anticoagulation therapy. To achieve a therapeutic balance and prevent adverse reactions, the hospitalist orders INR monitoring.

On admission, the complexity of the patient’s condition may be considered high given the nature of the presenting problem.⁴ The hospitalist receives extensive credit for developing a care plan involving differential diagnoses with additional testing in anticipation of confirming a diagnosis. The patient’s presenting problem elevates the risk of morbidity/mortality, while the determined course of anticoagulation therapy places the patient at increased (i.e. “high”) risk for bleeding and requires intensive monitoring for toxicity. In this instance, 99223 may be warranted if the documentation requirements corresponding to this visit level have been satisfied.

As subsequent hospital days ensue, the complexity of the patient’s condition may not be as high. Even though the risk of anticoagulation remains high, the number of diagnoses and/or data ordered/reviewed may be less extensive than the initial encounter. Therefore, without any new or additional factors, the overall complexity of decision-making may be more appropriately categorized as moderate or low (e.g. 99232 or 99231, respectively).⁴

Do not fall victim to shortcuts that may falsely ease the workload of the overburdened physician. For example, the patient’s co-existing conditions of PVD, CRI, and AR likely were addressed during the initial encounter for DVT with inclusion in the plan of care. When using an electronic documentation system, it might be possible to copy the previously entered information from the initial encounter into the current encounter to save time. However, the previously entered information could include elements that do not need to be re-addressed during a subsequent encounter (e.g., AR) or yield information involving care for conditions that are being managed concurrently by another specialist (e.g. CRI being managed by the nephrologist).

Leaving the pasted information unaltered, without modification, can misrepresent the patient’s condition or the care provided by the hospitalist during the subsequent encounter.

Preventative Measures

Documentation should support the service provided on a given date, and the information included in the entry should reflect the content that was rendered and/or considered for assessment and management. Information that is pulled forward or copied and pasted from a previous entry should be modified to demonstrate updated content and nonoverlapping care with relevance for that date.

Do not use coding tools, or EHR “service calculators,” that override medical decision-making to determine the service level. Determining the service level for a particular CPT code category depends upon the key components of history, exam, and medical decision-making (MDM).⁴ For some code categories, each of the three key components must meet the documentation guidelines for the corresponding visit level (i.e. initial hospital care, initial observation care, and consultations). If all three components do not satisfy the requirements for a particular visit level, code selection is determined by the lowest component. For example, the physician must select 99221 when documenting a detailed history despite having also documented a comprehensive exam and high complexity decision-making. In other code categories, coding principles require that only two key components need to meet the documentation guidelines (i.e. subsequent hospital care and subsequent observation care) for code selection.

More specifically, code selection is determined by the second-lowest component. For example, the physician may appropriately select 99233 when only documenting a brief history after having also documented a detailed exam and high complexity decision-making. Based on this “two of three” stipulation, 99233 is acceptable. Service calculators that override MDM as one of the two supporting components in subsequent care services could generate 99233 for a service involving a detailed history and a detailed exam but only low complexity decision-making. Such coding practice can leave the hospitalist vulnerable to external inquiries involving medical necessity and upcoding. Despite this “two component” technicality with subsequent services (99231-99233 and 99224-99226), MDM always should be one of the two key components considered during subsequent visit level selection as it most clearly conveys the medical necessity of the encounter.

References

1. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. The official web site for the Medicare and Medicaid electronic health records (EHR) incentive programs. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services website. Available at: http://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/EHRIncentivePrograms/index.html?redirect=/ehrincentiveprograms/. Accessed March 10, 2013.
2. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Frequently asked questions (FAQs). Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services website. Available at: http://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/EHRIncentivePrograms/FAQ.html. Accessed March 10, 2013.
3. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Meaningful use. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services website. Available at: http://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/EHRIncentivePrograms/Meaningful_Use.html. Accessed March 10, 2013.
4. Abraham M, Ahlman J, Anderson C, Boudreau A, Connelly J. Current Procedural Terminology 2012 Professional Edition. Chicago: American Medical Association Press; 2011:13-17.
5. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Office of Inspector General work plan fiscal year 2013. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services website. Available at: http://oig.hhs.gov/reports-and-publications/archives/workplan/2013/Work-Plan-2013.pdf. Accessed March 11, 2013.

An electronic health record (EHR)—sometimes called an electronic medical record (EMR)—allows health-care providers to record patient information electronically instead of using paper records.¹ It also has the capability to perform various tasks that can assist in health-care delivery while maintaining standards of practice. The Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act, enacted under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), established a provision for incentive payments for eligible professionals (EPs), critical-access hospitals (CAHs), and eligible hospitals if they can demonstrate meaningful use of certified EHR technology:²

• The use of a certified EHR in a meaningful manner (e.g. e-prescribing);
• The use of certified EHR technology for electronic exchange of health information to improve quality of health care; and
• The use of certified EHR technology to submit clinical quality and other measures.

Eligible professionals must satisfy 20 of 25 meaningful-use objectives (15 required core objectives and five objectives chosen from a list of 10 menu-set objectives).³ Eligible hospitals and CAHs must achieve 19 of 24 objectives (14 required core objectives and five objectives chosen from a list of 10 menu-set objectives).³

It seems that any program implementation with the potential to generate new or additional payment also has the potential to generate new or additional scrutiny of its application to ensure the generated payment is appropriate.⁵ Issues with EHR that recently have been highlighted include copy-and-paste, pulling notes forward, and upcoding based on volume instead of necessity.

Consider the Case

A patient is admitted to the hospital for pain, warmth, and swelling in the left lower extremity; r/o deep vein thrombosis (DVT) versus cellulitis. The patient’s history includes peripheral vascular disease (PVD), chronic renal insufficiency (CRI), and allergic rhinitis (AR). Testing confirms DVT, and the patient begins anticoagulation therapy. To achieve a therapeutic balance and prevent adverse reactions, the hospitalist orders INR monitoring.

On admission, the complexity of the patient’s condition may be considered high given the nature of the presenting problem.⁴ The hospitalist receives extensive credit for developing a care plan involving differential diagnoses with additional testing in anticipation of confirming a diagnosis. The patient’s presenting problem elevates the risk of morbidity/mortality, while the determined course of anticoagulation therapy places the patient at increased (i.e. “high”) risk for bleeding and requires intensive monitoring for toxicity. In this instance, 99223 may be warranted if the documentation requirements corresponding to this visit level have been satisfied.

As subsequent hospital days ensue, the complexity of the patient’s condition may not be as high. Even though the risk of anticoagulation remains high, the number of diagnoses and/or data ordered/reviewed may be less extensive than the initial encounter. Therefore, without any new or additional factors, the overall complexity of decision-making may be more appropriately categorized as moderate or low (e.g. 99232 or 99231, respectively).⁴

Do not fall victim to shortcuts that may falsely ease the workload of the overburdened physician. For example, the patient’s co-existing conditions of PVD, CRI, and AR likely were addressed during the initial encounter for DVT with inclusion in the plan of care. When using an electronic documentation system, it might be possible to copy the previously entered information from the initial encounter into the current encounter to save time. However, the previously entered information could include elements that do not need to be re-addressed during a subsequent encounter (e.g., AR) or yield information involving care for conditions that are being managed concurrently by another specialist (e.g. CRI being managed by the nephrologist).

Leaving the pasted information unaltered, without modification, can misrepresent the patient’s condition or the care provided by the hospitalist during the subsequent encounter.

Preventative Measures

Documentation should support the service provided on a given date, and the information included in the entry should reflect the content that was rendered and/or considered for assessment and management. Information that is pulled forward or copied and pasted from a previous entry should be modified to demonstrate updated content and nonoverlapping care with relevance for that date.

Do not use coding tools, or EHR “service calculators,” that override medical decision-making to determine the service level. Determining the service level for a particular CPT code category depends upon the key components of history, exam, and medical decision-making (MDM).⁴ For some code categories, each of the three key components must meet the documentation guidelines for the corresponding visit level (i.e. initial hospital care, initial observation care, and consultations). If all three components do not satisfy the requirements for a particular visit level, code selection is determined by the lowest component. For example, the physician must select 99221 when documenting a detailed history despite having also documented a comprehensive exam and high complexity decision-making. In other code categories, coding principles require that only two key components need to meet the documentation guidelines (i.e. subsequent hospital care and subsequent observation care) for code selection.

More specifically, code selection is determined by the second-lowest component. For example, the physician may appropriately select 99233 when only documenting a brief history after having also documented a detailed exam and high complexity decision-making. Based on this “two of three” stipulation, 99233 is acceptable. Service calculators that override MDM as one of the two supporting components in subsequent care services could generate 99233 for a service involving a detailed history and a detailed exam but only low complexity decision-making. Such coding practice can leave the hospitalist vulnerable to external inquiries involving medical necessity and upcoding. Despite this “two component” technicality with subsequent services (99231-99233 and 99224-99226), MDM always should be one of the two key components considered during subsequent visit level selection as it most clearly conveys the medical necessity of the encounter.

References

1. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. The official web site for the Medicare and Medicaid electronic health records (EHR) incentive programs. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services website. Available at: http://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/EHRIncentivePrograms/index.html?redirect=/ehrincentiveprograms/. Accessed March 10, 2013.
2. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Frequently asked questions (FAQs). Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services website. Available at: http://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/EHRIncentivePrograms/FAQ.html. Accessed March 10, 2013.
3. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Meaningful use. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services website. Available at: http://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/EHRIncentivePrograms/Meaningful_Use.html. Accessed March 10, 2013.
4. Abraham M, Ahlman J, Anderson C, Boudreau A, Connelly J. Current Procedural Terminology 2012 Professional Edition. Chicago: American Medical Association Press; 2011:13-17.
5. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Office of Inspector General work plan fiscal year 2013. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services website. Available at: http://oig.hhs.gov/reports-and-publications/archives/workplan/2013/Work-Plan-2013.pdf. Accessed March 11, 2013.

An electronic health record (EHR)—sometimes called an electronic medical record (EMR)—allows health-care providers to record patient information electronically instead of using paper records.¹ It also has the capability to perform various tasks that can assist in health-care delivery while maintaining standards of practice. The Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act, enacted under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), established a provision for incentive payments for eligible professionals (EPs), critical-access hospitals (CAHs), and eligible hospitals if they can demonstrate meaningful use of certified EHR technology:²

• The use of a certified EHR in a meaningful manner (e.g. e-prescribing);
• The use of certified EHR technology for electronic exchange of health information to improve quality of health care; and
• The use of certified EHR technology to submit clinical quality and other measures.

Eligible professionals must satisfy 20 of 25 meaningful-use objectives (15 required core objectives and five objectives chosen from a list of 10 menu-set objectives).³ Eligible hospitals and CAHs must achieve 19 of 24 objectives (14 required core objectives and five objectives chosen from a list of 10 menu-set objectives).³

It seems that any program implementation with the potential to generate new or additional payment also has the potential to generate new or additional scrutiny of its application to ensure the generated payment is appropriate.⁵ Issues with EHR that recently have been highlighted include copy-and-paste, pulling notes forward, and upcoding based on volume instead of necessity.

Consider the Case

A patient is admitted to the hospital for pain, warmth, and swelling in the left lower extremity; r/o deep vein thrombosis (DVT) versus cellulitis. The patient’s history includes peripheral vascular disease (PVD), chronic renal insufficiency (CRI), and allergic rhinitis (AR). Testing confirms DVT, and the patient begins anticoagulation therapy. To achieve a therapeutic balance and prevent adverse reactions, the hospitalist orders INR monitoring.

On admission, the complexity of the patient’s condition may be considered high given the nature of the presenting problem.⁴ The hospitalist receives extensive credit for developing a care plan involving differential diagnoses with additional testing in anticipation of confirming a diagnosis. The patient’s presenting problem elevates the risk of morbidity/mortality, while the determined course of anticoagulation therapy places the patient at increased (i.e. “high”) risk for bleeding and requires intensive monitoring for toxicity. In this instance, 99223 may be warranted if the documentation requirements corresponding to this visit level have been satisfied.

As subsequent hospital days ensue, the complexity of the patient’s condition may not be as high. Even though the risk of anticoagulation remains high, the number of diagnoses and/or data ordered/reviewed may be less extensive than the initial encounter. Therefore, without any new or additional factors, the overall complexity of decision-making may be more appropriately categorized as moderate or low (e.g. 99232 or 99231, respectively).⁴

Do not fall victim to shortcuts that may falsely ease the workload of the overburdened physician. For example, the patient’s co-existing conditions of PVD, CRI, and AR likely were addressed during the initial encounter for DVT with inclusion in the plan of care. When using an electronic documentation system, it might be possible to copy the previously entered information from the initial encounter into the current encounter to save time. However, the previously entered information could include elements that do not need to be re-addressed during a subsequent encounter (e.g., AR) or yield information involving care for conditions that are being managed concurrently by another specialist (e.g. CRI being managed by the nephrologist).

Leaving the pasted information unaltered, without modification, can misrepresent the patient’s condition or the care provided by the hospitalist during the subsequent encounter.

Preventative Measures

Documentation should support the service provided on a given date, and the information included in the entry should reflect the content that was rendered and/or considered for assessment and management. Information that is pulled forward or copied and pasted from a previous entry should be modified to demonstrate updated content and nonoverlapping care with relevance for that date.

Do not use coding tools, or EHR “service calculators,” that override medical decision-making to determine the service level. Determining the service level for a particular CPT code category depends upon the key components of history, exam, and medical decision-making (MDM).⁴ For some code categories, each of the three key components must meet the documentation guidelines for the corresponding visit level (i.e. initial hospital care, initial observation care, and consultations). If all three components do not satisfy the requirements for a particular visit level, code selection is determined by the lowest component. For example, the physician must select 99221 when documenting a detailed history despite having also documented a comprehensive exam and high complexity decision-making. In other code categories, coding principles require that only two key components need to meet the documentation guidelines (i.e. subsequent hospital care and subsequent observation care) for code selection.

More specifically, code selection is determined by the second-lowest component. For example, the physician may appropriately select 99233 when only documenting a brief history after having also documented a detailed exam and high complexity decision-making. Based on this “two of three” stipulation, 99233 is acceptable. Service calculators that override MDM as one of the two supporting components in subsequent care services could generate 99233 for a service involving a detailed history and a detailed exam but only low complexity decision-making. Such coding practice can leave the hospitalist vulnerable to external inquiries involving medical necessity and upcoding. Despite this “two component” technicality with subsequent services (99231-99233 and 99224-99226), MDM always should be one of the two key components considered during subsequent visit level selection as it most clearly conveys the medical necessity of the encounter.

References

1. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. The official web site for the Medicare and Medicaid electronic health records (EHR) incentive programs. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services website. Available at: http://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/EHRIncentivePrograms/index.html?redirect=/ehrincentiveprograms/. Accessed March 10, 2013.
2. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Frequently asked questions (FAQs). Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services website. Available at: http://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/EHRIncentivePrograms/FAQ.html. Accessed March 10, 2013.
3. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Meaningful use. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services website. Available at: http://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/EHRIncentivePrograms/Meaningful_Use.html. Accessed March 10, 2013.
4. Abraham M, Ahlman J, Anderson C, Boudreau A, Connelly J. Current Procedural Terminology 2012 Professional Edition. Chicago: American Medical Association Press; 2011:13-17.
5. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Office of Inspector General work plan fiscal year 2013. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services website. Available at: http://oig.hhs.gov/reports-and-publications/archives/workplan/2013/Work-Plan-2013.pdf. Accessed March 11, 2013.

In June, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation announced a national competition for technology developers to help consumers understand and utilize data for comparing the prices of hospital procedures. Winners of the foundation’s Hospital Price Transparency Challenge, to be announced later this year, will share $120,000 in prizes for intuitive, actionable tools leading to more transparent hospital pricing in two categories.

One category involves the creation of visual aids that would help consumers and others better understand the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS) hospital-cost data, which was released in May and compares widely variable hospital prices for 100 common inpatient procedures. The other category involves developing applications and tools that could help consumers price-shop.

The foundation is offering support and opportunities for submitters to interact with experts and technical innovators. The deadline for applications is Aug. 25.

In June, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation announced a national competition for technology developers to help consumers understand and utilize data for comparing the prices of hospital procedures. Winners of the foundation’s Hospital Price Transparency Challenge, to be announced later this year, will share $120,000 in prizes for intuitive, actionable tools leading to more transparent hospital pricing in two categories.

One category involves the creation of visual aids that would help consumers and others better understand the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS) hospital-cost data, which was released in May and compares widely variable hospital prices for 100 common inpatient procedures. The other category involves developing applications and tools that could help consumers price-shop.

The foundation is offering support and opportunities for submitters to interact with experts and technical innovators. The deadline for applications is Aug. 25.

In June, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation announced a national competition for technology developers to help consumers understand and utilize data for comparing the prices of hospital procedures. Winners of the foundation’s Hospital Price Transparency Challenge, to be announced later this year, will share $120,000 in prizes for intuitive, actionable tools leading to more transparent hospital pricing in two categories.

One category involves the creation of visual aids that would help consumers and others better understand the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS) hospital-cost data, which was released in May and compares widely variable hospital prices for 100 common inpatient procedures. The other category involves developing applications and tools that could help consumers price-shop.

The foundation is offering support and opportunities for submitters to interact with experts and technical innovators. The deadline for applications is Aug. 25.

I continue to believe that hospitalists should routinely provide patients a copy of their discharge summary. I made the case for this in a 2006 column (“Keeping Patients in the Loop,” October 2006, p. 74), but I don’t see the idea catching on. I bet this simple act would have all kinds of benefits, including at least modest reductions in overall health-care expenditures and readmissions.

The whole dynamic of this issue seems to be changing as a result of “patient portals” allowing direct access to review test results and, in some cases, physician documentation. Typically, these are integrated with or at least connected to an electronic health record (EHR) and allow a patient, and those provided access (e.g. the password) by the patient, to review records. My own PCP provides access to a portal that I’ve found very useful, but I think, like most others, it doesn’t provide access to physician notes.

So there still is a case to be made for hospitalists (and all specialties) to provide copies of the discharge summary directly to patients and perhaps other forms of documentation as well.

Timeliness

I think all discharge summaries should be completed before the patient leaves the hospital and amended as needed to capture any last-minute changes and details. The act of generating the summary often leads the discharging doctor to notice, and have a chance to address, important details that may have dropped off the daily problem list. Things like the need to recheck a lab test to ensure normalization prior to discharge, or make arrangements for outpatient colonoscopy to pursue the heme-positive stool found on admission, have sometimes slipped off the radar during the hospital stay and can be caught when preparing discharge summary.

Preparing a discharge summary the night before anticipated discharge can have many advantages, including improving early discharge times the next morning. And it means the doctor can prepare the summary late in the day after routine rounding is finished and interruptions are less likely. Although I think quality of care is enhanced by generating the summary the night before (and amending it as needed), I worked with a hospital that was cited by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) for doing this and was told they can’t be done prior to the calendar day of discharge.

Creation of the discharge summary isn’t the only relevant step. It should be transcribed on a stat basis (e.g. within two to four hours) and pushed to the PCP and other treating physicians. It isn’t enough that the document is available to the PCP via an EHR; these doctors need some sort of notice, such as an email.

To take advantage of the new “transitional-care management” codes (99495 and 99496), PCPs must make telephone contact with patients within two days of discharge and must have a face-to-face visit within one or two weeks of discharge (depending on whether the patient is high- or moderate-risk). Making the summary available to the PCP quickly can be crucial in ensuring these phone calls and visits are meaningful. (For an excellent review of the TCM codes, see Dr. Lauren Doctoroff’s article “New Codes Bridge Hospitals’ Post-Discharge Billing Gap” in the February 2013 issue of The Hospitalist.)

So I think both patients and other treating physicians should get the discharge summary on the day of discharge or no more than a day or two after. I bet this improves quality of care and readmissions, but one study found no association, and another found a trend toward reduced readmissions that did not reach statistical significance.^1,2

Content

Just what information should go in a discharge summary? There are lots of opinions here, but it is worth starting with the components required by The Joint Commission. (You were aware of these, right?) The commission requires:

• Reason for hospitalization;
• Significant findings;
• Procedures and treatment provided;
• Patient’s discharge condition;
• Patient and family instructions; and
• Attending physician’s signature

To this list, I would add enumeration of tests pending at discharge.

The May/June 2005 issue of The Hospitalist has a terrific article by three thoughtful hospitalists titled “Advancing Toward the Ideal Hospital Discharge for the Elderly Patient.” It summarizes a 2005 workshop at the SHM annual meeting that produced a checklist of elements to consider including in every summary.

Brevity is a worthwhile goal but not at the expense of conveying the thought processes behind decisions. Things like how a decision was made to pursue watchful waiting versus aggressive workup now should be spelled out. Was it simply patient preference? It is common to start a trial of a medical therapy during a hospital stay, and it should be made clear that its effect should be assessed and a deliberate decision regarding continuing or stopping the therapy will be needed after discharge.

Lots of things need context and explanation for subsequent caregivers.

Format

The hospital in which I practice recently switched to a new EHR, and our hospitalist group has talked some about all of us using the same basic template for our notes. This should be valuable to all other caregivers who read a reasonable number of our notes and might improve our communication with one another around handoffs, etc. Although we haven’t reached a final decision about this, I’m an advocate for a shared template rather than each doctor using his or her own. This would be a worthwhile thing for all groups to consider.

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].

References

1. Hanson LO. Hospital discharge documentation and risk of rehospitalization. BMJ Qual Saf. 2011;20(9):773-778.
2. Van Walraven C, Seth R, Austin PC, Laupacis A. Effect of discharge summary availability during post-discharge visits on hospital readmission. J Gen Intern Med. 2002;17(3):186-192.

I continue to believe that hospitalists should routinely provide patients a copy of their discharge summary. I made the case for this in a 2006 column (“Keeping Patients in the Loop,” October 2006, p. 74), but I don’t see the idea catching on. I bet this simple act would have all kinds of benefits, including at least modest reductions in overall health-care expenditures and readmissions.

The whole dynamic of this issue seems to be changing as a result of “patient portals” allowing direct access to review test results and, in some cases, physician documentation. Typically, these are integrated with or at least connected to an electronic health record (EHR) and allow a patient, and those provided access (e.g. the password) by the patient, to review records. My own PCP provides access to a portal that I’ve found very useful, but I think, like most others, it doesn’t provide access to physician notes.

So there still is a case to be made for hospitalists (and all specialties) to provide copies of the discharge summary directly to patients and perhaps other forms of documentation as well.

Timeliness

I think all discharge summaries should be completed before the patient leaves the hospital and amended as needed to capture any last-minute changes and details. The act of generating the summary often leads the discharging doctor to notice, and have a chance to address, important details that may have dropped off the daily problem list. Things like the need to recheck a lab test to ensure normalization prior to discharge, or make arrangements for outpatient colonoscopy to pursue the heme-positive stool found on admission, have sometimes slipped off the radar during the hospital stay and can be caught when preparing discharge summary.

Preparing a discharge summary the night before anticipated discharge can have many advantages, including improving early discharge times the next morning. And it means the doctor can prepare the summary late in the day after routine rounding is finished and interruptions are less likely. Although I think quality of care is enhanced by generating the summary the night before (and amending it as needed), I worked with a hospital that was cited by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) for doing this and was told they can’t be done prior to the calendar day of discharge.

Creation of the discharge summary isn’t the only relevant step. It should be transcribed on a stat basis (e.g. within two to four hours) and pushed to the PCP and other treating physicians. It isn’t enough that the document is available to the PCP via an EHR; these doctors need some sort of notice, such as an email.

To take advantage of the new “transitional-care management” codes (99495 and 99496), PCPs must make telephone contact with patients within two days of discharge and must have a face-to-face visit within one or two weeks of discharge (depending on whether the patient is high- or moderate-risk). Making the summary available to the PCP quickly can be crucial in ensuring these phone calls and visits are meaningful. (For an excellent review of the TCM codes, see Dr. Lauren Doctoroff’s article “New Codes Bridge Hospitals’ Post-Discharge Billing Gap” in the February 2013 issue of The Hospitalist.)

So I think both patients and other treating physicians should get the discharge summary on the day of discharge or no more than a day or two after. I bet this improves quality of care and readmissions, but one study found no association, and another found a trend toward reduced readmissions that did not reach statistical significance.^1,2

Content

Just what information should go in a discharge summary? There are lots of opinions here, but it is worth starting with the components required by The Joint Commission. (You were aware of these, right?) The commission requires:

• Reason for hospitalization;
• Significant findings;
• Procedures and treatment provided;
• Patient’s discharge condition;
• Patient and family instructions; and
• Attending physician’s signature

To this list, I would add enumeration of tests pending at discharge.

The May/June 2005 issue of The Hospitalist has a terrific article by three thoughtful hospitalists titled “Advancing Toward the Ideal Hospital Discharge for the Elderly Patient.” It summarizes a 2005 workshop at the SHM annual meeting that produced a checklist of elements to consider including in every summary.

Brevity is a worthwhile goal but not at the expense of conveying the thought processes behind decisions. Things like how a decision was made to pursue watchful waiting versus aggressive workup now should be spelled out. Was it simply patient preference? It is common to start a trial of a medical therapy during a hospital stay, and it should be made clear that its effect should be assessed and a deliberate decision regarding continuing or stopping the therapy will be needed after discharge.

Lots of things need context and explanation for subsequent caregivers.

Format

The hospital in which I practice recently switched to a new EHR, and our hospitalist group has talked some about all of us using the same basic template for our notes. This should be valuable to all other caregivers who read a reasonable number of our notes and might improve our communication with one another around handoffs, etc. Although we haven’t reached a final decision about this, I’m an advocate for a shared template rather than each doctor using his or her own. This would be a worthwhile thing for all groups to consider.

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].

References

1. Hanson LO. Hospital discharge documentation and risk of rehospitalization. BMJ Qual Saf. 2011;20(9):773-778.
2. Van Walraven C, Seth R, Austin PC, Laupacis A. Effect of discharge summary availability during post-discharge visits on hospital readmission. J Gen Intern Med. 2002;17(3):186-192.

I continue to believe that hospitalists should routinely provide patients a copy of their discharge summary. I made the case for this in a 2006 column (“Keeping Patients in the Loop,” October 2006, p. 74), but I don’t see the idea catching on. I bet this simple act would have all kinds of benefits, including at least modest reductions in overall health-care expenditures and readmissions.

The whole dynamic of this issue seems to be changing as a result of “patient portals” allowing direct access to review test results and, in some cases, physician documentation. Typically, these are integrated with or at least connected to an electronic health record (EHR) and allow a patient, and those provided access (e.g. the password) by the patient, to review records. My own PCP provides access to a portal that I’ve found very useful, but I think, like most others, it doesn’t provide access to physician notes.

So there still is a case to be made for hospitalists (and all specialties) to provide copies of the discharge summary directly to patients and perhaps other forms of documentation as well.

Timeliness

I think all discharge summaries should be completed before the patient leaves the hospital and amended as needed to capture any last-minute changes and details. The act of generating the summary often leads the discharging doctor to notice, and have a chance to address, important details that may have dropped off the daily problem list. Things like the need to recheck a lab test to ensure normalization prior to discharge, or make arrangements for outpatient colonoscopy to pursue the heme-positive stool found on admission, have sometimes slipped off the radar during the hospital stay and can be caught when preparing discharge summary.

Preparing a discharge summary the night before anticipated discharge can have many advantages, including improving early discharge times the next morning. And it means the doctor can prepare the summary late in the day after routine rounding is finished and interruptions are less likely. Although I think quality of care is enhanced by generating the summary the night before (and amending it as needed), I worked with a hospital that was cited by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) for doing this and was told they can’t be done prior to the calendar day of discharge.

Creation of the discharge summary isn’t the only relevant step. It should be transcribed on a stat basis (e.g. within two to four hours) and pushed to the PCP and other treating physicians. It isn’t enough that the document is available to the PCP via an EHR; these doctors need some sort of notice, such as an email.

To take advantage of the new “transitional-care management” codes (99495 and 99496), PCPs must make telephone contact with patients within two days of discharge and must have a face-to-face visit within one or two weeks of discharge (depending on whether the patient is high- or moderate-risk). Making the summary available to the PCP quickly can be crucial in ensuring these phone calls and visits are meaningful. (For an excellent review of the TCM codes, see Dr. Lauren Doctoroff’s article “New Codes Bridge Hospitals’ Post-Discharge Billing Gap” in the February 2013 issue of The Hospitalist.)

So I think both patients and other treating physicians should get the discharge summary on the day of discharge or no more than a day or two after. I bet this improves quality of care and readmissions, but one study found no association, and another found a trend toward reduced readmissions that did not reach statistical significance.^1,2

Content

Just what information should go in a discharge summary? There are lots of opinions here, but it is worth starting with the components required by The Joint Commission. (You were aware of these, right?) The commission requires:

• Reason for hospitalization;
• Significant findings;
• Procedures and treatment provided;
• Patient’s discharge condition;
• Patient and family instructions; and
• Attending physician’s signature

To this list, I would add enumeration of tests pending at discharge.

The May/June 2005 issue of The Hospitalist has a terrific article by three thoughtful hospitalists titled “Advancing Toward the Ideal Hospital Discharge for the Elderly Patient.” It summarizes a 2005 workshop at the SHM annual meeting that produced a checklist of elements to consider including in every summary.

Brevity is a worthwhile goal but not at the expense of conveying the thought processes behind decisions. Things like how a decision was made to pursue watchful waiting versus aggressive workup now should be spelled out. Was it simply patient preference? It is common to start a trial of a medical therapy during a hospital stay, and it should be made clear that its effect should be assessed and a deliberate decision regarding continuing or stopping the therapy will be needed after discharge.

Lots of things need context and explanation for subsequent caregivers.

Format

The hospital in which I practice recently switched to a new EHR, and our hospitalist group has talked some about all of us using the same basic template for our notes. This should be valuable to all other caregivers who read a reasonable number of our notes and might improve our communication with one another around handoffs, etc. Although we haven’t reached a final decision about this, I’m an advocate for a shared template rather than each doctor using his or her own. This would be a worthwhile thing for all groups to consider.

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].

References

1. Hanson LO. Hospital discharge documentation and risk of rehospitalization. BMJ Qual Saf. 2011;20(9):773-778.
2. Van Walraven C, Seth R, Austin PC, Laupacis A. Effect of discharge summary availability during post-discharge visits on hospital readmission. J Gen Intern Med. 2002;17(3):186-192.

Clinical question: Can a prediction model based on administrative and clinical data identify potentially avoidable 30-day readmissions in medical patients prior to discharge?

Background: An estimated 18% of Medicare beneficiaries are readmitted to the hospital within 30 days of discharge, costing nearly $17 billion per year. Interventions to reduce readmission rates are costly and should be focused on high-risk patients. To date, using models to predict 30-day readmission has been problematic and unreliable.

Study design: Retrospective cohort.

Setting: Academic medical center in Boston.

Synopsis: Using consecutive discharges from all medical services of Brigham and Women’s Hospital occurring over one year, this study derived and internally validated a prediction model for potentially avoidable 30-day readmissions. Of 10,731 discharges, there were 2,399 (22%) 30-day readmissions, and 879 (8.5%) were deemed potentially avoidable. Seven independent predictors for readmission were identified and used to create a predictor score referred to as the HOSPITAL score. Predictors included hemoglobin and sodium levels at discharge, number of hospitalizations in the past year, and four features of the index hospitalization, including type, discharge from an oncology service, presence of procedures, and length of stay. The score was internally validated and found to predict potentially avoidable 30-day readmission in medical patients with fair discriminatory power and good calibration.

This study is unique in that none of the classic comorbidities (e.g. congestive heart failure) were associated with a higher risk of 30-day readmission. Previously unrecognized predictors, including hemoglobin, sodium, and number of procedures performed, were incorporated. This suggests that comorbidities are not as important as illness severity or clinical instability. Hospitalists should await studies that externally validate the HOSPITAL score before incorporating it into practice.

Bottom line: A unique and simple seven-item prediction model identifies potentially avoidable 30-day readmissions but needs to be externally validated before being widely utilized.

Citation: Donze J, Drahomir A, Williams D, Schnipper JL. Potentially avoidable 30-day hospital readmissions in medical patients. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;137(8):632-638.

Clinical question: Can a prediction model based on administrative and clinical data identify potentially avoidable 30-day readmissions in medical patients prior to discharge?

Background: An estimated 18% of Medicare beneficiaries are readmitted to the hospital within 30 days of discharge, costing nearly $17 billion per year. Interventions to reduce readmission rates are costly and should be focused on high-risk patients. To date, using models to predict 30-day readmission has been problematic and unreliable.

Study design: Retrospective cohort.

Setting: Academic medical center in Boston.

Synopsis: Using consecutive discharges from all medical services of Brigham and Women’s Hospital occurring over one year, this study derived and internally validated a prediction model for potentially avoidable 30-day readmissions. Of 10,731 discharges, there were 2,399 (22%) 30-day readmissions, and 879 (8.5%) were deemed potentially avoidable. Seven independent predictors for readmission were identified and used to create a predictor score referred to as the HOSPITAL score. Predictors included hemoglobin and sodium levels at discharge, number of hospitalizations in the past year, and four features of the index hospitalization, including type, discharge from an oncology service, presence of procedures, and length of stay. The score was internally validated and found to predict potentially avoidable 30-day readmission in medical patients with fair discriminatory power and good calibration.

This study is unique in that none of the classic comorbidities (e.g. congestive heart failure) were associated with a higher risk of 30-day readmission. Previously unrecognized predictors, including hemoglobin, sodium, and number of procedures performed, were incorporated. This suggests that comorbidities are not as important as illness severity or clinical instability. Hospitalists should await studies that externally validate the HOSPITAL score before incorporating it into practice.

Bottom line: A unique and simple seven-item prediction model identifies potentially avoidable 30-day readmissions but needs to be externally validated before being widely utilized.

Citation: Donze J, Drahomir A, Williams D, Schnipper JL. Potentially avoidable 30-day hospital readmissions in medical patients. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;137(8):632-638.

Clinical question: Can a prediction model based on administrative and clinical data identify potentially avoidable 30-day readmissions in medical patients prior to discharge?

Background: An estimated 18% of Medicare beneficiaries are readmitted to the hospital within 30 days of discharge, costing nearly $17 billion per year. Interventions to reduce readmission rates are costly and should be focused on high-risk patients. To date, using models to predict 30-day readmission has been problematic and unreliable.

Study design: Retrospective cohort.

Setting: Academic medical center in Boston.

Synopsis: Using consecutive discharges from all medical services of Brigham and Women’s Hospital occurring over one year, this study derived and internally validated a prediction model for potentially avoidable 30-day readmissions. Of 10,731 discharges, there were 2,399 (22%) 30-day readmissions, and 879 (8.5%) were deemed potentially avoidable. Seven independent predictors for readmission were identified and used to create a predictor score referred to as the HOSPITAL score. Predictors included hemoglobin and sodium levels at discharge, number of hospitalizations in the past year, and four features of the index hospitalization, including type, discharge from an oncology service, presence of procedures, and length of stay. The score was internally validated and found to predict potentially avoidable 30-day readmission in medical patients with fair discriminatory power and good calibration.

This study is unique in that none of the classic comorbidities (e.g. congestive heart failure) were associated with a higher risk of 30-day readmission. Previously unrecognized predictors, including hemoglobin, sodium, and number of procedures performed, were incorporated. This suggests that comorbidities are not as important as illness severity or clinical instability. Hospitalists should await studies that externally validate the HOSPITAL score before incorporating it into practice.

Bottom line: A unique and simple seven-item prediction model identifies potentially avoidable 30-day readmissions but needs to be externally validated before being widely utilized.

Citation: Donze J, Drahomir A, Williams D, Schnipper JL. Potentially avoidable 30-day hospital readmissions in medical patients. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;137(8):632-638.