Patient Safety

click for large version

click for large version

There may be ways to serve up the discharged medication list in a patient-friendly way using some IT or an image library of medications. ... I do not foresee a medication reconciliation IT application, unfortunately.—Jeffrey Schnipper, MD, MPH, FHM, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston

Boston hospitalist Jeffrey Schnipper, MD, MPH, FHM, is no stranger to quality initiatives aimed at medication reconciliation (MR). His research at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital revealed a potential reduction of serious medical errors per patient to 0.3 from 1.4 in the past four years.

“I think those are achievable results,” he says. “This is all about doing those things better than we were always doing before.”

Now Dr. Schnipper will work to bring similar results to hospitals across America as principal investigator for SHM’s three-year, multicenter, MR quality-improvement study. The study, funded by a $1.5 million grant from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), will develop a database to research the best practices in MR and provide a mentored implementation model for other hospitals to use.

The project also will include a package of materials and tools adaptable for any hospital, as well as an implementation guide with the mentored implementation model. “It really should be everything a site needs to improve its MR process,” says Dr. Schnipper, director of clinical research at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital Hospitalist Service and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School.

According to The Institute for Safe Medication Practices, MR is the process of comparing a patient’s medication orders with their previously prescribed medication regimen and communicating any necessary changes to patients and their next providers of care. More than 1.3 million medication errors occur annually in the U.S.; MR has been shown to eliminate as many as half of those errors and 20% of adverse medical events.

JoAnne Resnic, MBA, BSN, RN, senior project manager at SHM, says SHM will use the grant to fund research investigators, SHM’s project staff, and the development of a database for each of the study’s six sites to house their data collection and provide site-specific progress reports throughout the course of the study. SHM is working with consultants and physician co-investigators, a steering committee of nationally recognized thought leaders in medication reconciliation, a research pharmacist, and others to “help us take a pretty deep dive into the process and, hopefully, explain why some interventions work in some places and why they may not in others,” Resnic says.

According to Dr. Schnipper, SHM will conduct an interrupted time series at the sites, collecting baseline data for six months at each, then for 21 months after interventions begin. The study specifically will address 13 facets of medication reconciliation, scoring the facets based on their effectiveness (see Table 1, p. 6).

Each facet will be re-evaluated when different parts of the intervention are turned on, which should reveal “the most active ingredients that correspond to improved outcomes,” he says.

Dr. Schnipper emphasizes that there are two integral facets for improving MR: patient education and access to preadmission medication sources. Technology could be an answer to advancing these components, but it is not the sole link. “There may be ways to serve up the discharged medication list in a patient-friendly way using some IT or an image library of medications to help patients,” he says. “I do not foresee a medication reconciliation IT application, unfortunately.”

AHRQ selected SHM for the grant after a “peer review process [that] evaluates the merit of the applications against very rigorous criteria,” an AHRQ representative says. SHM was chosen “based upon its leadership and previous experience in medication reconciliation.” TH

Kevin Stevens is a staff writer based in New Jersey.

click for large version

click for large version

There may be ways to serve up the discharged medication list in a patient-friendly way using some IT or an image library of medications. ... I do not foresee a medication reconciliation IT application, unfortunately.—Jeffrey Schnipper, MD, MPH, FHM, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston

Boston hospitalist Jeffrey Schnipper, MD, MPH, FHM, is no stranger to quality initiatives aimed at medication reconciliation (MR). His research at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital revealed a potential reduction of serious medical errors per patient to 0.3 from 1.4 in the past four years.

“I think those are achievable results,” he says. “This is all about doing those things better than we were always doing before.”

Now Dr. Schnipper will work to bring similar results to hospitals across America as principal investigator for SHM’s three-year, multicenter, MR quality-improvement study. The study, funded by a $1.5 million grant from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), will develop a database to research the best practices in MR and provide a mentored implementation model for other hospitals to use.

The project also will include a package of materials and tools adaptable for any hospital, as well as an implementation guide with the mentored implementation model. “It really should be everything a site needs to improve its MR process,” says Dr. Schnipper, director of clinical research at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital Hospitalist Service and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School.

According to The Institute for Safe Medication Practices, MR is the process of comparing a patient’s medication orders with their previously prescribed medication regimen and communicating any necessary changes to patients and their next providers of care. More than 1.3 million medication errors occur annually in the U.S.; MR has been shown to eliminate as many as half of those errors and 20% of adverse medical events.

JoAnne Resnic, MBA, BSN, RN, senior project manager at SHM, says SHM will use the grant to fund research investigators, SHM’s project staff, and the development of a database for each of the study’s six sites to house their data collection and provide site-specific progress reports throughout the course of the study. SHM is working with consultants and physician co-investigators, a steering committee of nationally recognized thought leaders in medication reconciliation, a research pharmacist, and others to “help us take a pretty deep dive into the process and, hopefully, explain why some interventions work in some places and why they may not in others,” Resnic says.

According to Dr. Schnipper, SHM will conduct an interrupted time series at the sites, collecting baseline data for six months at each, then for 21 months after interventions begin. The study specifically will address 13 facets of medication reconciliation, scoring the facets based on their effectiveness (see Table 1, p. 6).

Each facet will be re-evaluated when different parts of the intervention are turned on, which should reveal “the most active ingredients that correspond to improved outcomes,” he says.

Dr. Schnipper emphasizes that there are two integral facets for improving MR: patient education and access to preadmission medication sources. Technology could be an answer to advancing these components, but it is not the sole link. “There may be ways to serve up the discharged medication list in a patient-friendly way using some IT or an image library of medications to help patients,” he says. “I do not foresee a medication reconciliation IT application, unfortunately.”

AHRQ selected SHM for the grant after a “peer review process [that] evaluates the merit of the applications against very rigorous criteria,” an AHRQ representative says. SHM was chosen “based upon its leadership and previous experience in medication reconciliation.” TH

Kevin Stevens is a staff writer based in New Jersey.

click for large version

click for large version

There may be ways to serve up the discharged medication list in a patient-friendly way using some IT or an image library of medications. ... I do not foresee a medication reconciliation IT application, unfortunately.—Jeffrey Schnipper, MD, MPH, FHM, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston

Boston hospitalist Jeffrey Schnipper, MD, MPH, FHM, is no stranger to quality initiatives aimed at medication reconciliation (MR). His research at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital revealed a potential reduction of serious medical errors per patient to 0.3 from 1.4 in the past four years.

“I think those are achievable results,” he says. “This is all about doing those things better than we were always doing before.”

Now Dr. Schnipper will work to bring similar results to hospitals across America as principal investigator for SHM’s three-year, multicenter, MR quality-improvement study. The study, funded by a $1.5 million grant from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), will develop a database to research the best practices in MR and provide a mentored implementation model for other hospitals to use.

The project also will include a package of materials and tools adaptable for any hospital, as well as an implementation guide with the mentored implementation model. “It really should be everything a site needs to improve its MR process,” says Dr. Schnipper, director of clinical research at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital Hospitalist Service and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School.

According to The Institute for Safe Medication Practices, MR is the process of comparing a patient’s medication orders with their previously prescribed medication regimen and communicating any necessary changes to patients and their next providers of care. More than 1.3 million medication errors occur annually in the U.S.; MR has been shown to eliminate as many as half of those errors and 20% of adverse medical events.

JoAnne Resnic, MBA, BSN, RN, senior project manager at SHM, says SHM will use the grant to fund research investigators, SHM’s project staff, and the development of a database for each of the study’s six sites to house their data collection and provide site-specific progress reports throughout the course of the study. SHM is working with consultants and physician co-investigators, a steering committee of nationally recognized thought leaders in medication reconciliation, a research pharmacist, and others to “help us take a pretty deep dive into the process and, hopefully, explain why some interventions work in some places and why they may not in others,” Resnic says.

According to Dr. Schnipper, SHM will conduct an interrupted time series at the sites, collecting baseline data for six months at each, then for 21 months after interventions begin. The study specifically will address 13 facets of medication reconciliation, scoring the facets based on their effectiveness (see Table 1, p. 6).

Each facet will be re-evaluated when different parts of the intervention are turned on, which should reveal “the most active ingredients that correspond to improved outcomes,” he says.

Dr. Schnipper emphasizes that there are two integral facets for improving MR: patient education and access to preadmission medication sources. Technology could be an answer to advancing these components, but it is not the sole link. “There may be ways to serve up the discharged medication list in a patient-friendly way using some IT or an image library of medications to help patients,” he says. “I do not foresee a medication reconciliation IT application, unfortunately.”

AHRQ selected SHM for the grant after a “peer review process [that] evaluates the merit of the applications against very rigorous criteria,” an AHRQ representative says. SHM was chosen “based upon its leadership and previous experience in medication reconciliation.” TH

Kevin Stevens is a staff writer based in New Jersey.

Dr. Watcher

When Robert Wachter, MD, MHM, delivers his keynote address to unofficially close HM11, he’ll toast the field he helped define. His remarks will coincide with the 15th anniversary of the article he and Lee Goldman, MD, coauthored in The New England Journal of Medicine that coined the term “hospitalist” and fostered an understanding that the HM movement was a true phenomenon.

The milestone presents the perfect opportunity to examine the specialty’s meteoric growth and celebrate the successes of its pioneers, says Dr. Wachter, a professor, chief of the Division of Hospital Medicine, and chief of the medical service at the University of California at San Francisco Medical Center. He also considers it an ideal time to examine the unforeseen developments of the past decade and a half, believing a critical analysis of a few key case studies can help lay the groundwork for an even brighter future.

“At 15, you’re in mid- to late adolescence,” Dr. Wachter says. “We can no longer say we’re this new kid on the block and, ‘Gee, whiz, isn’t this neat?’

“This is a good chance to reflect on things that went as we expected,” he adds. “It’s an even better chance to take a second look at things that were surprising but provide valuable lessons as we think about what the next 15 years are going to be like.”

Question: Fifteen years ago, did you envision HM would grow so quickly?

Answer: I had a sense this was a trend that was starting to emerge and could fill an important niche. At the same time, when Sergey (Brin) and Larry (Page) founded Google, I doubt they believed it would become a $200 billion company. In the beginning, I couldn’t have predicted what this would become.

Q: What surprised you most in the past 15 years?

A: I didn’t fully appreciate how quickly the push toward value would become a dominant theme. Once we discovered quality was important and there was a set of skills we needed to learn to improve it, we tackled it aggressively. It has been harder to tackle the cost part of the equation.

This goes beyond making sure patients don’t stay in the hospital longer than they need to. It means looking hard at the cost of care and the way we spend money, such as our patterns of ordering X-rays, consultants, and lab tests. I’m going to focus a fair amount on that.

Q: Why do you want to emphasize that point?

A: The cost of healthcare is going to bankrupt the country unless we get a handle on it. Our field needs to lead the way to show how a good, ethical physician not only focuses on improving quality of care, but also focuses on ridding the system of waste and of care that adds no real value to our patients. We’ve been a little sluggish in that area.

Q: What other surprises do you intend to discuss?

A: I didn’t anticipate the emergence of two different versions of the hospitalist field. One is the role of comanagement. The other is what I call the hyphenated hospitalist—these OB hospitalists and surgery hospitalists. This concept we came up with for general patients has been embraced by a variety of specialties. How do those people fit into our society and our field? Are they really part of us or are they fundamentally different? I think we need to think carefully about it.

Q: Why are the unexpected developments so important to consider?

A: Leaders in the field need to get really good at reading tea leaves. One of the ways you do that is to figure out, when you didn’t read them correctly the first time, why didn’t you? Could you have read them better if you were more clever or more thoughtful?

Q: What is the biggest challenge facing HM?

A: When we have been given new tasks and new opportunities, our members have stepped up to the plate and done what they’ve been asked to do as well, if not better, than expected. I’m a little fearful of the flip side. How we will meet the demand for our services? How do we ensure the job stays attractive and we don’t burn out? We have to demonstrate our value, but we have to make sure the jobs are truly sustainable and that we don’t shoot ourselves in the foot.

Q:What do you see as the solution?

A: I don’t think we’ll be able to meet all of the demand. There will be hospitals that can only partly staff the needs they have with hospitalists. I don’t want them to go too far down the quality curve. We need to be sure people entering the field are good and have the skills they need.

I think we’ll begin to ask important questions like, “Do I really need a hospitalist for this, or can I leverage fewer hospitalists with other nonphysician providers?” Or, “Can some of the work our hospitalists are doing be done as well and more cheaply by computers?” It opens a pathway to think more creatively about people and tasks and technologies.

Q: Despite the challenges associated with growth pressure, is HM better positioned for the future because of it?

A: Definitely. We will see a further extension of our reach into other areas of the hospital and healthcare system. We will continue to see our people begin as leaders in our world of hospital medicine but rapidly graduate to become hospital CEOs, chairs of departments of medicine, and major leaders in healthcare. There is a recognition that there’s no better training ground to be a leader in healthcare than to be a leader in our field. So I can’t help but be optimistic that our place in the world of healthcare is extraordinarily secure. HM11

Mark Leiser is a freelance writer based in New Jersey.

Dr. Watcher

When Robert Wachter, MD, MHM, delivers his keynote address to unofficially close HM11, he’ll toast the field he helped define. His remarks will coincide with the 15th anniversary of the article he and Lee Goldman, MD, coauthored in The New England Journal of Medicine that coined the term “hospitalist” and fostered an understanding that the HM movement was a true phenomenon.

The milestone presents the perfect opportunity to examine the specialty’s meteoric growth and celebrate the successes of its pioneers, says Dr. Wachter, a professor, chief of the Division of Hospital Medicine, and chief of the medical service at the University of California at San Francisco Medical Center. He also considers it an ideal time to examine the unforeseen developments of the past decade and a half, believing a critical analysis of a few key case studies can help lay the groundwork for an even brighter future.

“At 15, you’re in mid- to late adolescence,” Dr. Wachter says. “We can no longer say we’re this new kid on the block and, ‘Gee, whiz, isn’t this neat?’

“This is a good chance to reflect on things that went as we expected,” he adds. “It’s an even better chance to take a second look at things that were surprising but provide valuable lessons as we think about what the next 15 years are going to be like.”

Question: Fifteen years ago, did you envision HM would grow so quickly?

Answer: I had a sense this was a trend that was starting to emerge and could fill an important niche. At the same time, when Sergey (Brin) and Larry (Page) founded Google, I doubt they believed it would become a $200 billion company. In the beginning, I couldn’t have predicted what this would become.

Q: What surprised you most in the past 15 years?

A: I didn’t fully appreciate how quickly the push toward value would become a dominant theme. Once we discovered quality was important and there was a set of skills we needed to learn to improve it, we tackled it aggressively. It has been harder to tackle the cost part of the equation.

This goes beyond making sure patients don’t stay in the hospital longer than they need to. It means looking hard at the cost of care and the way we spend money, such as our patterns of ordering X-rays, consultants, and lab tests. I’m going to focus a fair amount on that.

Q: Why do you want to emphasize that point?

A: The cost of healthcare is going to bankrupt the country unless we get a handle on it. Our field needs to lead the way to show how a good, ethical physician not only focuses on improving quality of care, but also focuses on ridding the system of waste and of care that adds no real value to our patients. We’ve been a little sluggish in that area.

Q: What other surprises do you intend to discuss?

A: I didn’t anticipate the emergence of two different versions of the hospitalist field. One is the role of comanagement. The other is what I call the hyphenated hospitalist—these OB hospitalists and surgery hospitalists. This concept we came up with for general patients has been embraced by a variety of specialties. How do those people fit into our society and our field? Are they really part of us or are they fundamentally different? I think we need to think carefully about it.

Q: Why are the unexpected developments so important to consider?

A: Leaders in the field need to get really good at reading tea leaves. One of the ways you do that is to figure out, when you didn’t read them correctly the first time, why didn’t you? Could you have read them better if you were more clever or more thoughtful?

Q: What is the biggest challenge facing HM?

A: When we have been given new tasks and new opportunities, our members have stepped up to the plate and done what they’ve been asked to do as well, if not better, than expected. I’m a little fearful of the flip side. How we will meet the demand for our services? How do we ensure the job stays attractive and we don’t burn out? We have to demonstrate our value, but we have to make sure the jobs are truly sustainable and that we don’t shoot ourselves in the foot.

Q:What do you see as the solution?

A: I don’t think we’ll be able to meet all of the demand. There will be hospitals that can only partly staff the needs they have with hospitalists. I don’t want them to go too far down the quality curve. We need to be sure people entering the field are good and have the skills they need.

I think we’ll begin to ask important questions like, “Do I really need a hospitalist for this, or can I leverage fewer hospitalists with other nonphysician providers?” Or, “Can some of the work our hospitalists are doing be done as well and more cheaply by computers?” It opens a pathway to think more creatively about people and tasks and technologies.

Q: Despite the challenges associated with growth pressure, is HM better positioned for the future because of it?

A: Definitely. We will see a further extension of our reach into other areas of the hospital and healthcare system. We will continue to see our people begin as leaders in our world of hospital medicine but rapidly graduate to become hospital CEOs, chairs of departments of medicine, and major leaders in healthcare. There is a recognition that there’s no better training ground to be a leader in healthcare than to be a leader in our field. So I can’t help but be optimistic that our place in the world of healthcare is extraordinarily secure. HM11

Mark Leiser is a freelance writer based in New Jersey.

Dr. Watcher

When Robert Wachter, MD, MHM, delivers his keynote address to unofficially close HM11, he’ll toast the field he helped define. His remarks will coincide with the 15th anniversary of the article he and Lee Goldman, MD, coauthored in The New England Journal of Medicine that coined the term “hospitalist” and fostered an understanding that the HM movement was a true phenomenon.

The milestone presents the perfect opportunity to examine the specialty’s meteoric growth and celebrate the successes of its pioneers, says Dr. Wachter, a professor, chief of the Division of Hospital Medicine, and chief of the medical service at the University of California at San Francisco Medical Center. He also considers it an ideal time to examine the unforeseen developments of the past decade and a half, believing a critical analysis of a few key case studies can help lay the groundwork for an even brighter future.

“At 15, you’re in mid- to late adolescence,” Dr. Wachter says. “We can no longer say we’re this new kid on the block and, ‘Gee, whiz, isn’t this neat?’

“This is a good chance to reflect on things that went as we expected,” he adds. “It’s an even better chance to take a second look at things that were surprising but provide valuable lessons as we think about what the next 15 years are going to be like.”

Question: Fifteen years ago, did you envision HM would grow so quickly?

Answer: I had a sense this was a trend that was starting to emerge and could fill an important niche. At the same time, when Sergey (Brin) and Larry (Page) founded Google, I doubt they believed it would become a $200 billion company. In the beginning, I couldn’t have predicted what this would become.

Q: What surprised you most in the past 15 years?

A: I didn’t fully appreciate how quickly the push toward value would become a dominant theme. Once we discovered quality was important and there was a set of skills we needed to learn to improve it, we tackled it aggressively. It has been harder to tackle the cost part of the equation.

This goes beyond making sure patients don’t stay in the hospital longer than they need to. It means looking hard at the cost of care and the way we spend money, such as our patterns of ordering X-rays, consultants, and lab tests. I’m going to focus a fair amount on that.

Q: Why do you want to emphasize that point?

A: The cost of healthcare is going to bankrupt the country unless we get a handle on it. Our field needs to lead the way to show how a good, ethical physician not only focuses on improving quality of care, but also focuses on ridding the system of waste and of care that adds no real value to our patients. We’ve been a little sluggish in that area.

Q: What other surprises do you intend to discuss?

A: I didn’t anticipate the emergence of two different versions of the hospitalist field. One is the role of comanagement. The other is what I call the hyphenated hospitalist—these OB hospitalists and surgery hospitalists. This concept we came up with for general patients has been embraced by a variety of specialties. How do those people fit into our society and our field? Are they really part of us or are they fundamentally different? I think we need to think carefully about it.

Q: Why are the unexpected developments so important to consider?

A: Leaders in the field need to get really good at reading tea leaves. One of the ways you do that is to figure out, when you didn’t read them correctly the first time, why didn’t you? Could you have read them better if you were more clever or more thoughtful?

Q: What is the biggest challenge facing HM?

A: When we have been given new tasks and new opportunities, our members have stepped up to the plate and done what they’ve been asked to do as well, if not better, than expected. I’m a little fearful of the flip side. How we will meet the demand for our services? How do we ensure the job stays attractive and we don’t burn out? We have to demonstrate our value, but we have to make sure the jobs are truly sustainable and that we don’t shoot ourselves in the foot.

Q:What do you see as the solution?

A: I don’t think we’ll be able to meet all of the demand. There will be hospitals that can only partly staff the needs they have with hospitalists. I don’t want them to go too far down the quality curve. We need to be sure people entering the field are good and have the skills they need.

I think we’ll begin to ask important questions like, “Do I really need a hospitalist for this, or can I leverage fewer hospitalists with other nonphysician providers?” Or, “Can some of the work our hospitalists are doing be done as well and more cheaply by computers?” It opens a pathway to think more creatively about people and tasks and technologies.

Q: Despite the challenges associated with growth pressure, is HM better positioned for the future because of it?

A: Definitely. We will see a further extension of our reach into other areas of the hospital and healthcare system. We will continue to see our people begin as leaders in our world of hospital medicine but rapidly graduate to become hospital CEOs, chairs of departments of medicine, and major leaders in healthcare. There is a recognition that there’s no better training ground to be a leader in healthcare than to be a leader in our field. So I can’t help but be optimistic that our place in the world of healthcare is extraordinarily secure. HM11

Mark Leiser is a freelance writer based in New Jersey.

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) recently released the annual National Healthcare Quality & Disparities Reports. The reports provide in-depth quality information on the overall population and divide this information along such subgroups as race, ethnicity, and education level. The report is more than 200 pages long, but it can be summarized in one sentence: If you are poor, the quality of your healthcare is likely to be poor.

Despite significant quality improvement (QI) in a number of areas, disparities among poor Americans persist. For example, the percentage of heart-attack patients who underwent procedures to unblock heart arteries within 90 minutes improved to 81% in 2008 from 42% in 2005. This is very positive news, but unfortunately, these and many other gains in quality only apply to higher-income populations.

A new section of the report focused on care coordination and transitions of care contains some statistics of particular interest to hospitalists. One statistic shows that the percentage of hospitalized adult patients with heart failure who were given complete written discharge instructions improved to 82.0% in 2008, up from 57.5% in 2005.

It is important to note that this number remains more or less constant across all racial/ethnic divisions. Could part of this improvement be attributed to the growth and success of the hospitalist movement?

Hospitalists know that despite the numbers, a successful transition does not simply include discharge instructions; it is the combination of those instructions, along with coordination with primary care, that prevents avoidable readmissions.

Unfortunately, 15% to 20% of low-income patients have no regular primary-care physician (PCP). If a condition begins to deteriorate, this group often has little choice but to return to the hospital.

In the absence of a PCP, it is the hospitalist who can provide patients with the tools they need to stay healthy after leaving the hospital.

Such assistance can range from ensuring that patients truly understand their discharge instructions to being a resource for future questions. Hospitalists are ahead of the game when it comes to quality and reducing disparities; it is just a matter of the other facets of healthcare catching up.

The National Healthcare Quality & Disparities reports are available at www.ahrq.gov/qual/qrdr10.htm. TH

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) recently released the annual National Healthcare Quality & Disparities Reports. The reports provide in-depth quality information on the overall population and divide this information along such subgroups as race, ethnicity, and education level. The report is more than 200 pages long, but it can be summarized in one sentence: If you are poor, the quality of your healthcare is likely to be poor.

Despite significant quality improvement (QI) in a number of areas, disparities among poor Americans persist. For example, the percentage of heart-attack patients who underwent procedures to unblock heart arteries within 90 minutes improved to 81% in 2008 from 42% in 2005. This is very positive news, but unfortunately, these and many other gains in quality only apply to higher-income populations.

A new section of the report focused on care coordination and transitions of care contains some statistics of particular interest to hospitalists. One statistic shows that the percentage of hospitalized adult patients with heart failure who were given complete written discharge instructions improved to 82.0% in 2008, up from 57.5% in 2005.

It is important to note that this number remains more or less constant across all racial/ethnic divisions. Could part of this improvement be attributed to the growth and success of the hospitalist movement?

Hospitalists know that despite the numbers, a successful transition does not simply include discharge instructions; it is the combination of those instructions, along with coordination with primary care, that prevents avoidable readmissions.

Unfortunately, 15% to 20% of low-income patients have no regular primary-care physician (PCP). If a condition begins to deteriorate, this group often has little choice but to return to the hospital.

In the absence of a PCP, it is the hospitalist who can provide patients with the tools they need to stay healthy after leaving the hospital.

Such assistance can range from ensuring that patients truly understand their discharge instructions to being a resource for future questions. Hospitalists are ahead of the game when it comes to quality and reducing disparities; it is just a matter of the other facets of healthcare catching up.

The National Healthcare Quality & Disparities reports are available at www.ahrq.gov/qual/qrdr10.htm. TH

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) recently released the annual National Healthcare Quality & Disparities Reports. The reports provide in-depth quality information on the overall population and divide this information along such subgroups as race, ethnicity, and education level. The report is more than 200 pages long, but it can be summarized in one sentence: If you are poor, the quality of your healthcare is likely to be poor.

Despite significant quality improvement (QI) in a number of areas, disparities among poor Americans persist. For example, the percentage of heart-attack patients who underwent procedures to unblock heart arteries within 90 minutes improved to 81% in 2008 from 42% in 2005. This is very positive news, but unfortunately, these and many other gains in quality only apply to higher-income populations.

A new section of the report focused on care coordination and transitions of care contains some statistics of particular interest to hospitalists. One statistic shows that the percentage of hospitalized adult patients with heart failure who were given complete written discharge instructions improved to 82.0% in 2008, up from 57.5% in 2005.

It is important to note that this number remains more or less constant across all racial/ethnic divisions. Could part of this improvement be attributed to the growth and success of the hospitalist movement?

Hospitalists know that despite the numbers, a successful transition does not simply include discharge instructions; it is the combination of those instructions, along with coordination with primary care, that prevents avoidable readmissions.

Unfortunately, 15% to 20% of low-income patients have no regular primary-care physician (PCP). If a condition begins to deteriorate, this group often has little choice but to return to the hospital.

In the absence of a PCP, it is the hospitalist who can provide patients with the tools they need to stay healthy after leaving the hospital.

Such assistance can range from ensuring that patients truly understand their discharge instructions to being a resource for future questions. Hospitalists are ahead of the game when it comes to quality and reducing disparities; it is just a matter of the other facets of healthcare catching up.

The National Healthcare Quality & Disparities reports are available at www.ahrq.gov/qual/qrdr10.htm. TH

On Feb. 16, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) listed SHM as a patient safety organization (PSO). A PSO serves as an independent, external, expert organization that can collect, analyze, and aggregate information in order to develop insights into the underlying causes of patient-safety events. PSOs are designed to help clinicians, hospitals, and healthcare organizations improve patient safety and the quality of healthcare delivery.

PSO status allows SHM’s current quality-improvement (QI) activities to be conducted in a secure environment that is protected from legal discovery. AHRQ currently lists 78 PSOs, including the Society for Vascular Surgery PSO, the Emergency Medicine Patient Safety Foundation, and the Biomedical Research and Education Foundation. A full list is available at www.pso.ahrq.gov/listing/psolist.htm.

To achieve PSO status, SHM worked closely with AHRQ to meet specific guidelines and requirements. One of the requirements is that the mission and primary activity of a PSO must be to conduct activities that are designed to improve patient safety and the quality of healthcare delivery.

To comply, SHM formed a separate component within the Quality Initiatives Department strictly to pursue patient safety and quality activities.

The SHM PSO will be unique. While PSOs are required to collect patient-safety data and provide some form of feedback to contracted sites, few have their own QI initiatives, and even fewer are established by a national physician’s professional society.

These differences will help the SHM PSO stand out from the crowd and will present opportunities within the healthcare reform framework. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires significant QI among the nation’s hospitals.

Specifically pertaining to PSOs, Section 399KK, a rarely mentioned section of the ACA, requires the Health and Human Services to establish a program for hospitals with high readmission rates to improve their rates through the use of PSOs. The details of this program remain unclear, but based upon the little bit of information currently available, there could be positive overlap between SHM’s Project BOOST (Better Outcomes for Older Adults through Safe Transitions) and the provision.

AHRQ’s recognition of the SHM PSO exemplifies SHM’s commitment to improving the quality of healthcare delivery. It also provides additional value to sites that implement SHM’s QI initiatives and will hopefully open new doors to SHM’s members. TH

On Feb. 16, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) listed SHM as a patient safety organization (PSO). A PSO serves as an independent, external, expert organization that can collect, analyze, and aggregate information in order to develop insights into the underlying causes of patient-safety events. PSOs are designed to help clinicians, hospitals, and healthcare organizations improve patient safety and the quality of healthcare delivery.

PSO status allows SHM’s current quality-improvement (QI) activities to be conducted in a secure environment that is protected from legal discovery. AHRQ currently lists 78 PSOs, including the Society for Vascular Surgery PSO, the Emergency Medicine Patient Safety Foundation, and the Biomedical Research and Education Foundation. A full list is available at www.pso.ahrq.gov/listing/psolist.htm.

To achieve PSO status, SHM worked closely with AHRQ to meet specific guidelines and requirements. One of the requirements is that the mission and primary activity of a PSO must be to conduct activities that are designed to improve patient safety and the quality of healthcare delivery.

To comply, SHM formed a separate component within the Quality Initiatives Department strictly to pursue patient safety and quality activities.

The SHM PSO will be unique. While PSOs are required to collect patient-safety data and provide some form of feedback to contracted sites, few have their own QI initiatives, and even fewer are established by a national physician’s professional society.

These differences will help the SHM PSO stand out from the crowd and will present opportunities within the healthcare reform framework. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires significant QI among the nation’s hospitals.

Specifically pertaining to PSOs, Section 399KK, a rarely mentioned section of the ACA, requires the Health and Human Services to establish a program for hospitals with high readmission rates to improve their rates through the use of PSOs. The details of this program remain unclear, but based upon the little bit of information currently available, there could be positive overlap between SHM’s Project BOOST (Better Outcomes for Older Adults through Safe Transitions) and the provision.

AHRQ’s recognition of the SHM PSO exemplifies SHM’s commitment to improving the quality of healthcare delivery. It also provides additional value to sites that implement SHM’s QI initiatives and will hopefully open new doors to SHM’s members. TH

On Feb. 16, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) listed SHM as a patient safety organization (PSO). A PSO serves as an independent, external, expert organization that can collect, analyze, and aggregate information in order to develop insights into the underlying causes of patient-safety events. PSOs are designed to help clinicians, hospitals, and healthcare organizations improve patient safety and the quality of healthcare delivery.

PSO status allows SHM’s current quality-improvement (QI) activities to be conducted in a secure environment that is protected from legal discovery. AHRQ currently lists 78 PSOs, including the Society for Vascular Surgery PSO, the Emergency Medicine Patient Safety Foundation, and the Biomedical Research and Education Foundation. A full list is available at www.pso.ahrq.gov/listing/psolist.htm.

To achieve PSO status, SHM worked closely with AHRQ to meet specific guidelines and requirements. One of the requirements is that the mission and primary activity of a PSO must be to conduct activities that are designed to improve patient safety and the quality of healthcare delivery.

To comply, SHM formed a separate component within the Quality Initiatives Department strictly to pursue patient safety and quality activities.

The SHM PSO will be unique. While PSOs are required to collect patient-safety data and provide some form of feedback to contracted sites, few have their own QI initiatives, and even fewer are established by a national physician’s professional society.

These differences will help the SHM PSO stand out from the crowd and will present opportunities within the healthcare reform framework. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires significant QI among the nation’s hospitals.

Specifically pertaining to PSOs, Section 399KK, a rarely mentioned section of the ACA, requires the Health and Human Services to establish a program for hospitals with high readmission rates to improve their rates through the use of PSOs. The details of this program remain unclear, but based upon the little bit of information currently available, there could be positive overlap between SHM’s Project BOOST (Better Outcomes for Older Adults through Safe Transitions) and the provision.

AHRQ’s recognition of the SHM PSO exemplifies SHM’s commitment to improving the quality of healthcare delivery. It also provides additional value to sites that implement SHM’s QI initiatives and will hopefully open new doors to SHM’s members. TH

I recently visited my parents in my ancestral home of Wisconsin. As parents of a certain age, they inexplicably are genetically predisposed to owning a minivan. Another quirk of their DNA is that they must own a new minivan. No sooner has the last wisp of new-car smell osmosed from the burled walnut interior than they are trading up to the newest, tricked-out minivan. Perhaps more puzzling is the manner of pride they display in their minivan.

Now, my dad, as if not readily apparent, is not cool. And to see him folded into the driver’s seat, his furry-ear-to-furry-ear grin signaling a self-satisfaction customarily reserved for his grandchildren, painstakingly recounting glory-day stories and 4:30 p.m. dinner buffets, further solidifies his place in the Annals of Uncool.

When I’m home, they tend to employ my chauffeur services (most likely in retribution for my peri-pubescent years), and on the first day back home, I stopped their newest ride near the back door of the house, foot idling on the brake while this exchange occurred: “That’s a fascinating story about how much more challenging the world was when you were my age, Dad. You are a true American hero. Would you like to get out here or in the garage?”

“Here,” he replied.

“OK, then get out,” I countered.

“I can’t,” he responded knowingly.

“Why not?” I queried, the patience seeping from my voice.

“Because the door’s not open,” he answered, seemingly mocking me.

“Then open it,” I replied, silently recounting the evidence for his institutionalization.

“I can’t,” he responded.

“Why not?” I replied again, this time calculating the likelihood that I was adopted.

“Because it’s locked,” came his retort.

“Then unlock it,” I answered, reconfirming my decision to move away for college.

“I can’t,” he replied, ostensibly encouraging parenticide.

“Why not?” I queried, strongly contemplating parenticide.

“Because you haven’t put the car in park,” he responded triumphantly.

A System So Safe

As a safety feature, the minivan needed to be in park before you could open the door to exit. I’ve never heard of anyone actually falling out of a moving car, but recollecting high school, I can fathom the right mix, type, and number of teenagers where possibility would meet inevitability. But, apparently, enough people are falling out of moving vehicles that car engineers have built a system that is so safe, this can’t happen. So no matter how hard someone tries, it just isn’t possible to fall out of a moving car (believe me, toward the end of a week of my father’s car stories, my mind had worked every possible angle).

Likewise, newer vehicles employ occupant-sensitive sensors that detect the weight, size, and position of the passenger to determine if the airbag should deploy. Rather than depending on the driver to turn the passenger-side airbag on or off, the car does it for you: heavy enough to trigger the sensor, and the airbag will deploy; too light, and the car assumes you are a child and doesn’t deploy. It’s a system that is so safe because it doesn’t depend on the operator to get it right.

Ditto motion sensors that detect objects behind the car while reversing (avoiding accidental back-overs), antilock brakes (to maintain control during panicked braking), traction control (improves stability during acceleration), electronic stability control (foils spinouts), tire-pressure-monitoring systems (avoids blowouts), daytime running lights (ensures others see you), rollover airbags (they stay inflated to keep you in the car), lane-departure warning (alerts you if you stray from your lane), and doors that automatically lock after the car starts (again, falling out of cars).

For all the negative press of late, car manufacturers understand safety.

A System Not So Safe

Contrast this to healthcare, in which 10% of patients will suffer a serious, preventable, adverse event during their hospital stay.¹ Read that sentence again. That’s 10%; that’s preventable; that’s a number that has largely remained unchanged in the past decade. If 1 in 10 drivers suffered a serious adverse preventable auto accident, Congress would do nothing but hold automotive safety hearings.

In medicine, we still largely employ unsafe systems in which even the best doctors can, and do, hurt patients. Sure, we have made strides in this arena (oxygen tubing that only works if hooked up properly, smart pumps that avert IV dosing errors, CO₂ monitors to detect proper endotracheal tube placement), but remarkably, in this era of patient safety, we still utilize systems that largely depend on the heroism of the individual.

As physicians, we are famously autonomous and value our professional independence, even to the degree that it might harm patients. We generally eschew standardization, believing that each patient is inherently different. In fact, the thrill of the improvisational theater that follows every patient’s chief compliant is one of the great satisfiers in medicine. We love that feeling that comes from sleuthing each case, deftly enacting a plan of action to shepherd the patient to health.

To suggest following protocols, guidelines, and checklists is derisively dismissed as “cookbook medicine.” To work in teams in which certain tasks are delegated to others is seen as weakness—we don’t need a system that utilizes a pharmacist; rather, we should know the doses of all medicines, their interactions, and the effect of renal and liver impairment on their clearance. To suggest otherwise is an insult to our Oslerian roots. To examine our errors, our system breakdowns, our patient harms is anathema to our practice, an admission of failure.

The result is that most of us continue to toil in systems that have become exponentially unsafe as healthcare has become more complex. Today, we still have a system that will more or less allow us to kill a patient by doing nothing more than forgetting the letter “g.” I can go to my hospital today and intend to write “4 grams of magnesium sulfate (MgSO4)” and inadvertently forget the “g” in “Mg.” This could result in an order for a lethal dose of morphine sulfate (MSO4). It’s that easy to hurt a patient. Now, you might say that would never happen, because the pharmacy would catch it. And this is likely. But is it guaranteed? Can you 100% ensure it wouldn’t happen? Consider that nearly 20% of medication doses administered in a hospital are done so incorrectly.² Nearly 1 in 5. This is the type of system we are employing to stop this lethal overdose. Is this system, which depends on another human to prevent an error, foolproof, or just a snare waiting to prove you the fool?

This represents our opportunity. As hospitalists, the hospital is our tapestry, our system of care, our responsibility. Few others are as well-positioned to ensure that the systems that envelop our patients are highly functional, reliable, and safe. This will take work—work that will feel burdensome, underappreciated, undercompensated. And, fully recognizing that none of us went into medicine to become systems engineers, this will be hard.

However, if not us, who? Who will ensure that our fathers, our mothers, our children will be as safe in the hospital as they are on the drive to the hospital? TH

Dr. Glasheen is associate professor of medicine at the University of Colorado Denver, where he serves as director of the Hospital Medicine Program and the Hospitalist Training Program, and as associate program director of the Internal Medicine Residency Program.

References

1. Global health leaders join the World Health Organization to announce accelerated efforts to improve patient safety. World Health Organization website. Available at: www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2004/pr74/en/. Accessed Feb. 14, 2011.
2. Barker KN, Flynn EA, Pepper GA, Bates DW, Mikeal RL. Medication errors observed in 36 health care facilities. Arch Intern Med. 2002;162(16):1897-1903.

I recently visited my parents in my ancestral home of Wisconsin. As parents of a certain age, they inexplicably are genetically predisposed to owning a minivan. Another quirk of their DNA is that they must own a new minivan. No sooner has the last wisp of new-car smell osmosed from the burled walnut interior than they are trading up to the newest, tricked-out minivan. Perhaps more puzzling is the manner of pride they display in their minivan.

Now, my dad, as if not readily apparent, is not cool. And to see him folded into the driver’s seat, his furry-ear-to-furry-ear grin signaling a self-satisfaction customarily reserved for his grandchildren, painstakingly recounting glory-day stories and 4:30 p.m. dinner buffets, further solidifies his place in the Annals of Uncool.

When I’m home, they tend to employ my chauffeur services (most likely in retribution for my peri-pubescent years), and on the first day back home, I stopped their newest ride near the back door of the house, foot idling on the brake while this exchange occurred: “That’s a fascinating story about how much more challenging the world was when you were my age, Dad. You are a true American hero. Would you like to get out here or in the garage?”

“Here,” he replied.

“OK, then get out,” I countered.

“I can’t,” he responded knowingly.

“Why not?” I queried, the patience seeping from my voice.

“Because the door’s not open,” he answered, seemingly mocking me.

“Then open it,” I replied, silently recounting the evidence for his institutionalization.

“I can’t,” he responded.

“Why not?” I replied again, this time calculating the likelihood that I was adopted.

“Because it’s locked,” came his retort.

“Then unlock it,” I answered, reconfirming my decision to move away for college.

“I can’t,” he replied, ostensibly encouraging parenticide.

“Why not?” I queried, strongly contemplating parenticide.

“Because you haven’t put the car in park,” he responded triumphantly.

A System So Safe

As a safety feature, the minivan needed to be in park before you could open the door to exit. I’ve never heard of anyone actually falling out of a moving car, but recollecting high school, I can fathom the right mix, type, and number of teenagers where possibility would meet inevitability. But, apparently, enough people are falling out of moving vehicles that car engineers have built a system that is so safe, this can’t happen. So no matter how hard someone tries, it just isn’t possible to fall out of a moving car (believe me, toward the end of a week of my father’s car stories, my mind had worked every possible angle).

Likewise, newer vehicles employ occupant-sensitive sensors that detect the weight, size, and position of the passenger to determine if the airbag should deploy. Rather than depending on the driver to turn the passenger-side airbag on or off, the car does it for you: heavy enough to trigger the sensor, and the airbag will deploy; too light, and the car assumes you are a child and doesn’t deploy. It’s a system that is so safe because it doesn’t depend on the operator to get it right.

Ditto motion sensors that detect objects behind the car while reversing (avoiding accidental back-overs), antilock brakes (to maintain control during panicked braking), traction control (improves stability during acceleration), electronic stability control (foils spinouts), tire-pressure-monitoring systems (avoids blowouts), daytime running lights (ensures others see you), rollover airbags (they stay inflated to keep you in the car), lane-departure warning (alerts you if you stray from your lane), and doors that automatically lock after the car starts (again, falling out of cars).

For all the negative press of late, car manufacturers understand safety.

A System Not So Safe

Contrast this to healthcare, in which 10% of patients will suffer a serious, preventable, adverse event during their hospital stay.¹ Read that sentence again. That’s 10%; that’s preventable; that’s a number that has largely remained unchanged in the past decade. If 1 in 10 drivers suffered a serious adverse preventable auto accident, Congress would do nothing but hold automotive safety hearings.

In medicine, we still largely employ unsafe systems in which even the best doctors can, and do, hurt patients. Sure, we have made strides in this arena (oxygen tubing that only works if hooked up properly, smart pumps that avert IV dosing errors, CO₂ monitors to detect proper endotracheal tube placement), but remarkably, in this era of patient safety, we still utilize systems that largely depend on the heroism of the individual.

As physicians, we are famously autonomous and value our professional independence, even to the degree that it might harm patients. We generally eschew standardization, believing that each patient is inherently different. In fact, the thrill of the improvisational theater that follows every patient’s chief compliant is one of the great satisfiers in medicine. We love that feeling that comes from sleuthing each case, deftly enacting a plan of action to shepherd the patient to health.

To suggest following protocols, guidelines, and checklists is derisively dismissed as “cookbook medicine.” To work in teams in which certain tasks are delegated to others is seen as weakness—we don’t need a system that utilizes a pharmacist; rather, we should know the doses of all medicines, their interactions, and the effect of renal and liver impairment on their clearance. To suggest otherwise is an insult to our Oslerian roots. To examine our errors, our system breakdowns, our patient harms is anathema to our practice, an admission of failure.

The result is that most of us continue to toil in systems that have become exponentially unsafe as healthcare has become more complex. Today, we still have a system that will more or less allow us to kill a patient by doing nothing more than forgetting the letter “g.” I can go to my hospital today and intend to write “4 grams of magnesium sulfate (MgSO4)” and inadvertently forget the “g” in “Mg.” This could result in an order for a lethal dose of morphine sulfate (MSO4). It’s that easy to hurt a patient. Now, you might say that would never happen, because the pharmacy would catch it. And this is likely. But is it guaranteed? Can you 100% ensure it wouldn’t happen? Consider that nearly 20% of medication doses administered in a hospital are done so incorrectly.² Nearly 1 in 5. This is the type of system we are employing to stop this lethal overdose. Is this system, which depends on another human to prevent an error, foolproof, or just a snare waiting to prove you the fool?

This represents our opportunity. As hospitalists, the hospital is our tapestry, our system of care, our responsibility. Few others are as well-positioned to ensure that the systems that envelop our patients are highly functional, reliable, and safe. This will take work—work that will feel burdensome, underappreciated, undercompensated. And, fully recognizing that none of us went into medicine to become systems engineers, this will be hard.

However, if not us, who? Who will ensure that our fathers, our mothers, our children will be as safe in the hospital as they are on the drive to the hospital? TH

Dr. Glasheen is associate professor of medicine at the University of Colorado Denver, where he serves as director of the Hospital Medicine Program and the Hospitalist Training Program, and as associate program director of the Internal Medicine Residency Program.

References

1. Global health leaders join the World Health Organization to announce accelerated efforts to improve patient safety. World Health Organization website. Available at: www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2004/pr74/en/. Accessed Feb. 14, 2011.
2. Barker KN, Flynn EA, Pepper GA, Bates DW, Mikeal RL. Medication errors observed in 36 health care facilities. Arch Intern Med. 2002;162(16):1897-1903.

I recently visited my parents in my ancestral home of Wisconsin. As parents of a certain age, they inexplicably are genetically predisposed to owning a minivan. Another quirk of their DNA is that they must own a new minivan. No sooner has the last wisp of new-car smell osmosed from the burled walnut interior than they are trading up to the newest, tricked-out minivan. Perhaps more puzzling is the manner of pride they display in their minivan.

Now, my dad, as if not readily apparent, is not cool. And to see him folded into the driver’s seat, his furry-ear-to-furry-ear grin signaling a self-satisfaction customarily reserved for his grandchildren, painstakingly recounting glory-day stories and 4:30 p.m. dinner buffets, further solidifies his place in the Annals of Uncool.

When I’m home, they tend to employ my chauffeur services (most likely in retribution for my peri-pubescent years), and on the first day back home, I stopped their newest ride near the back door of the house, foot idling on the brake while this exchange occurred: “That’s a fascinating story about how much more challenging the world was when you were my age, Dad. You are a true American hero. Would you like to get out here or in the garage?”

“Here,” he replied.

“OK, then get out,” I countered.

“I can’t,” he responded knowingly.

“Why not?” I queried, the patience seeping from my voice.

“Because the door’s not open,” he answered, seemingly mocking me.

“Then open it,” I replied, silently recounting the evidence for his institutionalization.

“I can’t,” he responded.

“Why not?” I replied again, this time calculating the likelihood that I was adopted.

“Because it’s locked,” came his retort.

“Then unlock it,” I answered, reconfirming my decision to move away for college.

“I can’t,” he replied, ostensibly encouraging parenticide.

“Why not?” I queried, strongly contemplating parenticide.

“Because you haven’t put the car in park,” he responded triumphantly.

A System So Safe

As a safety feature, the minivan needed to be in park before you could open the door to exit. I’ve never heard of anyone actually falling out of a moving car, but recollecting high school, I can fathom the right mix, type, and number of teenagers where possibility would meet inevitability. But, apparently, enough people are falling out of moving vehicles that car engineers have built a system that is so safe, this can’t happen. So no matter how hard someone tries, it just isn’t possible to fall out of a moving car (believe me, toward the end of a week of my father’s car stories, my mind had worked every possible angle).

Likewise, newer vehicles employ occupant-sensitive sensors that detect the weight, size, and position of the passenger to determine if the airbag should deploy. Rather than depending on the driver to turn the passenger-side airbag on or off, the car does it for you: heavy enough to trigger the sensor, and the airbag will deploy; too light, and the car assumes you are a child and doesn’t deploy. It’s a system that is so safe because it doesn’t depend on the operator to get it right.

Ditto motion sensors that detect objects behind the car while reversing (avoiding accidental back-overs), antilock brakes (to maintain control during panicked braking), traction control (improves stability during acceleration), electronic stability control (foils spinouts), tire-pressure-monitoring systems (avoids blowouts), daytime running lights (ensures others see you), rollover airbags (they stay inflated to keep you in the car), lane-departure warning (alerts you if you stray from your lane), and doors that automatically lock after the car starts (again, falling out of cars).

For all the negative press of late, car manufacturers understand safety.

A System Not So Safe

Contrast this to healthcare, in which 10% of patients will suffer a serious, preventable, adverse event during their hospital stay.¹ Read that sentence again. That’s 10%; that’s preventable; that’s a number that has largely remained unchanged in the past decade. If 1 in 10 drivers suffered a serious adverse preventable auto accident, Congress would do nothing but hold automotive safety hearings.

In medicine, we still largely employ unsafe systems in which even the best doctors can, and do, hurt patients. Sure, we have made strides in this arena (oxygen tubing that only works if hooked up properly, smart pumps that avert IV dosing errors, CO₂ monitors to detect proper endotracheal tube placement), but remarkably, in this era of patient safety, we still utilize systems that largely depend on the heroism of the individual.

As physicians, we are famously autonomous and value our professional independence, even to the degree that it might harm patients. We generally eschew standardization, believing that each patient is inherently different. In fact, the thrill of the improvisational theater that follows every patient’s chief compliant is one of the great satisfiers in medicine. We love that feeling that comes from sleuthing each case, deftly enacting a plan of action to shepherd the patient to health.

To suggest following protocols, guidelines, and checklists is derisively dismissed as “cookbook medicine.” To work in teams in which certain tasks are delegated to others is seen as weakness—we don’t need a system that utilizes a pharmacist; rather, we should know the doses of all medicines, their interactions, and the effect of renal and liver impairment on their clearance. To suggest otherwise is an insult to our Oslerian roots. To examine our errors, our system breakdowns, our patient harms is anathema to our practice, an admission of failure.

The result is that most of us continue to toil in systems that have become exponentially unsafe as healthcare has become more complex. Today, we still have a system that will more or less allow us to kill a patient by doing nothing more than forgetting the letter “g.” I can go to my hospital today and intend to write “4 grams of magnesium sulfate (MgSO4)” and inadvertently forget the “g” in “Mg.” This could result in an order for a lethal dose of morphine sulfate (MSO4). It’s that easy to hurt a patient. Now, you might say that would never happen, because the pharmacy would catch it. And this is likely. But is it guaranteed? Can you 100% ensure it wouldn’t happen? Consider that nearly 20% of medication doses administered in a hospital are done so incorrectly.² Nearly 1 in 5. This is the type of system we are employing to stop this lethal overdose. Is this system, which depends on another human to prevent an error, foolproof, or just a snare waiting to prove you the fool?

This represents our opportunity. As hospitalists, the hospital is our tapestry, our system of care, our responsibility. Few others are as well-positioned to ensure that the systems that envelop our patients are highly functional, reliable, and safe. This will take work—work that will feel burdensome, underappreciated, undercompensated. And, fully recognizing that none of us went into medicine to become systems engineers, this will be hard.

However, if not us, who? Who will ensure that our fathers, our mothers, our children will be as safe in the hospital as they are on the drive to the hospital? TH

Dr. Glasheen is associate professor of medicine at the University of Colorado Denver, where he serves as director of the Hospital Medicine Program and the Hospitalist Training Program, and as associate program director of the Internal Medicine Residency Program.

References

1. Global health leaders join the World Health Organization to announce accelerated efforts to improve patient safety. World Health Organization website. Available at: www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2004/pr74/en/. Accessed Feb. 14, 2011.
2. Barker KN, Flynn EA, Pepper GA, Bates DW, Mikeal RL. Medication errors observed in 36 health care facilities. Arch Intern Med. 2002;162(16):1897-1903.

Ten years ago, Stephen Jencks, MD, MPH, was hospitalized after taking a nasty spill and rupturing a kidney, breaking two ribs, and fracturing two transverse processes. The independent healthcare safety and quality consultant based in Baltimore still laughs ruefully at what happened next.

Dr. Jencks was stabilized and given OxyContin to treat his considerable pain, and then he was discharged—without his wife or another caregiver present, with a prescription for nothing more than Tylenol, and without any instructions on what to do if his condition worsened. Twelve hours after returning home, his pain re-emerged with such a vengeance that he experienced severe muscle spasms.

Dr. Jencks suspects his doctor was so focused on his ruptured kidney that pain management and follow-up fell by the wayside. “I am not an unassertive individual, so why didn’t I say something?” he asks. “The simple answer is that, at least for me, if I’m taking OxyContin, there are no problems. People tend not to be at the very top of their game when they’re on opioids and traumatized.”

He made it through the night at home and received better pain medication in the morning, but his experience, he says, “beautifully illustrates” the chronic problem of less-than-graceful transfers of care that can lead to unnecessary hospital readmissions. If it nearly happened to him, it can happen to anyone.

And, based on his research, it often does. In an influential 2009 New England Journal of Medicine study coauthored with Mark Williams, MD, FACP, FHM, professor and chief of the division of hospital medicine at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, and principal investigator of SHM’s Project BOOST, and Eric Coleman, MD, MPH, FACP, associate professor of medicine and director of the care transitions program at the University of Colorado Denver, Dr. Jencks helped uncover some startling statistics: During a 15-month period from 2003 to 2004, nearly 20% of the roughly 12 million Medicare beneficiaries discharged from hospitals were readmitted within 30 days (see “State-by-State Breakdown of 30-Day Rehospitalizations of Medicare Beneficiaries,” p. 7).¹ Of those patients discharged to the community and then rehospitalized, half had not seen their own primary-care physician (PCP) in the interim. In all, the authors estimated Medicare’s financial toll from unplanned rehospitalizations at $17.4 billion for 2004 alone.

Magno

Surprisingly, Dr. Jencks’ study and a 2007 Medicare Payment Advisory Commission report to Congress provided the first estimates of the overall burden of rehospitalization in nearly a quarter-century. Since then, however, the topic has been a mainstay in conversations about the kinds of interventions that could yield major improvements in healthcare.

“The thing that has propelled this to the front is the recognition that we really can do better,” Dr. Jencks says. “What had tended to be seen as just an evitable consequence of people being sick is now increasingly seen as often being the consequence of not having done as good a job as we should have.”

Beyond the potential for poor patient outcomes and wasted money, healthcare experts say excessive readmissions have the potential to undermine the reputations of hospitalists just as they are moving to center stage in national quality-improvement (QI) efforts.

“I see, basically every day, patients that come back to the hospital because the discharge process is broken,” says Eric Howell, MD, SFHM, director of the hospitalist division at Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center in Baltimore. Dr. Howell says communication difficulties between the hospital and a nursing home have plagued one “revolving door” case involving a patient with a stomach ulcer that requires surgical resection. Hospital surgeons have repeatedly arranged to see her as an outpatient and schedule the surgery, but before the surgery can take place, the patient vomits up blood and is rehospitalized.

Another contributing factor, Dr. Howell argues, is the lack of incentives for both hospitals and hospitalists to work hard at preventing the next readmission. Although Dr. Jencks’ study suggests readmissions might not always be profitable, Dr. Howell and others say the sizeable contribution of rehospitalizations to overall admission numbers and the single-digit profit margins of most hospitals offer little motivation to change the status quo. “I think there are good people who want to fix it,” says Dr. Howell, an SHM board member and Project BOOST mentor. But changing the reimbursement system so that hospitalists can better focus on reducing readmissions, he adds, “will really go a long way.”

A New Landscape

Change is in the air. As part of the federal Affordable Care Act of 2010, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is expanding a pilot project on bundling payments to doctors and hospitals around episodes of care. Starting Jan. 1, 2013, the bundling pilot will define “episodes” as all medical services administered three days before a hospital admission until 30 days after discharge. A rehospitalization within that timeframe would net reduced reimbursements.

CMS also has begun accepting applications for what’s known as the Community-Based Care Transitions Program, with $500 million over five years authorized by the healthcare reform act to fund collaborative, readmission-reducing efforts between hospitals and community-based organizations. Linda Magno, CMS director of the Medicare Demonstrations Program Group (www.cms.gov/CMSLeadership/19_Office_ORDI.asp), says program participants will form a learning network so the agency can quickly deliver information about who’s doing well and what approaches are working better than others. The participating organizations, she says, can then help teach best practices to other hospitals around the country.

CMS has adopted public reporting requirements as another tactic. The “Hospital Compare” website (www.hospitalcompare.hhs.gov/) set up by CMS, for example, uses discharge data to publish rehospitalization rates for heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, and pneumonia. More published rates will be added soon. More importantly, Medicare will begin penalizing poorly performing institutions in October 2012 by withholding a percentage of their payments, starting at 1% and rising to 3% within three years, as part of the value-based purchasing initiative.

For hospitals, the looming deadline has prompted widespread concern about the potential financial impact. With a growing number of models and projects springing up around the country, however, hospitalists and other healthcare providers are finding encouraging signs that even relatively simple interventions might help profoundly change the trajectory of care transitions.

Rachel George, MD, MBA, FHM, regional medical director and vice president of operations for West Cogent Healthcare Inc., says Cogent has found success with one tactic—ensuring that all patients are called after being discharged. The call helps to verify that prescribed medications have been picked up and that other care-related questions have been answered. Even before discharge, Dr. George says, Cogent also tries to ensure that a follow-up appointment with every patient’s PCP is on the calendar.

Debbie White, project coordinator for the Little Rock, Ark.-based National Transitions of Care Coalition (NTOCC), says it helps to frame the entire process as a transition plan rather than a discharge. White says patients—and often their family caregivers—are the one constant in every transition. “Some older Americans, including the baby boomers, came from a culture where you don’t question your physician or even an RN,” White says. “So they’ve had a hard time speaking up and learning to ask for a list of their medications, or who’s going to make their next follow-up appointment.” Among its tools, NTOCC offers resources to teach patients how to take more responsibility for their own care (see “Patient Interaction,” p. 5).

I see ... patients that come back to the hospital because the discharge process is broken. ... I think there are good people who want to fix [the status quo].—Eric Howell, MD, SFHM, director of the hospitalist division, Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center, Baltimore, SHM board member, Project BOOST mentor

On the other side of the equation, the most downloaded tool on the coalition’s website is an evaluation and implementation plan that helps healthcare professionals find the gaps in care transitions. Other tools, including case scenarios and checklists, help healthcare providers consider specific steps, and a compendium of evidence offers a look at successful models and projects.

Dr. Bradley M. Sherman, MD, FHM, chairman of the department of medicine at Glen Cove Hospital/North Shore-LIJ University Health System in New York, led one such project, sponsored by the Greater New York Hospital Association. Dr. Sherman targeted heart failure, the condition with the highest readmission rate for both Glen Cove Hospital and the North Shore/LIJ system. By placing special emphasis on medication compliance, dietary adherence, and physician follow-up, Dr. Sherman says, the hospital cut its readmission rates by more than half, to well below the national average.

Another effort led by Johns Hopkins’ Dr. Howell, known as Safe and Successful Transition of Elderly Patients (Safe STEP), used a collaborative staff approach in general medicine wards overseen by hospitalists to reduce 30-day readmission rates from 22% to 14%. The encouraging results, first reported at SHM’s annual meeting in 2008, provided the impetus for a project called Better Outcomes for Older Adults through Safe Transitions, or Project BOOST (www.hospitalmedicine.org/BOOST).

Developed by SHM, BOOST features a yearlong mentoring program to help sites implement the QI project. It began at six hospitals and has since spread to 62 active mentor sites. Enrollment may swell to between 100 and 120 sites by the end of 2011, according to project director Tina Budnitz, MPH. Data from the first phase revealed a 21% reduction in 30-day readmission rates at the six pilot sites, to 11.2% from 14.2%. Follow-up data from the larger cohort are expected this spring.

Eric Siegal, MD, SFHM, an SHM board member, past chair of SHM’s Public Policy Committee, and a clinical assistant professor of medicine at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, says BOOST has benefited from being solidly in place at the right time, gaining momentum and garnering significant national attention as the focus on better care transitions has intensified.

Dr. Halasyamani

“If BOOST demonstrates substantial and reproducible decreases in rehospitalizations, improvements in quality, and presumed projected cost reductions, I think that it’s going to go off like a bomb,” he says, “in a good way.”

Lakshmi Halasyamani, MD, SFHM, vice president for medical affairs for the Saint Joseph Mercy Health System in Michigan and an SHM board member, says BOOST encourages hospitalists to think about ways in which a discharge might fail. “And then we need to actively mitigate those risks,” she says.

National Collaborations

CMS has tapped a network of technical assistance and QI contractors in all 50 states, known as quality-improvement organizations (QIOs), for its own project addressing rehospitalizations. In 2008, these QIOs began working with communities in 14 states to implement what’s known as the Care Transitions Program.

The program has helped community leaders highlight three root causes of high readmission rates: patients’ lack of knowledge and understanding about their chronic conditions, lack of communication among providers, and the healthcare system’s lack of known standards.

Magno

The 14 communities, 70 hospitals, and 1.25 million Medicare beneficiaries being followed to date suggest that 30-day readmission rates can be significantly decreased, says Paul McGann, MD, CMS deputy chief medical officer. Preliminary data based on the number of readmissions per 1,000 Medicare beneficiaries, he says, show that participating communities have improved by an average of 4.7% over the first two years of the project, with the top performer improving 14% (for more information, visit www.cfmc.org/caretransitions).

Dr. Halasyamani says no single program has necessarily found the “secret sauce” to improve readmission rates across the board. “And we definitely haven’t figured out how to implement that in as cost-effective a way as possible,” she says.

But optimism is clearly building. With the initial focus on coaching low-performing institutions to improve their rates, Medicare could tap programs that demonstrate early promise as the main go-to teaching aids.

More importantly, hospitals around the country are finding what it takes to help their own patients.

“The question isn’t, ‘Is our number better than St. Elsewhere’s down the street?’ ” Dr. Jencks concludes. “The real question is, ‘Are there things we could reasonably have done for this patient and could do for the next patient that will keep this from happening to them?’ ” TH

Bryn Nelson is a freelance medical writer based in Seattle.

Reference

1. Jencks SJ, Williams MV, Coleman EA. Rehospitalizations among patients in the Medicare fee-for-service program. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(14):1418-1428.

Ten years ago, Stephen Jencks, MD, MPH, was hospitalized after taking a nasty spill and rupturing a kidney, breaking two ribs, and fracturing two transverse processes. The independent healthcare safety and quality consultant based in Baltimore still laughs ruefully at what happened next.

Dr. Jencks was stabilized and given OxyContin to treat his considerable pain, and then he was discharged—without his wife or another caregiver present, with a prescription for nothing more than Tylenol, and without any instructions on what to do if his condition worsened. Twelve hours after returning home, his pain re-emerged with such a vengeance that he experienced severe muscle spasms.

Dr. Jencks suspects his doctor was so focused on his ruptured kidney that pain management and follow-up fell by the wayside. “I am not an unassertive individual, so why didn’t I say something?” he asks. “The simple answer is that, at least for me, if I’m taking OxyContin, there are no problems. People tend not to be at the very top of their game when they’re on opioids and traumatized.”

He made it through the night at home and received better pain medication in the morning, but his experience, he says, “beautifully illustrates” the chronic problem of less-than-graceful transfers of care that can lead to unnecessary hospital readmissions. If it nearly happened to him, it can happen to anyone.

And, based on his research, it often does. In an influential 2009 New England Journal of Medicine study coauthored with Mark Williams, MD, FACP, FHM, professor and chief of the division of hospital medicine at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, and principal investigator of SHM’s Project BOOST, and Eric Coleman, MD, MPH, FACP, associate professor of medicine and director of the care transitions program at the University of Colorado Denver, Dr. Jencks helped uncover some startling statistics: During a 15-month period from 2003 to 2004, nearly 20% of the roughly 12 million Medicare beneficiaries discharged from hospitals were readmitted within 30 days (see “State-by-State Breakdown of 30-Day Rehospitalizations of Medicare Beneficiaries,” p. 7).¹ Of those patients discharged to the community and then rehospitalized, half had not seen their own primary-care physician (PCP) in the interim. In all, the authors estimated Medicare’s financial toll from unplanned rehospitalizations at $17.4 billion for 2004 alone.

Magno

Surprisingly, Dr. Jencks’ study and a 2007 Medicare Payment Advisory Commission report to Congress provided the first estimates of the overall burden of rehospitalization in nearly a quarter-century. Since then, however, the topic has been a mainstay in conversations about the kinds of interventions that could yield major improvements in healthcare.

“The thing that has propelled this to the front is the recognition that we really can do better,” Dr. Jencks says. “What had tended to be seen as just an evitable consequence of people being sick is now increasingly seen as often being the consequence of not having done as good a job as we should have.”

Beyond the potential for poor patient outcomes and wasted money, healthcare experts say excessive readmissions have the potential to undermine the reputations of hospitalists just as they are moving to center stage in national quality-improvement (QI) efforts.

“I see, basically every day, patients that come back to the hospital because the discharge process is broken,” says Eric Howell, MD, SFHM, director of the hospitalist division at Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center in Baltimore. Dr. Howell says communication difficulties between the hospital and a nursing home have plagued one “revolving door” case involving a patient with a stomach ulcer that requires surgical resection. Hospital surgeons have repeatedly arranged to see her as an outpatient and schedule the surgery, but before the surgery can take place, the patient vomits up blood and is rehospitalized.

Another contributing factor, Dr. Howell argues, is the lack of incentives for both hospitals and hospitalists to work hard at preventing the next readmission. Although Dr. Jencks’ study suggests readmissions might not always be profitable, Dr. Howell and others say the sizeable contribution of rehospitalizations to overall admission numbers and the single-digit profit margins of most hospitals offer little motivation to change the status quo. “I think there are good people who want to fix it,” says Dr. Howell, an SHM board member and Project BOOST mentor. But changing the reimbursement system so that hospitalists can better focus on reducing readmissions, he adds, “will really go a long way.”

A New Landscape

Change is in the air. As part of the federal Affordable Care Act of 2010, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is expanding a pilot project on bundling payments to doctors and hospitals around episodes of care. Starting Jan. 1, 2013, the bundling pilot will define “episodes” as all medical services administered three days before a hospital admission until 30 days after discharge. A rehospitalization within that timeframe would net reduced reimbursements.

CMS also has begun accepting applications for what’s known as the Community-Based Care Transitions Program, with $500 million over five years authorized by the healthcare reform act to fund collaborative, readmission-reducing efforts between hospitals and community-based organizations. Linda Magno, CMS director of the Medicare Demonstrations Program Group (www.cms.gov/CMSLeadership/19_Office_ORDI.asp), says program participants will form a learning network so the agency can quickly deliver information about who’s doing well and what approaches are working better than others. The participating organizations, she says, can then help teach best practices to other hospitals around the country.

CMS has adopted public reporting requirements as another tactic. The “Hospital Compare” website (www.hospitalcompare.hhs.gov/) set up by CMS, for example, uses discharge data to publish rehospitalization rates for heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, and pneumonia. More published rates will be added soon. More importantly, Medicare will begin penalizing poorly performing institutions in October 2012 by withholding a percentage of their payments, starting at 1% and rising to 3% within three years, as part of the value-based purchasing initiative.

For hospitals, the looming deadline has prompted widespread concern about the potential financial impact. With a growing number of models and projects springing up around the country, however, hospitalists and other healthcare providers are finding encouraging signs that even relatively simple interventions might help profoundly change the trajectory of care transitions.

Rachel George, MD, MBA, FHM, regional medical director and vice president of operations for West Cogent Healthcare Inc., says Cogent has found success with one tactic—ensuring that all patients are called after being discharged. The call helps to verify that prescribed medications have been picked up and that other care-related questions have been answered. Even before discharge, Dr. George says, Cogent also tries to ensure that a follow-up appointment with every patient’s PCP is on the calendar.

Debbie White, project coordinator for the Little Rock, Ark.-based National Transitions of Care Coalition (NTOCC), says it helps to frame the entire process as a transition plan rather than a discharge. White says patients—and often their family caregivers—are the one constant in every transition. “Some older Americans, including the baby boomers, came from a culture where you don’t question your physician or even an RN,” White says. “So they’ve had a hard time speaking up and learning to ask for a list of their medications, or who’s going to make their next follow-up appointment.” Among its tools, NTOCC offers resources to teach patients how to take more responsibility for their own care (see “Patient Interaction,” p. 5).

I see ... patients that come back to the hospital because the discharge process is broken. ... I think there are good people who want to fix [the status quo].—Eric Howell, MD, SFHM, director of the hospitalist division, Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center, Baltimore, SHM board member, Project BOOST mentor

On the other side of the equation, the most downloaded tool on the coalition’s website is an evaluation and implementation plan that helps healthcare professionals find the gaps in care transitions. Other tools, including case scenarios and checklists, help healthcare providers consider specific steps, and a compendium of evidence offers a look at successful models and projects.

Dr. Bradley M. Sherman, MD, FHM, chairman of the department of medicine at Glen Cove Hospital/North Shore-LIJ University Health System in New York, led one such project, sponsored by the Greater New York Hospital Association. Dr. Sherman targeted heart failure, the condition with the highest readmission rate for both Glen Cove Hospital and the North Shore/LIJ system. By placing special emphasis on medication compliance, dietary adherence, and physician follow-up, Dr. Sherman says, the hospital cut its readmission rates by more than half, to well below the national average.

Another effort led by Johns Hopkins’ Dr. Howell, known as Safe and Successful Transition of Elderly Patients (Safe STEP), used a collaborative staff approach in general medicine wards overseen by hospitalists to reduce 30-day readmission rates from 22% to 14%. The encouraging results, first reported at SHM’s annual meeting in 2008, provided the impetus for a project called Better Outcomes for Older Adults through Safe Transitions, or Project BOOST (www.hospitalmedicine.org/BOOST).

Developed by SHM, BOOST features a yearlong mentoring program to help sites implement the QI project. It began at six hospitals and has since spread to 62 active mentor sites. Enrollment may swell to between 100 and 120 sites by the end of 2011, according to project director Tina Budnitz, MPH. Data from the first phase revealed a 21% reduction in 30-day readmission rates at the six pilot sites, to 11.2% from 14.2%. Follow-up data from the larger cohort are expected this spring.

Eric Siegal, MD, SFHM, an SHM board member, past chair of SHM’s Public Policy Committee, and a clinical assistant professor of medicine at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, says BOOST has benefited from being solidly in place at the right time, gaining momentum and garnering significant national attention as the focus on better care transitions has intensified.

Dr. Halasyamani

“If BOOST demonstrates substantial and reproducible decreases in rehospitalizations, improvements in quality, and presumed projected cost reductions, I think that it’s going to go off like a bomb,” he says, “in a good way.”

Lakshmi Halasyamani, MD, SFHM, vice president for medical affairs for the Saint Joseph Mercy Health System in Michigan and an SHM board member, says BOOST encourages hospitalists to think about ways in which a discharge might fail. “And then we need to actively mitigate those risks,” she says.

National Collaborations

CMS has tapped a network of technical assistance and QI contractors in all 50 states, known as quality-improvement organizations (QIOs), for its own project addressing rehospitalizations. In 2008, these QIOs began working with communities in 14 states to implement what’s known as the Care Transitions Program.

The program has helped community leaders highlight three root causes of high readmission rates: patients’ lack of knowledge and understanding about their chronic conditions, lack of communication among providers, and the healthcare system’s lack of known standards.

Magno

The 14 communities, 70 hospitals, and 1.25 million Medicare beneficiaries being followed to date suggest that 30-day readmission rates can be significantly decreased, says Paul McGann, MD, CMS deputy chief medical officer. Preliminary data based on the number of readmissions per 1,000 Medicare beneficiaries, he says, show that participating communities have improved by an average of 4.7% over the first two years of the project, with the top performer improving 14% (for more information, visit www.cfmc.org/caretransitions).

Dr. Halasyamani says no single program has necessarily found the “secret sauce” to improve readmission rates across the board. “And we definitely haven’t figured out how to implement that in as cost-effective a way as possible,” she says.

But optimism is clearly building. With the initial focus on coaching low-performing institutions to improve their rates, Medicare could tap programs that demonstrate early promise as the main go-to teaching aids.

More importantly, hospitals around the country are finding what it takes to help their own patients.

“The question isn’t, ‘Is our number better than St. Elsewhere’s down the street?’ ” Dr. Jencks concludes. “The real question is, ‘Are there things we could reasonably have done for this patient and could do for the next patient that will keep this from happening to them?’ ” TH

Bryn Nelson is a freelance medical writer based in Seattle.

Reference

1. Jencks SJ, Williams MV, Coleman EA. Rehospitalizations among patients in the Medicare fee-for-service program. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(14):1418-1428.

Ten years ago, Stephen Jencks, MD, MPH, was hospitalized after taking a nasty spill and rupturing a kidney, breaking two ribs, and fracturing two transverse processes. The independent healthcare safety and quality consultant based in Baltimore still laughs ruefully at what happened next.

Dr. Jencks was stabilized and given OxyContin to treat his considerable pain, and then he was discharged—without his wife or another caregiver present, with a prescription for nothing more than Tylenol, and without any instructions on what to do if his condition worsened. Twelve hours after returning home, his pain re-emerged with such a vengeance that he experienced severe muscle spasms.

Dr. Jencks suspects his doctor was so focused on his ruptured kidney that pain management and follow-up fell by the wayside. “I am not an unassertive individual, so why didn’t I say something?” he asks. “The simple answer is that, at least for me, if I’m taking OxyContin, there are no problems. People tend not to be at the very top of their game when they’re on opioids and traumatized.”

He made it through the night at home and received better pain medication in the morning, but his experience, he says, “beautifully illustrates” the chronic problem of less-than-graceful transfers of care that can lead to unnecessary hospital readmissions. If it nearly happened to him, it can happen to anyone.

And, based on his research, it often does. In an influential 2009 New England Journal of Medicine study coauthored with Mark Williams, MD, FACP, FHM, professor and chief of the division of hospital medicine at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, and principal investigator of SHM’s Project BOOST, and Eric Coleman, MD, MPH, FACP, associate professor of medicine and director of the care transitions program at the University of Colorado Denver, Dr. Jencks helped uncover some startling statistics: During a 15-month period from 2003 to 2004, nearly 20% of the roughly 12 million Medicare beneficiaries discharged from hospitals were readmitted within 30 days (see “State-by-State Breakdown of 30-Day Rehospitalizations of Medicare Beneficiaries,” p. 7).¹ Of those patients discharged to the community and then rehospitalized, half had not seen their own primary-care physician (PCP) in the interim. In all, the authors estimated Medicare’s financial toll from unplanned rehospitalizations at $17.4 billion for 2004 alone.

Magno

Surprisingly, Dr. Jencks’ study and a 2007 Medicare Payment Advisory Commission report to Congress provided the first estimates of the overall burden of rehospitalization in nearly a quarter-century. Since then, however, the topic has been a mainstay in conversations about the kinds of interventions that could yield major improvements in healthcare.

“The thing that has propelled this to the front is the recognition that we really can do better,” Dr. Jencks says. “What had tended to be seen as just an evitable consequence of people being sick is now increasingly seen as often being the consequence of not having done as good a job as we should have.”

Beyond the potential for poor patient outcomes and wasted money, healthcare experts say excessive readmissions have the potential to undermine the reputations of hospitalists just as they are moving to center stage in national quality-improvement (QI) efforts.

“I see, basically every day, patients that come back to the hospital because the discharge process is broken,” says Eric Howell, MD, SFHM, director of the hospitalist division at Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center in Baltimore. Dr. Howell says communication difficulties between the hospital and a nursing home have plagued one “revolving door” case involving a patient with a stomach ulcer that requires surgical resection. Hospital surgeons have repeatedly arranged to see her as an outpatient and schedule the surgery, but before the surgery can take place, the patient vomits up blood and is rehospitalized.

Another contributing factor, Dr. Howell argues, is the lack of incentives for both hospitals and hospitalists to work hard at preventing the next readmission. Although Dr. Jencks’ study suggests readmissions might not always be profitable, Dr. Howell and others say the sizeable contribution of rehospitalizations to overall admission numbers and the single-digit profit margins of most hospitals offer little motivation to change the status quo. “I think there are good people who want to fix it,” says Dr. Howell, an SHM board member and Project BOOST mentor. But changing the reimbursement system so that hospitalists can better focus on reducing readmissions, he adds, “will really go a long way.”

A New Landscape

Change is in the air. As part of the federal Affordable Care Act of 2010, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is expanding a pilot project on bundling payments to doctors and hospitals around episodes of care. Starting Jan. 1, 2013, the bundling pilot will define “episodes” as all medical services administered three days before a hospital admission until 30 days after discharge. A rehospitalization within that timeframe would net reduced reimbursements.

CMS also has begun accepting applications for what’s known as the Community-Based Care Transitions Program, with $500 million over five years authorized by the healthcare reform act to fund collaborative, readmission-reducing efforts between hospitals and community-based organizations. Linda Magno, CMS director of the Medicare Demonstrations Program Group (www.cms.gov/CMSLeadership/19_Office_ORDI.asp), says program participants will form a learning network so the agency can quickly deliver information about who’s doing well and what approaches are working better than others. The participating organizations, she says, can then help teach best practices to other hospitals around the country.

CMS has adopted public reporting requirements as another tactic. The “Hospital Compare” website (www.hospitalcompare.hhs.gov/) set up by CMS, for example, uses discharge data to publish rehospitalization rates for heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, and pneumonia. More published rates will be added soon. More importantly, Medicare will begin penalizing poorly performing institutions in October 2012 by withholding a percentage of their payments, starting at 1% and rising to 3% within three years, as part of the value-based purchasing initiative.

For hospitals, the looming deadline has prompted widespread concern about the potential financial impact. With a growing number of models and projects springing up around the country, however, hospitalists and other healthcare providers are finding encouraging signs that even relatively simple interventions might help profoundly change the trajectory of care transitions.

Rachel George, MD, MBA, FHM, regional medical director and vice president of operations for West Cogent Healthcare Inc., says Cogent has found success with one tactic—ensuring that all patients are called after being discharged. The call helps to verify that prescribed medications have been picked up and that other care-related questions have been answered. Even before discharge, Dr. George says, Cogent also tries to ensure that a follow-up appointment with every patient’s PCP is on the calendar.

Debbie White, project coordinator for the Little Rock, Ark.-based National Transitions of Care Coalition (NTOCC), says it helps to frame the entire process as a transition plan rather than a discharge. White says patients—and often their family caregivers—are the one constant in every transition. “Some older Americans, including the baby boomers, came from a culture where you don’t question your physician or even an RN,” White says. “So they’ve had a hard time speaking up and learning to ask for a list of their medications, or who’s going to make their next follow-up appointment.” Among its tools, NTOCC offers resources to teach patients how to take more responsibility for their own care (see “Patient Interaction,” p. 5).

I see ... patients that come back to the hospital because the discharge process is broken. ... I think there are good people who want to fix [the status quo].—Eric Howell, MD, SFHM, director of the hospitalist division, Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center, Baltimore, SHM board member, Project BOOST mentor

On the other side of the equation, the most downloaded tool on the coalition’s website is an evaluation and implementation plan that helps healthcare professionals find the gaps in care transitions. Other tools, including case scenarios and checklists, help healthcare providers consider specific steps, and a compendium of evidence offers a look at successful models and projects.

Dr. Bradley M. Sherman, MD, FHM, chairman of the department of medicine at Glen Cove Hospital/North Shore-LIJ University Health System in New York, led one such project, sponsored by the Greater New York Hospital Association. Dr. Sherman targeted heart failure, the condition with the highest readmission rate for both Glen Cove Hospital and the North Shore/LIJ system. By placing special emphasis on medication compliance, dietary adherence, and physician follow-up, Dr. Sherman says, the hospital cut its readmission rates by more than half, to well below the national average.

Another effort led by Johns Hopkins’ Dr. Howell, known as Safe and Successful Transition of Elderly Patients (Safe STEP), used a collaborative staff approach in general medicine wards overseen by hospitalists to reduce 30-day readmission rates from 22% to 14%. The encouraging results, first reported at SHM’s annual meeting in 2008, provided the impetus for a project called Better Outcomes for Older Adults through Safe Transitions, or Project BOOST (www.hospitalmedicine.org/BOOST).

Developed by SHM, BOOST features a yearlong mentoring program to help sites implement the QI project. It began at six hospitals and has since spread to 62 active mentor sites. Enrollment may swell to between 100 and 120 sites by the end of 2011, according to project director Tina Budnitz, MPH. Data from the first phase revealed a 21% reduction in 30-day readmission rates at the six pilot sites, to 11.2% from 14.2%. Follow-up data from the larger cohort are expected this spring.

Eric Siegal, MD, SFHM, an SHM board member, past chair of SHM’s Public Policy Committee, and a clinical assistant professor of medicine at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, says BOOST has benefited from being solidly in place at the right time, gaining momentum and garnering significant national attention as the focus on better care transitions has intensified.

Dr. Halasyamani

“If BOOST demonstrates substantial and reproducible decreases in rehospitalizations, improvements in quality, and presumed projected cost reductions, I think that it’s going to go off like a bomb,” he says, “in a good way.”

Lakshmi Halasyamani, MD, SFHM, vice president for medical affairs for the Saint Joseph Mercy Health System in Michigan and an SHM board member, says BOOST encourages hospitalists to think about ways in which a discharge might fail. “And then we need to actively mitigate those risks,” she says.

National Collaborations

CMS has tapped a network of technical assistance and QI contractors in all 50 states, known as quality-improvement organizations (QIOs), for its own project addressing rehospitalizations. In 2008, these QIOs began working with communities in 14 states to implement what’s known as the Care Transitions Program.

The program has helped community leaders highlight three root causes of high readmission rates: patients’ lack of knowledge and understanding about their chronic conditions, lack of communication among providers, and the healthcare system’s lack of known standards.

Magno

The 14 communities, 70 hospitals, and 1.25 million Medicare beneficiaries being followed to date suggest that 30-day readmission rates can be significantly decreased, says Paul McGann, MD, CMS deputy chief medical officer. Preliminary data based on the number of readmissions per 1,000 Medicare beneficiaries, he says, show that participating communities have improved by an average of 4.7% over the first two years of the project, with the top performer improving 14% (for more information, visit www.cfmc.org/caretransitions).

Dr. Halasyamani says no single program has necessarily found the “secret sauce” to improve readmission rates across the board. “And we definitely haven’t figured out how to implement that in as cost-effective a way as possible,” she says.

But optimism is clearly building. With the initial focus on coaching low-performing institutions to improve their rates, Medicare could tap programs that demonstrate early promise as the main go-to teaching aids.

More importantly, hospitals around the country are finding what it takes to help their own patients.

“The question isn’t, ‘Is our number better than St. Elsewhere’s down the street?’ ” Dr. Jencks concludes. “The real question is, ‘Are there things we could reasonably have done for this patient and could do for the next patient that will keep this from happening to them?’ ” TH

Bryn Nelson is a freelance medical writer based in Seattle.

Reference

1. Jencks SJ, Williams MV, Coleman EA. Rehospitalizations among patients in the Medicare fee-for-service program. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(14):1418-1428.

Several months ago, my toilet broke. You should also know that I’m not particularly handy. So when I first realized that the toilet bowl seemed to fill constantly, I got a little stressed out.

How much was it going cost to call in a plumber on the weekend?

What kind of a water bill was I going to have?

Was this a serious problem?

I took a quick peek in the tank, but that just made me more confused. I was paralyzed by a lack of know-how.

Normally, I would have just Googled a local plumber. But that day, I decided to do something different. Maybe it was because it was the fantasy football offseason. Maybe it was because my wife had started to ask my father-in-law to change light bulbs around the house. Or, maybe, I wanted to learn to actually fix the problem. A few hours later, after an Internet lesson in toilet physiology, a $4.12 trip to Home Depot, and a wet pair of hands, I had replaced my first toilet flapper.

This wasn’t the rebuilding of a car engine, but it was a clear DIY step toward self-improvement. Easily the most memorable moment here was my sense of accomplishment.

I felt empowered.

One Part Science, One Part Art

It’s taken me a while to realize this, but I’ve begun to take advantage of improvement opportunities at work as well. No, I haven’t been moonlighting as a plumber for my hospital. I’ve just been fortunate to be part of a trifecta of rewarding quality-improvement (QI) projects over the past year. Before I’d gotten my hands dirty with these, my understanding of QI was fairly naive. I’d heard about Plan-Do-Study-Act many times. I had listened to a talk at a national conference. And I had kept up with the general medical literature on the subject.

But none of those activities had truly prepared me for experience of actually doing the work on my own.

By taking on a project, an ambitious attempt to reduce continuous pulse oximetry use, I experienced a crash course in both the science and the art of process improvement. I was forced to overcome my “I don’t know how” inertia. And with expert guidance in the form of a clinical safety and effectiveness class, I learned the importance of run charts (science) and a well-crafted multidisciplinary team (art) in changing established but inefficient behavior.

Our rates of continuous pulse oximetry usage dropped by 50%, and cost savings were $12,000 per year on one unit. These results made my prior attempts at change—years of complaining about ingrained nursing culture—look infantile. (OK, maybe it was ineffective, but who hasn’t complained about the overuse of continuous monitoring?)

I haven’t met a pediatric hospitalist who wouldn’t understand the symbolic importance of this success. But I know of many hospitalists who have not yet participated in meaningful QI project. Imagine calling a plumber who grasped the flush and fill mechanism of a toilet but had never touched real porcelain. Here’s an even better analogy: What if doctors could get licensed without having touched real patients?

If pediatric hospitalists are to transform the care delivery of hospitalized children, and quality learning only comes through hands-on training, then we need some more hands in the pot.

Discharge Improvement

On the heels of my first project, I was fortunate enough to augment my education through another effort—this time with a cohort of fellow pediatric hospitalists. This was a national collaborative to improve discharge handoffs, and I will admit that, at the outset, I was as puzzled as the first time I pulled the lid off the tank of the toilet. There were just too many permutations on PCP communication at the participating institutions, and some felt our aim of timely discharge handoffs was unattainable.

What carried me through, however, was the collective and infectious DIY—no, QIY (Quality Improve-it-Yourself) attitude of the group. We were all learning, and regular participation in the collaborative essentially guaranteed improvement. We achieved our aim of 90% communication with PCPs within two days of discharge. The secret was simple: The more you do, the more you learn.

Pediatric hospitalists can transform care delivery through a focus on safe and quality care, but the tools to accomplish this must come through post-residency, on-the-job learning. This QI know-how must efficiently spread among our ranks through practical and project-based educational efforts. It’s “see one, do one, teach one,” but we’re not talking about lumbar punctures anymore.

This is a journey in which we all take on the responsibility of rolling up our sleeves and simply learn by doing. And here is where the third leg of my as-yet-unfinished QI course unfolds.

Through my involvement with the Value in Inpatient Pediatrics (VIP) Network, I’ve gained a newfound vision for what the future might hold. VIP has evolved from a benchmarking project focused on bronchiolitis to an improvement network that will incorporate projects similar to the discharge handoff collaborative above.

In the process, a model for how to rapidly spread QI learning has emerged. The capacity lies in the network’s rapidly growing connectivity. The power comes from the individuals: motivated, card-carrying pediatric hospitalists from a wide array of sites. Collaborative learning harbors the potential to exponentially increase the pace at which we improve.

The future of our quality care is bright. I see an open network of improvement doers and learners. I see collaboration on quality and safety initiatives in all manner of hospitals and communities. I see that this will all be built upon a foundation of hard work and a QIY attitude.

You, too, will play a role.

Just don’t be afraid to get your hands a little dirty. TH

Dr. Shen is medical director of hospital medicine at Dell Children’s Medical Center in Austin, Texas. He is pediatric editor of The Hospitalist.

Several months ago, my toilet broke. You should also know that I’m not particularly handy. So when I first realized that the toilet bowl seemed to fill constantly, I got a little stressed out.

How much was it going cost to call in a plumber on the weekend?

What kind of a water bill was I going to have?

Was this a serious problem?

I took a quick peek in the tank, but that just made me more confused. I was paralyzed by a lack of know-how.

Normally, I would have just Googled a local plumber. But that day, I decided to do something different. Maybe it was because it was the fantasy football offseason. Maybe it was because my wife had started to ask my father-in-law to change light bulbs around the house. Or, maybe, I wanted to learn to actually fix the problem. A few hours later, after an Internet lesson in toilet physiology, a $4.12 trip to Home Depot, and a wet pair of hands, I had replaced my first toilet flapper.

This wasn’t the rebuilding of a car engine, but it was a clear DIY step toward self-improvement. Easily the most memorable moment here was my sense of accomplishment.

I felt empowered.

One Part Science, One Part Art

It’s taken me a while to realize this, but I’ve begun to take advantage of improvement opportunities at work as well. No, I haven’t been moonlighting as a plumber for my hospital. I’ve just been fortunate to be part of a trifecta of rewarding quality-improvement (QI) projects over the past year. Before I’d gotten my hands dirty with these, my understanding of QI was fairly naive. I’d heard about Plan-Do-Study-Act many times. I had listened to a talk at a national conference. And I had kept up with the general medical literature on the subject.

But none of those activities had truly prepared me for experience of actually doing the work on my own.

By taking on a project, an ambitious attempt to reduce continuous pulse oximetry use, I experienced a crash course in both the science and the art of process improvement. I was forced to overcome my “I don’t know how” inertia. And with expert guidance in the form of a clinical safety and effectiveness class, I learned the importance of run charts (science) and a well-crafted multidisciplinary team (art) in changing established but inefficient behavior.

Our rates of continuous pulse oximetry usage dropped by 50%, and cost savings were $12,000 per year on one unit. These results made my prior attempts at change—years of complaining about ingrained nursing culture—look infantile. (OK, maybe it was ineffective, but who hasn’t complained about the overuse of continuous monitoring?)

I haven’t met a pediatric hospitalist who wouldn’t understand the symbolic importance of this success. But I know of many hospitalists who have not yet participated in meaningful QI project. Imagine calling a plumber who grasped the flush and fill mechanism of a toilet but had never touched real porcelain. Here’s an even better analogy: What if doctors could get licensed without having touched real patients?

If pediatric hospitalists are to transform the care delivery of hospitalized children, and quality learning only comes through hands-on training, then we need some more hands in the pot.

Discharge Improvement

On the heels of my first project, I was fortunate enough to augment my education through another effort—this time with a cohort of fellow pediatric hospitalists. This was a national collaborative to improve discharge handoffs, and I will admit that, at the outset, I was as puzzled as the first time I pulled the lid off the tank of the toilet. There were just too many permutations on PCP communication at the participating institutions, and some felt our aim of timely discharge handoffs was unattainable.

What carried me through, however, was the collective and infectious DIY—no, QIY (Quality Improve-it-Yourself) attitude of the group. We were all learning, and regular participation in the collaborative essentially guaranteed improvement. We achieved our aim of 90% communication with PCPs within two days of discharge. The secret was simple: The more you do, the more you learn.

Pediatric hospitalists can transform care delivery through a focus on safe and quality care, but the tools to accomplish this must come through post-residency, on-the-job learning. This QI know-how must efficiently spread among our ranks through practical and project-based educational efforts. It’s “see one, do one, teach one,” but we’re not talking about lumbar punctures anymore.

This is a journey in which we all take on the responsibility of rolling up our sleeves and simply learn by doing. And here is where the third leg of my as-yet-unfinished QI course unfolds.

Through my involvement with the Value in Inpatient Pediatrics (VIP) Network, I’ve gained a newfound vision for what the future might hold. VIP has evolved from a benchmarking project focused on bronchiolitis to an improvement network that will incorporate projects similar to the discharge handoff collaborative above.

In the process, a model for how to rapidly spread QI learning has emerged. The capacity lies in the network’s rapidly growing connectivity. The power comes from the individuals: motivated, card-carrying pediatric hospitalists from a wide array of sites. Collaborative learning harbors the potential to exponentially increase the pace at which we improve.

The future of our quality care is bright. I see an open network of improvement doers and learners. I see collaboration on quality and safety initiatives in all manner of hospitals and communities. I see that this will all be built upon a foundation of hard work and a QIY attitude.

You, too, will play a role.

Just don’t be afraid to get your hands a little dirty. TH

Dr. Shen is medical director of hospital medicine at Dell Children’s Medical Center in Austin, Texas. He is pediatric editor of The Hospitalist.

Several months ago, my toilet broke. You should also know that I’m not particularly handy. So when I first realized that the toilet bowl seemed to fill constantly, I got a little stressed out.

How much was it going cost to call in a plumber on the weekend?

What kind of a water bill was I going to have?

Was this a serious problem?

I took a quick peek in the tank, but that just made me more confused. I was paralyzed by a lack of know-how.

Normally, I would have just Googled a local plumber. But that day, I decided to do something different. Maybe it was because it was the fantasy football offseason. Maybe it was because my wife had started to ask my father-in-law to change light bulbs around the house. Or, maybe, I wanted to learn to actually fix the problem. A few hours later, after an Internet lesson in toilet physiology, a $4.12 trip to Home Depot, and a wet pair of hands, I had replaced my first toilet flapper.

This wasn’t the rebuilding of a car engine, but it was a clear DIY step toward self-improvement. Easily the most memorable moment here was my sense of accomplishment.

I felt empowered.

One Part Science, One Part Art

It’s taken me a while to realize this, but I’ve begun to take advantage of improvement opportunities at work as well. No, I haven’t been moonlighting as a plumber for my hospital. I’ve just been fortunate to be part of a trifecta of rewarding quality-improvement (QI) projects over the past year. Before I’d gotten my hands dirty with these, my understanding of QI was fairly naive. I’d heard about Plan-Do-Study-Act many times. I had listened to a talk at a national conference. And I had kept up with the general medical literature on the subject.

But none of those activities had truly prepared me for experience of actually doing the work on my own.

By taking on a project, an ambitious attempt to reduce continuous pulse oximetry use, I experienced a crash course in both the science and the art of process improvement. I was forced to overcome my “I don’t know how” inertia. And with expert guidance in the form of a clinical safety and effectiveness class, I learned the importance of run charts (science) and a well-crafted multidisciplinary team (art) in changing established but inefficient behavior.

Our rates of continuous pulse oximetry usage dropped by 50%, and cost savings were $12,000 per year on one unit. These results made my prior attempts at change—years of complaining about ingrained nursing culture—look infantile. (OK, maybe it was ineffective, but who hasn’t complained about the overuse of continuous monitoring?)

I haven’t met a pediatric hospitalist who wouldn’t understand the symbolic importance of this success. But I know of many hospitalists who have not yet participated in meaningful QI project. Imagine calling a plumber who grasped the flush and fill mechanism of a toilet but had never touched real porcelain. Here’s an even better analogy: What if doctors could get licensed without having touched real patients?

If pediatric hospitalists are to transform the care delivery of hospitalized children, and quality learning only comes through hands-on training, then we need some more hands in the pot.

Discharge Improvement

On the heels of my first project, I was fortunate enough to augment my education through another effort—this time with a cohort of fellow pediatric hospitalists. This was a national collaborative to improve discharge handoffs, and I will admit that, at the outset, I was as puzzled as the first time I pulled the lid off the tank of the toilet. There were just too many permutations on PCP communication at the participating institutions, and some felt our aim of timely discharge handoffs was unattainable.

What carried me through, however, was the collective and infectious DIY—no, QIY (Quality Improve-it-Yourself) attitude of the group. We were all learning, and regular participation in the collaborative essentially guaranteed improvement. We achieved our aim of 90% communication with PCPs within two days of discharge. The secret was simple: The more you do, the more you learn.

Pediatric hospitalists can transform care delivery through a focus on safe and quality care, but the tools to accomplish this must come through post-residency, on-the-job learning. This QI know-how must efficiently spread among our ranks through practical and project-based educational efforts. It’s “see one, do one, teach one,” but we’re not talking about lumbar punctures anymore.

This is a journey in which we all take on the responsibility of rolling up our sleeves and simply learn by doing. And here is where the third leg of my as-yet-unfinished QI course unfolds.

Through my involvement with the Value in Inpatient Pediatrics (VIP) Network, I’ve gained a newfound vision for what the future might hold. VIP has evolved from a benchmarking project focused on bronchiolitis to an improvement network that will incorporate projects similar to the discharge handoff collaborative above.

In the process, a model for how to rapidly spread QI learning has emerged. The capacity lies in the network’s rapidly growing connectivity. The power comes from the individuals: motivated, card-carrying pediatric hospitalists from a wide array of sites. Collaborative learning harbors the potential to exponentially increase the pace at which we improve.

The future of our quality care is bright. I see an open network of improvement doers and learners. I see collaboration on quality and safety initiatives in all manner of hospitals and communities. I see that this will all be built upon a foundation of hard work and a QIY attitude.

You, too, will play a role.

Just don’t be afraid to get your hands a little dirty. TH

Dr. Shen is medical director of hospital medicine at Dell Children’s Medical Center in Austin, Texas. He is pediatric editor of The Hospitalist.

If every system is perfectly designed to get the results it gets …

And if 15 million patients are harmed every year from medical care …

And if as many as 98,000 people die every year due to medical errors in hospitals …

Then what does that say about the system we have designed?

A System Designed to Competently Hurt Many

By now you’ve no doubt heard, read, and possibly even uttered the above facts and figures yourself. I think we all have our opinions about the veracity of these numbers, but I don’t think any of us would argue with the sentiment. The U.S. healthcare system comprises the most competent, compassionate, well-meaning, and caring professionals on this planet—who harm, maim, and kill countless people every year.

What a discomforting paradox.

Equity: The Overlooked Quality Domain

Many years back, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) published a list of six “domains” of healthcare quality. You’ve no doubt stumbled across the IOM’s Safe … Timely … Effective … Efficient … Equitable … Patient-Centered mnemonic recipe—STEEEP—for high-quality care.¹ In fact, it’s hard to read a journal, attend a medical presentation, or open a local newspaper without finding reference to these domains. It’s all the rage to talk about wrong-site surgery (safe), access to care (timely), comparative-effectiveness research (effective), lean concepts (efficient), and individualized medicine (patient-centered). However, the sixth domain often seems to get the Jan Brady treatment—minimized, marginalized, and oft-forgotten.

The IOM defines equitable care as that which “does not vary in quality because of personal characteristics such as gender, ethnicity, geographic location, and socioeconomic status.”1 To be sure, there is some hum at the national level about issues of equity, especially around healthcare coverage for all. And this is important. However, what appears lost in the rant surrounding the inherent inequities in our tiered health insurance system is that we have blantant inequalities baked into the everyday machinery of our hospitals. And they affect all, regardless of skin color, gender, or insurance status.

Think for a moment about your hospital. Are the type, level, and access to care equal at all times? Does the level of care change when the streetlights come on? How about on weekends and holidays? Do your operating rooms run on Saturdays and Sundays? Can patients get chemotherapy on the weekends? Does your hospital alter its nursing staff ratios after hours? Can you get an ultrasound at midnight? How about a urology or neurosurgery consult at 2 a.m.? How about getting interventional radiology to place an IVC filter on a holiday?

Now scratch a bit closer to home. Does your hospitalist group downstaff on weekends and holidays, even though the volumes probably warrant more coverage? Are your night providers part of your group, or are they moonlighters? Do your after-hours providers cross-cover and admit a reasonable number of patients, or are they frequently overwhelmed? Do they cover patients or admit for services that they don’t typically care for during the day (e.g. ICU, neurosurgical, subspecialty cardiology or oncology patients)? For the intensely ill patients admitted to U.S. hospitals today, should the type and availability of care differ when it’s delivered at 3 p.m. or 3 a.m., Sunday or Monday?

Disregarding the macro-inequities in our societal approach to healthcare, can we even ensure equitable care within our own hospital walls 24 hours a day, seven days a week?

The Answer: An Unfortunate “No”

For the record, I hate working nights, abhor working weekends, and resent working holidays. But the thing I’d hate even more than working nights, weekends, and holidays would be being a patient admitted during a night, weekend, or holiday. To understand why, I have to look no further than my hospital parking lot. During bankers’ hours, I can barely find a parking spot on the top floor of our multilevel parking structure.

Fast-forward to Saturday, and I have my pick of empty football fields’ worth of spots on all floors. Ditto Sundays, nights, and holidays.

Why is it that nationally, a collectively near-trillion-dollar hospital enterprise finds it acceptable to effectively shutter itself for a quarter to a third of the week? Especially when doing so seems to counter their primary mission of providing safe, timely, effective, efficient, equitable, and patient-centered care.

The Weekend Effect

There are, of course, economic and operational reasons to downshift during off hours—some hospitals don’t have the elective procedures to run operating rooms seven days a week, and very few patients want to have their elective colonoscopy at 11 p.m. or their chemotherapy during Thanksgiving dinner. However, in most cases, the reasons for doing so center on hospital staff and physician satisfaction. Most us of just don’t like working off hours. As a result, studies have shown significantly less access to such high-level care as coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention on weekends.^2,3

And the effects of this “weekend effect” can be devastating.

A recent paper in the New England Journal of Medicine reported that for every 1,000 patients admitted with a myocardial infarction on a weekend, nine more would die than a comparable group admitted during the week.⁴ Their offense? Having the misfortune to get ill on a Saturday morning. The authors concluded that this higher mortality was secondary to a lower rate of invasive cardiac procedures, presumably because they were less available. And the weekend effect isn’t just limited to coronary care. Poorer outcomes, including higher mortality rates, have been reported for weekend admissions to the neonatal ICU and adult ICU, as well as admission for epiglottitis, ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms, and pulmonary embolism.^5,6,7

So let’s connect the dots: A system designed with inequal access to lifesaving therapies and appropriate staffing results in worse outcomes, more harm, more deaths.

To be clear, 98,000 people don’t die every year because of my disdain for working nights and weekends. This is a much deeper problem that hinges on many unsatisfactory systems working unsatisfactorily in tandem (e.g. see the other five IOM domains of quality care). Furthermore, I don’t mean to suggest that hospitalists necessarily have a lot of say in cardiac catheterization schedules. Yet we do control our own systems of care—how many patients we admit and cover during a shift, how strongly we advocate for timely testing and consultation, how we staff weekends and cover patients at night.

And, more and more, we are in a position to enhance the care delivery systems of the hospital and its providers that surround us. With that comes a responsibility to ensure that these systems are highly functioning and equitable, regardless of the time of day, day of the week.

If we are going to fundamentally enhance the quality of care, then we have to design safer systems of care. It will take time and resources to alter many of our bruised systems of care, but we can begin by at least ensuring equity in how we deliver care at our own institutions. That is, unless we are comfortable with a system perfectly designed to harm. TH

Dr. Glasheen is associate professor of medicine at the University of Colorado Denver, where he serves as director of the Hospital Medicine Program and the Hospitalist Training Program, and as associate program director of the Internal Medicine Residency Program.

References

1. Institute of Medicine (IOM). Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press; 2001.
2. Bell CM, Redelmeier DA. Waiting for urgent procedures on the weekend among emergently hospitalized patients. Am J Med. 2004:117(3):175-181.
3. Magid DJ, Wang Y, Herrin J, et al. Relationship between time of day, day of week, timeliness of reperfusion, and in-hospital mortality for patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. JAMA. 2005;294(7):803-812.
4. Kostis WJ, Demissie K, Marcella SW, Shao YH, Wilson AC, Moreyra AE. Weekend versus weekday admission and mortality from myocardial infarction. N Eng J Med. 2007;356 (11):1099-1109.
5. Hendry RA. The weekend—a dangerous time to be born? Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1981;88(12):1200-1203.
6. Barnett MJ, Kaboli PJ, Sirio CA, Rosenthal GE. Day of the week of intensive care admission and patient outcomes: a multisite regional evaluation. Med Care. 2002;40(6):530-539.
7. Bell CM, Redelmeier DA. Mortality among patients admitted to hospitals on weekends as compared with weekdays. N Eng J Med. 2001;345(9):663-668.

If every system is perfectly designed to get the results it gets …

And if 15 million patients are harmed every year from medical care …

And if as many as 98,000 people die every year due to medical errors in hospitals …

Then what does that say about the system we have designed?

A System Designed to Competently Hurt Many

By now you’ve no doubt heard, read, and possibly even uttered the above facts and figures yourself. I think we all have our opinions about the veracity of these numbers, but I don’t think any of us would argue with the sentiment. The U.S. healthcare system comprises the most competent, compassionate, well-meaning, and caring professionals on this planet—who harm, maim, and kill countless people every year.

What a discomforting paradox.

Equity: The Overlooked Quality Domain

Many years back, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) published a list of six “domains” of healthcare quality. You’ve no doubt stumbled across the IOM’s Safe … Timely … Effective … Efficient … Equitable … Patient-Centered mnemonic recipe—STEEEP—for high-quality care.¹ In fact, it’s hard to read a journal, attend a medical presentation, or open a local newspaper without finding reference to these domains. It’s all the rage to talk about wrong-site surgery (safe), access to care (timely), comparative-effectiveness research (effective), lean concepts (efficient), and individualized medicine (patient-centered). However, the sixth domain often seems to get the Jan Brady treatment—minimized, marginalized, and oft-forgotten.

The IOM defines equitable care as that which “does not vary in quality because of personal characteristics such as gender, ethnicity, geographic location, and socioeconomic status.”1 To be sure, there is some hum at the national level about issues of equity, especially around healthcare coverage for all. And this is important. However, what appears lost in the rant surrounding the inherent inequities in our tiered health insurance system is that we have blantant inequalities baked into the everyday machinery of our hospitals. And they affect all, regardless of skin color, gender, or insurance status.

Think for a moment about your hospital. Are the type, level, and access to care equal at all times? Does the level of care change when the streetlights come on? How about on weekends and holidays? Do your operating rooms run on Saturdays and Sundays? Can patients get chemotherapy on the weekends? Does your hospital alter its nursing staff ratios after hours? Can you get an ultrasound at midnight? How about a urology or neurosurgery consult at 2 a.m.? How about getting interventional radiology to place an IVC filter on a holiday?

Now scratch a bit closer to home. Does your hospitalist group downstaff on weekends and holidays, even though the volumes probably warrant more coverage? Are your night providers part of your group, or are they moonlighters? Do your after-hours providers cross-cover and admit a reasonable number of patients, or are they frequently overwhelmed? Do they cover patients or admit for services that they don’t typically care for during the day (e.g. ICU, neurosurgical, subspecialty cardiology or oncology patients)? For the intensely ill patients admitted to U.S. hospitals today, should the type and availability of care differ when it’s delivered at 3 p.m. or 3 a.m., Sunday or Monday?

Disregarding the macro-inequities in our societal approach to healthcare, can we even ensure equitable care within our own hospital walls 24 hours a day, seven days a week?

The Answer: An Unfortunate “No”

For the record, I hate working nights, abhor working weekends, and resent working holidays. But the thing I’d hate even more than working nights, weekends, and holidays would be being a patient admitted during a night, weekend, or holiday. To understand why, I have to look no further than my hospital parking lot. During bankers’ hours, I can barely find a parking spot on the top floor of our multilevel parking structure.

Fast-forward to Saturday, and I have my pick of empty football fields’ worth of spots on all floors. Ditto Sundays, nights, and holidays.

Why is it that nationally, a collectively near-trillion-dollar hospital enterprise finds it acceptable to effectively shutter itself for a quarter to a third of the week? Especially when doing so seems to counter their primary mission of providing safe, timely, effective, efficient, equitable, and patient-centered care.

The Weekend Effect

There are, of course, economic and operational reasons to downshift during off hours—some hospitals don’t have the elective procedures to run operating rooms seven days a week, and very few patients want to have their elective colonoscopy at 11 p.m. or their chemotherapy during Thanksgiving dinner. However, in most cases, the reasons for doing so center on hospital staff and physician satisfaction. Most us of just don’t like working off hours. As a result, studies have shown significantly less access to such high-level care as coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention on weekends.^2,3

And the effects of this “weekend effect” can be devastating.

A recent paper in the New England Journal of Medicine reported that for every 1,000 patients admitted with a myocardial infarction on a weekend, nine more would die than a comparable group admitted during the week.⁴ Their offense? Having the misfortune to get ill on a Saturday morning. The authors concluded that this higher mortality was secondary to a lower rate of invasive cardiac procedures, presumably because they were less available. And the weekend effect isn’t just limited to coronary care. Poorer outcomes, including higher mortality rates, have been reported for weekend admissions to the neonatal ICU and adult ICU, as well as admission for epiglottitis, ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms, and pulmonary embolism.^5,6,7

So let’s connect the dots: A system designed with inequal access to lifesaving therapies and appropriate staffing results in worse outcomes, more harm, more deaths.

To be clear, 98,000 people don’t die every year because of my disdain for working nights and weekends. This is a much deeper problem that hinges on many unsatisfactory systems working unsatisfactorily in tandem (e.g. see the other five IOM domains of quality care). Furthermore, I don’t mean to suggest that hospitalists necessarily have a lot of say in cardiac catheterization schedules. Yet we do control our own systems of care—how many patients we admit and cover during a shift, how strongly we advocate for timely testing and consultation, how we staff weekends and cover patients at night.

And, more and more, we are in a position to enhance the care delivery systems of the hospital and its providers that surround us. With that comes a responsibility to ensure that these systems are highly functioning and equitable, regardless of the time of day, day of the week.

If we are going to fundamentally enhance the quality of care, then we have to design safer systems of care. It will take time and resources to alter many of our bruised systems of care, but we can begin by at least ensuring equity in how we deliver care at our own institutions. That is, unless we are comfortable with a system perfectly designed to harm. TH

Dr. Glasheen is associate professor of medicine at the University of Colorado Denver, where he serves as director of the Hospital Medicine Program and the Hospitalist Training Program, and as associate program director of the Internal Medicine Residency Program.

References

1. Institute of Medicine (IOM). Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press; 2001.
2. Bell CM, Redelmeier DA. Waiting for urgent procedures on the weekend among emergently hospitalized patients. Am J Med. 2004:117(3):175-181.
3. Magid DJ, Wang Y, Herrin J, et al. Relationship between time of day, day of week, timeliness of reperfusion, and in-hospital mortality for patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. JAMA. 2005;294(7):803-812.
4. Kostis WJ, Demissie K, Marcella SW, Shao YH, Wilson AC, Moreyra AE. Weekend versus weekday admission and mortality from myocardial infarction. N Eng J Med. 2007;356 (11):1099-1109.
5. Hendry RA. The weekend—a dangerous time to be born? Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1981;88(12):1200-1203.
6. Barnett MJ, Kaboli PJ, Sirio CA, Rosenthal GE. Day of the week of intensive care admission and patient outcomes: a multisite regional evaluation. Med Care. 2002;40(6):530-539.
7. Bell CM, Redelmeier DA. Mortality among patients admitted to hospitals on weekends as compared with weekdays. N Eng J Med. 2001;345(9):663-668.

If every system is perfectly designed to get the results it gets …

And if 15 million patients are harmed every year from medical care …

And if as many as 98,000 people die every year due to medical errors in hospitals …

Then what does that say about the system we have designed?

A System Designed to Competently Hurt Many

By now you’ve no doubt heard, read, and possibly even uttered the above facts and figures yourself. I think we all have our opinions about the veracity of these numbers, but I don’t think any of us would argue with the sentiment. The U.S. healthcare system comprises the most competent, compassionate, well-meaning, and caring professionals on this planet—who harm, maim, and kill countless people every year.

What a discomforting paradox.

Equity: The Overlooked Quality Domain

Many years back, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) published a list of six “domains” of healthcare quality. You’ve no doubt stumbled across the IOM’s Safe … Timely … Effective … Efficient … Equitable … Patient-Centered mnemonic recipe—STEEEP—for high-quality care.¹ In fact, it’s hard to read a journal, attend a medical presentation, or open a local newspaper without finding reference to these domains. It’s all the rage to talk about wrong-site surgery (safe), access to care (timely), comparative-effectiveness research (effective), lean concepts (efficient), and individualized medicine (patient-centered). However, the sixth domain often seems to get the Jan Brady treatment—minimized, marginalized, and oft-forgotten.

The IOM defines equitable care as that which “does not vary in quality because of personal characteristics such as gender, ethnicity, geographic location, and socioeconomic status.”1 To be sure, there is some hum at the national level about issues of equity, especially around healthcare coverage for all. And this is important. However, what appears lost in the rant surrounding the inherent inequities in our tiered health insurance system is that we have blantant inequalities baked into the everyday machinery of our hospitals. And they affect all, regardless of skin color, gender, or insurance status.

Think for a moment about your hospital. Are the type, level, and access to care equal at all times? Does the level of care change when the streetlights come on? How about on weekends and holidays? Do your operating rooms run on Saturdays and Sundays? Can patients get chemotherapy on the weekends? Does your hospital alter its nursing staff ratios after hours? Can you get an ultrasound at midnight? How about a urology or neurosurgery consult at 2 a.m.? How about getting interventional radiology to place an IVC filter on a holiday?

Now scratch a bit closer to home. Does your hospitalist group downstaff on weekends and holidays, even though the volumes probably warrant more coverage? Are your night providers part of your group, or are they moonlighters? Do your after-hours providers cross-cover and admit a reasonable number of patients, or are they frequently overwhelmed? Do they cover patients or admit for services that they don’t typically care for during the day (e.g. ICU, neurosurgical, subspecialty cardiology or oncology patients)? For the intensely ill patients admitted to U.S. hospitals today, should the type and availability of care differ when it’s delivered at 3 p.m. or 3 a.m., Sunday or Monday?

Disregarding the macro-inequities in our societal approach to healthcare, can we even ensure equitable care within our own hospital walls 24 hours a day, seven days a week?

The Answer: An Unfortunate “No”

For the record, I hate working nights, abhor working weekends, and resent working holidays. But the thing I’d hate even more than working nights, weekends, and holidays would be being a patient admitted during a night, weekend, or holiday. To understand why, I have to look no further than my hospital parking lot. During bankers’ hours, I can barely find a parking spot on the top floor of our multilevel parking structure.

Fast-forward to Saturday, and I have my pick of empty football fields’ worth of spots on all floors. Ditto Sundays, nights, and holidays.

Why is it that nationally, a collectively near-trillion-dollar hospital enterprise finds it acceptable to effectively shutter itself for a quarter to a third of the week? Especially when doing so seems to counter their primary mission of providing safe, timely, effective, efficient, equitable, and patient-centered care.

The Weekend Effect

There are, of course, economic and operational reasons to downshift during off hours—some hospitals don’t have the elective procedures to run operating rooms seven days a week, and very few patients want to have their elective colonoscopy at 11 p.m. or their chemotherapy during Thanksgiving dinner. However, in most cases, the reasons for doing so center on hospital staff and physician satisfaction. Most us of just don’t like working off hours. As a result, studies have shown significantly less access to such high-level care as coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention on weekends.^2,3

And the effects of this “weekend effect” can be devastating.

A recent paper in the New England Journal of Medicine reported that for every 1,000 patients admitted with a myocardial infarction on a weekend, nine more would die than a comparable group admitted during the week.⁴ Their offense? Having the misfortune to get ill on a Saturday morning. The authors concluded that this higher mortality was secondary to a lower rate of invasive cardiac procedures, presumably because they were less available. And the weekend effect isn’t just limited to coronary care. Poorer outcomes, including higher mortality rates, have been reported for weekend admissions to the neonatal ICU and adult ICU, as well as admission for epiglottitis, ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms, and pulmonary embolism.^5,6,7

So let’s connect the dots: A system designed with inequal access to lifesaving therapies and appropriate staffing results in worse outcomes, more harm, more deaths.

To be clear, 98,000 people don’t die every year because of my disdain for working nights and weekends. This is a much deeper problem that hinges on many unsatisfactory systems working unsatisfactorily in tandem (e.g. see the other five IOM domains of quality care). Furthermore, I don’t mean to suggest that hospitalists necessarily have a lot of say in cardiac catheterization schedules. Yet we do control our own systems of care—how many patients we admit and cover during a shift, how strongly we advocate for timely testing and consultation, how we staff weekends and cover patients at night.

And, more and more, we are in a position to enhance the care delivery systems of the hospital and its providers that surround us. With that comes a responsibility to ensure that these systems are highly functioning and equitable, regardless of the time of day, day of the week.

If we are going to fundamentally enhance the quality of care, then we have to design safer systems of care. It will take time and resources to alter many of our bruised systems of care, but we can begin by at least ensuring equity in how we deliver care at our own institutions. That is, unless we are comfortable with a system perfectly designed to harm. TH

Dr. Glasheen is associate professor of medicine at the University of Colorado Denver, where he serves as director of the Hospital Medicine Program and the Hospitalist Training Program, and as associate program director of the Internal Medicine Residency Program.

References

1. Institute of Medicine (IOM). Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press; 2001.
2. Bell CM, Redelmeier DA. Waiting for urgent procedures on the weekend among emergently hospitalized patients. Am J Med. 2004:117(3):175-181.
3. Magid DJ, Wang Y, Herrin J, et al. Relationship between time of day, day of week, timeliness of reperfusion, and in-hospital mortality for patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. JAMA. 2005;294(7):803-812.
4. Kostis WJ, Demissie K, Marcella SW, Shao YH, Wilson AC, Moreyra AE. Weekend versus weekday admission and mortality from myocardial infarction. N Eng J Med. 2007;356 (11):1099-1109.
5. Hendry RA. The weekend—a dangerous time to be born? Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1981;88(12):1200-1203.
6. Barnett MJ, Kaboli PJ, Sirio CA, Rosenthal GE. Day of the week of intensive care admission and patient outcomes: a multisite regional evaluation. Med Care. 2002;40(6):530-539.
7. Bell CM, Redelmeier DA. Mortality among patients admitted to hospitals on weekends as compared with weekdays. N Eng J Med. 2001;345(9):663-668.

New Drugs, Devices, Indications, and Approvals

• Alglucosidase alfa (Lumizyme) has been approved by the FDA for the treatment of patients older than 8 with late (noninfantile) onset Pompe disease (GAA deficiency) who do not have evidence of cardiac hypertrophy.¹
• Dutasteride and tamsulosin (Jalyn) has been approved by the FDA in a fixed-dose combination product for treating symptomatic benign prostatic hypertrophy.²
• Gatifloxacin ophthalmic solution 0.5% (Zymaxid) has been approved by the FDA to treat bacterial conjunctivitis caused by susceptible bacterial strains.³ It has the highest concentration of gatifloxacin ophthalmic on the U.S. market.
• Memantine hydrochloride (Namenda XR) has been approved by the FDA as an extended-release product to treat moderate to severe dementia of the Alzheimer's type.⁴ It is available as a 28 mg, once-daily dosage form. The immediate-release product is dosed twice daily.
• Mesenchymal stem cells for intravenous infusion (MSCs, Prochymal) formulated into Prochymal has been granted orphan drug status to treat Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM).⁵ This agent is in Phase 2 clinical trials in a collaboration with the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation as a treatment for patients with newly diagnosed T1DM.
• Mometasone furoate/formoterol fumarate (Dulera) has been approved by the FDA as a combination treatment for asthmatics aged 12 and older.⁶
• Naproxen/esomeprazole (Vimovo) has been approved by the FDA as a fixed combination for patients with arthritis who are at risk for developing gastric ulcers.⁷
• Pioglitazone/metformin (ACTOplus met XR) has been approved by the FDA in an extended-release fixed combination for treating Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) as an adjunct to diet and exercise.⁸
• Ranibizumab (Lucentis) has received a new indication from the FDA for treating retinal vein occlusion.⁹ The original approval of ranibizumab was for wet age-related macular degeneration.
• Tramadol HCl, orally disintegrating tablets (Rybix ODT), have been approved by the FDA for treating moderate to moderately severe pain in patients 16 years of age and older.¹⁰

Pipeline

• Dronedarone (Multaq) is being investigated as to whether it can reduce major cardiovascular events in patients being treated with the agent for atrial fibrillation.¹¹ Study endpoints will include a reduction in a major cardiovascular event such as stroke or myocardial infarction, or a reduction in cardiovascular hospitalization or death.
• The combination product ibuprofen and famotidine (to be known as Duexa) has been filed as a new drug application (NDA) for reducing the risk of developing upper gastrointestinal (GI) ulcers in patients with pain and arthritis.¹² Two Phase 3 trials showed about a 50% reduction in GI ulcers in combination treatment compared with ibuprofen alone.
• Rifaximin (Xifaxan) has been submitted to the FDA at its higher dose (550 mg) for treatment of nonconstipation irritable bowel syndrome (Non-C-IBS) and IBS-related bloating.¹³ Rifaximin already has approval from the FDA for hepatic encephalopathy and diarrhea.
• TC-5214 has begun Phase 3 clinical trials.¹⁴ It is a nicotinic channel blocker for the adjunctive treatment of major depressive disorder in adults who have had an inadequate response to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) or serotonin/norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs). A Phase 2 study evaluating TC-5214 as a second-line (“switch”) monotherapy is planned for this year.
• An NDA for vilazodone has been filed for treating major depressive disorder.¹⁵ It is a dual-acting potent and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor and a 5-HT1A receptor partial agonist.

Safety, Warnings, and Label Changes

• Tramadol and tramadol/acetaminophen have undergone a label change related to strengthened warnings of the risk of suicide for patients who are addiction-prone, taking tranquilizers, drinking alcohol, or taking other central-nervous-system-active drugs.¹⁶ Addictive effects might occur when tramadol is combined with alcohol, other opioids, or illicit drugs that have central-nervous-system-depressive effects. Serious potential consequences of overdosage are CNS and/or respiratory depression, and death.
• Earlier this year, the FDA once again updated the warning related to severe liver injury related to the use of propylthiouracil (PTU).¹⁷ This time, PTU has garnered a boxed warning, which includes reports of severe hepatotoxicity and acute liver failure in both adults and children. Some of these reactions were fatal. Use of PTU should be reserved for patients who do not tolerate other treatments for hyperthyroidism, such as methimazole, radioactive iodine, or are not surgery candidates. PTU might be preferred over methimazole just before and/or during the first trimester of pregnancy due to the occurrence of birth defects with methimazole during this timeframe. A medication guide has been developed and is to be given to patients when they fill PTU prescriptions. The guide alerts patients to the signs and symptoms of hepatotoxicity. TH

Michele B. Kaufman, PharmD, BSc, RPh, is a freelance medical writer based in New York City and a clinical pharmacist at New York Downtown Hospital.

References

1. Genzyme receives FDA approval for lumizyme for Pompe disease. Business Wire website. Available at: www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/email/alert/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsLang=en&newsId=20100525006514. Accessed June 30, 2010.
2. Dennis M. FDA approves GlaxoSmithKline’s combination BPH drug Jalyn. FirstWord website. Available at: http://www.firstwordplus.com/Fws.do?articleid=B5F703CADB0347DF970A7B7542D99982&logRowId=369156. Accessed June 30, 2010.
3. Allergan receives FDA approval for Zymaxid ophthalmic solution. Medical News Today website. Available at: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/189397.php. Accessed June 29, 2010.
4. Forest and Merz announce FDA approval of Namenda XR for the treatment of moderate to severe dementia of the Alzheimer’s type. Forest Laboratories website. Available at: http://www.frx.com/news/PressRelease.aspx?ID=1440385. Accessed June 30, 2010.
5. Osiris Therapeutics receives FDA orphan drug designation for stem cell treatment for Type 1 diabetes. Osiris Therapeutics website. Available at: http://osiris.com/pdf/2010-05-04%20T1D%20Orphan%20Drug%20Designation.pdf. Accessed June 30, 2010.
6. FDA approves Merck’s new lung drug Dulera. The Economic Times website. Available at: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/6087079.cms. Accessed June 30, 2010.
7. Dane L. FDA approves AstraZeneca, Pozen’s Vimovo. FirstWord website. Available at: http://www.firstwordplus.com/Fws.do?articleid=0C2915EE4D2D47D287D41D90DFE4240D. Accessed June 30, 2010.
8. ACTOplus met XR available for diabetes. Monthly Prescribing Reference website. Available at: http://www.empr.com/actoplus-met-xr-available-for-diabetes/article/172985/. Accessed June 30, 2010.
9. Dennis M. Roche’s Lucentis garners expanded FDA approval for macular oedema. FirstWord website. Available at: http://www.firstwordplus.com/Fws.do?articleid=5146664F5A4C48108209D15EA744A614&logRowId=370643. Accessed June 30, 2010.
10. Rybix ODT launched for moderate to moderately severe pain. Monthly Prescribing Reference website. Available at: http://www.empr.com/rybix-odt-launched-for-moderate-to-moderately-severe-pain/article/172743/. Accessed June 30, 3010.
11. Dennis M. Sanofi-Aventis begins late-stage study of Multaq in patients with permanent AF. FirstWord website. Available at: http://www.firstwordplus.com/Fws.do?articleid=E43104A2DB604649A812E69C58F89304&logRowId=364228. Accessed July 7, 2010.
12. FDA accepts NDA for Duexa for ulcer risk reduction in arthritis patients. Monthly Prescribing Reference website. Available at: http://www.empr.com/fda-accepts-nda-for-duexa-for-ulcer-risk-reduction-in-arthritis-patients/article/171054/. Accessed July 7, 2010.
13. Salix Pharmaceuticals announces NDA submission for Xifaxan550 for treatment of non-constipation irritable bowel syndrome. Salix Pharmaceuticals website. Available at: http://salix.com/news/stories/20100608.aspx. Accessed June 9, 2010.
14. AstraZeneca and Targacept initiate Phase 3 clinical development of TC-5214 as an adjunct treatment for major depressive disorder. Targacept website. Available at: http://www.targacept.com/wt/page/pr_1277240993. Accessed June 29, 2010.
15. Clinical Data, Inc. announces FDA acceptance of new drug application for Vilazodone for the treatment of major depressive disorder. Clinical Data Inc. website. Available at: http://clda.com/uploads/CLDA%20NDA%20acceptance%20FINAL.pdf. Accessed July 7, 2010.
16. Ultram (tramadol hydrochloride), Ultracet (tramadol hydrochloride/acetaminophen): Label change. U.S. Food and Drug Administration website. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/SafetyInformation/SafetyAlertsforHumanMedicalProducts/ucm213264.htm. Accessed July 8, 2010.
17. FDA Drug Safety Communication: New boxed warning on severe liver injury with propylthiouracil. U.S. Food and Drug Administration website. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/PostmarketDrugSafetyInformationforPatientsandProviders/ucm209023.htm. Accessed July 8, 2010.

New Drugs, Devices, Indications, and Approvals

• Alglucosidase alfa (Lumizyme) has been approved by the FDA for the treatment of patients older than 8 with late (noninfantile) onset Pompe disease (GAA deficiency) who do not have evidence of cardiac hypertrophy.¹
• Dutasteride and tamsulosin (Jalyn) has been approved by the FDA in a fixed-dose combination product for treating symptomatic benign prostatic hypertrophy.²
• Gatifloxacin ophthalmic solution 0.5% (Zymaxid) has been approved by the FDA to treat bacterial conjunctivitis caused by susceptible bacterial strains.³ It has the highest concentration of gatifloxacin ophthalmic on the U.S. market.
• Memantine hydrochloride (Namenda XR) has been approved by the FDA as an extended-release product to treat moderate to severe dementia of the Alzheimer's type.⁴ It is available as a 28 mg, once-daily dosage form. The immediate-release product is dosed twice daily.
• Mesenchymal stem cells for intravenous infusion (MSCs, Prochymal) formulated into Prochymal has been granted orphan drug status to treat Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM).⁵ This agent is in Phase 2 clinical trials in a collaboration with the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation as a treatment for patients with newly diagnosed T1DM.
• Mometasone furoate/formoterol fumarate (Dulera) has been approved by the FDA as a combination treatment for asthmatics aged 12 and older.⁶
• Naproxen/esomeprazole (Vimovo) has been approved by the FDA as a fixed combination for patients with arthritis who are at risk for developing gastric ulcers.⁷
• Pioglitazone/metformin (ACTOplus met XR) has been approved by the FDA in an extended-release fixed combination for treating Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) as an adjunct to diet and exercise.⁸
• Ranibizumab (Lucentis) has received a new indication from the FDA for treating retinal vein occlusion.⁹ The original approval of ranibizumab was for wet age-related macular degeneration.
• Tramadol HCl, orally disintegrating tablets (Rybix ODT), have been approved by the FDA for treating moderate to moderately severe pain in patients 16 years of age and older.¹⁰

Pipeline

• Dronedarone (Multaq) is being investigated as to whether it can reduce major cardiovascular events in patients being treated with the agent for atrial fibrillation.¹¹ Study endpoints will include a reduction in a major cardiovascular event such as stroke or myocardial infarction, or a reduction in cardiovascular hospitalization or death.
• The combination product ibuprofen and famotidine (to be known as Duexa) has been filed as a new drug application (NDA) for reducing the risk of developing upper gastrointestinal (GI) ulcers in patients with pain and arthritis.¹² Two Phase 3 trials showed about a 50% reduction in GI ulcers in combination treatment compared with ibuprofen alone.
• Rifaximin (Xifaxan) has been submitted to the FDA at its higher dose (550 mg) for treatment of nonconstipation irritable bowel syndrome (Non-C-IBS) and IBS-related bloating.¹³ Rifaximin already has approval from the FDA for hepatic encephalopathy and diarrhea.
• TC-5214 has begun Phase 3 clinical trials.¹⁴ It is a nicotinic channel blocker for the adjunctive treatment of major depressive disorder in adults who have had an inadequate response to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) or serotonin/norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs). A Phase 2 study evaluating TC-5214 as a second-line (“switch”) monotherapy is planned for this year.
• An NDA for vilazodone has been filed for treating major depressive disorder.¹⁵ It is a dual-acting potent and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor and a 5-HT1A receptor partial agonist.

Safety, Warnings, and Label Changes

• Tramadol and tramadol/acetaminophen have undergone a label change related to strengthened warnings of the risk of suicide for patients who are addiction-prone, taking tranquilizers, drinking alcohol, or taking other central-nervous-system-active drugs.¹⁶ Addictive effects might occur when tramadol is combined with alcohol, other opioids, or illicit drugs that have central-nervous-system-depressive effects. Serious potential consequences of overdosage are CNS and/or respiratory depression, and death.
• Earlier this year, the FDA once again updated the warning related to severe liver injury related to the use of propylthiouracil (PTU).¹⁷ This time, PTU has garnered a boxed warning, which includes reports of severe hepatotoxicity and acute liver failure in both adults and children. Some of these reactions were fatal. Use of PTU should be reserved for patients who do not tolerate other treatments for hyperthyroidism, such as methimazole, radioactive iodine, or are not surgery candidates. PTU might be preferred over methimazole just before and/or during the first trimester of pregnancy due to the occurrence of birth defects with methimazole during this timeframe. A medication guide has been developed and is to be given to patients when they fill PTU prescriptions. The guide alerts patients to the signs and symptoms of hepatotoxicity. TH

Michele B. Kaufman, PharmD, BSc, RPh, is a freelance medical writer based in New York City and a clinical pharmacist at New York Downtown Hospital.

References

1. Genzyme receives FDA approval for lumizyme for Pompe disease. Business Wire website. Available at: www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/email/alert/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsLang=en&newsId=20100525006514. Accessed June 30, 2010.
2. Dennis M. FDA approves GlaxoSmithKline’s combination BPH drug Jalyn. FirstWord website. Available at: http://www.firstwordplus.com/Fws.do?articleid=B5F703CADB0347DF970A7B7542D99982&logRowId=369156. Accessed June 30, 2010.
3. Allergan receives FDA approval for Zymaxid ophthalmic solution. Medical News Today website. Available at: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/189397.php. Accessed June 29, 2010.
4. Forest and Merz announce FDA approval of Namenda XR for the treatment of moderate to severe dementia of the Alzheimer’s type. Forest Laboratories website. Available at: http://www.frx.com/news/PressRelease.aspx?ID=1440385. Accessed June 30, 2010.
5. Osiris Therapeutics receives FDA orphan drug designation for stem cell treatment for Type 1 diabetes. Osiris Therapeutics website. Available at: http://osiris.com/pdf/2010-05-04%20T1D%20Orphan%20Drug%20Designation.pdf. Accessed June 30, 2010.
6. FDA approves Merck’s new lung drug Dulera. The Economic Times website. Available at: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/6087079.cms. Accessed June 30, 2010.
7. Dane L. FDA approves AstraZeneca, Pozen’s Vimovo. FirstWord website. Available at: http://www.firstwordplus.com/Fws.do?articleid=0C2915EE4D2D47D287D41D90DFE4240D. Accessed June 30, 2010.
8. ACTOplus met XR available for diabetes. Monthly Prescribing Reference website. Available at: http://www.empr.com/actoplus-met-xr-available-for-diabetes/article/172985/. Accessed June 30, 2010.
9. Dennis M. Roche’s Lucentis garners expanded FDA approval for macular oedema. FirstWord website. Available at: http://www.firstwordplus.com/Fws.do?articleid=5146664F5A4C48108209D15EA744A614&logRowId=370643. Accessed June 30, 2010.
10. Rybix ODT launched for moderate to moderately severe pain. Monthly Prescribing Reference website. Available at: http://www.empr.com/rybix-odt-launched-for-moderate-to-moderately-severe-pain/article/172743/. Accessed June 30, 3010.
11. Dennis M. Sanofi-Aventis begins late-stage study of Multaq in patients with permanent AF. FirstWord website. Available at: http://www.firstwordplus.com/Fws.do?articleid=E43104A2DB604649A812E69C58F89304&logRowId=364228. Accessed July 7, 2010.
12. FDA accepts NDA for Duexa for ulcer risk reduction in arthritis patients. Monthly Prescribing Reference website. Available at: http://www.empr.com/fda-accepts-nda-for-duexa-for-ulcer-risk-reduction-in-arthritis-patients/article/171054/. Accessed July 7, 2010.
13. Salix Pharmaceuticals announces NDA submission for Xifaxan550 for treatment of non-constipation irritable bowel syndrome. Salix Pharmaceuticals website. Available at: http://salix.com/news/stories/20100608.aspx. Accessed June 9, 2010.
14. AstraZeneca and Targacept initiate Phase 3 clinical development of TC-5214 as an adjunct treatment for major depressive disorder. Targacept website. Available at: http://www.targacept.com/wt/page/pr_1277240993. Accessed June 29, 2010.
15. Clinical Data, Inc. announces FDA acceptance of new drug application for Vilazodone for the treatment of major depressive disorder. Clinical Data Inc. website. Available at: http://clda.com/uploads/CLDA%20NDA%20acceptance%20FINAL.pdf. Accessed July 7, 2010.
16. Ultram (tramadol hydrochloride), Ultracet (tramadol hydrochloride/acetaminophen): Label change. U.S. Food and Drug Administration website. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/SafetyInformation/SafetyAlertsforHumanMedicalProducts/ucm213264.htm. Accessed July 8, 2010.
17. FDA Drug Safety Communication: New boxed warning on severe liver injury with propylthiouracil. U.S. Food and Drug Administration website. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/PostmarketDrugSafetyInformationforPatientsandProviders/ucm209023.htm. Accessed July 8, 2010.

New Drugs, Devices, Indications, and Approvals

• Alglucosidase alfa (Lumizyme) has been approved by the FDA for the treatment of patients older than 8 with late (noninfantile) onset Pompe disease (GAA deficiency) who do not have evidence of cardiac hypertrophy.¹
• Dutasteride and tamsulosin (Jalyn) has been approved by the FDA in a fixed-dose combination product for treating symptomatic benign prostatic hypertrophy.²
• Gatifloxacin ophthalmic solution 0.5% (Zymaxid) has been approved by the FDA to treat bacterial conjunctivitis caused by susceptible bacterial strains.³ It has the highest concentration of gatifloxacin ophthalmic on the U.S. market.
• Memantine hydrochloride (Namenda XR) has been approved by the FDA as an extended-release product to treat moderate to severe dementia of the Alzheimer's type.⁴ It is available as a 28 mg, once-daily dosage form. The immediate-release product is dosed twice daily.
• Mesenchymal stem cells for intravenous infusion (MSCs, Prochymal) formulated into Prochymal has been granted orphan drug status to treat Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM).⁵ This agent is in Phase 2 clinical trials in a collaboration with the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation as a treatment for patients with newly diagnosed T1DM.
• Mometasone furoate/formoterol fumarate (Dulera) has been approved by the FDA as a combination treatment for asthmatics aged 12 and older.⁶
• Naproxen/esomeprazole (Vimovo) has been approved by the FDA as a fixed combination for patients with arthritis who are at risk for developing gastric ulcers.⁷
• Pioglitazone/metformin (ACTOplus met XR) has been approved by the FDA in an extended-release fixed combination for treating Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) as an adjunct to diet and exercise.⁸
• Ranibizumab (Lucentis) has received a new indication from the FDA for treating retinal vein occlusion.⁹ The original approval of ranibizumab was for wet age-related macular degeneration.
• Tramadol HCl, orally disintegrating tablets (Rybix ODT), have been approved by the FDA for treating moderate to moderately severe pain in patients 16 years of age and older.¹⁰

Pipeline

• Dronedarone (Multaq) is being investigated as to whether it can reduce major cardiovascular events in patients being treated with the agent for atrial fibrillation.¹¹ Study endpoints will include a reduction in a major cardiovascular event such as stroke or myocardial infarction, or a reduction in cardiovascular hospitalization or death.
• The combination product ibuprofen and famotidine (to be known as Duexa) has been filed as a new drug application (NDA) for reducing the risk of developing upper gastrointestinal (GI) ulcers in patients with pain and arthritis.¹² Two Phase 3 trials showed about a 50% reduction in GI ulcers in combination treatment compared with ibuprofen alone.
• Rifaximin (Xifaxan) has been submitted to the FDA at its higher dose (550 mg) for treatment of nonconstipation irritable bowel syndrome (Non-C-IBS) and IBS-related bloating.¹³ Rifaximin already has approval from the FDA for hepatic encephalopathy and diarrhea.
• TC-5214 has begun Phase 3 clinical trials.¹⁴ It is a nicotinic channel blocker for the adjunctive treatment of major depressive disorder in adults who have had an inadequate response to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) or serotonin/norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs). A Phase 2 study evaluating TC-5214 as a second-line (“switch”) monotherapy is planned for this year.
• An NDA for vilazodone has been filed for treating major depressive disorder.¹⁵ It is a dual-acting potent and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor and a 5-HT1A receptor partial agonist.

Safety, Warnings, and Label Changes

• Tramadol and tramadol/acetaminophen have undergone a label change related to strengthened warnings of the risk of suicide for patients who are addiction-prone, taking tranquilizers, drinking alcohol, or taking other central-nervous-system-active drugs.¹⁶ Addictive effects might occur when tramadol is combined with alcohol, other opioids, or illicit drugs that have central-nervous-system-depressive effects. Serious potential consequences of overdosage are CNS and/or respiratory depression, and death.
• Earlier this year, the FDA once again updated the warning related to severe liver injury related to the use of propylthiouracil (PTU).¹⁷ This time, PTU has garnered a boxed warning, which includes reports of severe hepatotoxicity and acute liver failure in both adults and children. Some of these reactions were fatal. Use of PTU should be reserved for patients who do not tolerate other treatments for hyperthyroidism, such as methimazole, radioactive iodine, or are not surgery candidates. PTU might be preferred over methimazole just before and/or during the first trimester of pregnancy due to the occurrence of birth defects with methimazole during this timeframe. A medication guide has been developed and is to be given to patients when they fill PTU prescriptions. The guide alerts patients to the signs and symptoms of hepatotoxicity. TH

Michele B. Kaufman, PharmD, BSc, RPh, is a freelance medical writer based in New York City and a clinical pharmacist at New York Downtown Hospital.

References

1. Genzyme receives FDA approval for lumizyme for Pompe disease. Business Wire website. Available at: www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/email/alert/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsLang=en&newsId=20100525006514. Accessed June 30, 2010.
2. Dennis M. FDA approves GlaxoSmithKline’s combination BPH drug Jalyn. FirstWord website. Available at: http://www.firstwordplus.com/Fws.do?articleid=B5F703CADB0347DF970A7B7542D99982&logRowId=369156. Accessed June 30, 2010.
3. Allergan receives FDA approval for Zymaxid ophthalmic solution. Medical News Today website. Available at: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/189397.php. Accessed June 29, 2010.
4. Forest and Merz announce FDA approval of Namenda XR for the treatment of moderate to severe dementia of the Alzheimer’s type. Forest Laboratories website. Available at: http://www.frx.com/news/PressRelease.aspx?ID=1440385. Accessed June 30, 2010.
5. Osiris Therapeutics receives FDA orphan drug designation for stem cell treatment for Type 1 diabetes. Osiris Therapeutics website. Available at: http://osiris.com/pdf/2010-05-04%20T1D%20Orphan%20Drug%20Designation.pdf. Accessed June 30, 2010.
6. FDA approves Merck’s new lung drug Dulera. The Economic Times website. Available at: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/6087079.cms. Accessed June 30, 2010.
7. Dane L. FDA approves AstraZeneca, Pozen’s Vimovo. FirstWord website. Available at: http://www.firstwordplus.com/Fws.do?articleid=0C2915EE4D2D47D287D41D90DFE4240D. Accessed June 30, 2010.
8. ACTOplus met XR available for diabetes. Monthly Prescribing Reference website. Available at: http://www.empr.com/actoplus-met-xr-available-for-diabetes/article/172985/. Accessed June 30, 2010.
9. Dennis M. Roche’s Lucentis garners expanded FDA approval for macular oedema. FirstWord website. Available at: http://www.firstwordplus.com/Fws.do?articleid=5146664F5A4C48108209D15EA744A614&logRowId=370643. Accessed June 30, 2010.
10. Rybix ODT launched for moderate to moderately severe pain. Monthly Prescribing Reference website. Available at: http://www.empr.com/rybix-odt-launched-for-moderate-to-moderately-severe-pain/article/172743/. Accessed June 30, 3010.
11. Dennis M. Sanofi-Aventis begins late-stage study of Multaq in patients with permanent AF. FirstWord website. Available at: http://www.firstwordplus.com/Fws.do?articleid=E43104A2DB604649A812E69C58F89304&logRowId=364228. Accessed July 7, 2010.
12. FDA accepts NDA for Duexa for ulcer risk reduction in arthritis patients. Monthly Prescribing Reference website. Available at: http://www.empr.com/fda-accepts-nda-for-duexa-for-ulcer-risk-reduction-in-arthritis-patients/article/171054/. Accessed July 7, 2010.
13. Salix Pharmaceuticals announces NDA submission for Xifaxan550 for treatment of non-constipation irritable bowel syndrome. Salix Pharmaceuticals website. Available at: http://salix.com/news/stories/20100608.aspx. Accessed June 9, 2010.
14. AstraZeneca and Targacept initiate Phase 3 clinical development of TC-5214 as an adjunct treatment for major depressive disorder. Targacept website. Available at: http://www.targacept.com/wt/page/pr_1277240993. Accessed June 29, 2010.
15. Clinical Data, Inc. announces FDA acceptance of new drug application for Vilazodone for the treatment of major depressive disorder. Clinical Data Inc. website. Available at: http://clda.com/uploads/CLDA%20NDA%20acceptance%20FINAL.pdf. Accessed July 7, 2010.
16. Ultram (tramadol hydrochloride), Ultracet (tramadol hydrochloride/acetaminophen): Label change. U.S. Food and Drug Administration website. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/SafetyInformation/SafetyAlertsforHumanMedicalProducts/ucm213264.htm. Accessed July 8, 2010.
17. FDA Drug Safety Communication: New boxed warning on severe liver injury with propylthiouracil. U.S. Food and Drug Administration website. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/PostmarketDrugSafetyInformationforPatientsandProviders/ucm209023.htm. Accessed July 8, 2010.

More than 400 people attended the Pediatric Hospital Medicine annual conference July 22-25 in Minneapolis. The annual meeting is the premier networking and educational event for pediatric hospitalists and is sponsored by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), SHM, and the Academic Pediatric Association (APA).

Innovation and improvement were popular topics throughout the conference. Keynote speaker George Buckley, CEO of manufacturing and technology conglomerate 3M, spoke about inspiring innovation, and a large percentage of the sessions and posters had quality-improvement (QI) themes. Experts from Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, led by Steve Muething, MD, assistant vice president of patient safety, and Shannon Phillips, MD, MPH, Cleveland Clinic’s patient safety officer, guided several popular sessions on QI.

A major innovation announced at the conference was the planned launch of a journal of pediatric hospital medicine, which will be sponsored by the AAP. (Update 09.14.2010--The journal has yet to officially announce an editor).

Research presentations have continued to increase in this young field, and the meeting was full of poster and platform presentations in the areas of clinical research, QI, educational research, and health services research. Vineeta Mittal, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern and Children’s Medical Center in Dallas presented research on family-centered rounds, which was recently published in Pediatrics and picked up by the National Association of Children’s Hospitals (NACHRI) for dissemination.¹ Patrick Brady, MD, of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital presented his research on short- versus long-course IV therapy for pediatric urinary tract infections, also published in Pediatrics.²

Other buzzed-about sessions included Vanderbilt University pediatric hospitalist Dr. Paul Hain’s ambitious attempt to create a PHM performance dashboard, and a case of “situational” epilepsy presented by Dr. Lisa Zaoutis of CHOP.

As in years past, the hottest ticket was for the luncheon presentation of the “Top Articles in Pediatric Hospital Medicine,” paneled this year by Drs. John Pope, Kris Rehm, and Brian Alverson. Raj Srivastava, MD, of Primary Children’s Medical Center in Salt Lake City and chairperson of the Pediatric Research in Inpatient Settings network, announced that the network had been awarded major grant funding.

Dan Rauch, MD, chair of the AAP’s Section on Hospital Medicine, dropped the biggest bombshell of all: He announced that the American Board of Pediatrics will support the development of pediatric HM as a full-fledged subspecialty in the near future. TH

Dr. Ralston is associate professor of pediatrics and chief of the division of inpatient pediatrics at the University of Texas Health Science Center in San Antonio, and medical director of inpatient services at Christus Santa Rosa Children’s Hospital.

References

1. Mittal VS, Sigrest T, Ottolini MC, et al. Family-centered rounds on pediatric wards: a PRIS network survey of U.S. and Canadian hospitalists. Pediatrics. 2010;126(1):37-43.
2. Brady PW, Conway PH, Goudie A. Length of intravenous antibiotic therapy and treatment failure in infants with urinary track infections. Pediatrics. 2010;126(2):196-203.

More than 400 people attended the Pediatric Hospital Medicine annual conference July 22-25 in Minneapolis. The annual meeting is the premier networking and educational event for pediatric hospitalists and is sponsored by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), SHM, and the Academic Pediatric Association (APA).

Innovation and improvement were popular topics throughout the conference. Keynote speaker George Buckley, CEO of manufacturing and technology conglomerate 3M, spoke about inspiring innovation, and a large percentage of the sessions and posters had quality-improvement (QI) themes. Experts from Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, led by Steve Muething, MD, assistant vice president of patient safety, and Shannon Phillips, MD, MPH, Cleveland Clinic’s patient safety officer, guided several popular sessions on QI.

A major innovation announced at the conference was the planned launch of a journal of pediatric hospital medicine, which will be sponsored by the AAP. (Update 09.14.2010--The journal has yet to officially announce an editor).

Research presentations have continued to increase in this young field, and the meeting was full of poster and platform presentations in the areas of clinical research, QI, educational research, and health services research. Vineeta Mittal, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern and Children’s Medical Center in Dallas presented research on family-centered rounds, which was recently published in Pediatrics and picked up by the National Association of Children’s Hospitals (NACHRI) for dissemination.¹ Patrick Brady, MD, of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital presented his research on short- versus long-course IV therapy for pediatric urinary tract infections, also published in Pediatrics.²

Other buzzed-about sessions included Vanderbilt University pediatric hospitalist Dr. Paul Hain’s ambitious attempt to create a PHM performance dashboard, and a case of “situational” epilepsy presented by Dr. Lisa Zaoutis of CHOP.

As in years past, the hottest ticket was for the luncheon presentation of the “Top Articles in Pediatric Hospital Medicine,” paneled this year by Drs. John Pope, Kris Rehm, and Brian Alverson. Raj Srivastava, MD, of Primary Children’s Medical Center in Salt Lake City and chairperson of the Pediatric Research in Inpatient Settings network, announced that the network had been awarded major grant funding.

Dan Rauch, MD, chair of the AAP’s Section on Hospital Medicine, dropped the biggest bombshell of all: He announced that the American Board of Pediatrics will support the development of pediatric HM as a full-fledged subspecialty in the near future. TH

Dr. Ralston is associate professor of pediatrics and chief of the division of inpatient pediatrics at the University of Texas Health Science Center in San Antonio, and medical director of inpatient services at Christus Santa Rosa Children’s Hospital.

References

1. Mittal VS, Sigrest T, Ottolini MC, et al. Family-centered rounds on pediatric wards: a PRIS network survey of U.S. and Canadian hospitalists. Pediatrics. 2010;126(1):37-43.
2. Brady PW, Conway PH, Goudie A. Length of intravenous antibiotic therapy and treatment failure in infants with urinary track infections. Pediatrics. 2010;126(2):196-203.

More than 400 people attended the Pediatric Hospital Medicine annual conference July 22-25 in Minneapolis. The annual meeting is the premier networking and educational event for pediatric hospitalists and is sponsored by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), SHM, and the Academic Pediatric Association (APA).

Innovation and improvement were popular topics throughout the conference. Keynote speaker George Buckley, CEO of manufacturing and technology conglomerate 3M, spoke about inspiring innovation, and a large percentage of the sessions and posters had quality-improvement (QI) themes. Experts from Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, led by Steve Muething, MD, assistant vice president of patient safety, and Shannon Phillips, MD, MPH, Cleveland Clinic’s patient safety officer, guided several popular sessions on QI.

A major innovation announced at the conference was the planned launch of a journal of pediatric hospital medicine, which will be sponsored by the AAP. (Update 09.14.2010--The journal has yet to officially announce an editor).

Research presentations have continued to increase in this young field, and the meeting was full of poster and platform presentations in the areas of clinical research, QI, educational research, and health services research. Vineeta Mittal, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern and Children’s Medical Center in Dallas presented research on family-centered rounds, which was recently published in Pediatrics and picked up by the National Association of Children’s Hospitals (NACHRI) for dissemination.¹ Patrick Brady, MD, of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital presented his research on short- versus long-course IV therapy for pediatric urinary tract infections, also published in Pediatrics.²

Other buzzed-about sessions included Vanderbilt University pediatric hospitalist Dr. Paul Hain’s ambitious attempt to create a PHM performance dashboard, and a case of “situational” epilepsy presented by Dr. Lisa Zaoutis of CHOP.

As in years past, the hottest ticket was for the luncheon presentation of the “Top Articles in Pediatric Hospital Medicine,” paneled this year by Drs. John Pope, Kris Rehm, and Brian Alverson. Raj Srivastava, MD, of Primary Children’s Medical Center in Salt Lake City and chairperson of the Pediatric Research in Inpatient Settings network, announced that the network had been awarded major grant funding.

Dan Rauch, MD, chair of the AAP’s Section on Hospital Medicine, dropped the biggest bombshell of all: He announced that the American Board of Pediatrics will support the development of pediatric HM as a full-fledged subspecialty in the near future. TH

Dr. Ralston is associate professor of pediatrics and chief of the division of inpatient pediatrics at the University of Texas Health Science Center in San Antonio, and medical director of inpatient services at Christus Santa Rosa Children’s Hospital.

References

1. Mittal VS, Sigrest T, Ottolini MC, et al. Family-centered rounds on pediatric wards: a PRIS network survey of U.S. and Canadian hospitalists. Pediatrics. 2010;126(1):37-43.
2. Brady PW, Conway PH, Goudie A. Length of intravenous antibiotic therapy and treatment failure in infants with urinary track infections. Pediatrics. 2010;126(2):196-203.