Patient Safety

A recent CDC study found that nearly a third of antibiotics might be inappropriately prescribed.¹ The report also found wide variation in antibiotic prescribing practices for patients in similar treatment areas in hospitals across the country.

Across the globe, antibiotic resistance has become a daunting threat. Some public health officials have labeled it a crisis, and improper prescribing and use of antibiotics is at least partly to blame, experts say.

“We’re dangerously close to a pre-antibiotic era where we don’t have antibiotics to treat common infections,” says Neil Fishman, MD, chief patient safety officer and associate chief medical officer at the University of Pennsylvania Health System and past president of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. “We are seeing more and more infections, usually hospital-based, caused by bacterial resistance to most, if not all, of the antibiotics that we have.”

It’s an issue hospitalists around the country are championing.

“I think for a long time there’s been a misperception that antibiotic stewardship is at odds with hospitalists, who are managing very busy patient loads and managing inpatient prescribing,” says Arjun Srinivasan, MD, FSHEA, associate director for the CDC’s Healthcare Associated Infection Prevention Program and medical director of Get Smart for Healthcare in the division of Healthcare Quality Promotion at the CDC. Dr. Srinivasan is one of the authors of the new CDC study.

But “they have taken that ball and run with it,” says Dr. Srinivasan, who has worked with the Society of Hospital Medicine to address antibiotic resistance issues.

The goals of the study, published in the CDC’s Vital Signs on March 4, 2014, were to evaluate the extent and rationale for the prescribing of antibiotics in U.S. hospitals, while demonstrating opportunities for improvement in prescribing practices.

Study authors analyzed data from the Truven Health MarketScan Hospital Drug Database and the CDC’s Emerging Infection Program and, using a model based on the data, demonstrated that a 30% reduction in broad-spectrum antibiotics use would decrease Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) by 26%. Overall antibiotic use would drop by 5%.

According to the CDC, antibiotics are among the most frequent causes of adverse drug events among hospitalized patients in the U.S., and complications like CDI can be deadly. In fact, 250,000 hospitalized patients are infected with CDI each year, resulting in 14,000 deaths.

“We’re really at a critical juncture in healthcare now,” Dr. Fishman says. “The field of stewardship has evolved mainly in academic tertiary care settings. The CDC report is timely because it highlights the necessity of making sure antibiotics are used appropriately in all healthcare settings.”

Take a Break

One of the ways in which hospitalists have addressed the need for more appropriate antibiotic prescribing in their institutions is the practice of an “antibiotic time-out.”

“After some point, when the dust settles at about 48-72 hours, you can evaluate the patient’s progress, evaluate their studies, [and] you may have culture results,” says Scott Flanders, MD, FACP, MHM, professor of internal medicine and director of hospital medicine at the University of Michigan Medical School in Ann Arbor. At that point, physicians can decide whether to maintain a patient on the original antibiotic, alter the duration of treatment, or take them off the treatment altogether.

Dr. Flanders and a colleague published an editorial in the Journal of the American Medical Association Internal Medicine that coincided with the CDC report.² A 2007 study published in Clinical Infectious Diseases found that the choice of antibiotic agent or duration of treatment can be incorrect in as many as half of all cases in which antibiotics are prescribed.³

Dr. Flanders, a past president of SHM who has worked extensively with the CDC and the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, was behind the development of the time-out strategy. Dr. Srinivasan says the clinical utility of the method was “eye-opening.”

The strategy, which has taken hold among hospital groups the CDC has worked with, has demonstrated that stewardship and patient management are not at odds, Dr. Srinivasan says. Despite patient sign-outs and hand-offs, the time-out strategy allows any clinician to track a patient’s antibiotic status and reevaluate the treatment plan.

Having a process is critical to more responsible prescribing practices, Dr. Flanders says. He attributes much of the variability in antibiotics prescribing among similar departments at hospitals across the country to a lack of standards, though he noted that variability in patient populations undoubtedly plays a role.

Lack of Stats

The CDC report showed up to a threefold difference in the number of antibiotics prescribed to patients in similar hospital settings at hospitals across the country. The reasons for this are not known, Dr. Fishman says.

“The main reason we don’t know is we don’t have a good mechanism in the U.S. right now to monitor antibiotics use,” he explains. “We don’t have a way for healthcare facilities to benchmark their use.”

Without good strategies to monitor and develop more responsible antibiotics prescription practices, Dr. Flanders believes many physicians find themselves trapped by the “chagrin” of not prescribing.

“Patients often enter the hospital without a clear diagnosis,” he says. “They are quite ill. They may have a serious bacterial infection, and, in diagnosing them, we can’t guess wrong and make the decision to withhold antibiotics, only to find out later the patient is infected.

“We know delays increase mortality, and that’s not an acceptable option.”

Patients often enter the hospital without a clear diagnosis. They are quite ill. They may have a serious bacterial infection, and, in diagnosing them, we can’t guess wrong and make the decision to withhold antibiotics, only to find out later the patient is infected.

 

—Scott Flanders, MD, FACP, MHM, professor of internal medicine, director of hospital medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, past president, SHM

Beyond the Bedside

Many physicians fail to consider the bigger societal implications when prescribing antibiotics for sick patients in their charge, because their responsibility is, first and foremost, to that individual. But, Dr. Srinivasan says, “good antibiotic stewardship is beneficial to the patient lying in the bed in front of you, because every day we are confronted with C. diff. infections, adverse drug events, all of these issues.”

Strategies and processes help hospitalists make the best decision for their patients at the time they require care, while providing room for adaptation and the improvements that serve all patients.

Some institutions use interventions like prospective audit and feedback monitoring to help physicians become more responsible antibiotic prescribers, says Dr. Fishman, who worked with infectious disease specialists at the University of Pennsylvania in the early 1990s to develop a stewardship program there.

“In our institution, we see better outcomes—lower complications—usually associated with a decreased length of stay, at least in the ICU for critically ill patients—and increased cure rates,” he says.

Stewardship efforts take investment on the part of the hospital. Dr. Fishman cited a recent study at the Children’s Hospital of Pennsylvania that looked at whether a particular education strategy the hospital implemented actually led to improvements.⁴

“It was successful in intervening in this problem [of inappropriate prescribing] in pediatricians, but it did take ongoing education of both healthcare providers and patients,” he says, noting that large financial and time investments are necessary for the ongoing training and follow-up that is necessary.

And patients need to be educated, too.

“It takes a minute to write that prescription and probably 15 or 20 minutes not to write it,” Dr. Fishman says. “We need to educate patients about potential complications of antibiotics use, as well as the signs and symptoms of infection.”

The CDC report is a call to action for all healthcare providers to consider how they can become better antibiotic stewards. There are very few new antibiotics on the market and little in the pipeline. All providers must do what they can to preserve the antibiotics we currently have, Dr. Fishman says.

“There is opportunity, and I think hospitalists are up to the challenge,” Dr. Flanders says. “They are doing lots of work to improve quality across lots of domains in their hospitals. I think this is an area where attention is deserved.”

Kelly April Tyrrell is a freelance writer in Madison, Wis.

References

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Vital signs: improving antibiotic use among hospitalized patients. Available at: www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6309a4.htm?s_cid=mm6309a4_w. Accessed August 31, 2014.
2. Flanders SA, Saint S. Why does antrimicrobial overuse in hospitalized patients persist? JAMA Internal Medicine online. Available at: http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1838720. Accessed August 31, 2014.
3. Dellit TH, Owens RC, McGowan JE, et al. Clinical Infectious Diseases online. Available at: http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/44/2/159.full. Accessed August 31, 2014.
4. Gerber JS, Prasad PA, Fiks A, et al. Effect of an outpatient antimicrobial stewardship intervention on broad-spectrum antibiotic prescribing by primary care pediatricians. JAMA. 2013;309(22):2345-2352.

A recent CDC study found that nearly a third of antibiotics might be inappropriately prescribed.¹ The report also found wide variation in antibiotic prescribing practices for patients in similar treatment areas in hospitals across the country.

Across the globe, antibiotic resistance has become a daunting threat. Some public health officials have labeled it a crisis, and improper prescribing and use of antibiotics is at least partly to blame, experts say.

“We’re dangerously close to a pre-antibiotic era where we don’t have antibiotics to treat common infections,” says Neil Fishman, MD, chief patient safety officer and associate chief medical officer at the University of Pennsylvania Health System and past president of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. “We are seeing more and more infections, usually hospital-based, caused by bacterial resistance to most, if not all, of the antibiotics that we have.”

It’s an issue hospitalists around the country are championing.

“I think for a long time there’s been a misperception that antibiotic stewardship is at odds with hospitalists, who are managing very busy patient loads and managing inpatient prescribing,” says Arjun Srinivasan, MD, FSHEA, associate director for the CDC’s Healthcare Associated Infection Prevention Program and medical director of Get Smart for Healthcare in the division of Healthcare Quality Promotion at the CDC. Dr. Srinivasan is one of the authors of the new CDC study.

But “they have taken that ball and run with it,” says Dr. Srinivasan, who has worked with the Society of Hospital Medicine to address antibiotic resistance issues.

The goals of the study, published in the CDC’s Vital Signs on March 4, 2014, were to evaluate the extent and rationale for the prescribing of antibiotics in U.S. hospitals, while demonstrating opportunities for improvement in prescribing practices.

Study authors analyzed data from the Truven Health MarketScan Hospital Drug Database and the CDC’s Emerging Infection Program and, using a model based on the data, demonstrated that a 30% reduction in broad-spectrum antibiotics use would decrease Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) by 26%. Overall antibiotic use would drop by 5%.

According to the CDC, antibiotics are among the most frequent causes of adverse drug events among hospitalized patients in the U.S., and complications like CDI can be deadly. In fact, 250,000 hospitalized patients are infected with CDI each year, resulting in 14,000 deaths.

“We’re really at a critical juncture in healthcare now,” Dr. Fishman says. “The field of stewardship has evolved mainly in academic tertiary care settings. The CDC report is timely because it highlights the necessity of making sure antibiotics are used appropriately in all healthcare settings.”

Take a Break

One of the ways in which hospitalists have addressed the need for more appropriate antibiotic prescribing in their institutions is the practice of an “antibiotic time-out.”

“After some point, when the dust settles at about 48-72 hours, you can evaluate the patient’s progress, evaluate their studies, [and] you may have culture results,” says Scott Flanders, MD, FACP, MHM, professor of internal medicine and director of hospital medicine at the University of Michigan Medical School in Ann Arbor. At that point, physicians can decide whether to maintain a patient on the original antibiotic, alter the duration of treatment, or take them off the treatment altogether.

Dr. Flanders and a colleague published an editorial in the Journal of the American Medical Association Internal Medicine that coincided with the CDC report.² A 2007 study published in Clinical Infectious Diseases found that the choice of antibiotic agent or duration of treatment can be incorrect in as many as half of all cases in which antibiotics are prescribed.³

Dr. Flanders, a past president of SHM who has worked extensively with the CDC and the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, was behind the development of the time-out strategy. Dr. Srinivasan says the clinical utility of the method was “eye-opening.”

The strategy, which has taken hold among hospital groups the CDC has worked with, has demonstrated that stewardship and patient management are not at odds, Dr. Srinivasan says. Despite patient sign-outs and hand-offs, the time-out strategy allows any clinician to track a patient’s antibiotic status and reevaluate the treatment plan.

Having a process is critical to more responsible prescribing practices, Dr. Flanders says. He attributes much of the variability in antibiotics prescribing among similar departments at hospitals across the country to a lack of standards, though he noted that variability in patient populations undoubtedly plays a role.

Lack of Stats

The CDC report showed up to a threefold difference in the number of antibiotics prescribed to patients in similar hospital settings at hospitals across the country. The reasons for this are not known, Dr. Fishman says.

“The main reason we don’t know is we don’t have a good mechanism in the U.S. right now to monitor antibiotics use,” he explains. “We don’t have a way for healthcare facilities to benchmark their use.”

Without good strategies to monitor and develop more responsible antibiotics prescription practices, Dr. Flanders believes many physicians find themselves trapped by the “chagrin” of not prescribing.

“Patients often enter the hospital without a clear diagnosis,” he says. “They are quite ill. They may have a serious bacterial infection, and, in diagnosing them, we can’t guess wrong and make the decision to withhold antibiotics, only to find out later the patient is infected.

“We know delays increase mortality, and that’s not an acceptable option.”

Patients often enter the hospital without a clear diagnosis. They are quite ill. They may have a serious bacterial infection, and, in diagnosing them, we can’t guess wrong and make the decision to withhold antibiotics, only to find out later the patient is infected.

 

—Scott Flanders, MD, FACP, MHM, professor of internal medicine, director of hospital medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, past president, SHM

Beyond the Bedside

Many physicians fail to consider the bigger societal implications when prescribing antibiotics for sick patients in their charge, because their responsibility is, first and foremost, to that individual. But, Dr. Srinivasan says, “good antibiotic stewardship is beneficial to the patient lying in the bed in front of you, because every day we are confronted with C. diff. infections, adverse drug events, all of these issues.”

Strategies and processes help hospitalists make the best decision for their patients at the time they require care, while providing room for adaptation and the improvements that serve all patients.

Some institutions use interventions like prospective audit and feedback monitoring to help physicians become more responsible antibiotic prescribers, says Dr. Fishman, who worked with infectious disease specialists at the University of Pennsylvania in the early 1990s to develop a stewardship program there.

“In our institution, we see better outcomes—lower complications—usually associated with a decreased length of stay, at least in the ICU for critically ill patients—and increased cure rates,” he says.

Stewardship efforts take investment on the part of the hospital. Dr. Fishman cited a recent study at the Children’s Hospital of Pennsylvania that looked at whether a particular education strategy the hospital implemented actually led to improvements.⁴

“It was successful in intervening in this problem [of inappropriate prescribing] in pediatricians, but it did take ongoing education of both healthcare providers and patients,” he says, noting that large financial and time investments are necessary for the ongoing training and follow-up that is necessary.

And patients need to be educated, too.

“It takes a minute to write that prescription and probably 15 or 20 minutes not to write it,” Dr. Fishman says. “We need to educate patients about potential complications of antibiotics use, as well as the signs and symptoms of infection.”

The CDC report is a call to action for all healthcare providers to consider how they can become better antibiotic stewards. There are very few new antibiotics on the market and little in the pipeline. All providers must do what they can to preserve the antibiotics we currently have, Dr. Fishman says.

“There is opportunity, and I think hospitalists are up to the challenge,” Dr. Flanders says. “They are doing lots of work to improve quality across lots of domains in their hospitals. I think this is an area where attention is deserved.”

Kelly April Tyrrell is a freelance writer in Madison, Wis.

References

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Vital signs: improving antibiotic use among hospitalized patients. Available at: www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6309a4.htm?s_cid=mm6309a4_w. Accessed August 31, 2014.
2. Flanders SA, Saint S. Why does antrimicrobial overuse in hospitalized patients persist? JAMA Internal Medicine online. Available at: http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1838720. Accessed August 31, 2014.
3. Dellit TH, Owens RC, McGowan JE, et al. Clinical Infectious Diseases online. Available at: http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/44/2/159.full. Accessed August 31, 2014.
4. Gerber JS, Prasad PA, Fiks A, et al. Effect of an outpatient antimicrobial stewardship intervention on broad-spectrum antibiotic prescribing by primary care pediatricians. JAMA. 2013;309(22):2345-2352.

A recent CDC study found that nearly a third of antibiotics might be inappropriately prescribed.¹ The report also found wide variation in antibiotic prescribing practices for patients in similar treatment areas in hospitals across the country.

Across the globe, antibiotic resistance has become a daunting threat. Some public health officials have labeled it a crisis, and improper prescribing and use of antibiotics is at least partly to blame, experts say.

“We’re dangerously close to a pre-antibiotic era where we don’t have antibiotics to treat common infections,” says Neil Fishman, MD, chief patient safety officer and associate chief medical officer at the University of Pennsylvania Health System and past president of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. “We are seeing more and more infections, usually hospital-based, caused by bacterial resistance to most, if not all, of the antibiotics that we have.”

It’s an issue hospitalists around the country are championing.

“I think for a long time there’s been a misperception that antibiotic stewardship is at odds with hospitalists, who are managing very busy patient loads and managing inpatient prescribing,” says Arjun Srinivasan, MD, FSHEA, associate director for the CDC’s Healthcare Associated Infection Prevention Program and medical director of Get Smart for Healthcare in the division of Healthcare Quality Promotion at the CDC. Dr. Srinivasan is one of the authors of the new CDC study.

But “they have taken that ball and run with it,” says Dr. Srinivasan, who has worked with the Society of Hospital Medicine to address antibiotic resistance issues.

The goals of the study, published in the CDC’s Vital Signs on March 4, 2014, were to evaluate the extent and rationale for the prescribing of antibiotics in U.S. hospitals, while demonstrating opportunities for improvement in prescribing practices.

Study authors analyzed data from the Truven Health MarketScan Hospital Drug Database and the CDC’s Emerging Infection Program and, using a model based on the data, demonstrated that a 30% reduction in broad-spectrum antibiotics use would decrease Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) by 26%. Overall antibiotic use would drop by 5%.

According to the CDC, antibiotics are among the most frequent causes of adverse drug events among hospitalized patients in the U.S., and complications like CDI can be deadly. In fact, 250,000 hospitalized patients are infected with CDI each year, resulting in 14,000 deaths.

“We’re really at a critical juncture in healthcare now,” Dr. Fishman says. “The field of stewardship has evolved mainly in academic tertiary care settings. The CDC report is timely because it highlights the necessity of making sure antibiotics are used appropriately in all healthcare settings.”

Take a Break

One of the ways in which hospitalists have addressed the need for more appropriate antibiotic prescribing in their institutions is the practice of an “antibiotic time-out.”

“After some point, when the dust settles at about 48-72 hours, you can evaluate the patient’s progress, evaluate their studies, [and] you may have culture results,” says Scott Flanders, MD, FACP, MHM, professor of internal medicine and director of hospital medicine at the University of Michigan Medical School in Ann Arbor. At that point, physicians can decide whether to maintain a patient on the original antibiotic, alter the duration of treatment, or take them off the treatment altogether.

Dr. Flanders and a colleague published an editorial in the Journal of the American Medical Association Internal Medicine that coincided with the CDC report.² A 2007 study published in Clinical Infectious Diseases found that the choice of antibiotic agent or duration of treatment can be incorrect in as many as half of all cases in which antibiotics are prescribed.³

Dr. Flanders, a past president of SHM who has worked extensively with the CDC and the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, was behind the development of the time-out strategy. Dr. Srinivasan says the clinical utility of the method was “eye-opening.”

The strategy, which has taken hold among hospital groups the CDC has worked with, has demonstrated that stewardship and patient management are not at odds, Dr. Srinivasan says. Despite patient sign-outs and hand-offs, the time-out strategy allows any clinician to track a patient’s antibiotic status and reevaluate the treatment plan.

Having a process is critical to more responsible prescribing practices, Dr. Flanders says. He attributes much of the variability in antibiotics prescribing among similar departments at hospitals across the country to a lack of standards, though he noted that variability in patient populations undoubtedly plays a role.

Lack of Stats

The CDC report showed up to a threefold difference in the number of antibiotics prescribed to patients in similar hospital settings at hospitals across the country. The reasons for this are not known, Dr. Fishman says.

“The main reason we don’t know is we don’t have a good mechanism in the U.S. right now to monitor antibiotics use,” he explains. “We don’t have a way for healthcare facilities to benchmark their use.”

Without good strategies to monitor and develop more responsible antibiotics prescription practices, Dr. Flanders believes many physicians find themselves trapped by the “chagrin” of not prescribing.

“Patients often enter the hospital without a clear diagnosis,” he says. “They are quite ill. They may have a serious bacterial infection, and, in diagnosing them, we can’t guess wrong and make the decision to withhold antibiotics, only to find out later the patient is infected.

“We know delays increase mortality, and that’s not an acceptable option.”

Patients often enter the hospital without a clear diagnosis. They are quite ill. They may have a serious bacterial infection, and, in diagnosing them, we can’t guess wrong and make the decision to withhold antibiotics, only to find out later the patient is infected.

 

—Scott Flanders, MD, FACP, MHM, professor of internal medicine, director of hospital medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, past president, SHM

Beyond the Bedside

Many physicians fail to consider the bigger societal implications when prescribing antibiotics for sick patients in their charge, because their responsibility is, first and foremost, to that individual. But, Dr. Srinivasan says, “good antibiotic stewardship is beneficial to the patient lying in the bed in front of you, because every day we are confronted with C. diff. infections, adverse drug events, all of these issues.”

Strategies and processes help hospitalists make the best decision for their patients at the time they require care, while providing room for adaptation and the improvements that serve all patients.

Some institutions use interventions like prospective audit and feedback monitoring to help physicians become more responsible antibiotic prescribers, says Dr. Fishman, who worked with infectious disease specialists at the University of Pennsylvania in the early 1990s to develop a stewardship program there.

“In our institution, we see better outcomes—lower complications—usually associated with a decreased length of stay, at least in the ICU for critically ill patients—and increased cure rates,” he says.

Stewardship efforts take investment on the part of the hospital. Dr. Fishman cited a recent study at the Children’s Hospital of Pennsylvania that looked at whether a particular education strategy the hospital implemented actually led to improvements.⁴

“It was successful in intervening in this problem [of inappropriate prescribing] in pediatricians, but it did take ongoing education of both healthcare providers and patients,” he says, noting that large financial and time investments are necessary for the ongoing training and follow-up that is necessary.

And patients need to be educated, too.

“It takes a minute to write that prescription and probably 15 or 20 minutes not to write it,” Dr. Fishman says. “We need to educate patients about potential complications of antibiotics use, as well as the signs and symptoms of infection.”

The CDC report is a call to action for all healthcare providers to consider how they can become better antibiotic stewards. There are very few new antibiotics on the market and little in the pipeline. All providers must do what they can to preserve the antibiotics we currently have, Dr. Fishman says.

“There is opportunity, and I think hospitalists are up to the challenge,” Dr. Flanders says. “They are doing lots of work to improve quality across lots of domains in their hospitals. I think this is an area where attention is deserved.”

Kelly April Tyrrell is a freelance writer in Madison, Wis.

References

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Vital signs: improving antibiotic use among hospitalized patients. Available at: www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6309a4.htm?s_cid=mm6309a4_w. Accessed August 31, 2014.
2. Flanders SA, Saint S. Why does antrimicrobial overuse in hospitalized patients persist? JAMA Internal Medicine online. Available at: http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1838720. Accessed August 31, 2014.
3. Dellit TH, Owens RC, McGowan JE, et al. Clinical Infectious Diseases online. Available at: http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/44/2/159.full. Accessed August 31, 2014.
4. Gerber JS, Prasad PA, Fiks A, et al. Effect of an outpatient antimicrobial stewardship intervention on broad-spectrum antibiotic prescribing by primary care pediatricians. JAMA. 2013;309(22):2345-2352.

Twice in the past four months, Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM) member Ann Sheehy, MD, MS, FHM, found herself on Capitol Hill, testifying before Congressional committees focused on the U.S. healthcare system.

A physician at the University of Wisconsin (UW) School of Medicine and Public Health and a member of SHM’s Public Policy Committee, Dr. Sheehy was invited to speak about issues related to Medicare’s two-midnight rule, patient observation status, and the Recovery Audit Contractor (RAC) program.

These issues are “so important, and I am passionate about it,” Dr. Sheehy says. “I saw what was happening to patients and it just did not make any sense at all.”

Medicare’s two-midnight rule classifies most patients who stay in the hospital fewer than two midnights as outpatient or under observation. Observation status leaves patients on the hook for the costs of any chronic condition medications they receive in the hospital; additionally, patients under observation or considered outpatient are not eligible for skilled nursing facility (SNF) coverage.

SHM actively supports the Improving Access to Medicare Coverage Act, a bipartisan bill sponsored by Rep. Joe Courtney (D-CT) aimed at ensuring Medicare beneficiaries classified as under observation are considered inpatient for the purposes of accessing SNF care, even if their stay spanned fewer than two midnights.

At the Congressional hearings (watch video of the testimony at www.c-span.org/video/?319488-1/medicare-hospital-coverage committee and http://www.aging.senate.gov/hearings/admitted-or-not-the-impact-of-medicare-observation-status-on-seniors), Dr. Sheehy used her experience at UW Hospital and findings she and colleagues published in JAMA Internal Medicine to build a backstory around the issues. Based on the transcript of the testimony, Dr. Sheehy told the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Health: “Because of our clinical work and extensive experience in the hospital setting, hospitalists have a firsthand view of what observation care looks like to patients, physicians, and hospitals.”

She argues in her testimony that observation status harms the patient-physician relationship and does not make clinical sense.

For instance, the time of day a patient gets sick can impact their designation under the two-midnight rule. In one 2013 JAMA Internal Medicine publication [http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1731964], Dr. Sheehy and colleagues found nearly half of UW Hospital patients would have been assigned observation status rather than inpatient under the two-midnight rule by virtue of the time they arrived at the hospital.

Additionally, Dr. Sheehy addressed the issue of the private contractors, or RACs, which were established under the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 to audit patient records for appropriate hospital status. Dr. Sheehy, in her testimony, said the RACs are aggressive and nontransparent in their audits. Additionally, the RACs are paid a percentage of the money they recover on Medicare’s behalf but are not held financially accountable for decisions that are subsequently appealed and overturned.

Nationally, roughly 40% of RAC audits are appealed, and 70% of these are overturned. Dr. Sheehy told the Congressional committee that at UW Hospital from Oct. 1, 2012 through Sept. 30, 2013, RAC audits determined that 21% of 299 patient charts had received improper payments. The hospital appealed 58 of the 63 audit decisions and had won each of them as of mid-May 2014.

Dr. Sheehy believes changes to the auditing programs enforcing observation rule compliance are necessary for the success of any observation reform, whether it comes through legislation or regulation. In her testimony closing, Dr. Sheehy told the House committee the two-midnight rule is not the answer to the need for observation status change. Medicare policy, she said, “should be aligned with clinical realities and should also be rooted in allowing physicians to provide the care patients need.”

In addition to addressing the arbitrary time cutoff, Dr. Sheehy made the case that the two-midnight rule puts short-stay, acutely ill patients at a disadvantage, may add cost and waste to the healthcare system, and is challenging for providers, who must estimate patient time of stay upon patient hospitalization.

But, Dr. Sheehy believes meaningful change is possible and hopes her testimony is helpful in the endeavor.

“Our understanding is that [Ways and Means committee members] were going to draft legislation out of the hearing, and we hope we have comprehensively addressed [patient] observation and the auditing programs that enforce it,” she says. “Hopefully, we provided the backstory and evidence for a comprehensive bill everyone can get behind.”

For SHM, Dr. Sheehy’s testimony demonstrates that hospitalists are taking leadership when it comes to critical issues that impact patients, physicians, and hospitals.

“The hearings shows the strength of hospital medicine as a specialty and a movement in healthcare: Hospitalists and SHM are not standing on the sidelines when it comes to flawed Medicare policies such as the two-midnight rule and observation care in general,” says SHM President Burke Kealey, MD, SFHM, medical director of hospital specialties at HealthPartners Medical Group in St. Paul, Minn. “These policy discussions are critical to the care our patients receive. Congress is clearly interested in listening to the hospitalist perspective. Dr. Sheehy represented the nation’s 44,000 hospitalists with the expertise, confidence, and compassion that are hallmarks of the specialty.”

Kelly April Tyrrell is a freelance writer in Wisconsin.

Twice in the past four months, Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM) member Ann Sheehy, MD, MS, FHM, found herself on Capitol Hill, testifying before Congressional committees focused on the U.S. healthcare system.

A physician at the University of Wisconsin (UW) School of Medicine and Public Health and a member of SHM’s Public Policy Committee, Dr. Sheehy was invited to speak about issues related to Medicare’s two-midnight rule, patient observation status, and the Recovery Audit Contractor (RAC) program.

These issues are “so important, and I am passionate about it,” Dr. Sheehy says. “I saw what was happening to patients and it just did not make any sense at all.”

Medicare’s two-midnight rule classifies most patients who stay in the hospital fewer than two midnights as outpatient or under observation. Observation status leaves patients on the hook for the costs of any chronic condition medications they receive in the hospital; additionally, patients under observation or considered outpatient are not eligible for skilled nursing facility (SNF) coverage.

SHM actively supports the Improving Access to Medicare Coverage Act, a bipartisan bill sponsored by Rep. Joe Courtney (D-CT) aimed at ensuring Medicare beneficiaries classified as under observation are considered inpatient for the purposes of accessing SNF care, even if their stay spanned fewer than two midnights.

At the Congressional hearings (watch video of the testimony at www.c-span.org/video/?319488-1/medicare-hospital-coverage committee and http://www.aging.senate.gov/hearings/admitted-or-not-the-impact-of-medicare-observation-status-on-seniors), Dr. Sheehy used her experience at UW Hospital and findings she and colleagues published in JAMA Internal Medicine to build a backstory around the issues. Based on the transcript of the testimony, Dr. Sheehy told the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Health: “Because of our clinical work and extensive experience in the hospital setting, hospitalists have a firsthand view of what observation care looks like to patients, physicians, and hospitals.”

She argues in her testimony that observation status harms the patient-physician relationship and does not make clinical sense.

For instance, the time of day a patient gets sick can impact their designation under the two-midnight rule. In one 2013 JAMA Internal Medicine publication [http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1731964], Dr. Sheehy and colleagues found nearly half of UW Hospital patients would have been assigned observation status rather than inpatient under the two-midnight rule by virtue of the time they arrived at the hospital.

Additionally, Dr. Sheehy addressed the issue of the private contractors, or RACs, which were established under the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 to audit patient records for appropriate hospital status. Dr. Sheehy, in her testimony, said the RACs are aggressive and nontransparent in their audits. Additionally, the RACs are paid a percentage of the money they recover on Medicare’s behalf but are not held financially accountable for decisions that are subsequently appealed and overturned.

Nationally, roughly 40% of RAC audits are appealed, and 70% of these are overturned. Dr. Sheehy told the Congressional committee that at UW Hospital from Oct. 1, 2012 through Sept. 30, 2013, RAC audits determined that 21% of 299 patient charts had received improper payments. The hospital appealed 58 of the 63 audit decisions and had won each of them as of mid-May 2014.

Dr. Sheehy believes changes to the auditing programs enforcing observation rule compliance are necessary for the success of any observation reform, whether it comes through legislation or regulation. In her testimony closing, Dr. Sheehy told the House committee the two-midnight rule is not the answer to the need for observation status change. Medicare policy, she said, “should be aligned with clinical realities and should also be rooted in allowing physicians to provide the care patients need.”

In addition to addressing the arbitrary time cutoff, Dr. Sheehy made the case that the two-midnight rule puts short-stay, acutely ill patients at a disadvantage, may add cost and waste to the healthcare system, and is challenging for providers, who must estimate patient time of stay upon patient hospitalization.

But, Dr. Sheehy believes meaningful change is possible and hopes her testimony is helpful in the endeavor.

“Our understanding is that [Ways and Means committee members] were going to draft legislation out of the hearing, and we hope we have comprehensively addressed [patient] observation and the auditing programs that enforce it,” she says. “Hopefully, we provided the backstory and evidence for a comprehensive bill everyone can get behind.”

For SHM, Dr. Sheehy’s testimony demonstrates that hospitalists are taking leadership when it comes to critical issues that impact patients, physicians, and hospitals.

“The hearings shows the strength of hospital medicine as a specialty and a movement in healthcare: Hospitalists and SHM are not standing on the sidelines when it comes to flawed Medicare policies such as the two-midnight rule and observation care in general,” says SHM President Burke Kealey, MD, SFHM, medical director of hospital specialties at HealthPartners Medical Group in St. Paul, Minn. “These policy discussions are critical to the care our patients receive. Congress is clearly interested in listening to the hospitalist perspective. Dr. Sheehy represented the nation’s 44,000 hospitalists with the expertise, confidence, and compassion that are hallmarks of the specialty.”

Kelly April Tyrrell is a freelance writer in Wisconsin.

Twice in the past four months, Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM) member Ann Sheehy, MD, MS, FHM, found herself on Capitol Hill, testifying before Congressional committees focused on the U.S. healthcare system.

A physician at the University of Wisconsin (UW) School of Medicine and Public Health and a member of SHM’s Public Policy Committee, Dr. Sheehy was invited to speak about issues related to Medicare’s two-midnight rule, patient observation status, and the Recovery Audit Contractor (RAC) program.

These issues are “so important, and I am passionate about it,” Dr. Sheehy says. “I saw what was happening to patients and it just did not make any sense at all.”

Medicare’s two-midnight rule classifies most patients who stay in the hospital fewer than two midnights as outpatient or under observation. Observation status leaves patients on the hook for the costs of any chronic condition medications they receive in the hospital; additionally, patients under observation or considered outpatient are not eligible for skilled nursing facility (SNF) coverage.

SHM actively supports the Improving Access to Medicare Coverage Act, a bipartisan bill sponsored by Rep. Joe Courtney (D-CT) aimed at ensuring Medicare beneficiaries classified as under observation are considered inpatient for the purposes of accessing SNF care, even if their stay spanned fewer than two midnights.

At the Congressional hearings (watch video of the testimony at www.c-span.org/video/?319488-1/medicare-hospital-coverage committee and http://www.aging.senate.gov/hearings/admitted-or-not-the-impact-of-medicare-observation-status-on-seniors), Dr. Sheehy used her experience at UW Hospital and findings she and colleagues published in JAMA Internal Medicine to build a backstory around the issues. Based on the transcript of the testimony, Dr. Sheehy told the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Health: “Because of our clinical work and extensive experience in the hospital setting, hospitalists have a firsthand view of what observation care looks like to patients, physicians, and hospitals.”

She argues in her testimony that observation status harms the patient-physician relationship and does not make clinical sense.

For instance, the time of day a patient gets sick can impact their designation under the two-midnight rule. In one 2013 JAMA Internal Medicine publication [http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1731964], Dr. Sheehy and colleagues found nearly half of UW Hospital patients would have been assigned observation status rather than inpatient under the two-midnight rule by virtue of the time they arrived at the hospital.

Additionally, Dr. Sheehy addressed the issue of the private contractors, or RACs, which were established under the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 to audit patient records for appropriate hospital status. Dr. Sheehy, in her testimony, said the RACs are aggressive and nontransparent in their audits. Additionally, the RACs are paid a percentage of the money they recover on Medicare’s behalf but are not held financially accountable for decisions that are subsequently appealed and overturned.

Nationally, roughly 40% of RAC audits are appealed, and 70% of these are overturned. Dr. Sheehy told the Congressional committee that at UW Hospital from Oct. 1, 2012 through Sept. 30, 2013, RAC audits determined that 21% of 299 patient charts had received improper payments. The hospital appealed 58 of the 63 audit decisions and had won each of them as of mid-May 2014.

Dr. Sheehy believes changes to the auditing programs enforcing observation rule compliance are necessary for the success of any observation reform, whether it comes through legislation or regulation. In her testimony closing, Dr. Sheehy told the House committee the two-midnight rule is not the answer to the need for observation status change. Medicare policy, she said, “should be aligned with clinical realities and should also be rooted in allowing physicians to provide the care patients need.”

In addition to addressing the arbitrary time cutoff, Dr. Sheehy made the case that the two-midnight rule puts short-stay, acutely ill patients at a disadvantage, may add cost and waste to the healthcare system, and is challenging for providers, who must estimate patient time of stay upon patient hospitalization.

But, Dr. Sheehy believes meaningful change is possible and hopes her testimony is helpful in the endeavor.

“Our understanding is that [Ways and Means committee members] were going to draft legislation out of the hearing, and we hope we have comprehensively addressed [patient] observation and the auditing programs that enforce it,” she says. “Hopefully, we provided the backstory and evidence for a comprehensive bill everyone can get behind.”

For SHM, Dr. Sheehy’s testimony demonstrates that hospitalists are taking leadership when it comes to critical issues that impact patients, physicians, and hospitals.

“The hearings shows the strength of hospital medicine as a specialty and a movement in healthcare: Hospitalists and SHM are not standing on the sidelines when it comes to flawed Medicare policies such as the two-midnight rule and observation care in general,” says SHM President Burke Kealey, MD, SFHM, medical director of hospital specialties at HealthPartners Medical Group in St. Paul, Minn. “These policy discussions are critical to the care our patients receive. Congress is clearly interested in listening to the hospitalist perspective. Dr. Sheehy represented the nation’s 44,000 hospitalists with the expertise, confidence, and compassion that are hallmarks of the specialty.”

Kelly April Tyrrell is a freelance writer in Wisconsin.

Summary

Behavioral emergencies occur when a patient is physically aggressive or potentially harmful to himself/herself or others. Although they may be rare, behavioral emergencies are high-risk situations, and untrained staff might be uncomfortable dealing with these events.

Patients with underlying psychiatric or developmental disorders, those who have ingested substances, or those who have a medication side effect are at the highest risk for becoming violent. Triggers for these events could be pain, hunger, isolation, change in routine, or even the hospital’s physical environment. Early warning signs for a behavioral emergency can include verbal threats, yelling, or silence. Physical signs may include pacing, crossed arms, furrowed brow, or throwing objects.

The first response to a potential behavioral emergency is to try to de-escalate the situation. Speak in a quiet, calm voice; back off and give personal space. Try to reduce a source of discomfort, and use distractions or rewards. If de-escalation is not successful and a patient becomes violent, the provider’s first role is to be safe: Get away and get help. Hospitals should have—or should develop—a violent patient response team, which may then physically restrain the patient. Medications can be used to treat medical issues but should not be used solely for chemical restraint.

Once a patient is safely restrained, a number of Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations-mandated actions must occur. The legal guardian and attending of record must be notified. A debrief must occur regarding the events; this must be documented in the medical record. Finally, a strategy must be formulated to enable the patient to be safely removed from restraints as soon as it is safe.

The presenters demonstrated various personal safety techniques to escape from a violent patient, as well as the use of physical restraints. Participants engaged in a mock behavioral emergency to experience the chaos of these events.

Summary

Behavioral emergencies occur when a patient is physically aggressive or potentially harmful to himself/herself or others. Although they may be rare, behavioral emergencies are high-risk situations, and untrained staff might be uncomfortable dealing with these events.

Patients with underlying psychiatric or developmental disorders, those who have ingested substances, or those who have a medication side effect are at the highest risk for becoming violent. Triggers for these events could be pain, hunger, isolation, change in routine, or even the hospital’s physical environment. Early warning signs for a behavioral emergency can include verbal threats, yelling, or silence. Physical signs may include pacing, crossed arms, furrowed brow, or throwing objects.

The first response to a potential behavioral emergency is to try to de-escalate the situation. Speak in a quiet, calm voice; back off and give personal space. Try to reduce a source of discomfort, and use distractions or rewards. If de-escalation is not successful and a patient becomes violent, the provider’s first role is to be safe: Get away and get help. Hospitals should have—or should develop—a violent patient response team, which may then physically restrain the patient. Medications can be used to treat medical issues but should not be used solely for chemical restraint.

Once a patient is safely restrained, a number of Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations-mandated actions must occur. The legal guardian and attending of record must be notified. A debrief must occur regarding the events; this must be documented in the medical record. Finally, a strategy must be formulated to enable the patient to be safely removed from restraints as soon as it is safe.

The presenters demonstrated various personal safety techniques to escape from a violent patient, as well as the use of physical restraints. Participants engaged in a mock behavioral emergency to experience the chaos of these events.

Summary

Behavioral emergencies occur when a patient is physically aggressive or potentially harmful to himself/herself or others. Although they may be rare, behavioral emergencies are high-risk situations, and untrained staff might be uncomfortable dealing with these events.

Patients with underlying psychiatric or developmental disorders, those who have ingested substances, or those who have a medication side effect are at the highest risk for becoming violent. Triggers for these events could be pain, hunger, isolation, change in routine, or even the hospital’s physical environment. Early warning signs for a behavioral emergency can include verbal threats, yelling, or silence. Physical signs may include pacing, crossed arms, furrowed brow, or throwing objects.

The first response to a potential behavioral emergency is to try to de-escalate the situation. Speak in a quiet, calm voice; back off and give personal space. Try to reduce a source of discomfort, and use distractions or rewards. If de-escalation is not successful and a patient becomes violent, the provider’s first role is to be safe: Get away and get help. Hospitals should have—or should develop—a violent patient response team, which may then physically restrain the patient. Medications can be used to treat medical issues but should not be used solely for chemical restraint.

Once a patient is safely restrained, a number of Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations-mandated actions must occur. The legal guardian and attending of record must be notified. A debrief must occur regarding the events; this must be documented in the medical record. Finally, a strategy must be formulated to enable the patient to be safely removed from restraints as soon as it is safe.

The presenters demonstrated various personal safety techniques to escape from a violent patient, as well as the use of physical restraints. Participants engaged in a mock behavioral emergency to experience the chaos of these events.

Christine Lum Lung, MD, SFHM

When SHM received the Joint Commission’s John M. Eisenberg Patient Safety and Quality Award for 2011 for innovation in patient safety and quality at the national level, the award represented national recognition for the society’s three major hospital quality improvement initiatives. Moreover, it highlighted the integral role mentors play in each of the programs, helping physicians and hospitals make accelerated progress on important patient safety and quality issues.

Mentored implementation assigns a physician expert to train, guide, and work with the participating facilities’ hospitalist-led, multidisciplinary team through the life cycle of a QI initiative. The three programs focus on VTE prevention, glycemic control, and transitions of care. The first hospital cohort for VTE prevention—the VTE Prevention Collaborative—was in 2007. The care transitions program, known as Project BOOST, started in 2008. The Glycemic Control Mentored Implementation (GCMI) Program began in 2009. A fourth SHM mentored implementation program is MARQUIS, the Multi-Center Medication Reconciliation Quality Improvement Study.

In basic terms, mentoring is “coaching from a physician who has expertise both in the clinical subject matter and in implementing the processes and tools of quality improvement—usually because they’ve done it themselves,” says Gregory Maynard, MD, MSc, SFHM, senior vice president of SHM’s Center for Hospital Innovation and Improvement and a co-founder of two of its mentored implementation programs.

Mentors typically are paired with one or two participating hospitals for 12 to 18 months, conducting monthly conference calls with the team, sharing tools and resources from SHM’s online library, and offering advice on how to navigate the treacherous currents of culture change within a hospital. BOOST mentors also make in-person site visits. They are well versed in protocol and order set design and quality measurement strategies, and they know how to engage frontline professionals and institutional leadership, Dr. Maynard says.

Some mentors have received formal QI training, and many have attended Mentor University, a 1-1/2 day intensive training course offered by SHM that reinforces the nuances of coaching, the contents of SHM’s quality toolkits, and ideas for overcoming common barriers to improvement. SHM’s mentor support provides continuous professional development for the mentors, pairing new mentors with senior mentors to coach them in the process and hosting an online community with other mentors.

“What’s telling to me is that many of the people who have been mentored by SHM’s programs in one topic go on to become mentors in another topic, taking those portable skills and principles and applying them in other quality areas,” Dr. Maynard says. “We’re fostering leadership and quality improvement skills among hospitalists; that’s really one of our main goals. People learn the skill and then spread it within their system.”

Mark Williams, MD, FACP, MHM, Project BOOST principal investigator and a veteran SHM mentor, says that just providing educational materials to health professionals often isn’t enough for them to overcome the barriers to change.

“I’ve seen many large-scale quality projects that didn’t work, as they were simply disseminating information, content, or knowledge,” he says. Mentored implementation as practiced by SHM is “a model for disseminating quality improvement nationally,” he adds. “Pretty much any quality improvement project can be done this way.”

Key to the mentored implementation program’s success is the personalized approach and customized solutions.

“You directly meet with the team in their own setting and begin to see what’s going on,” Dr. Williams says. “You also meet with the hospital’s senior leadership. That’s when you start to see change.”

The Hospitalist connected with eight SHM mentors. The following are snapshots of their work in the mentorship program and some of the lessons they taught—and learned—from the program.

Christine Lum Lung, MD, SFHM

Christine Lum Lung, MD, SFHM

Title: Medical director, Northern Colorado Hospitalists, Fort Collins

Program: VTE Prevention Collaborative

Background: As a practicing hospitalist and medical director of the HM group for a two-hospital system, Dr. Lum Lung chaired its quality committee for VTE protocol development. “It was obvious at our hospitals that we needed to do better at VTE prevention,” she explains.

Dr. Lum Lung’s team received VTE mentorship from Dr. Maynard, who later asked her to become a VTE mentor. She also attended all three levels of SHM’s Leadership Academy and has since become a mentor for the new HP3 (Hospitalist Program Peak Performance) mentored implementation program, a one-year collaboration among SHM, Northwestern University, Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Illinois, and the Illinois Hospital Association that is designed to help hospitalist groups optimize their programs and build healthy group culture.

Teachable moment: The essential qualities of a good mentee, Dr. Lum Lung says, are drive and dedication. “You believe strongly about it, so you can sell it to others. You also need a thick skin to face the adversities that come up. When my mentor gave me tasks and deadlines, I met those deadlines.”

Success story: “I’ve been impressed with how hard groups and individuals can work.” Most of the teams she has worked with were facing significant external stressors—starting a new program, moving into a new hospital, rolling out a new EHR, becoming part of a growing medical group. “Yet each of them has been incredibly engaged in the process and dedicated to completing their projects.”

Lessons learned: “That we all have something to learn from each other. While I am officially the mentor, I have learned a lot about processes, teamwork, and flow issues from the sites that could potentially be incorporated in our program.”

Advice: Working on a project as a team can be very powerful, she says. Even seemingly ‘small’ projects have allowed teams to learn how to work better together on day-to-day issues. With the victory of a small project behind them, they make lists of the next thing that they want to tackle.

“Our profession is constantly changing. We need to be thinking ahead for how we will face those challenges,” Dr. Lum Lung says. “A team that works well together will have an advantage in this new environment. Even if you have people who are new to quality improvement, their participation can still be important.”

Jordan Messler, MD, SFHM

Jordan Messler, MD, SFHM

Title: Medical director, Morton Plant Hospitalists, Clearwater, Fla.

Program: GCMI; Project BOOST

Background: Dr. Messler’s interest in QI led him to work with colleagues in SHM who are national leaders in quality. “A couple of years ago, I enrolled in Emory’s Quality Academy, a sister course to Intermountain Health’s course on quality. Then I enrolled our hospital in both the GCMI Program and Project BOOST. My mentors for those programs were terrific guides, which led to my interest in seeing their side of the program as a mentor myself.”

Teachable moment: One program had difficulty implementing a VTE prevention tool and couldn’t get nursing support as it had expected, largely due to lack of nursing engagement on the project team, he says. “We started talking about the history of the projects, and prior interventions. In addition, we talked to the different disciplines separately. It seems there used to be an excellent system where nursing helped out on the project team for risk assessment.”

As VTE prevention became more of a priority, some physicians separately created a new tool to replace the nursing tool without involving the whole team. “And they couldn’t understand why nursing wasn’t buying into the new process.”

Success story: There are similar themes to success and failure. Sites that have strong administrative support (i.e., C-suite representation on the QI team), that have “accountability structure and stick to the basics of QI, with clear goals, ability to gather and report data, and use of a QI model [such as PDSA or Six Sigma] are the ones that succeed,” Dr. Messler says. “And the reverse is consistently true. Sustainable QI needs to be multidisciplinary, involving every voice, considering prior interventions and understanding of the culture.”

Lessons learned: “As mentors, we all continue to say we learn as much or more from these sites as they, hopefully, are learning from us. This collaboration and sharing of ideas has been instrumental to the success of the program.”

Advice: Get started today, and don’t give up. Follow the road map of QI projects, gather support, and get started. You will learn as much from your failures as your successes.

Dr. Messler says hospitals are looking for physician leaders to improve quality, and hospitalists are perfectly positioned to be those QI leaders. These big projects can last for years, so quality teams and hospitals need to be prepared to take the long view.

Stephanie Rennke, MD

Stephanie Rennke, MD

Title: Associate clinical professor of medicine, co-director of faculty development, division of hospital medicine, University of California San Francisco Medical Center.

Program: Project BOOST

Background: “When I started as a hospitalist right out of residency, QI had not been part of my training. But I noticed that quality was at the forefront of the academic interests of all the hospitalists at UCSF. I was personally interested in transitions of care. I still do home visits after hours for at-risk patients when they leave the hospital.”

Dr. Rennke started in QI as a member of UCSF’s BOOST team in 2008. “I worked with other faculty in the division who had previous experience in quality improvement and transitions in care. One of the co-principal investigators for BOOST, Dr. Arpana Vidyarthi, suggested that it would be a really rewarding experience to mentor—and it was.”

Teachable moment: “I’ve been so impressed by the diversity of what’s out there. No hospitalist program or hospital is the same. There is no one-size-fits-all for quality improvement or transitions of care, so it is incredibly important that the mentor takes the time to get to know both the team and the hospital.”

Success story: “During a site visit, I had an opportunity to watch one of the nurses, who had received training from a competency-based Teach Back program, practice Teach Back with a patient at the bedside,” Dr. Rennke says. “I was doing a tour of the floor and went into the room of a patient about to be discharged. A young float nurse, not long out of school, sat down with the patient and went through the medications and discharge plan using Teach Back. It didn’t take more time, but the time was spent more constructively, with interaction back and forth. I remember that ‘aha’ moment for the patient and the look in her eyes. For me, as a mentor, it was exciting to think that something I had tried to bring to them had been incorporated by the site and was really working.”

Lessons learned: “I have learned that, while at a large institution like UCSF we tend to work in silos, smaller sites are often more integrated with the various disciplines. You can walk down the hall to the clinical pharmacist or have lunch with the charge nurse. So I’ve tried to bring back home a commitment to really get to know professional colleagues and have them feel that I’m interested in their perspectives.”

Advice: “Work in teams. You cannot do this alone. Include frontline staff. And don’t forget to advertise to others that the program exists. Get the word out—let people know.”

Jennifer Quartarolo, MD, SFHM

Jennifer Quartarolo, MD, SFHM

Title: Medical director, clinical resource management; associate clinical professor, division of hospital medicine, University of California San Diego Health System

Program: Project BOOST

Background: Dr. Quartarolo has 11 years of clinical experience as an academic hospitalist at two different medical centers, and she completed a training program in healthcare delivery and improvement through the Institute for Health Care Delivery Research in Salt Lake City, Utah. “At my own institution, I had been involved in multiple QI projects,” she says. “Since joining the faculty, I worked with our care transitions team for five years before becoming a mentor. We incorporated many elements from Project BOOST as we worked to improve our care transitions process,” which led to an invitation to be a mentor.

Teachable moment: “I had one site that I worked with that had a great new form they had developed to incorporate into their transition process; however, when they decided to implement the form, they got a lot of pushback from nursing,” she says. “Then they realized that they had not involved any frontline nurses in their planning. This example points out how important it is to have all the key players involved on your team, as improving transitions of care is a complex process requiring multidisciplinary collaboration.”

Success story: Dr. Quartarolo says she has worked with several hospitals that have seen significant improvement in their readmission rates after participating in Project BOOST and implementing its tools.

Lessons learned: “I am constantly impressed by the innovative ideas that teams come up with to deal with the challenges that their hospitals face,” she says. Every hospital is unique and needs to do self-evaluation before deciding what to focus on. “I have also worked with many sites that have challenges getting physicians engaged in their efforts, particularly if they do not have a hospitalist program.”

Advice: “We are in a unique role as hospitalists to identify systems issues and improve quality of care in the inpatient setting, and this is particularly useful in improving care transitions and decreasing readmissions rates.”

Rich Balaban, MD

Rich Balaban, MD

Title: Medical director, Hospital-to-Home Community Collaboration Program, Cambridge Health Alliance; assistant professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston

Program: Project BOOST

Background: Dr. Balaban has worked clinically in both the inpatient setting as a hospitalist and the outpatient setting as a primary care doctor. “I have seen hospital discharges as both a receiver and a sender, so [I] have been able to appreciate the challenges facing doctors, nurses, case managers, and patients involved in the care transition process,” he says.

Dr. Balaban also conducted a randomized controlled trial that demonstrated the benefits of engaging nurses at a patient’s primary care site to make outreach phone calls immediately after hospital discharge. Dr. Williams asked him to present on the study.

“It was a great opportunity for me to share the results of our work and for Mark to see my presentation skills,” he says. “When I asked if there were opportunities to get more involved in care transitions work, he invited me to consider becoming a BOOST mentor.”

Teachable moment: “Wearing my primary care hat, I believe that while it is very important to structure an effective discharge for the patient while in the hospital, success or failure ultimately is determined by what happens in the outpatient setting,” Dr. Balaban says. Even if a ‘perfect discharge’ occurs in the hospital, it can all quickly unravel once the patient arrives at home.

Success story: “At several sites, I have encouraged the inpatient care team to invite the outpatient care team to become part of the care transitions team. This has frequently brought an important viewpoint and voice to the care transitions table. While hospitalists have initiated the discussion about care transitions, they need an effective outpatient partner to create a truly effective process.”

Lessons learned: “I have learned to hold judgment until seeing with my own eyes,” Dr. Balaban says. “One of the first sites I visited had developed a post-discharge clinic, which they were excited to show me. From my point of view, I thought that after discharge, patient care should be assumed by the primary care office as soon as possible, and a post-discharge clinic would only delay that process.

“To my great surprise, their post-discharge clinic provided an ideal bridge between the hospital and primary care. The post-discharge clinic really worked and provided patients with a wonderful resource. … I’ve learned that there are many ways to solve problems, often based on the available resources at a specific site.”

Advice: In order to best understand the challenges of hospital discharge, it is critical that you understand what happens to patients after they leave the hospital. Make a home visit to a recently discharged patient to really understand the challenges that patients face when they return home.

Amitkumar R. Patel, MD, MBA, FACP, SFHM

Amitkumar R. Patel, MD, MBA, FACP, SFHM

Title: Clinical instructor in hospital medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago

Program: Project BOOST; also working with critical access hospitals in Illinois through PREP (Preventing Readmissions through Effective Partnerships)

Background: Although he now works in an urban teaching hospital, Dr. Patel also did private practice as a community hospitalist and has pursued formal healthcare management-focused training.

“I became a mentor because my experience and interest in quality improvement fit well with Project BOOST,” he says. “I enjoy coaching teams as they face challenges in quality improvement, especially in relation to readmissions reduction. My work with critical access hospitals is the result of my first year as a mentor with the PREP collaborative in Illinois.”

PREP, a collaborative initiative of SHM and the Illinois Hospital Association that is funded by Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Illinois, aims to help hospitals focus on quality initiatives, including BOOST.

Teachable moment/success story: One of Dr. Patel’s BOOST sites believed the team included all appropriate personnel to obtain discharge appointments prior to patients’ discharges. But as they began to work through the process of making sure each appointment was appropriately documented, the various team members assigned to this process could not consistently complete the task within their workflow.

The pilot unit secretaries were not part of the BOOST team initially but saw that they could fulfill this role quickly and easily. They knew who to call at the physicians’ offices to avoid getting stuck in the phone menu trees, and they used this knowledge to reach the schedulers directly. The BOOST team quickly realized the unit secretaries were the most appropriate personnel to capture this information and work with the patients or their families/caregivers to obtain the most convenient appointments. This role was added to the team, and the unit secretaries took ownership of this process. Other teams may also want to look beyond the customary team members to roles that may not be thought of as quality team members.

Lessons learned: “The biggest take-away for me involves the unique culture that exists in many of our urban and rural communities,” he says. Every BOOST site implements the project’s elements in its own unique way, and what works well in one location may not fit the needs of another. The role of the mentor is to balance the need for community-specific advice with unique attributes of the facility and the elements of Project BOOST. “Often, we use our mentor calls to brainstorm solutions, and the teams are teaching me what will work best in their environment.”

Advice: “Responsibility for hospital change management should not be abdicated to administrators or quality improvement staff members,” he says. “QI is not a sometime thing for some staff; it’s an all-the-time process for every staff member, including physicians, to participate in and actively manage.”

Cheryl O’Malley, MD, FHM

Cheryl O’Malley, MD, FHM

Title: Internal medicine residency program director, Banner Good Samaritan Medical Center, Phoenix

Program: GCMI

Background: Banner Good Samaritan has participated in the BOOST, VTE, and GCMI programs. Dr. O’Malley brought her experience from developing, implementing, and leading local glycemic control efforts to mentoring others.

“When I first started working on our hospital’s process, I had so many questions and asked one of my mentors from residency, Dr. Greg Maynard,” she says. “He helped me to see that people around the country were asking the same questions and invited me to join SHM’s glycemic control work group. When the GCMI program started, I was asked to be a mentor.”

Teachable moment: “When I was a new attending on the wards after residency, my patients would ask me why their blood sugars were so much better controlled at home than in the hospital. Usually, the answer was that they were put on a sliding scale when they came into the hospital,” she says, noting that what was done at home wasn’t going to work in the hospital. Patients needed a different regimen—a more proactive approach than just the customary sliding scale.

“I started to learn more about basal rates, nutrition, and correction insulin regimens in the hospital, but I realized that to really have adequate safety and direction for the nursing staff, it would require a formal order set and systematic approach,” she says.

Success story: “One of my sites invited me to come and present grand rounds at the hospital, and the local physician team leader invited the whole quality team to her home. It was a very exciting team and had achieved a lot. Fifteen or 20 of us spent the evening talking about the project but also just enjoying the collegiality,” Dr. O’Malley says. “Even though we had never seen one another, I instantly knew everyone by voice from spending so much time on the phone. And we knew a lot about one another’s personal lives and careers.”

Lessons learned: “Hearing a program describe what they are doing and knowing that they were far ahead of my own hospital in many ways but still being able to provide an insight or a perspective to help them achieve their own next steps. Everyone has something to learn from another hospital or another discipline. We can all leverage our experiences to improve patient care.”

Advice: “Be patient. This is a really long process of constant improvements. I have been working on glycemic control for 10 years now and still feel like we have many opportunities to further improve.”

Cheryl O’Malley, MD, FHM

Christopher Kim, MD, MBA, SFHM

Title: Clinical associate professor of internal medicine and assistant professor of pediatrics, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor

Program: Project BOOST; Michigan Transitions of Care Collaborative (M-TC2)

Background: Dr. Kim brings clinical, quality improvement, leadership, collaborative learning, and discussion facilitation skills to his work as program director of M-TC2 and as mentor to the sites he works with.

The collaborative is part of a set of state collaborative quality initiatives funded by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. One of those initiatives is focused on improving care transitions between the hospital setting and ambulatory care providers, using Project BOOST tools—expanded to integrate more closely with primary care providers, physician organizations, and ambulatory care. The eight Michigan-based mentors for M-TC2 have all attended SHM’s Mentor University.

Teachable moment: There are local challenges and there are general challenges—those that are commonly shared by most hospitals, Dr. Kim explains. Both need to be overcome when working on an improvement project such as transitions of care. The local hospitalist brings expertise about the former—which are often more difficult to understand and overcome. The mentor brings knowledge and experience of the universal challenges, as well as the benefit of having seen or heard about what other programs have done. Together, they can work to help the organization become better equipped to improve the initiative at hand.

Success story: “One hospital in the collaborative realized that it could roll out the Teach Back concept to both nurses and physicians,” he says. They started to teach residents how to interact with patients and began using this approach in physician-nurse teams. Subsequently, the team shared with the collaborative how physicians have embraced the concept.

Lessons learned: Every site has its successes and challenges, he says. Sharing both sides of the story can only advance the mission of the collaborative, as each organization learns from the successes and failures of the others.

Mentored implementation really does what it’s intended to do—helping to support the sites and keeping an organization on track and accountable for the work it does, because someone external to the organization is working with it and providing information about what other sites are doing.

Advice: Talk with different disciplines and find out how much they long to work with other care providers, and then have discussions about how to make interdisciplinary practice happen. “At our collaborative meetings over time, many of the 24 participating sites have shared their progress—the good things and the struggles,” Dr. Kim says.

Larry Beresford is a freelance writer in Alameda, Calif.

Christine Lum Lung, MD, SFHM

When SHM received the Joint Commission’s John M. Eisenberg Patient Safety and Quality Award for 2011 for innovation in patient safety and quality at the national level, the award represented national recognition for the society’s three major hospital quality improvement initiatives. Moreover, it highlighted the integral role mentors play in each of the programs, helping physicians and hospitals make accelerated progress on important patient safety and quality issues.

Mentored implementation assigns a physician expert to train, guide, and work with the participating facilities’ hospitalist-led, multidisciplinary team through the life cycle of a QI initiative. The three programs focus on VTE prevention, glycemic control, and transitions of care. The first hospital cohort for VTE prevention—the VTE Prevention Collaborative—was in 2007. The care transitions program, known as Project BOOST, started in 2008. The Glycemic Control Mentored Implementation (GCMI) Program began in 2009. A fourth SHM mentored implementation program is MARQUIS, the Multi-Center Medication Reconciliation Quality Improvement Study.

In basic terms, mentoring is “coaching from a physician who has expertise both in the clinical subject matter and in implementing the processes and tools of quality improvement—usually because they’ve done it themselves,” says Gregory Maynard, MD, MSc, SFHM, senior vice president of SHM’s Center for Hospital Innovation and Improvement and a co-founder of two of its mentored implementation programs.

Mentors typically are paired with one or two participating hospitals for 12 to 18 months, conducting monthly conference calls with the team, sharing tools and resources from SHM’s online library, and offering advice on how to navigate the treacherous currents of culture change within a hospital. BOOST mentors also make in-person site visits. They are well versed in protocol and order set design and quality measurement strategies, and they know how to engage frontline professionals and institutional leadership, Dr. Maynard says.

Some mentors have received formal QI training, and many have attended Mentor University, a 1-1/2 day intensive training course offered by SHM that reinforces the nuances of coaching, the contents of SHM’s quality toolkits, and ideas for overcoming common barriers to improvement. SHM’s mentor support provides continuous professional development for the mentors, pairing new mentors with senior mentors to coach them in the process and hosting an online community with other mentors.

“What’s telling to me is that many of the people who have been mentored by SHM’s programs in one topic go on to become mentors in another topic, taking those portable skills and principles and applying them in other quality areas,” Dr. Maynard says. “We’re fostering leadership and quality improvement skills among hospitalists; that’s really one of our main goals. People learn the skill and then spread it within their system.”

Mark Williams, MD, FACP, MHM, Project BOOST principal investigator and a veteran SHM mentor, says that just providing educational materials to health professionals often isn’t enough for them to overcome the barriers to change.

“I’ve seen many large-scale quality projects that didn’t work, as they were simply disseminating information, content, or knowledge,” he says. Mentored implementation as practiced by SHM is “a model for disseminating quality improvement nationally,” he adds. “Pretty much any quality improvement project can be done this way.”

Key to the mentored implementation program’s success is the personalized approach and customized solutions.

“You directly meet with the team in their own setting and begin to see what’s going on,” Dr. Williams says. “You also meet with the hospital’s senior leadership. That’s when you start to see change.”

The Hospitalist connected with eight SHM mentors. The following are snapshots of their work in the mentorship program and some of the lessons they taught—and learned—from the program.

Christine Lum Lung, MD, SFHM

Christine Lum Lung, MD, SFHM

Title: Medical director, Northern Colorado Hospitalists, Fort Collins

Program: VTE Prevention Collaborative

Background: As a practicing hospitalist and medical director of the HM group for a two-hospital system, Dr. Lum Lung chaired its quality committee for VTE protocol development. “It was obvious at our hospitals that we needed to do better at VTE prevention,” she explains.

Dr. Lum Lung’s team received VTE mentorship from Dr. Maynard, who later asked her to become a VTE mentor. She also attended all three levels of SHM’s Leadership Academy and has since become a mentor for the new HP3 (Hospitalist Program Peak Performance) mentored implementation program, a one-year collaboration among SHM, Northwestern University, Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Illinois, and the Illinois Hospital Association that is designed to help hospitalist groups optimize their programs and build healthy group culture.

Teachable moment: The essential qualities of a good mentee, Dr. Lum Lung says, are drive and dedication. “You believe strongly about it, so you can sell it to others. You also need a thick skin to face the adversities that come up. When my mentor gave me tasks and deadlines, I met those deadlines.”

Success story: “I’ve been impressed with how hard groups and individuals can work.” Most of the teams she has worked with were facing significant external stressors—starting a new program, moving into a new hospital, rolling out a new EHR, becoming part of a growing medical group. “Yet each of them has been incredibly engaged in the process and dedicated to completing their projects.”

Lessons learned: “That we all have something to learn from each other. While I am officially the mentor, I have learned a lot about processes, teamwork, and flow issues from the sites that could potentially be incorporated in our program.”

Advice: Working on a project as a team can be very powerful, she says. Even seemingly ‘small’ projects have allowed teams to learn how to work better together on day-to-day issues. With the victory of a small project behind them, they make lists of the next thing that they want to tackle.

“Our profession is constantly changing. We need to be thinking ahead for how we will face those challenges,” Dr. Lum Lung says. “A team that works well together will have an advantage in this new environment. Even if you have people who are new to quality improvement, their participation can still be important.”

Jordan Messler, MD, SFHM

Jordan Messler, MD, SFHM

Title: Medical director, Morton Plant Hospitalists, Clearwater, Fla.

Program: GCMI; Project BOOST

Background: Dr. Messler’s interest in QI led him to work with colleagues in SHM who are national leaders in quality. “A couple of years ago, I enrolled in Emory’s Quality Academy, a sister course to Intermountain Health’s course on quality. Then I enrolled our hospital in both the GCMI Program and Project BOOST. My mentors for those programs were terrific guides, which led to my interest in seeing their side of the program as a mentor myself.”

Teachable moment: One program had difficulty implementing a VTE prevention tool and couldn’t get nursing support as it had expected, largely due to lack of nursing engagement on the project team, he says. “We started talking about the history of the projects, and prior interventions. In addition, we talked to the different disciplines separately. It seems there used to be an excellent system where nursing helped out on the project team for risk assessment.”

As VTE prevention became more of a priority, some physicians separately created a new tool to replace the nursing tool without involving the whole team. “And they couldn’t understand why nursing wasn’t buying into the new process.”

Success story: There are similar themes to success and failure. Sites that have strong administrative support (i.e., C-suite representation on the QI team), that have “accountability structure and stick to the basics of QI, with clear goals, ability to gather and report data, and use of a QI model [such as PDSA or Six Sigma] are the ones that succeed,” Dr. Messler says. “And the reverse is consistently true. Sustainable QI needs to be multidisciplinary, involving every voice, considering prior interventions and understanding of the culture.”

Lessons learned: “As mentors, we all continue to say we learn as much or more from these sites as they, hopefully, are learning from us. This collaboration and sharing of ideas has been instrumental to the success of the program.”

Advice: Get started today, and don’t give up. Follow the road map of QI projects, gather support, and get started. You will learn as much from your failures as your successes.

Dr. Messler says hospitals are looking for physician leaders to improve quality, and hospitalists are perfectly positioned to be those QI leaders. These big projects can last for years, so quality teams and hospitals need to be prepared to take the long view.

Stephanie Rennke, MD

Stephanie Rennke, MD

Title: Associate clinical professor of medicine, co-director of faculty development, division of hospital medicine, University of California San Francisco Medical Center.

Program: Project BOOST

Background: “When I started as a hospitalist right out of residency, QI had not been part of my training. But I noticed that quality was at the forefront of the academic interests of all the hospitalists at UCSF. I was personally interested in transitions of care. I still do home visits after hours for at-risk patients when they leave the hospital.”

Dr. Rennke started in QI as a member of UCSF’s BOOST team in 2008. “I worked with other faculty in the division who had previous experience in quality improvement and transitions in care. One of the co-principal investigators for BOOST, Dr. Arpana Vidyarthi, suggested that it would be a really rewarding experience to mentor—and it was.”

Teachable moment: “I’ve been so impressed by the diversity of what’s out there. No hospitalist program or hospital is the same. There is no one-size-fits-all for quality improvement or transitions of care, so it is incredibly important that the mentor takes the time to get to know both the team and the hospital.”

Success story: “During a site visit, I had an opportunity to watch one of the nurses, who had received training from a competency-based Teach Back program, practice Teach Back with a patient at the bedside,” Dr. Rennke says. “I was doing a tour of the floor and went into the room of a patient about to be discharged. A young float nurse, not long out of school, sat down with the patient and went through the medications and discharge plan using Teach Back. It didn’t take more time, but the time was spent more constructively, with interaction back and forth. I remember that ‘aha’ moment for the patient and the look in her eyes. For me, as a mentor, it was exciting to think that something I had tried to bring to them had been incorporated by the site and was really working.”

Lessons learned: “I have learned that, while at a large institution like UCSF we tend to work in silos, smaller sites are often more integrated with the various disciplines. You can walk down the hall to the clinical pharmacist or have lunch with the charge nurse. So I’ve tried to bring back home a commitment to really get to know professional colleagues and have them feel that I’m interested in their perspectives.”

Advice: “Work in teams. You cannot do this alone. Include frontline staff. And don’t forget to advertise to others that the program exists. Get the word out—let people know.”

Jennifer Quartarolo, MD, SFHM

Jennifer Quartarolo, MD, SFHM

Title: Medical director, clinical resource management; associate clinical professor, division of hospital medicine, University of California San Diego Health System

Program: Project BOOST

Background: Dr. Quartarolo has 11 years of clinical experience as an academic hospitalist at two different medical centers, and she completed a training program in healthcare delivery and improvement through the Institute for Health Care Delivery Research in Salt Lake City, Utah. “At my own institution, I had been involved in multiple QI projects,” she says. “Since joining the faculty, I worked with our care transitions team for five years before becoming a mentor. We incorporated many elements from Project BOOST as we worked to improve our care transitions process,” which led to an invitation to be a mentor.

Teachable moment: “I had one site that I worked with that had a great new form they had developed to incorporate into their transition process; however, when they decided to implement the form, they got a lot of pushback from nursing,” she says. “Then they realized that they had not involved any frontline nurses in their planning. This example points out how important it is to have all the key players involved on your team, as improving transitions of care is a complex process requiring multidisciplinary collaboration.”

Success story: Dr. Quartarolo says she has worked with several hospitals that have seen significant improvement in their readmission rates after participating in Project BOOST and implementing its tools.

Lessons learned: “I am constantly impressed by the innovative ideas that teams come up with to deal with the challenges that their hospitals face,” she says. Every hospital is unique and needs to do self-evaluation before deciding what to focus on. “I have also worked with many sites that have challenges getting physicians engaged in their efforts, particularly if they do not have a hospitalist program.”

Advice: “We are in a unique role as hospitalists to identify systems issues and improve quality of care in the inpatient setting, and this is particularly useful in improving care transitions and decreasing readmissions rates.”

Rich Balaban, MD

Rich Balaban, MD

Title: Medical director, Hospital-to-Home Community Collaboration Program, Cambridge Health Alliance; assistant professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston

Program: Project BOOST

Background: Dr. Balaban has worked clinically in both the inpatient setting as a hospitalist and the outpatient setting as a primary care doctor. “I have seen hospital discharges as both a receiver and a sender, so [I] have been able to appreciate the challenges facing doctors, nurses, case managers, and patients involved in the care transition process,” he says.

Dr. Balaban also conducted a randomized controlled trial that demonstrated the benefits of engaging nurses at a patient’s primary care site to make outreach phone calls immediately after hospital discharge. Dr. Williams asked him to present on the study.

“It was a great opportunity for me to share the results of our work and for Mark to see my presentation skills,” he says. “When I asked if there were opportunities to get more involved in care transitions work, he invited me to consider becoming a BOOST mentor.”

Teachable moment: “Wearing my primary care hat, I believe that while it is very important to structure an effective discharge for the patient while in the hospital, success or failure ultimately is determined by what happens in the outpatient setting,” Dr. Balaban says. Even if a ‘perfect discharge’ occurs in the hospital, it can all quickly unravel once the patient arrives at home.

Success story: “At several sites, I have encouraged the inpatient care team to invite the outpatient care team to become part of the care transitions team. This has frequently brought an important viewpoint and voice to the care transitions table. While hospitalists have initiated the discussion about care transitions, they need an effective outpatient partner to create a truly effective process.”

Lessons learned: “I have learned to hold judgment until seeing with my own eyes,” Dr. Balaban says. “One of the first sites I visited had developed a post-discharge clinic, which they were excited to show me. From my point of view, I thought that after discharge, patient care should be assumed by the primary care office as soon as possible, and a post-discharge clinic would only delay that process.

“To my great surprise, their post-discharge clinic provided an ideal bridge between the hospital and primary care. The post-discharge clinic really worked and provided patients with a wonderful resource. … I’ve learned that there are many ways to solve problems, often based on the available resources at a specific site.”

Advice: In order to best understand the challenges of hospital discharge, it is critical that you understand what happens to patients after they leave the hospital. Make a home visit to a recently discharged patient to really understand the challenges that patients face when they return home.

Amitkumar R. Patel, MD, MBA, FACP, SFHM

Amitkumar R. Patel, MD, MBA, FACP, SFHM

Title: Clinical instructor in hospital medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago

Program: Project BOOST; also working with critical access hospitals in Illinois through PREP (Preventing Readmissions through Effective Partnerships)

Background: Although he now works in an urban teaching hospital, Dr. Patel also did private practice as a community hospitalist and has pursued formal healthcare management-focused training.

“I became a mentor because my experience and interest in quality improvement fit well with Project BOOST,” he says. “I enjoy coaching teams as they face challenges in quality improvement, especially in relation to readmissions reduction. My work with critical access hospitals is the result of my first year as a mentor with the PREP collaborative in Illinois.”

PREP, a collaborative initiative of SHM and the Illinois Hospital Association that is funded by Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Illinois, aims to help hospitals focus on quality initiatives, including BOOST.

Teachable moment/success story: One of Dr. Patel’s BOOST sites believed the team included all appropriate personnel to obtain discharge appointments prior to patients’ discharges. But as they began to work through the process of making sure each appointment was appropriately documented, the various team members assigned to this process could not consistently complete the task within their workflow.

The pilot unit secretaries were not part of the BOOST team initially but saw that they could fulfill this role quickly and easily. They knew who to call at the physicians’ offices to avoid getting stuck in the phone menu trees, and they used this knowledge to reach the schedulers directly. The BOOST team quickly realized the unit secretaries were the most appropriate personnel to capture this information and work with the patients or their families/caregivers to obtain the most convenient appointments. This role was added to the team, and the unit secretaries took ownership of this process. Other teams may also want to look beyond the customary team members to roles that may not be thought of as quality team members.

Lessons learned: “The biggest take-away for me involves the unique culture that exists in many of our urban and rural communities,” he says. Every BOOST site implements the project’s elements in its own unique way, and what works well in one location may not fit the needs of another. The role of the mentor is to balance the need for community-specific advice with unique attributes of the facility and the elements of Project BOOST. “Often, we use our mentor calls to brainstorm solutions, and the teams are teaching me what will work best in their environment.”

Advice: “Responsibility for hospital change management should not be abdicated to administrators or quality improvement staff members,” he says. “QI is not a sometime thing for some staff; it’s an all-the-time process for every staff member, including physicians, to participate in and actively manage.”

Cheryl O’Malley, MD, FHM

Cheryl O’Malley, MD, FHM

Title: Internal medicine residency program director, Banner Good Samaritan Medical Center, Phoenix

Program: GCMI

Background: Banner Good Samaritan has participated in the BOOST, VTE, and GCMI programs. Dr. O’Malley brought her experience from developing, implementing, and leading local glycemic control efforts to mentoring others.

“When I first started working on our hospital’s process, I had so many questions and asked one of my mentors from residency, Dr. Greg Maynard,” she says. “He helped me to see that people around the country were asking the same questions and invited me to join SHM’s glycemic control work group. When the GCMI program started, I was asked to be a mentor.”

Teachable moment: “When I was a new attending on the wards after residency, my patients would ask me why their blood sugars were so much better controlled at home than in the hospital. Usually, the answer was that they were put on a sliding scale when they came into the hospital,” she says, noting that what was done at home wasn’t going to work in the hospital. Patients needed a different regimen—a more proactive approach than just the customary sliding scale.

“I started to learn more about basal rates, nutrition, and correction insulin regimens in the hospital, but I realized that to really have adequate safety and direction for the nursing staff, it would require a formal order set and systematic approach,” she says.

Success story: “One of my sites invited me to come and present grand rounds at the hospital, and the local physician team leader invited the whole quality team to her home. It was a very exciting team and had achieved a lot. Fifteen or 20 of us spent the evening talking about the project but also just enjoying the collegiality,” Dr. O’Malley says. “Even though we had never seen one another, I instantly knew everyone by voice from spending so much time on the phone. And we knew a lot about one another’s personal lives and careers.”

Lessons learned: “Hearing a program describe what they are doing and knowing that they were far ahead of my own hospital in many ways but still being able to provide an insight or a perspective to help them achieve their own next steps. Everyone has something to learn from another hospital or another discipline. We can all leverage our experiences to improve patient care.”

Advice: “Be patient. This is a really long process of constant improvements. I have been working on glycemic control for 10 years now and still feel like we have many opportunities to further improve.”

Cheryl O’Malley, MD, FHM

Christopher Kim, MD, MBA, SFHM

Title: Clinical associate professor of internal medicine and assistant professor of pediatrics, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor

Program: Project BOOST; Michigan Transitions of Care Collaborative (M-TC2)

Background: Dr. Kim brings clinical, quality improvement, leadership, collaborative learning, and discussion facilitation skills to his work as program director of M-TC2 and as mentor to the sites he works with.

The collaborative is part of a set of state collaborative quality initiatives funded by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. One of those initiatives is focused on improving care transitions between the hospital setting and ambulatory care providers, using Project BOOST tools—expanded to integrate more closely with primary care providers, physician organizations, and ambulatory care. The eight Michigan-based mentors for M-TC2 have all attended SHM’s Mentor University.

Teachable moment: There are local challenges and there are general challenges—those that are commonly shared by most hospitals, Dr. Kim explains. Both need to be overcome when working on an improvement project such as transitions of care. The local hospitalist brings expertise about the former—which are often more difficult to understand and overcome. The mentor brings knowledge and experience of the universal challenges, as well as the benefit of having seen or heard about what other programs have done. Together, they can work to help the organization become better equipped to improve the initiative at hand.

Success story: “One hospital in the collaborative realized that it could roll out the Teach Back concept to both nurses and physicians,” he says. They started to teach residents how to interact with patients and began using this approach in physician-nurse teams. Subsequently, the team shared with the collaborative how physicians have embraced the concept.

Lessons learned: Every site has its successes and challenges, he says. Sharing both sides of the story can only advance the mission of the collaborative, as each organization learns from the successes and failures of the others.

Mentored implementation really does what it’s intended to do—helping to support the sites and keeping an organization on track and accountable for the work it does, because someone external to the organization is working with it and providing information about what other sites are doing.

Advice: Talk with different disciplines and find out how much they long to work with other care providers, and then have discussions about how to make interdisciplinary practice happen. “At our collaborative meetings over time, many of the 24 participating sites have shared their progress—the good things and the struggles,” Dr. Kim says.

Larry Beresford is a freelance writer in Alameda, Calif.

Christine Lum Lung, MD, SFHM

When SHM received the Joint Commission’s John M. Eisenberg Patient Safety and Quality Award for 2011 for innovation in patient safety and quality at the national level, the award represented national recognition for the society’s three major hospital quality improvement initiatives. Moreover, it highlighted the integral role mentors play in each of the programs, helping physicians and hospitals make accelerated progress on important patient safety and quality issues.

Mentored implementation assigns a physician expert to train, guide, and work with the participating facilities’ hospitalist-led, multidisciplinary team through the life cycle of a QI initiative. The three programs focus on VTE prevention, glycemic control, and transitions of care. The first hospital cohort for VTE prevention—the VTE Prevention Collaborative—was in 2007. The care transitions program, known as Project BOOST, started in 2008. The Glycemic Control Mentored Implementation (GCMI) Program began in 2009. A fourth SHM mentored implementation program is MARQUIS, the Multi-Center Medication Reconciliation Quality Improvement Study.

In basic terms, mentoring is “coaching from a physician who has expertise both in the clinical subject matter and in implementing the processes and tools of quality improvement—usually because they’ve done it themselves,” says Gregory Maynard, MD, MSc, SFHM, senior vice president of SHM’s Center for Hospital Innovation and Improvement and a co-founder of two of its mentored implementation programs.

Mentors typically are paired with one or two participating hospitals for 12 to 18 months, conducting monthly conference calls with the team, sharing tools and resources from SHM’s online library, and offering advice on how to navigate the treacherous currents of culture change within a hospital. BOOST mentors also make in-person site visits. They are well versed in protocol and order set design and quality measurement strategies, and they know how to engage frontline professionals and institutional leadership, Dr. Maynard says.

Some mentors have received formal QI training, and many have attended Mentor University, a 1-1/2 day intensive training course offered by SHM that reinforces the nuances of coaching, the contents of SHM’s quality toolkits, and ideas for overcoming common barriers to improvement. SHM’s mentor support provides continuous professional development for the mentors, pairing new mentors with senior mentors to coach them in the process and hosting an online community with other mentors.

“What’s telling to me is that many of the people who have been mentored by SHM’s programs in one topic go on to become mentors in another topic, taking those portable skills and principles and applying them in other quality areas,” Dr. Maynard says. “We’re fostering leadership and quality improvement skills among hospitalists; that’s really one of our main goals. People learn the skill and then spread it within their system.”

Mark Williams, MD, FACP, MHM, Project BOOST principal investigator and a veteran SHM mentor, says that just providing educational materials to health professionals often isn’t enough for them to overcome the barriers to change.

“I’ve seen many large-scale quality projects that didn’t work, as they were simply disseminating information, content, or knowledge,” he says. Mentored implementation as practiced by SHM is “a model for disseminating quality improvement nationally,” he adds. “Pretty much any quality improvement project can be done this way.”

Key to the mentored implementation program’s success is the personalized approach and customized solutions.

“You directly meet with the team in their own setting and begin to see what’s going on,” Dr. Williams says. “You also meet with the hospital’s senior leadership. That’s when you start to see change.”

The Hospitalist connected with eight SHM mentors. The following are snapshots of their work in the mentorship program and some of the lessons they taught—and learned—from the program.

Christine Lum Lung, MD, SFHM

Christine Lum Lung, MD, SFHM

Title: Medical director, Northern Colorado Hospitalists, Fort Collins

Program: VTE Prevention Collaborative

Background: As a practicing hospitalist and medical director of the HM group for a two-hospital system, Dr. Lum Lung chaired its quality committee for VTE protocol development. “It was obvious at our hospitals that we needed to do better at VTE prevention,” she explains.

Dr. Lum Lung’s team received VTE mentorship from Dr. Maynard, who later asked her to become a VTE mentor. She also attended all three levels of SHM’s Leadership Academy and has since become a mentor for the new HP3 (Hospitalist Program Peak Performance) mentored implementation program, a one-year collaboration among SHM, Northwestern University, Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Illinois, and the Illinois Hospital Association that is designed to help hospitalist groups optimize their programs and build healthy group culture.

Teachable moment: The essential qualities of a good mentee, Dr. Lum Lung says, are drive and dedication. “You believe strongly about it, so you can sell it to others. You also need a thick skin to face the adversities that come up. When my mentor gave me tasks and deadlines, I met those deadlines.”

Success story: “I’ve been impressed with how hard groups and individuals can work.” Most of the teams she has worked with were facing significant external stressors—starting a new program, moving into a new hospital, rolling out a new EHR, becoming part of a growing medical group. “Yet each of them has been incredibly engaged in the process and dedicated to completing their projects.”

Lessons learned: “That we all have something to learn from each other. While I am officially the mentor, I have learned a lot about processes, teamwork, and flow issues from the sites that could potentially be incorporated in our program.”

Advice: Working on a project as a team can be very powerful, she says. Even seemingly ‘small’ projects have allowed teams to learn how to work better together on day-to-day issues. With the victory of a small project behind them, they make lists of the next thing that they want to tackle.

“Our profession is constantly changing. We need to be thinking ahead for how we will face those challenges,” Dr. Lum Lung says. “A team that works well together will have an advantage in this new environment. Even if you have people who are new to quality improvement, their participation can still be important.”

Jordan Messler, MD, SFHM

Jordan Messler, MD, SFHM

Title: Medical director, Morton Plant Hospitalists, Clearwater, Fla.

Program: GCMI; Project BOOST

Background: Dr. Messler’s interest in QI led him to work with colleagues in SHM who are national leaders in quality. “A couple of years ago, I enrolled in Emory’s Quality Academy, a sister course to Intermountain Health’s course on quality. Then I enrolled our hospital in both the GCMI Program and Project BOOST. My mentors for those programs were terrific guides, which led to my interest in seeing their side of the program as a mentor myself.”

Teachable moment: One program had difficulty implementing a VTE prevention tool and couldn’t get nursing support as it had expected, largely due to lack of nursing engagement on the project team, he says. “We started talking about the history of the projects, and prior interventions. In addition, we talked to the different disciplines separately. It seems there used to be an excellent system where nursing helped out on the project team for risk assessment.”

As VTE prevention became more of a priority, some physicians separately created a new tool to replace the nursing tool without involving the whole team. “And they couldn’t understand why nursing wasn’t buying into the new process.”

Success story: There are similar themes to success and failure. Sites that have strong administrative support (i.e., C-suite representation on the QI team), that have “accountability structure and stick to the basics of QI, with clear goals, ability to gather and report data, and use of a QI model [such as PDSA or Six Sigma] are the ones that succeed,” Dr. Messler says. “And the reverse is consistently true. Sustainable QI needs to be multidisciplinary, involving every voice, considering prior interventions and understanding of the culture.”

Lessons learned: “As mentors, we all continue to say we learn as much or more from these sites as they, hopefully, are learning from us. This collaboration and sharing of ideas has been instrumental to the success of the program.”

Advice: Get started today, and don’t give up. Follow the road map of QI projects, gather support, and get started. You will learn as much from your failures as your successes.

Dr. Messler says hospitals are looking for physician leaders to improve quality, and hospitalists are perfectly positioned to be those QI leaders. These big projects can last for years, so quality teams and hospitals need to be prepared to take the long view.

Stephanie Rennke, MD

Stephanie Rennke, MD

Title: Associate clinical professor of medicine, co-director of faculty development, division of hospital medicine, University of California San Francisco Medical Center.

Program: Project BOOST

Background: “When I started as a hospitalist right out of residency, QI had not been part of my training. But I noticed that quality was at the forefront of the academic interests of all the hospitalists at UCSF. I was personally interested in transitions of care. I still do home visits after hours for at-risk patients when they leave the hospital.”

Dr. Rennke started in QI as a member of UCSF’s BOOST team in 2008. “I worked with other faculty in the division who had previous experience in quality improvement and transitions in care. One of the co-principal investigators for BOOST, Dr. Arpana Vidyarthi, suggested that it would be a really rewarding experience to mentor—and it was.”

Teachable moment: “I’ve been so impressed by the diversity of what’s out there. No hospitalist program or hospital is the same. There is no one-size-fits-all for quality improvement or transitions of care, so it is incredibly important that the mentor takes the time to get to know both the team and the hospital.”

Success story: “During a site visit, I had an opportunity to watch one of the nurses, who had received training from a competency-based Teach Back program, practice Teach Back with a patient at the bedside,” Dr. Rennke says. “I was doing a tour of the floor and went into the room of a patient about to be discharged. A young float nurse, not long out of school, sat down with the patient and went through the medications and discharge plan using Teach Back. It didn’t take more time, but the time was spent more constructively, with interaction back and forth. I remember that ‘aha’ moment for the patient and the look in her eyes. For me, as a mentor, it was exciting to think that something I had tried to bring to them had been incorporated by the site and was really working.”

Lessons learned: “I have learned that, while at a large institution like UCSF we tend to work in silos, smaller sites are often more integrated with the various disciplines. You can walk down the hall to the clinical pharmacist or have lunch with the charge nurse. So I’ve tried to bring back home a commitment to really get to know professional colleagues and have them feel that I’m interested in their perspectives.”

Advice: “Work in teams. You cannot do this alone. Include frontline staff. And don’t forget to advertise to others that the program exists. Get the word out—let people know.”

Jennifer Quartarolo, MD, SFHM

Jennifer Quartarolo, MD, SFHM

Title: Medical director, clinical resource management; associate clinical professor, division of hospital medicine, University of California San Diego Health System

Program: Project BOOST

Background: Dr. Quartarolo has 11 years of clinical experience as an academic hospitalist at two different medical centers, and she completed a training program in healthcare delivery and improvement through the Institute for Health Care Delivery Research in Salt Lake City, Utah. “At my own institution, I had been involved in multiple QI projects,” she says. “Since joining the faculty, I worked with our care transitions team for five years before becoming a mentor. We incorporated many elements from Project BOOST as we worked to improve our care transitions process,” which led to an invitation to be a mentor.

Teachable moment: “I had one site that I worked with that had a great new form they had developed to incorporate into their transition process; however, when they decided to implement the form, they got a lot of pushback from nursing,” she says. “Then they realized that they had not involved any frontline nurses in their planning. This example points out how important it is to have all the key players involved on your team, as improving transitions of care is a complex process requiring multidisciplinary collaboration.”

Success story: Dr. Quartarolo says she has worked with several hospitals that have seen significant improvement in their readmission rates after participating in Project BOOST and implementing its tools.

Lessons learned: “I am constantly impressed by the innovative ideas that teams come up with to deal with the challenges that their hospitals face,” she says. Every hospital is unique and needs to do self-evaluation before deciding what to focus on. “I have also worked with many sites that have challenges getting physicians engaged in their efforts, particularly if they do not have a hospitalist program.”

Advice: “We are in a unique role as hospitalists to identify systems issues and improve quality of care in the inpatient setting, and this is particularly useful in improving care transitions and decreasing readmissions rates.”

Rich Balaban, MD

Rich Balaban, MD

Title: Medical director, Hospital-to-Home Community Collaboration Program, Cambridge Health Alliance; assistant professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston

Program: Project BOOST

Background: Dr. Balaban has worked clinically in both the inpatient setting as a hospitalist and the outpatient setting as a primary care doctor. “I have seen hospital discharges as both a receiver and a sender, so [I] have been able to appreciate the challenges facing doctors, nurses, case managers, and patients involved in the care transition process,” he says.

Dr. Balaban also conducted a randomized controlled trial that demonstrated the benefits of engaging nurses at a patient’s primary care site to make outreach phone calls immediately after hospital discharge. Dr. Williams asked him to present on the study.

“It was a great opportunity for me to share the results of our work and for Mark to see my presentation skills,” he says. “When I asked if there were opportunities to get more involved in care transitions work, he invited me to consider becoming a BOOST mentor.”

Teachable moment: “Wearing my primary care hat, I believe that while it is very important to structure an effective discharge for the patient while in the hospital, success or failure ultimately is determined by what happens in the outpatient setting,” Dr. Balaban says. Even if a ‘perfect discharge’ occurs in the hospital, it can all quickly unravel once the patient arrives at home.

Success story: “At several sites, I have encouraged the inpatient care team to invite the outpatient care team to become part of the care transitions team. This has frequently brought an important viewpoint and voice to the care transitions table. While hospitalists have initiated the discussion about care transitions, they need an effective outpatient partner to create a truly effective process.”

Lessons learned: “I have learned to hold judgment until seeing with my own eyes,” Dr. Balaban says. “One of the first sites I visited had developed a post-discharge clinic, which they were excited to show me. From my point of view, I thought that after discharge, patient care should be assumed by the primary care office as soon as possible, and a post-discharge clinic would only delay that process.

“To my great surprise, their post-discharge clinic provided an ideal bridge between the hospital and primary care. The post-discharge clinic really worked and provided patients with a wonderful resource. … I’ve learned that there are many ways to solve problems, often based on the available resources at a specific site.”

Advice: In order to best understand the challenges of hospital discharge, it is critical that you understand what happens to patients after they leave the hospital. Make a home visit to a recently discharged patient to really understand the challenges that patients face when they return home.

Amitkumar R. Patel, MD, MBA, FACP, SFHM

Amitkumar R. Patel, MD, MBA, FACP, SFHM

Title: Clinical instructor in hospital medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago

Program: Project BOOST; also working with critical access hospitals in Illinois through PREP (Preventing Readmissions through Effective Partnerships)

Background: Although he now works in an urban teaching hospital, Dr. Patel also did private practice as a community hospitalist and has pursued formal healthcare management-focused training.

“I became a mentor because my experience and interest in quality improvement fit well with Project BOOST,” he says. “I enjoy coaching teams as they face challenges in quality improvement, especially in relation to readmissions reduction. My work with critical access hospitals is the result of my first year as a mentor with the PREP collaborative in Illinois.”

PREP, a collaborative initiative of SHM and the Illinois Hospital Association that is funded by Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Illinois, aims to help hospitals focus on quality initiatives, including BOOST.

Teachable moment/success story: One of Dr. Patel’s BOOST sites believed the team included all appropriate personnel to obtain discharge appointments prior to patients’ discharges. But as they began to work through the process of making sure each appointment was appropriately documented, the various team members assigned to this process could not consistently complete the task within their workflow.

The pilot unit secretaries were not part of the BOOST team initially but saw that they could fulfill this role quickly and easily. They knew who to call at the physicians’ offices to avoid getting stuck in the phone menu trees, and they used this knowledge to reach the schedulers directly. The BOOST team quickly realized the unit secretaries were the most appropriate personnel to capture this information and work with the patients or their families/caregivers to obtain the most convenient appointments. This role was added to the team, and the unit secretaries took ownership of this process. Other teams may also want to look beyond the customary team members to roles that may not be thought of as quality team members.

Lessons learned: “The biggest take-away for me involves the unique culture that exists in many of our urban and rural communities,” he says. Every BOOST site implements the project’s elements in its own unique way, and what works well in one location may not fit the needs of another. The role of the mentor is to balance the need for community-specific advice with unique attributes of the facility and the elements of Project BOOST. “Often, we use our mentor calls to brainstorm solutions, and the teams are teaching me what will work best in their environment.”

Advice: “Responsibility for hospital change management should not be abdicated to administrators or quality improvement staff members,” he says. “QI is not a sometime thing for some staff; it’s an all-the-time process for every staff member, including physicians, to participate in and actively manage.”

Cheryl O’Malley, MD, FHM

Cheryl O’Malley, MD, FHM

Title: Internal medicine residency program director, Banner Good Samaritan Medical Center, Phoenix

Program: GCMI

Background: Banner Good Samaritan has participated in the BOOST, VTE, and GCMI programs. Dr. O’Malley brought her experience from developing, implementing, and leading local glycemic control efforts to mentoring others.

“When I first started working on our hospital’s process, I had so many questions and asked one of my mentors from residency, Dr. Greg Maynard,” she says. “He helped me to see that people around the country were asking the same questions and invited me to join SHM’s glycemic control work group. When the GCMI program started, I was asked to be a mentor.”

Teachable moment: “When I was a new attending on the wards after residency, my patients would ask me why their blood sugars were so much better controlled at home than in the hospital. Usually, the answer was that they were put on a sliding scale when they came into the hospital,” she says, noting that what was done at home wasn’t going to work in the hospital. Patients needed a different regimen—a more proactive approach than just the customary sliding scale.

“I started to learn more about basal rates, nutrition, and correction insulin regimens in the hospital, but I realized that to really have adequate safety and direction for the nursing staff, it would require a formal order set and systematic approach,” she says.

Success story: “One of my sites invited me to come and present grand rounds at the hospital, and the local physician team leader invited the whole quality team to her home. It was a very exciting team and had achieved a lot. Fifteen or 20 of us spent the evening talking about the project but also just enjoying the collegiality,” Dr. O’Malley says. “Even though we had never seen one another, I instantly knew everyone by voice from spending so much time on the phone. And we knew a lot about one another’s personal lives and careers.”

Lessons learned: “Hearing a program describe what they are doing and knowing that they were far ahead of my own hospital in many ways but still being able to provide an insight or a perspective to help them achieve their own next steps. Everyone has something to learn from another hospital or another discipline. We can all leverage our experiences to improve patient care.”

Advice: “Be patient. This is a really long process of constant improvements. I have been working on glycemic control for 10 years now and still feel like we have many opportunities to further improve.”

Cheryl O’Malley, MD, FHM

Christopher Kim, MD, MBA, SFHM

Title: Clinical associate professor of internal medicine and assistant professor of pediatrics, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor

Program: Project BOOST; Michigan Transitions of Care Collaborative (M-TC2)

Background: Dr. Kim brings clinical, quality improvement, leadership, collaborative learning, and discussion facilitation skills to his work as program director of M-TC2 and as mentor to the sites he works with.

The collaborative is part of a set of state collaborative quality initiatives funded by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. One of those initiatives is focused on improving care transitions between the hospital setting and ambulatory care providers, using Project BOOST tools—expanded to integrate more closely with primary care providers, physician organizations, and ambulatory care. The eight Michigan-based mentors for M-TC2 have all attended SHM’s Mentor University.

Teachable moment: There are local challenges and there are general challenges—those that are commonly shared by most hospitals, Dr. Kim explains. Both need to be overcome when working on an improvement project such as transitions of care. The local hospitalist brings expertise about the former—which are often more difficult to understand and overcome. The mentor brings knowledge and experience of the universal challenges, as well as the benefit of having seen or heard about what other programs have done. Together, they can work to help the organization become better equipped to improve the initiative at hand.

Success story: “One hospital in the collaborative realized that it could roll out the Teach Back concept to both nurses and physicians,” he says. They started to teach residents how to interact with patients and began using this approach in physician-nurse teams. Subsequently, the team shared with the collaborative how physicians have embraced the concept.

Lessons learned: Every site has its successes and challenges, he says. Sharing both sides of the story can only advance the mission of the collaborative, as each organization learns from the successes and failures of the others.

Mentored implementation really does what it’s intended to do—helping to support the sites and keeping an organization on track and accountable for the work it does, because someone external to the organization is working with it and providing information about what other sites are doing.

Advice: Talk with different disciplines and find out how much they long to work with other care providers, and then have discussions about how to make interdisciplinary practice happen. “At our collaborative meetings over time, many of the 24 participating sites have shared their progress—the good things and the struggles,” Dr. Kim says.

Larry Beresford is a freelance writer in Alameda, Calif.

Click here to listen to excerpts of our interview with Dr. Williams

Click here to listen to excerpts of our interview with Dr. Williams

Click here to listen to excerpts of our interview with Dr. Williams

Dr. Kealey

Hippocrates, Epidemics.“The Physician must be able to do good or to do no harm.”

This is part three of my ongoing series on the journey of hospital medicine and how we are poised for greater things yet. In part one, “Tinder and Spark,” macro changes in the American healthcare landscape pressured primary care physicians to get creative with new ways to practice, the most prominent result being the creation of hospitalist practices. Wachter and Goldman provided the spark that gave the field its name and cohesiveness. In part two, “Fuel,” the Baby Boomers shaped the field, setting the stage for the Generation X physicians who fueled HM’s early growth.

But the field might have stagnated there, the fire attenuated, if not for the rise of something new, something that stoked our growth to new heights.

Orlando, Fla., December 2006.

SHM President-Elect Rusty Holman, MD, MHM, was on stage representing hospitalists at the annual Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) National Forum in front of more than 5,000 enthusiastic attendees representing every discipline of clinical care from hundreds of healthcare organizations across the country and internationally. This was a special event. Two years earlier, IHI President Don Berwick, MD, MPP, had launched an audacious campaign, called the 100,000 Lives Campaign, that aimed to prevent the deaths of 100,000 patients in our nation’s hospitals in the following 18 months, not by utilizing some great new technological advance but by changing the culture around safety and quality in our nation’s hospitals and enacting proven safety methods and processes.1 Out of this plan came widespread use of terms and programs that weren’t widely adopted then but are familiar to all of us now: rapid response teams, medicine reconciliation, surgical site infection prevention, and ventilator-acquired pneumonia.

That program estimated that it saved 122,000 lives.¹

IHI was looking to build on the safety and quality infrastructure that had been built up to make the 100,000 Lives Campaign a success and to launch an even bigger program. The 5 Million Lives Campaign’s goal was to reduce incidents of harm in five million patients over the next two years. For this campaign, IHI understood that success could only be achieved with partners. SHM and the field of hospital medicine, which had grown in size and influence, was seen as a critical and influential partner in achieving the goal of reducing harm in our nation’s hospitals. Thus, Dr. Holman was standing on that stage for SHM at the launch of the biggest safety and quality initiative in our nation’s history. SHM was among seven partner organizations, including the American Nurses Association, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the American Heart Association, and the CDC. SHM was the only medical society represented. Pretty heady stuff for a field barely 10 years old. How did we get there? For that story, we need to go back a few years.

In 1984, Libby Zion, an 18-year-old college student, died from serotonin syndrome. A contributing factor was felt to be overworked residents not getting enough sleep. In his landmark 1990 article, “Human Factors in Hazardous Situations,” James Reason, PhD, introduced the world to some key concepts: active versus latent errors and the Swiss cheese model of errors.² These concepts influence our thinking to this day. In 1994, Betsy Lehman, a health reporter for the Boston Globe, died from a massive chemotherapy overdose. That same year Lucian Leape, MD, a Harvard pediatric surgeon, published his influential article in JAMA, “Errors in Medicine,” which called for a systems approach to improving patient safety.³

These key moments in safety and quality, all of which occurred in the years leading up to hospitalists gaining their identity, were but a prelude to the widespread patient safety and quality movement. Like our own social movement, “Patient Safety and Quality” was born with an influential publication. This was the 1999 release of the Institute of Medicine’s “To Err is Human,” a report that reiterated claims that up to 98,000 U.S. patients per year were dying from medical errors.⁴ It also supported Dr. Leape’s earlier work calling for systems changes. In 2001, the Institute of Medicine published a second report, “Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century,” which introduced the six aims for healthcare improvement: safe, timely, effective, efficient, equitable, and patient-centered.⁵

Before 1999, hospitalists were just getting their feet on the ground. Groups were experimenting with practice models and recruiting young talent, mostly with a pitch for a new way to practice with freedom to design their day and often an interesting work schedule.

After the publication of “To Err is Human” in 1999, changes in patient safety and quality began to accelerate. Taking one of the recommendations from “To Err is Human,” which suggested that employers should use their market power to improve quality and safety, the Leapfrog Group, a consortium of large employers, organized in 2000. Leapfrog began rewarding and recognizing hospitals that put accepted safety measures in place.⁶ Suddenly, hospital CEOs began to see tangible rewards for improving quality in their hospitals.

Here is where the hospitalist movement and the patient safety and quality movement began to intersect.

Shift to Quality and Safety

In 2001, the same year “Crossing the Quality Chasm” was published, Congress created the Center for Quality Improvement and Patient Safety within the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Significant funding was suddenly available for quality and safety research, and a more organized reporting mechanism for quality would soon be available.

In 2002, the Joint Commission released its first set of National Patient Safety Goals. There were seven, and key goals for hospitalists included improving the effectiveness of communication among caregivers, reducing the risk of healthcare-acquired infections, and reconciling medications.

And, lastly, as if that weren’t enough activity in the patient safety and quality world, the Joint Commission and CMS released in 2003 the first joint, aligned set of core measures, with which we are all now very familiar, around acute myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, and pneumonia.

Hospital executives were trying to get a handle on the meaning of this flurry of activity for their hospitals. It certainly meant new regulatory requirements. It probably meant greater visibility to the public around what happened behind the walls of their facilities. No doubt dollars on the line wouldn’t be too far behind. They needed help, and they needed it fast.

No longer were hospitalists a small group of young docs roaming the halls; now, instead of just taking care of one patient at a time, they were reaching the threshold of size—and even status in some organizations—where they could leverage their working knowledge of the system and presence on site to affect the various facets of quality now being measured and incented. Additionally, as the information technology (IT) revolution rolled out, hospitalists, mostly tech-savvy Gen X’ers, looked to ease the transition into the new world of EHRs, which promised to serve as a new base for improving quality.

As the C-suite continued making value calculations in their heads, they saw that, in addition to helping them manage the many facets of the transition of primary care and specialty teaching attendings out of the hospital, hospitalists could now be a powerful weapon in helping them stay competitive in the looming patient safety and quality revolution. They pulled out their checkbooks.

When SHM first started gathering data to explore this gap, we discovered that in 2003 the reported median support per FTE of an adult hospitalist in this country was $60,000.⁷ With an estimated 11,000 hospitalists in the country at that time, C-suite funders paid out over $600 million to help overcome the deficit between hospitalist professional billings and salary and benefits. By the time SHM partnered with IHI on the 5 Million Lives Campaign in 2006, the figure stood at well over $2 billion. The 2011 SHM/Medical Group Management Association survey data showed $139,090 support per FTE. With 31,000 U.S. hospitalists estimated at the time, that figure had doubled to over $4 billion in just five years’ time.

The new generation of doctors had come along in the late 1990s looking for a practice that fit their wants and needs. HM gave them what they were looking for: autonomy, the promise of work-life balance, and the ability to help patients in their most vulnerable time. The traditional E&M [evaluation and management]-based funding mechanisms simply weren’t designed to account for physicians who spend all of their time doing the critical cognitive and coordinating clinical work. To account for this, hospitals and medical groups, seeing the value to their organizations in this new specialty, anteed up to cover the difference. That gave us a great beginning.

But it was the convergence of the early hospitalist movement and the emergent patient safety and quality movement that created a synergy that propelled both movements forward. Boosted by the influx of funding directly and indirectly related to patient safety and quality, hospitalists grew in number from an estimated 5,000 physicians at the 1999 publication of “To Err is Human” to north of 40,000 today.

The synergy was evident when SHM President-Elect Dr. Holman, representing our fledgling specialty and society, faced that cheering throng in Orlando alongside Dr. Don Berwick, the face of the patient safety and quality movement.

But that’s not quite the end of the story.

To get us up to the present and on to our bright future, there will be a few more additions to the quality story and an all-new generation arriving on the scene to shake things up.

Dr. Kealey is SHM president and medical director of hospital specialties at HealthPartners Medical Group in St. Paul, Minn.

References

1. Institute for Healthcare Improvement. Overview of the 100,000 Lives Campaign. Available at: http://www.ihi.org/Engage/Initiatives/Completed/5MillionLivesCampaign/Documents/Overview%20of%20the%20100K%20Campaign.pdf. Accessed July 6, 2014.
2. Broadbent DE, Reason J, Baddeley A, eds. Human Factors in Hazardous Situations: Proceedings of a Royal Society Discussion Meeting Held on 28 and 29 June 1989. Gloucestershire, England: Clarendon Press; 1990:475-484.
3. Leape LL. Error in medicine JAMA.1994;272(23):1851-1857.
4. Institute of Medicine. Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS, eds. To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington, D.C.: The National Academy Press; 2000.
5. Institute of Medicine. Committee on Quality of Healthcare in America. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, D.C.: The National Academy Press; 2001.
6. The Leapfrog Group. About Leapfrog. Available at: http://www.leapfroggroup.org/about_leapfrog. Accessed July 6, 2014.
7. Society of Hospital Medicine. SHM’s State of Hospital Medicine Surveys 2003-2012. Available at: www.hospitalmedicine.org/survey. Accessed July 3, 2014.

Dr. Kealey

Hippocrates, Epidemics.“The Physician must be able to do good or to do no harm.”

This is part three of my ongoing series on the journey of hospital medicine and how we are poised for greater things yet. In part one, “Tinder and Spark,” macro changes in the American healthcare landscape pressured primary care physicians to get creative with new ways to practice, the most prominent result being the creation of hospitalist practices. Wachter and Goldman provided the spark that gave the field its name and cohesiveness. In part two, “Fuel,” the Baby Boomers shaped the field, setting the stage for the Generation X physicians who fueled HM’s early growth.

But the field might have stagnated there, the fire attenuated, if not for the rise of something new, something that stoked our growth to new heights.

Orlando, Fla., December 2006.

SHM President-Elect Rusty Holman, MD, MHM, was on stage representing hospitalists at the annual Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) National Forum in front of more than 5,000 enthusiastic attendees representing every discipline of clinical care from hundreds of healthcare organizations across the country and internationally. This was a special event. Two years earlier, IHI President Don Berwick, MD, MPP, had launched an audacious campaign, called the 100,000 Lives Campaign, that aimed to prevent the deaths of 100,000 patients in our nation’s hospitals in the following 18 months, not by utilizing some great new technological advance but by changing the culture around safety and quality in our nation’s hospitals and enacting proven safety methods and processes.1 Out of this plan came widespread use of terms and programs that weren’t widely adopted then but are familiar to all of us now: rapid response teams, medicine reconciliation, surgical site infection prevention, and ventilator-acquired pneumonia.

That program estimated that it saved 122,000 lives.¹

IHI was looking to build on the safety and quality infrastructure that had been built up to make the 100,000 Lives Campaign a success and to launch an even bigger program. The 5 Million Lives Campaign’s goal was to reduce incidents of harm in five million patients over the next two years. For this campaign, IHI understood that success could only be achieved with partners. SHM and the field of hospital medicine, which had grown in size and influence, was seen as a critical and influential partner in achieving the goal of reducing harm in our nation’s hospitals. Thus, Dr. Holman was standing on that stage for SHM at the launch of the biggest safety and quality initiative in our nation’s history. SHM was among seven partner organizations, including the American Nurses Association, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the American Heart Association, and the CDC. SHM was the only medical society represented. Pretty heady stuff for a field barely 10 years old. How did we get there? For that story, we need to go back a few years.

In 1984, Libby Zion, an 18-year-old college student, died from serotonin syndrome. A contributing factor was felt to be overworked residents not getting enough sleep. In his landmark 1990 article, “Human Factors in Hazardous Situations,” James Reason, PhD, introduced the world to some key concepts: active versus latent errors and the Swiss cheese model of errors.² These concepts influence our thinking to this day. In 1994, Betsy Lehman, a health reporter for the Boston Globe, died from a massive chemotherapy overdose. That same year Lucian Leape, MD, a Harvard pediatric surgeon, published his influential article in JAMA, “Errors in Medicine,” which called for a systems approach to improving patient safety.³

These key moments in safety and quality, all of which occurred in the years leading up to hospitalists gaining their identity, were but a prelude to the widespread patient safety and quality movement. Like our own social movement, “Patient Safety and Quality” was born with an influential publication. This was the 1999 release of the Institute of Medicine’s “To Err is Human,” a report that reiterated claims that up to 98,000 U.S. patients per year were dying from medical errors.⁴ It also supported Dr. Leape’s earlier work calling for systems changes. In 2001, the Institute of Medicine published a second report, “Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century,” which introduced the six aims for healthcare improvement: safe, timely, effective, efficient, equitable, and patient-centered.⁵

Before 1999, hospitalists were just getting their feet on the ground. Groups were experimenting with practice models and recruiting young talent, mostly with a pitch for a new way to practice with freedom to design their day and often an interesting work schedule.

After the publication of “To Err is Human” in 1999, changes in patient safety and quality began to accelerate. Taking one of the recommendations from “To Err is Human,” which suggested that employers should use their market power to improve quality and safety, the Leapfrog Group, a consortium of large employers, organized in 2000. Leapfrog began rewarding and recognizing hospitals that put accepted safety measures in place.⁶ Suddenly, hospital CEOs began to see tangible rewards for improving quality in their hospitals.

Here is where the hospitalist movement and the patient safety and quality movement began to intersect.

Shift to Quality and Safety

In 2001, the same year “Crossing the Quality Chasm” was published, Congress created the Center for Quality Improvement and Patient Safety within the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Significant funding was suddenly available for quality and safety research, and a more organized reporting mechanism for quality would soon be available.

In 2002, the Joint Commission released its first set of National Patient Safety Goals. There were seven, and key goals for hospitalists included improving the effectiveness of communication among caregivers, reducing the risk of healthcare-acquired infections, and reconciling medications.

And, lastly, as if that weren’t enough activity in the patient safety and quality world, the Joint Commission and CMS released in 2003 the first joint, aligned set of core measures, with which we are all now very familiar, around acute myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, and pneumonia.

Hospital executives were trying to get a handle on the meaning of this flurry of activity for their hospitals. It certainly meant new regulatory requirements. It probably meant greater visibility to the public around what happened behind the walls of their facilities. No doubt dollars on the line wouldn’t be too far behind. They needed help, and they needed it fast.

No longer were hospitalists a small group of young docs roaming the halls; now, instead of just taking care of one patient at a time, they were reaching the threshold of size—and even status in some organizations—where they could leverage their working knowledge of the system and presence on site to affect the various facets of quality now being measured and incented. Additionally, as the information technology (IT) revolution rolled out, hospitalists, mostly tech-savvy Gen X’ers, looked to ease the transition into the new world of EHRs, which promised to serve as a new base for improving quality.

As the C-suite continued making value calculations in their heads, they saw that, in addition to helping them manage the many facets of the transition of primary care and specialty teaching attendings out of the hospital, hospitalists could now be a powerful weapon in helping them stay competitive in the looming patient safety and quality revolution. They pulled out their checkbooks.

When SHM first started gathering data to explore this gap, we discovered that in 2003 the reported median support per FTE of an adult hospitalist in this country was $60,000.⁷ With an estimated 11,000 hospitalists in the country at that time, C-suite funders paid out over $600 million to help overcome the deficit between hospitalist professional billings and salary and benefits. By the time SHM partnered with IHI on the 5 Million Lives Campaign in 2006, the figure stood at well over $2 billion. The 2011 SHM/Medical Group Management Association survey data showed $139,090 support per FTE. With 31,000 U.S. hospitalists estimated at the time, that figure had doubled to over $4 billion in just five years’ time.

The new generation of doctors had come along in the late 1990s looking for a practice that fit their wants and needs. HM gave them what they were looking for: autonomy, the promise of work-life balance, and the ability to help patients in their most vulnerable time. The traditional E&M [evaluation and management]-based funding mechanisms simply weren’t designed to account for physicians who spend all of their time doing the critical cognitive and coordinating clinical work. To account for this, hospitals and medical groups, seeing the value to their organizations in this new specialty, anteed up to cover the difference. That gave us a great beginning.

But it was the convergence of the early hospitalist movement and the emergent patient safety and quality movement that created a synergy that propelled both movements forward. Boosted by the influx of funding directly and indirectly related to patient safety and quality, hospitalists grew in number from an estimated 5,000 physicians at the 1999 publication of “To Err is Human” to north of 40,000 today.

The synergy was evident when SHM President-Elect Dr. Holman, representing our fledgling specialty and society, faced that cheering throng in Orlando alongside Dr. Don Berwick, the face of the patient safety and quality movement.

But that’s not quite the end of the story.

To get us up to the present and on to our bright future, there will be a few more additions to the quality story and an all-new generation arriving on the scene to shake things up.

Dr. Kealey is SHM president and medical director of hospital specialties at HealthPartners Medical Group in St. Paul, Minn.

References

1. Institute for Healthcare Improvement. Overview of the 100,000 Lives Campaign. Available at: http://www.ihi.org/Engage/Initiatives/Completed/5MillionLivesCampaign/Documents/Overview%20of%20the%20100K%20Campaign.pdf. Accessed July 6, 2014.
2. Broadbent DE, Reason J, Baddeley A, eds. Human Factors in Hazardous Situations: Proceedings of a Royal Society Discussion Meeting Held on 28 and 29 June 1989. Gloucestershire, England: Clarendon Press; 1990:475-484.
3. Leape LL. Error in medicine JAMA.1994;272(23):1851-1857.
4. Institute of Medicine. Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS, eds. To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington, D.C.: The National Academy Press; 2000.
5. Institute of Medicine. Committee on Quality of Healthcare in America. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, D.C.: The National Academy Press; 2001.
6. The Leapfrog Group. About Leapfrog. Available at: http://www.leapfroggroup.org/about_leapfrog. Accessed July 6, 2014.
7. Society of Hospital Medicine. SHM’s State of Hospital Medicine Surveys 2003-2012. Available at: www.hospitalmedicine.org/survey. Accessed July 3, 2014.

Dr. Kealey

Hippocrates, Epidemics.“The Physician must be able to do good or to do no harm.”

This is part three of my ongoing series on the journey of hospital medicine and how we are poised for greater things yet. In part one, “Tinder and Spark,” macro changes in the American healthcare landscape pressured primary care physicians to get creative with new ways to practice, the most prominent result being the creation of hospitalist practices. Wachter and Goldman provided the spark that gave the field its name and cohesiveness. In part two, “Fuel,” the Baby Boomers shaped the field, setting the stage for the Generation X physicians who fueled HM’s early growth.

But the field might have stagnated there, the fire attenuated, if not for the rise of something new, something that stoked our growth to new heights.

Orlando, Fla., December 2006.

SHM President-Elect Rusty Holman, MD, MHM, was on stage representing hospitalists at the annual Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) National Forum in front of more than 5,000 enthusiastic attendees representing every discipline of clinical care from hundreds of healthcare organizations across the country and internationally. This was a special event. Two years earlier, IHI President Don Berwick, MD, MPP, had launched an audacious campaign, called the 100,000 Lives Campaign, that aimed to prevent the deaths of 100,000 patients in our nation’s hospitals in the following 18 months, not by utilizing some great new technological advance but by changing the culture around safety and quality in our nation’s hospitals and enacting proven safety methods and processes.1 Out of this plan came widespread use of terms and programs that weren’t widely adopted then but are familiar to all of us now: rapid response teams, medicine reconciliation, surgical site infection prevention, and ventilator-acquired pneumonia.

That program estimated that it saved 122,000 lives.¹

IHI was looking to build on the safety and quality infrastructure that had been built up to make the 100,000 Lives Campaign a success and to launch an even bigger program. The 5 Million Lives Campaign’s goal was to reduce incidents of harm in five million patients over the next two years. For this campaign, IHI understood that success could only be achieved with partners. SHM and the field of hospital medicine, which had grown in size and influence, was seen as a critical and influential partner in achieving the goal of reducing harm in our nation’s hospitals. Thus, Dr. Holman was standing on that stage for SHM at the launch of the biggest safety and quality initiative in our nation’s history. SHM was among seven partner organizations, including the American Nurses Association, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the American Heart Association, and the CDC. SHM was the only medical society represented. Pretty heady stuff for a field barely 10 years old. How did we get there? For that story, we need to go back a few years.

In 1984, Libby Zion, an 18-year-old college student, died from serotonin syndrome. A contributing factor was felt to be overworked residents not getting enough sleep. In his landmark 1990 article, “Human Factors in Hazardous Situations,” James Reason, PhD, introduced the world to some key concepts: active versus latent errors and the Swiss cheese model of errors.² These concepts influence our thinking to this day. In 1994, Betsy Lehman, a health reporter for the Boston Globe, died from a massive chemotherapy overdose. That same year Lucian Leape, MD, a Harvard pediatric surgeon, published his influential article in JAMA, “Errors in Medicine,” which called for a systems approach to improving patient safety.³

These key moments in safety and quality, all of which occurred in the years leading up to hospitalists gaining their identity, were but a prelude to the widespread patient safety and quality movement. Like our own social movement, “Patient Safety and Quality” was born with an influential publication. This was the 1999 release of the Institute of Medicine’s “To Err is Human,” a report that reiterated claims that up to 98,000 U.S. patients per year were dying from medical errors.⁴ It also supported Dr. Leape’s earlier work calling for systems changes. In 2001, the Institute of Medicine published a second report, “Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century,” which introduced the six aims for healthcare improvement: safe, timely, effective, efficient, equitable, and patient-centered.⁵

Before 1999, hospitalists were just getting their feet on the ground. Groups were experimenting with practice models and recruiting young talent, mostly with a pitch for a new way to practice with freedom to design their day and often an interesting work schedule.

After the publication of “To Err is Human” in 1999, changes in patient safety and quality began to accelerate. Taking one of the recommendations from “To Err is Human,” which suggested that employers should use their market power to improve quality and safety, the Leapfrog Group, a consortium of large employers, organized in 2000. Leapfrog began rewarding and recognizing hospitals that put accepted safety measures in place.⁶ Suddenly, hospital CEOs began to see tangible rewards for improving quality in their hospitals.

Here is where the hospitalist movement and the patient safety and quality movement began to intersect.

Shift to Quality and Safety

In 2001, the same year “Crossing the Quality Chasm” was published, Congress created the Center for Quality Improvement and Patient Safety within the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Significant funding was suddenly available for quality and safety research, and a more organized reporting mechanism for quality would soon be available.

In 2002, the Joint Commission released its first set of National Patient Safety Goals. There were seven, and key goals for hospitalists included improving the effectiveness of communication among caregivers, reducing the risk of healthcare-acquired infections, and reconciling medications.

And, lastly, as if that weren’t enough activity in the patient safety and quality world, the Joint Commission and CMS released in 2003 the first joint, aligned set of core measures, with which we are all now very familiar, around acute myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, and pneumonia.

Hospital executives were trying to get a handle on the meaning of this flurry of activity for their hospitals. It certainly meant new regulatory requirements. It probably meant greater visibility to the public around what happened behind the walls of their facilities. No doubt dollars on the line wouldn’t be too far behind. They needed help, and they needed it fast.

No longer were hospitalists a small group of young docs roaming the halls; now, instead of just taking care of one patient at a time, they were reaching the threshold of size—and even status in some organizations—where they could leverage their working knowledge of the system and presence on site to affect the various facets of quality now being measured and incented. Additionally, as the information technology (IT) revolution rolled out, hospitalists, mostly tech-savvy Gen X’ers, looked to ease the transition into the new world of EHRs, which promised to serve as a new base for improving quality.

As the C-suite continued making value calculations in their heads, they saw that, in addition to helping them manage the many facets of the transition of primary care and specialty teaching attendings out of the hospital, hospitalists could now be a powerful weapon in helping them stay competitive in the looming patient safety and quality revolution. They pulled out their checkbooks.

When SHM first started gathering data to explore this gap, we discovered that in 2003 the reported median support per FTE of an adult hospitalist in this country was $60,000.⁷ With an estimated 11,000 hospitalists in the country at that time, C-suite funders paid out over $600 million to help overcome the deficit between hospitalist professional billings and salary and benefits. By the time SHM partnered with IHI on the 5 Million Lives Campaign in 2006, the figure stood at well over $2 billion. The 2011 SHM/Medical Group Management Association survey data showed $139,090 support per FTE. With 31,000 U.S. hospitalists estimated at the time, that figure had doubled to over $4 billion in just five years’ time.

The new generation of doctors had come along in the late 1990s looking for a practice that fit their wants and needs. HM gave them what they were looking for: autonomy, the promise of work-life balance, and the ability to help patients in their most vulnerable time. The traditional E&M [evaluation and management]-based funding mechanisms simply weren’t designed to account for physicians who spend all of their time doing the critical cognitive and coordinating clinical work. To account for this, hospitals and medical groups, seeing the value to their organizations in this new specialty, anteed up to cover the difference. That gave us a great beginning.

But it was the convergence of the early hospitalist movement and the emergent patient safety and quality movement that created a synergy that propelled both movements forward. Boosted by the influx of funding directly and indirectly related to patient safety and quality, hospitalists grew in number from an estimated 5,000 physicians at the 1999 publication of “To Err is Human” to north of 40,000 today.

The synergy was evident when SHM President-Elect Dr. Holman, representing our fledgling specialty and society, faced that cheering throng in Orlando alongside Dr. Don Berwick, the face of the patient safety and quality movement.

But that’s not quite the end of the story.

To get us up to the present and on to our bright future, there will be a few more additions to the quality story and an all-new generation arriving on the scene to shake things up.

Dr. Kealey is SHM president and medical director of hospital specialties at HealthPartners Medical Group in St. Paul, Minn.

References

1. Institute for Healthcare Improvement. Overview of the 100,000 Lives Campaign. Available at: http://www.ihi.org/Engage/Initiatives/Completed/5MillionLivesCampaign/Documents/Overview%20of%20the%20100K%20Campaign.pdf. Accessed July 6, 2014.
2. Broadbent DE, Reason J, Baddeley A, eds. Human Factors in Hazardous Situations: Proceedings of a Royal Society Discussion Meeting Held on 28 and 29 June 1989. Gloucestershire, England: Clarendon Press; 1990:475-484.
3. Leape LL. Error in medicine JAMA.1994;272(23):1851-1857.
4. Institute of Medicine. Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS, eds. To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington, D.C.: The National Academy Press; 2000.
5. Institute of Medicine. Committee on Quality of Healthcare in America. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, D.C.: The National Academy Press; 2001.
6. The Leapfrog Group. About Leapfrog. Available at: http://www.leapfroggroup.org/about_leapfrog. Accessed July 6, 2014.
7. Society of Hospital Medicine. SHM’s State of Hospital Medicine Surveys 2003-2012. Available at: www.hospitalmedicine.org/survey. Accessed July 3, 2014.

Financial pressures to reduce 30-day hospital readmissions and improve discharge processes continue to grow. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services started by penalizing hospitals for up to 1% of their Medicare reimbursement via the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program. By 2015, the program will penalize hospitals up to 3%.

This is no longer news to the hospital C-suite. A 2013 survey reported that 85% of hospital leaders had addressed the readmissions penalty in their business plan (http://content.hcpro.com/pdf/content/296905.pdf); however, the same survey revealed that only 62% of hospital leaders reported changes to clinical protocols and practices during acute care, and even fewer were providing care navigators or coaches for high-risk patients.

That’s where hospitalists can help. Through SHM’s Project BOOST, hospitalists and hospital-based care teams improve transition from hospital to home. Project BOOST also helps hospitals identify high-risk patients and target risk-specific interventions, a critical part of reducing readmissions.

Beyond the immediate financial implications, implementing programs like Project BOOST to reduce readmissions can position hospitals as leaders for better healthcare in their communities.

“I recommend Project BOOST enthusiastically and unequivocally,” says Manasi Kekan, MD, MS, FACP, medical director for Houston Methodist Hospital. “If implemented efficiently, it could result in a ‘win-win’ situation for patients, the hospital, and the healthcare providers.”

SHM is accepting applications for the 2014 Project BOOST cohort through August 30. For details and application, visit www.hospitalmedicine.org/boost.

Financial pressures to reduce 30-day hospital readmissions and improve discharge processes continue to grow. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services started by penalizing hospitals for up to 1% of their Medicare reimbursement via the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program. By 2015, the program will penalize hospitals up to 3%.

This is no longer news to the hospital C-suite. A 2013 survey reported that 85% of hospital leaders had addressed the readmissions penalty in their business plan (http://content.hcpro.com/pdf/content/296905.pdf); however, the same survey revealed that only 62% of hospital leaders reported changes to clinical protocols and practices during acute care, and even fewer were providing care navigators or coaches for high-risk patients.

That’s where hospitalists can help. Through SHM’s Project BOOST, hospitalists and hospital-based care teams improve transition from hospital to home. Project BOOST also helps hospitals identify high-risk patients and target risk-specific interventions, a critical part of reducing readmissions.

Beyond the immediate financial implications, implementing programs like Project BOOST to reduce readmissions can position hospitals as leaders for better healthcare in their communities.

“I recommend Project BOOST enthusiastically and unequivocally,” says Manasi Kekan, MD, MS, FACP, medical director for Houston Methodist Hospital. “If implemented efficiently, it could result in a ‘win-win’ situation for patients, the hospital, and the healthcare providers.”

SHM is accepting applications for the 2014 Project BOOST cohort through August 30. For details and application, visit www.hospitalmedicine.org/boost.

Financial pressures to reduce 30-day hospital readmissions and improve discharge processes continue to grow. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services started by penalizing hospitals for up to 1% of their Medicare reimbursement via the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program. By 2015, the program will penalize hospitals up to 3%.

This is no longer news to the hospital C-suite. A 2013 survey reported that 85% of hospital leaders had addressed the readmissions penalty in their business plan (http://content.hcpro.com/pdf/content/296905.pdf); however, the same survey revealed that only 62% of hospital leaders reported changes to clinical protocols and practices during acute care, and even fewer were providing care navigators or coaches for high-risk patients.

That’s where hospitalists can help. Through SHM’s Project BOOST, hospitalists and hospital-based care teams improve transition from hospital to home. Project BOOST also helps hospitals identify high-risk patients and target risk-specific interventions, a critical part of reducing readmissions.

Beyond the immediate financial implications, implementing programs like Project BOOST to reduce readmissions can position hospitals as leaders for better healthcare in their communities.

“I recommend Project BOOST enthusiastically and unequivocally,” says Manasi Kekan, MD, MS, FACP, medical director for Houston Methodist Hospital. “If implemented efficiently, it could result in a ‘win-win’ situation for patients, the hospital, and the healthcare providers.”

SHM is accepting applications for the 2014 Project BOOST cohort through August 30. For details and application, visit www.hospitalmedicine.org/boost.

Are you helping your hospital choose wisely? You could receive thousands of dollars in return for your good work in providing high-value care to hospitalized patients through SHM’s Choosing Wisely case study competition.

SHM will be awarding a total of $20,000 to hospitalists who submit winning case studies illustrating their implementation of the Choosing Wisely principles published by SHM in 2013. Grand prize winners for both adult and pediatric HM will receive $4,000 each, and three honorable mention winners in both categories will each receive $2,000.

But don’t wait long. The deadline for submissions is September 9. For information and submission forms, visit www.hospitalmedicine.org/choosingwisely.

Are you helping your hospital choose wisely? You could receive thousands of dollars in return for your good work in providing high-value care to hospitalized patients through SHM’s Choosing Wisely case study competition.

SHM will be awarding a total of $20,000 to hospitalists who submit winning case studies illustrating their implementation of the Choosing Wisely principles published by SHM in 2013. Grand prize winners for both adult and pediatric HM will receive $4,000 each, and three honorable mention winners in both categories will each receive $2,000.

But don’t wait long. The deadline for submissions is September 9. For information and submission forms, visit www.hospitalmedicine.org/choosingwisely.

Are you helping your hospital choose wisely? You could receive thousands of dollars in return for your good work in providing high-value care to hospitalized patients through SHM’s Choosing Wisely case study competition.

SHM will be awarding a total of $20,000 to hospitalists who submit winning case studies illustrating their implementation of the Choosing Wisely principles published by SHM in 2013. Grand prize winners for both adult and pediatric HM will receive $4,000 each, and three honorable mention winners in both categories will each receive $2,000.

But don’t wait long. The deadline for submissions is September 9. For information and submission forms, visit www.hospitalmedicine.org/choosingwisely.

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

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

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

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

The Medication Safety Collaborative consists of three meetings:

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

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

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

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

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

The Medication Safety Collaborative consists of three meetings:

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

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

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

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

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

The Medication Safety Collaborative consists of three meetings:

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

LAS VEGAS—Hospitalist Ijeoma “Carol” Nwelue, MD, has been more focused on patient readmissions over the past year at her practice in Lansing, Mich. So when the directors at Sparrow Hospitalists told her she had a meeting a few weeks after HM14 to discuss different risk assessment tools that might be used to pre-identify patients at high risk for readmission, she wasn’t nervous.

Instead, she prepped at SHM’s annual meeting at Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino—a veritable three-day crash course in the latest and greatest approaches to preventing readmissions.

“It’s very helpful,” she says. “It helps to see things that I haven’t thought about in our practice that other people are looking into.”

Quality improvement (QI) and patient safety are at the core of what hospitalists do, and the HM14 organizers understand that. From multiple pre-courses on the topics trending today to a dedicated educational track of breakout sessions and expert speakers to hundreds of posters identifying HM-specific QI projects, SHM’s annual meeting is a veritable QI opportunity of its own.

Take the annual pre-course, “ABIM Maintenance of Certification Facilitated Modules.” One attendee told presenter Read Pierce, MD, director of quality improvement and clinical innovation for the hospitalist group at the University of Colorado Denver, that before the session in Las Vegas he had always had “the sense that quality and safety is soft science or fuzzy stuff around the edges, and if you were a smart clinician, that was good enough.”

After some time in the session, Dr. Pierce recounts, the man “realized it’s not just enough to have great intellectual horsepower. You have to have some approach for dealing with these complex systems. And I think that’s the really fun thing....It’s not just about the discreet concepts; it’s about understanding the environment in which we practice, the importance of engaging systems and of using the tools of quality and safety to augment what physicians have always been good at doing.”

John Coppes, MD, FHM, a hospitalist at Mount Nittany Medical Center in State College, Pa., says quality and patient safety are the “most important things that we do.”

“It’s our responsibility to our patients to do the best job we can,” he notes. “It’s our responsibility to society to do it as efficiently as we can.”

Veteran meeting faculty John Bulger, DO, MBA, FACP, SFHM, hospitalist and chief quality officer at Geisinger Health System in Pennsylvania, agrees completely and is one of HM’s biggest proponents of the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) Foundation’s Choosing Wisely (www.hospitalmedicine.org/choosingwisely) campaign. The national initiative, aimed at educating physicians—and patients—about wasteful medical tests, procedures, and treatments, launched in 2012, but SHM joined the chorus as a strategic partner last year.

“Choosing Wisely is about bending the cost curve,” Dr. Bulger says.

He added that although standardization of care is necessary for Choosing Wisely to work, homogeneity doesn’t mean everybody does everything exactly the same way. It means ensuring that hospitalists adopt “agreed upon best practices” before local variations are added. He compared it to a cookbook of apple pie recipes. All apple pies contain apples and crust, but the tasty treats are tailored differently from there.

“When you come up with guidelines in your hospital, that’s what you’re doing,” Dr. Bulger says. “You’re writing the cookbook and coming up with what works at your hospital. It might not work at [my hospital] at all, but I can look at it and learn.”

In the long-term, SHM hopes to create resources beyond the recommendations themselves—perhaps including a mentored implementation program akin to Project BOOST or pre-packaged order sets and checklists. Whatever the society does, it needs to engage the younger generation of physicians to ensure that quality and safety stay a priority for them, says Darlene Tad-y, MD, chair of SHM’s Physicians in Training Committee.

An assistant professor of medicine and a hospitalist at the University of Colorado Denver, Dr. Tad-y says that getting residents and students involved in quality and safety measures is critical for HM’s future.

“Especially since we want to have hospital medicine be at the forefront,” she explains. “It’s vital for us to have our students and residents taking the lead.”

Younger physicians already see the role quality and safety take in day-to-day practice. So, for them, according to Dr. Tad-y, a focus on making sure patient care is delivered better and more safely isn’t a renewed effort—it’s what they’re taught from the beginning.

“They haven’t been trained in the old way yet,” she says. “They still have an open mind. They see that things can change and things can be better. We don’t have to change old habits. We are just evolving good new habits for them.”

One new perspective was a first-time pre-course, “Cardiology: What Hospitalists Need to Know as Front-Line Providers.” The eight-hour seminar was led by cardiologist Matthews Chacko, MD, of Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, who says the time is right for quality-focused hospitalists to devote a full-day pre-course to cardiology.

“Cardiovascular disease is the most common reason we die,” he says. “It’s something hospital-based practitioners see often. Providing a comprehensive, yet simplified, overview of the way to manage some of these diseases with talks given by some of the leading experts in the field seemed very appropriate for this meeting.”

The sheer scale of QI initiatives can be daunting, says Michelle Mourad, MD, director of quality and safety at the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF) School of Medicine. She urges her peers to take the proverbial step back, identify a single issue—sepsis mortality or hand hygiene, for example—and then focus on understanding that issue intimately. That way, a hospitalist or HM group can convince other physicians that there is a problem and that it’s worth the work to fix it. Once that’s done, a hospitalist can launch a QI project that devises a measurement strategy to see if change is occurring.

And, while sustaining that change beyond the initial start-up can be difficult, Dr. Mourad believes success breeds success.

“When you work hard at a quality gap that’s in your organization, [when you] actually see the care you provide get better—not just for the patient in front of you, but for all the patients in your organization—it’s extremely powerful and motivating,” she says. “It changes the culture in your institution and convinces other people that they can do the same.”

LAS VEGAS—Hospitalist Ijeoma “Carol” Nwelue, MD, has been more focused on patient readmissions over the past year at her practice in Lansing, Mich. So when the directors at Sparrow Hospitalists told her she had a meeting a few weeks after HM14 to discuss different risk assessment tools that might be used to pre-identify patients at high risk for readmission, she wasn’t nervous.

Instead, she prepped at SHM’s annual meeting at Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino—a veritable three-day crash course in the latest and greatest approaches to preventing readmissions.

“It’s very helpful,” she says. “It helps to see things that I haven’t thought about in our practice that other people are looking into.”

Quality improvement (QI) and patient safety are at the core of what hospitalists do, and the HM14 organizers understand that. From multiple pre-courses on the topics trending today to a dedicated educational track of breakout sessions and expert speakers to hundreds of posters identifying HM-specific QI projects, SHM’s annual meeting is a veritable QI opportunity of its own.

Take the annual pre-course, “ABIM Maintenance of Certification Facilitated Modules.” One attendee told presenter Read Pierce, MD, director of quality improvement and clinical innovation for the hospitalist group at the University of Colorado Denver, that before the session in Las Vegas he had always had “the sense that quality and safety is soft science or fuzzy stuff around the edges, and if you were a smart clinician, that was good enough.”

After some time in the session, Dr. Pierce recounts, the man “realized it’s not just enough to have great intellectual horsepower. You have to have some approach for dealing with these complex systems. And I think that’s the really fun thing....It’s not just about the discreet concepts; it’s about understanding the environment in which we practice, the importance of engaging systems and of using the tools of quality and safety to augment what physicians have always been good at doing.”

John Coppes, MD, FHM, a hospitalist at Mount Nittany Medical Center in State College, Pa., says quality and patient safety are the “most important things that we do.”

“It’s our responsibility to our patients to do the best job we can,” he notes. “It’s our responsibility to society to do it as efficiently as we can.”

Veteran meeting faculty John Bulger, DO, MBA, FACP, SFHM, hospitalist and chief quality officer at Geisinger Health System in Pennsylvania, agrees completely and is one of HM’s biggest proponents of the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) Foundation’s Choosing Wisely (www.hospitalmedicine.org/choosingwisely) campaign. The national initiative, aimed at educating physicians—and patients—about wasteful medical tests, procedures, and treatments, launched in 2012, but SHM joined the chorus as a strategic partner last year.

“Choosing Wisely is about bending the cost curve,” Dr. Bulger says.

He added that although standardization of care is necessary for Choosing Wisely to work, homogeneity doesn’t mean everybody does everything exactly the same way. It means ensuring that hospitalists adopt “agreed upon best practices” before local variations are added. He compared it to a cookbook of apple pie recipes. All apple pies contain apples and crust, but the tasty treats are tailored differently from there.

“When you come up with guidelines in your hospital, that’s what you’re doing,” Dr. Bulger says. “You’re writing the cookbook and coming up with what works at your hospital. It might not work at [my hospital] at all, but I can look at it and learn.”

In the long-term, SHM hopes to create resources beyond the recommendations themselves—perhaps including a mentored implementation program akin to Project BOOST or pre-packaged order sets and checklists. Whatever the society does, it needs to engage the younger generation of physicians to ensure that quality and safety stay a priority for them, says Darlene Tad-y, MD, chair of SHM’s Physicians in Training Committee.

An assistant professor of medicine and a hospitalist at the University of Colorado Denver, Dr. Tad-y says that getting residents and students involved in quality and safety measures is critical for HM’s future.

“Especially since we want to have hospital medicine be at the forefront,” she explains. “It’s vital for us to have our students and residents taking the lead.”

Younger physicians already see the role quality and safety take in day-to-day practice. So, for them, according to Dr. Tad-y, a focus on making sure patient care is delivered better and more safely isn’t a renewed effort—it’s what they’re taught from the beginning.

“They haven’t been trained in the old way yet,” she says. “They still have an open mind. They see that things can change and things can be better. We don’t have to change old habits. We are just evolving good new habits for them.”

One new perspective was a first-time pre-course, “Cardiology: What Hospitalists Need to Know as Front-Line Providers.” The eight-hour seminar was led by cardiologist Matthews Chacko, MD, of Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, who says the time is right for quality-focused hospitalists to devote a full-day pre-course to cardiology.

“Cardiovascular disease is the most common reason we die,” he says. “It’s something hospital-based practitioners see often. Providing a comprehensive, yet simplified, overview of the way to manage some of these diseases with talks given by some of the leading experts in the field seemed very appropriate for this meeting.”

The sheer scale of QI initiatives can be daunting, says Michelle Mourad, MD, director of quality and safety at the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF) School of Medicine. She urges her peers to take the proverbial step back, identify a single issue—sepsis mortality or hand hygiene, for example—and then focus on understanding that issue intimately. That way, a hospitalist or HM group can convince other physicians that there is a problem and that it’s worth the work to fix it. Once that’s done, a hospitalist can launch a QI project that devises a measurement strategy to see if change is occurring.

And, while sustaining that change beyond the initial start-up can be difficult, Dr. Mourad believes success breeds success.

“When you work hard at a quality gap that’s in your organization, [when you] actually see the care you provide get better—not just for the patient in front of you, but for all the patients in your organization—it’s extremely powerful and motivating,” she says. “It changes the culture in your institution and convinces other people that they can do the same.”

LAS VEGAS—Hospitalist Ijeoma “Carol” Nwelue, MD, has been more focused on patient readmissions over the past year at her practice in Lansing, Mich. So when the directors at Sparrow Hospitalists told her she had a meeting a few weeks after HM14 to discuss different risk assessment tools that might be used to pre-identify patients at high risk for readmission, she wasn’t nervous.

Instead, she prepped at SHM’s annual meeting at Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino—a veritable three-day crash course in the latest and greatest approaches to preventing readmissions.

“It’s very helpful,” she says. “It helps to see things that I haven’t thought about in our practice that other people are looking into.”

Quality improvement (QI) and patient safety are at the core of what hospitalists do, and the HM14 organizers understand that. From multiple pre-courses on the topics trending today to a dedicated educational track of breakout sessions and expert speakers to hundreds of posters identifying HM-specific QI projects, SHM’s annual meeting is a veritable QI opportunity of its own.

Take the annual pre-course, “ABIM Maintenance of Certification Facilitated Modules.” One attendee told presenter Read Pierce, MD, director of quality improvement and clinical innovation for the hospitalist group at the University of Colorado Denver, that before the session in Las Vegas he had always had “the sense that quality and safety is soft science or fuzzy stuff around the edges, and if you were a smart clinician, that was good enough.”

After some time in the session, Dr. Pierce recounts, the man “realized it’s not just enough to have great intellectual horsepower. You have to have some approach for dealing with these complex systems. And I think that’s the really fun thing....It’s not just about the discreet concepts; it’s about understanding the environment in which we practice, the importance of engaging systems and of using the tools of quality and safety to augment what physicians have always been good at doing.”

John Coppes, MD, FHM, a hospitalist at Mount Nittany Medical Center in State College, Pa., says quality and patient safety are the “most important things that we do.”

“It’s our responsibility to our patients to do the best job we can,” he notes. “It’s our responsibility to society to do it as efficiently as we can.”

Veteran meeting faculty John Bulger, DO, MBA, FACP, SFHM, hospitalist and chief quality officer at Geisinger Health System in Pennsylvania, agrees completely and is one of HM’s biggest proponents of the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) Foundation’s Choosing Wisely (www.hospitalmedicine.org/choosingwisely) campaign. The national initiative, aimed at educating physicians—and patients—about wasteful medical tests, procedures, and treatments, launched in 2012, but SHM joined the chorus as a strategic partner last year.

“Choosing Wisely is about bending the cost curve,” Dr. Bulger says.

He added that although standardization of care is necessary for Choosing Wisely to work, homogeneity doesn’t mean everybody does everything exactly the same way. It means ensuring that hospitalists adopt “agreed upon best practices” before local variations are added. He compared it to a cookbook of apple pie recipes. All apple pies contain apples and crust, but the tasty treats are tailored differently from there.

“When you come up with guidelines in your hospital, that’s what you’re doing,” Dr. Bulger says. “You’re writing the cookbook and coming up with what works at your hospital. It might not work at [my hospital] at all, but I can look at it and learn.”

In the long-term, SHM hopes to create resources beyond the recommendations themselves—perhaps including a mentored implementation program akin to Project BOOST or pre-packaged order sets and checklists. Whatever the society does, it needs to engage the younger generation of physicians to ensure that quality and safety stay a priority for them, says Darlene Tad-y, MD, chair of SHM’s Physicians in Training Committee.

An assistant professor of medicine and a hospitalist at the University of Colorado Denver, Dr. Tad-y says that getting residents and students involved in quality and safety measures is critical for HM’s future.

“Especially since we want to have hospital medicine be at the forefront,” she explains. “It’s vital for us to have our students and residents taking the lead.”

Younger physicians already see the role quality and safety take in day-to-day practice. So, for them, according to Dr. Tad-y, a focus on making sure patient care is delivered better and more safely isn’t a renewed effort—it’s what they’re taught from the beginning.

“They haven’t been trained in the old way yet,” she says. “They still have an open mind. They see that things can change and things can be better. We don’t have to change old habits. We are just evolving good new habits for them.”

One new perspective was a first-time pre-course, “Cardiology: What Hospitalists Need to Know as Front-Line Providers.” The eight-hour seminar was led by cardiologist Matthews Chacko, MD, of Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, who says the time is right for quality-focused hospitalists to devote a full-day pre-course to cardiology.

“Cardiovascular disease is the most common reason we die,” he says. “It’s something hospital-based practitioners see often. Providing a comprehensive, yet simplified, overview of the way to manage some of these diseases with talks given by some of the leading experts in the field seemed very appropriate for this meeting.”

The sheer scale of QI initiatives can be daunting, says Michelle Mourad, MD, director of quality and safety at the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF) School of Medicine. She urges her peers to take the proverbial step back, identify a single issue—sepsis mortality or hand hygiene, for example—and then focus on understanding that issue intimately. That way, a hospitalist or HM group can convince other physicians that there is a problem and that it’s worth the work to fix it. Once that’s done, a hospitalist can launch a QI project that devises a measurement strategy to see if change is occurring.

And, while sustaining that change beyond the initial start-up can be difficult, Dr. Mourad believes success breeds success.

“When you work hard at a quality gap that’s in your organization, [when you] actually see the care you provide get better—not just for the patient in front of you, but for all the patients in your organization—it’s extremely powerful and motivating,” she says. “It changes the culture in your institution and convinces other people that they can do the same.”