Patient Safety

Despite calls for board-certified intensivists to manage all critically ill patients, only a third of hospitalized ICU patients currently are seen by such a specialist—mostly because there are not enough of them to go around.^1,2 More and more hospitalists, especially those in community hospitals, are working in ICUs (see “The Critical-Care Debate,”). With the proper training, that can be a good thing for patients and hospitalists, according to a Research, Innovations, and Clinical Vignettes (RIV) abstract presented at HM12 in San Diego.³

Lead author and hospitalist Mark Krivopal, MD, SFHM, formerly with TeamHealth in California and now vice president and medical director of clinical integration and hospital medicine at Steward Health Care in Boston, outlined a program at California’s Lodi Memorial Hospital that identified a group of hospitalists who had experience in caring for critically ill patients and credentials to perform such procedures as central-line placements, intubations, and ventilator management. The select group of TeamHealth hospitalists completed a two-day “Fundamentals of Critical Care Support” course offered by the Society of Critical Care Medicine (www.sccm.org), then began covering the ICU in shifts from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. The program was so successful early on that hospital administration requested that it expand to a 24-hour service.

An ICU hospitalist program needs to be a partnership, Dr. Krivopal says. Essential oversight at Lodi Memorial is provided by the hospital’s sole pulmonologist.

Preliminary data showed a 35% reduction in ventilator days and 22% reduction in ICU stays, Dr. Krivopal says. The hospital also reports high satisfaction from nurses and other staff. Additional metrics, such as cost savings and patient satisfaction, are under review.

“So long as the level of training is sufficient, this is an approach that definitely should be explored,” he says, adding that young internists have many of the skills needed for ICU work. “But if you don’t keep those skills up [with practice] after residency, you lose them.”

References

1. The Leapfrog Group. ICU physician staffing fact sheet. The Leapfrog Group website. Available at: http://www.leapfroggroup.org/media/file/Leapfrog-ICU_Physician_Staffing_Fact_Sheet.pdf. Accessed Aug. 29, 2012.
2. Health Resources & Services Administration. Report to Congress: The critical care workforce: a study of the supply and demand for critical care physicians. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services website. Available at: http://bhpr.hrsa.gov/healthworkforce/reports/studycriticalcarephys.pdf. Accessed Aug. 29, 2012.
3. Krivopal M, Hlaing M, Felber R, Himebaugh R. ICU hospitalist: a novel method of care for the critically ill patients in economically lean times. J Hosp Med. 2012;7(Suppl 2):192.

Despite calls for board-certified intensivists to manage all critically ill patients, only a third of hospitalized ICU patients currently are seen by such a specialist—mostly because there are not enough of them to go around.^1,2 More and more hospitalists, especially those in community hospitals, are working in ICUs (see “The Critical-Care Debate,”). With the proper training, that can be a good thing for patients and hospitalists, according to a Research, Innovations, and Clinical Vignettes (RIV) abstract presented at HM12 in San Diego.³

Lead author and hospitalist Mark Krivopal, MD, SFHM, formerly with TeamHealth in California and now vice president and medical director of clinical integration and hospital medicine at Steward Health Care in Boston, outlined a program at California’s Lodi Memorial Hospital that identified a group of hospitalists who had experience in caring for critically ill patients and credentials to perform such procedures as central-line placements, intubations, and ventilator management. The select group of TeamHealth hospitalists completed a two-day “Fundamentals of Critical Care Support” course offered by the Society of Critical Care Medicine (www.sccm.org), then began covering the ICU in shifts from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. The program was so successful early on that hospital administration requested that it expand to a 24-hour service.

An ICU hospitalist program needs to be a partnership, Dr. Krivopal says. Essential oversight at Lodi Memorial is provided by the hospital’s sole pulmonologist.

Preliminary data showed a 35% reduction in ventilator days and 22% reduction in ICU stays, Dr. Krivopal says. The hospital also reports high satisfaction from nurses and other staff. Additional metrics, such as cost savings and patient satisfaction, are under review.

“So long as the level of training is sufficient, this is an approach that definitely should be explored,” he says, adding that young internists have many of the skills needed for ICU work. “But if you don’t keep those skills up [with practice] after residency, you lose them.”

References

1. The Leapfrog Group. ICU physician staffing fact sheet. The Leapfrog Group website. Available at: http://www.leapfroggroup.org/media/file/Leapfrog-ICU_Physician_Staffing_Fact_Sheet.pdf. Accessed Aug. 29, 2012.
2. Health Resources & Services Administration. Report to Congress: The critical care workforce: a study of the supply and demand for critical care physicians. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services website. Available at: http://bhpr.hrsa.gov/healthworkforce/reports/studycriticalcarephys.pdf. Accessed Aug. 29, 2012.
3. Krivopal M, Hlaing M, Felber R, Himebaugh R. ICU hospitalist: a novel method of care for the critically ill patients in economically lean times. J Hosp Med. 2012;7(Suppl 2):192.

Despite calls for board-certified intensivists to manage all critically ill patients, only a third of hospitalized ICU patients currently are seen by such a specialist—mostly because there are not enough of them to go around.^1,2 More and more hospitalists, especially those in community hospitals, are working in ICUs (see “The Critical-Care Debate,”). With the proper training, that can be a good thing for patients and hospitalists, according to a Research, Innovations, and Clinical Vignettes (RIV) abstract presented at HM12 in San Diego.³

Lead author and hospitalist Mark Krivopal, MD, SFHM, formerly with TeamHealth in California and now vice president and medical director of clinical integration and hospital medicine at Steward Health Care in Boston, outlined a program at California’s Lodi Memorial Hospital that identified a group of hospitalists who had experience in caring for critically ill patients and credentials to perform such procedures as central-line placements, intubations, and ventilator management. The select group of TeamHealth hospitalists completed a two-day “Fundamentals of Critical Care Support” course offered by the Society of Critical Care Medicine (www.sccm.org), then began covering the ICU in shifts from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. The program was so successful early on that hospital administration requested that it expand to a 24-hour service.

An ICU hospitalist program needs to be a partnership, Dr. Krivopal says. Essential oversight at Lodi Memorial is provided by the hospital’s sole pulmonologist.

Preliminary data showed a 35% reduction in ventilator days and 22% reduction in ICU stays, Dr. Krivopal says. The hospital also reports high satisfaction from nurses and other staff. Additional metrics, such as cost savings and patient satisfaction, are under review.

“So long as the level of training is sufficient, this is an approach that definitely should be explored,” he says, adding that young internists have many of the skills needed for ICU work. “But if you don’t keep those skills up [with practice] after residency, you lose them.”

References

1. The Leapfrog Group. ICU physician staffing fact sheet. The Leapfrog Group website. Available at: http://www.leapfroggroup.org/media/file/Leapfrog-ICU_Physician_Staffing_Fact_Sheet.pdf. Accessed Aug. 29, 2012.
2. Health Resources & Services Administration. Report to Congress: The critical care workforce: a study of the supply and demand for critical care physicians. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services website. Available at: http://bhpr.hrsa.gov/healthworkforce/reports/studycriticalcarephys.pdf. Accessed Aug. 29, 2012.
3. Krivopal M, Hlaing M, Felber R, Himebaugh R. ICU hospitalist: a novel method of care for the critically ill patients in economically lean times. J Hosp Med. 2012;7(Suppl 2):192.

Earlier this summer, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced that more than 100,000 healthcare providers and 48% of all eligible hospitals are using electronic health records (EHRs) that meet federal standards, and they have benefited from federal incentive programs to do so.¹

According to CMS acting administrator Marilyn Tavenner, meeting that provider goal makes 2012 the “Year of Meaningful Use.” She also says healthcare providers have recognized the potential of EHRs to cut down on paperwork, eliminate duplicate screenings and tests, and facilitate better, safer, patient-centered care.²

Belying CMS’ celebratory declarations, however, are concerns among experts that health information technology’s (HIT) actual use falls short of its promise—and might even endanger patients—due to shortcomings in system interoperability, safety, accountability, and other issues.

“Federal funding of IT was a step in the right direction, but it has also created a guaranteed customer base for electronic medical records, so vendors have less incentive to improve their products to meet clinicians needs,” says Kendall M. Rogers, MD, CPE, FACP, SFHM, chair of SHsM’s IT Executive Committee and chief of hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center School of Medicine in Albuquerque. “We want systems that help us make better clinical decisions and allow us to work more efficiently. Unfortunately, many hospitalists are frustrated with existing HIT systems, knowing how much better they need to be. It can be a dangerous gamble to push rapid adoption of potentially unsafe systems in hospitals.”

Questioning HIT Safety

Health IT experts affirm that potential danger. Jerry Osheroff, MD, FACP, FACMI, principal and founder of TMIT Consulting LLC and former chief clinical informatics officer for Thomson Reuters Healthcare, says HIT “is most effective when it gets the right information to the right people, through the right channels, in the right format, at the right point in the workflow. The danger comes when it gets one of those five ‘rights’ wrong; that can lead to distraction, confusion, wasted time, missed improvement opportunities, and safety concerns.”

Last November, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) released a scathing critique of HIT’s current ability to ensure patient safety.3 As the federal government invests billions of dollars to encourage hospitals and healthcare providers to adopt HIT, the IOM report said, improvements in care and safety are not yet established, and little evidence exists that quantifies the magnitude of the risk associated with HIT problems—partly because many HIT vendors discourage providers from sharing patient-safety concerns with nondisclosure and “hold harmless” provisions in contracts that shift the liability of unsafe HIT features to care providers.³

The report also cautioned that serious errors involving these technologies—including medication dosing errors, failure to detect fatal illnesses, and treatment delays due to complex data interfaces and poor human-computer interactions or loss of data—have led to several reported patient deaths and injuries. Furthermore, there is no way to publicly track adverse outcomes because there is no systematic regulation or authority to collect, analyze, and disseminate such information.

The report concluded that the current state of safety and health IT is not acceptable and that regulation of the industry might be necessary because the private sector to date has not taken sufficient action on its own to improve HIT safety.

SHM applauds the IOM report as an overdue and direly needed call to action, Dr. Rogers says. SHM sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services underscoring the importance of the IOM report.

“In our practices, we have experienced the threats to patient safety outlined in the report: poor user-interface design, poor workflow, complex data interfaces, lack of system interoperability, and lack of sufficient vendor action to build safer products,” Dr. Rogers says.

“Lack of interoperability—preventing access to patient data from previous physician or other hospital visits—makes a mockery of a coordinated, patient-centered healthcare system,” says HIT researcher Ross Koppel, PhD, faculty member of University of Pennsylvania’s Sociology Department and School of Medicine.

Although Dr. Rogers acknowledges that HIT has the potential to revolutionize healthcare systems, boost quality and safety, and lower cost, he maintains that current HIT products fall short of those ambitious goals. “Vendors typically regard usability of their products as a convenience request by clinicians; any errors are regarded as training issues for physicians,” Dr. Rogers says. “But the way that data is presented on a screen matters—if it is difficult to input or retrieve data and leads to cognitive or process errors, that’s a product redesign issue for which vendors should be held accountable.”

Dr. Koppel says many HIT systems originated from billing system applications “and were not initially designed with the clinical perspective in mind. Hospitalists have to be particularly focused on usability of HIT systems when it comes to patient-safety impacts. They’re not the canary in the coal mine, they’re the miners—often the teachers guiding other clinicians on HIT use.”

Improvement Agenda

SHM fully supports many of the IOM’s recommendations to improve the safety and functionality of HIT systems, including these as stated in an email to its members:

• Remove contractual restrictions, promote public reporting of safety issues, and put a system in place for independent investigations that drive patient-safety improvement.
• Establish standards and a common infrastructure for “interoperable” data exchange across systems.
• Create dual accountability between vendors and providers to address safety concerns that might require
• changes in an IT product’s functionality or design.
• Promote research on usability and human-factors design, safer implementation, and sociotechnical systems associated with HIT.
• Promote education of safety, quality, and reliability principles in design and implementation of HIT among all levels of the workforce, including frontline clinicians and staff, hospital IT, and quality teams—as well as IT vendors themselves.

There also are ongoing efforts in the private sector to improve HIT system functionality. For example, the HIMSS CDS Guidebook Series, of which Dr. Osheroff is lead editor and author and Dr. Rogers is a contributing author, is a respected repository of information synthesizing and vetting critical guidance for the effective implementation of clinical decision support (CDS).

“We’re also working with Greg Maynard [senior vice president of SHM’s Center for Hospital Innovation & Improvement] to use the collaborative’s tools to disseminate clinical-decision-support best practices for improving VTE prophylaxis rates,” Dr. Osheroff notes.

Hospitalists, as central players in quality improvement (QI), standardization, and care coordination, are natural choices as HIT champions, with valuable insight into how HIT systems should be customized to accommodate workflows and order sets in an optimal fashion, Dr. Rogers says.

“As critical as we are about the status of current HIT systems, we believe that systems can be designed more effectively to meet our needs,” he says. “By adopting many of the improvements enumerated in the IOM report, hospitalists are uniquely positioned to advance HIT to help achieve the goals of safer, higher-quality, and more efficient care.”

Christopher Guadagnino is a freelance writer based in Philadelphia.

References

1. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. More than 100,000 health care providers paid for using electronic health records. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services website. Available at: http://www.cms.gov/apps/media/press/release.asp?Counter=4383&intNumPerPage=10&checkDate=&checkKey=&srchType=1&numDays=3500&sr. Accessed July 31, 2012.
2. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. 2012: the year of meaningful use. The CMS Blog website. Available at: http://blog.cms.gov/2012/03/23/2012-the-year-of-meaningful-use. Accessed July 18, 2012.
3. Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. Health IT and patient safety: building safer systems for better care. Institute of Medicine of the National Academies website. Available at: http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2011/Health-IT-and-Patient-Safety-Building-Safer-Systems-for-Better-Care.aspx. Accessed July 14, 2012.

Earlier this summer, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced that more than 100,000 healthcare providers and 48% of all eligible hospitals are using electronic health records (EHRs) that meet federal standards, and they have benefited from federal incentive programs to do so.¹

According to CMS acting administrator Marilyn Tavenner, meeting that provider goal makes 2012 the “Year of Meaningful Use.” She also says healthcare providers have recognized the potential of EHRs to cut down on paperwork, eliminate duplicate screenings and tests, and facilitate better, safer, patient-centered care.²

Belying CMS’ celebratory declarations, however, are concerns among experts that health information technology’s (HIT) actual use falls short of its promise—and might even endanger patients—due to shortcomings in system interoperability, safety, accountability, and other issues.

“Federal funding of IT was a step in the right direction, but it has also created a guaranteed customer base for electronic medical records, so vendors have less incentive to improve their products to meet clinicians needs,” says Kendall M. Rogers, MD, CPE, FACP, SFHM, chair of SHsM’s IT Executive Committee and chief of hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center School of Medicine in Albuquerque. “We want systems that help us make better clinical decisions and allow us to work more efficiently. Unfortunately, many hospitalists are frustrated with existing HIT systems, knowing how much better they need to be. It can be a dangerous gamble to push rapid adoption of potentially unsafe systems in hospitals.”

Questioning HIT Safety

Health IT experts affirm that potential danger. Jerry Osheroff, MD, FACP, FACMI, principal and founder of TMIT Consulting LLC and former chief clinical informatics officer for Thomson Reuters Healthcare, says HIT “is most effective when it gets the right information to the right people, through the right channels, in the right format, at the right point in the workflow. The danger comes when it gets one of those five ‘rights’ wrong; that can lead to distraction, confusion, wasted time, missed improvement opportunities, and safety concerns.”

Last November, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) released a scathing critique of HIT’s current ability to ensure patient safety.3 As the federal government invests billions of dollars to encourage hospitals and healthcare providers to adopt HIT, the IOM report said, improvements in care and safety are not yet established, and little evidence exists that quantifies the magnitude of the risk associated with HIT problems—partly because many HIT vendors discourage providers from sharing patient-safety concerns with nondisclosure and “hold harmless” provisions in contracts that shift the liability of unsafe HIT features to care providers.³

The report also cautioned that serious errors involving these technologies—including medication dosing errors, failure to detect fatal illnesses, and treatment delays due to complex data interfaces and poor human-computer interactions or loss of data—have led to several reported patient deaths and injuries. Furthermore, there is no way to publicly track adverse outcomes because there is no systematic regulation or authority to collect, analyze, and disseminate such information.

The report concluded that the current state of safety and health IT is not acceptable and that regulation of the industry might be necessary because the private sector to date has not taken sufficient action on its own to improve HIT safety.

SHM applauds the IOM report as an overdue and direly needed call to action, Dr. Rogers says. SHM sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services underscoring the importance of the IOM report.

“In our practices, we have experienced the threats to patient safety outlined in the report: poor user-interface design, poor workflow, complex data interfaces, lack of system interoperability, and lack of sufficient vendor action to build safer products,” Dr. Rogers says.

“Lack of interoperability—preventing access to patient data from previous physician or other hospital visits—makes a mockery of a coordinated, patient-centered healthcare system,” says HIT researcher Ross Koppel, PhD, faculty member of University of Pennsylvania’s Sociology Department and School of Medicine.

Although Dr. Rogers acknowledges that HIT has the potential to revolutionize healthcare systems, boost quality and safety, and lower cost, he maintains that current HIT products fall short of those ambitious goals. “Vendors typically regard usability of their products as a convenience request by clinicians; any errors are regarded as training issues for physicians,” Dr. Rogers says. “But the way that data is presented on a screen matters—if it is difficult to input or retrieve data and leads to cognitive or process errors, that’s a product redesign issue for which vendors should be held accountable.”

Dr. Koppel says many HIT systems originated from billing system applications “and were not initially designed with the clinical perspective in mind. Hospitalists have to be particularly focused on usability of HIT systems when it comes to patient-safety impacts. They’re not the canary in the coal mine, they’re the miners—often the teachers guiding other clinicians on HIT use.”

Improvement Agenda

SHM fully supports many of the IOM’s recommendations to improve the safety and functionality of HIT systems, including these as stated in an email to its members:

• Remove contractual restrictions, promote public reporting of safety issues, and put a system in place for independent investigations that drive patient-safety improvement.
• Establish standards and a common infrastructure for “interoperable” data exchange across systems.
• Create dual accountability between vendors and providers to address safety concerns that might require
• changes in an IT product’s functionality or design.
• Promote research on usability and human-factors design, safer implementation, and sociotechnical systems associated with HIT.
• Promote education of safety, quality, and reliability principles in design and implementation of HIT among all levels of the workforce, including frontline clinicians and staff, hospital IT, and quality teams—as well as IT vendors themselves.

There also are ongoing efforts in the private sector to improve HIT system functionality. For example, the HIMSS CDS Guidebook Series, of which Dr. Osheroff is lead editor and author and Dr. Rogers is a contributing author, is a respected repository of information synthesizing and vetting critical guidance for the effective implementation of clinical decision support (CDS).

“We’re also working with Greg Maynard [senior vice president of SHM’s Center for Hospital Innovation & Improvement] to use the collaborative’s tools to disseminate clinical-decision-support best practices for improving VTE prophylaxis rates,” Dr. Osheroff notes.

Hospitalists, as central players in quality improvement (QI), standardization, and care coordination, are natural choices as HIT champions, with valuable insight into how HIT systems should be customized to accommodate workflows and order sets in an optimal fashion, Dr. Rogers says.

“As critical as we are about the status of current HIT systems, we believe that systems can be designed more effectively to meet our needs,” he says. “By adopting many of the improvements enumerated in the IOM report, hospitalists are uniquely positioned to advance HIT to help achieve the goals of safer, higher-quality, and more efficient care.”

Christopher Guadagnino is a freelance writer based in Philadelphia.

References

1. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. More than 100,000 health care providers paid for using electronic health records. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services website. Available at: http://www.cms.gov/apps/media/press/release.asp?Counter=4383&intNumPerPage=10&checkDate=&checkKey=&srchType=1&numDays=3500&sr. Accessed July 31, 2012.
2. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. 2012: the year of meaningful use. The CMS Blog website. Available at: http://blog.cms.gov/2012/03/23/2012-the-year-of-meaningful-use. Accessed July 18, 2012.
3. Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. Health IT and patient safety: building safer systems for better care. Institute of Medicine of the National Academies website. Available at: http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2011/Health-IT-and-Patient-Safety-Building-Safer-Systems-for-Better-Care.aspx. Accessed July 14, 2012.

Earlier this summer, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced that more than 100,000 healthcare providers and 48% of all eligible hospitals are using electronic health records (EHRs) that meet federal standards, and they have benefited from federal incentive programs to do so.¹

According to CMS acting administrator Marilyn Tavenner, meeting that provider goal makes 2012 the “Year of Meaningful Use.” She also says healthcare providers have recognized the potential of EHRs to cut down on paperwork, eliminate duplicate screenings and tests, and facilitate better, safer, patient-centered care.²

Belying CMS’ celebratory declarations, however, are concerns among experts that health information technology’s (HIT) actual use falls short of its promise—and might even endanger patients—due to shortcomings in system interoperability, safety, accountability, and other issues.

“Federal funding of IT was a step in the right direction, but it has also created a guaranteed customer base for electronic medical records, so vendors have less incentive to improve their products to meet clinicians needs,” says Kendall M. Rogers, MD, CPE, FACP, SFHM, chair of SHsM’s IT Executive Committee and chief of hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center School of Medicine in Albuquerque. “We want systems that help us make better clinical decisions and allow us to work more efficiently. Unfortunately, many hospitalists are frustrated with existing HIT systems, knowing how much better they need to be. It can be a dangerous gamble to push rapid adoption of potentially unsafe systems in hospitals.”

Questioning HIT Safety

Health IT experts affirm that potential danger. Jerry Osheroff, MD, FACP, FACMI, principal and founder of TMIT Consulting LLC and former chief clinical informatics officer for Thomson Reuters Healthcare, says HIT “is most effective when it gets the right information to the right people, through the right channels, in the right format, at the right point in the workflow. The danger comes when it gets one of those five ‘rights’ wrong; that can lead to distraction, confusion, wasted time, missed improvement opportunities, and safety concerns.”

Last November, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) released a scathing critique of HIT’s current ability to ensure patient safety.3 As the federal government invests billions of dollars to encourage hospitals and healthcare providers to adopt HIT, the IOM report said, improvements in care and safety are not yet established, and little evidence exists that quantifies the magnitude of the risk associated with HIT problems—partly because many HIT vendors discourage providers from sharing patient-safety concerns with nondisclosure and “hold harmless” provisions in contracts that shift the liability of unsafe HIT features to care providers.³

The report also cautioned that serious errors involving these technologies—including medication dosing errors, failure to detect fatal illnesses, and treatment delays due to complex data interfaces and poor human-computer interactions or loss of data—have led to several reported patient deaths and injuries. Furthermore, there is no way to publicly track adverse outcomes because there is no systematic regulation or authority to collect, analyze, and disseminate such information.

The report concluded that the current state of safety and health IT is not acceptable and that regulation of the industry might be necessary because the private sector to date has not taken sufficient action on its own to improve HIT safety.

SHM applauds the IOM report as an overdue and direly needed call to action, Dr. Rogers says. SHM sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services underscoring the importance of the IOM report.

“In our practices, we have experienced the threats to patient safety outlined in the report: poor user-interface design, poor workflow, complex data interfaces, lack of system interoperability, and lack of sufficient vendor action to build safer products,” Dr. Rogers says.

“Lack of interoperability—preventing access to patient data from previous physician or other hospital visits—makes a mockery of a coordinated, patient-centered healthcare system,” says HIT researcher Ross Koppel, PhD, faculty member of University of Pennsylvania’s Sociology Department and School of Medicine.

Although Dr. Rogers acknowledges that HIT has the potential to revolutionize healthcare systems, boost quality and safety, and lower cost, he maintains that current HIT products fall short of those ambitious goals. “Vendors typically regard usability of their products as a convenience request by clinicians; any errors are regarded as training issues for physicians,” Dr. Rogers says. “But the way that data is presented on a screen matters—if it is difficult to input or retrieve data and leads to cognitive or process errors, that’s a product redesign issue for which vendors should be held accountable.”

Dr. Koppel says many HIT systems originated from billing system applications “and were not initially designed with the clinical perspective in mind. Hospitalists have to be particularly focused on usability of HIT systems when it comes to patient-safety impacts. They’re not the canary in the coal mine, they’re the miners—often the teachers guiding other clinicians on HIT use.”

Improvement Agenda

SHM fully supports many of the IOM’s recommendations to improve the safety and functionality of HIT systems, including these as stated in an email to its members:

• Remove contractual restrictions, promote public reporting of safety issues, and put a system in place for independent investigations that drive patient-safety improvement.
• Establish standards and a common infrastructure for “interoperable” data exchange across systems.
• Create dual accountability between vendors and providers to address safety concerns that might require
• changes in an IT product’s functionality or design.
• Promote research on usability and human-factors design, safer implementation, and sociotechnical systems associated with HIT.
• Promote education of safety, quality, and reliability principles in design and implementation of HIT among all levels of the workforce, including frontline clinicians and staff, hospital IT, and quality teams—as well as IT vendors themselves.

There also are ongoing efforts in the private sector to improve HIT system functionality. For example, the HIMSS CDS Guidebook Series, of which Dr. Osheroff is lead editor and author and Dr. Rogers is a contributing author, is a respected repository of information synthesizing and vetting critical guidance for the effective implementation of clinical decision support (CDS).

“We’re also working with Greg Maynard [senior vice president of SHM’s Center for Hospital Innovation & Improvement] to use the collaborative’s tools to disseminate clinical-decision-support best practices for improving VTE prophylaxis rates,” Dr. Osheroff notes.

Hospitalists, as central players in quality improvement (QI), standardization, and care coordination, are natural choices as HIT champions, with valuable insight into how HIT systems should be customized to accommodate workflows and order sets in an optimal fashion, Dr. Rogers says.

“As critical as we are about the status of current HIT systems, we believe that systems can be designed more effectively to meet our needs,” he says. “By adopting many of the improvements enumerated in the IOM report, hospitalists are uniquely positioned to advance HIT to help achieve the goals of safer, higher-quality, and more efficient care.”

Christopher Guadagnino is a freelance writer based in Philadelphia.

References

1. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. More than 100,000 health care providers paid for using electronic health records. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services website. Available at: http://www.cms.gov/apps/media/press/release.asp?Counter=4383&intNumPerPage=10&checkDate=&checkKey=&srchType=1&numDays=3500&sr. Accessed July 31, 2012.
2. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. 2012: the year of meaningful use. The CMS Blog website. Available at: http://blog.cms.gov/2012/03/23/2012-the-year-of-meaningful-use. Accessed July 18, 2012.
3. Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. Health IT and patient safety: building safer systems for better care. Institute of Medicine of the National Academies website. Available at: http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2011/Health-IT-and-Patient-Safety-Building-Safer-Systems-for-Better-Care.aspx. Accessed July 14, 2012.

Dr. Hospitalist

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

—Libby Gardner

Dr. Hospitalist responds:

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

For one, on the subject of admissions, I am a firm believer that hospitalists should admit all adult hip fractures. The overwhelming majority of the time, these patients are elderly with comorbid conditions. Sure, they are going to get their hip fixed, because the alternative usually is unacceptable, but some thought needs to go into the process.

The orthopedic surgeon sees a hip that needs fixing and not much else. When such issues as renal failure, afib, congestive heart failure, prior DVT, dementia, and all the other common conditions are present, we as adult hospitalists should take charge of the case. That is the best way to ensure that the patient receives optimal medical care and the documentation that goes along with it. I love our orthopedic surgeons, but I don’t want them primarily admitting, managing, and discharging my elderly patients. Let the surgeon do what they do best—operate—and leave the rest to us as hospitalists.

On the subject of orthopedic trauma, I take the exact opposite approach—this is not something where we have daily expertise. A young, healthy patient with trauma should be admitted by the orthopedic service; that patient population’s complications are much more likely to be directly related to their trauma.

When it comes to elective surgery when the admitting surgeon (orthopedic or otherwise) wants the help of a hospitalist, then I think it is of paramount importance to establish clear “rules of engagement” (see “The Comanagement Conundrum,” April 2011, p. 1). I think with good expectations, you can have a fantastic relationship with your surgeons. Without them, it becomes a nightmare. As a real-life example, here are my HM group’s rules for elective orthopedic surgery:

• Orthopedics handles all pain medications and VTE prophylaxis, including discharge prescriptions;
• Medicine does the admission and medication reconciliation (“med rec”) at discharge;
• There is shared discussion on the need for transfusion; and
• There is shared discussion on the need for VTE prophylaxis when a patient already is on chronic anticoagulation.

We do not vary from this protocol. I never adjust a patient’s pain medications—even the floor nurses know this. Because I’m doing the admit and med rec, it also means that the patient doesn’t have their HCTZ continued after 600cc of EBL and spinal anesthesia. It works because the rules are clear and the communication is consistent.

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

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

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

Dr. Hospitalist

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

—Libby Gardner

Dr. Hospitalist responds:

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

For one, on the subject of admissions, I am a firm believer that hospitalists should admit all adult hip fractures. The overwhelming majority of the time, these patients are elderly with comorbid conditions. Sure, they are going to get their hip fixed, because the alternative usually is unacceptable, but some thought needs to go into the process.

The orthopedic surgeon sees a hip that needs fixing and not much else. When such issues as renal failure, afib, congestive heart failure, prior DVT, dementia, and all the other common conditions are present, we as adult hospitalists should take charge of the case. That is the best way to ensure that the patient receives optimal medical care and the documentation that goes along with it. I love our orthopedic surgeons, but I don’t want them primarily admitting, managing, and discharging my elderly patients. Let the surgeon do what they do best—operate—and leave the rest to us as hospitalists.

On the subject of orthopedic trauma, I take the exact opposite approach—this is not something where we have daily expertise. A young, healthy patient with trauma should be admitted by the orthopedic service; that patient population’s complications are much more likely to be directly related to their trauma.

When it comes to elective surgery when the admitting surgeon (orthopedic or otherwise) wants the help of a hospitalist, then I think it is of paramount importance to establish clear “rules of engagement” (see “The Comanagement Conundrum,” April 2011, p. 1). I think with good expectations, you can have a fantastic relationship with your surgeons. Without them, it becomes a nightmare. As a real-life example, here are my HM group’s rules for elective orthopedic surgery:

• Orthopedics handles all pain medications and VTE prophylaxis, including discharge prescriptions;
• Medicine does the admission and medication reconciliation (“med rec”) at discharge;
• There is shared discussion on the need for transfusion; and
• There is shared discussion on the need for VTE prophylaxis when a patient already is on chronic anticoagulation.

We do not vary from this protocol. I never adjust a patient’s pain medications—even the floor nurses know this. Because I’m doing the admit and med rec, it also means that the patient doesn’t have their HCTZ continued after 600cc of EBL and spinal anesthesia. It works because the rules are clear and the communication is consistent.

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

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

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

Dr. Hospitalist

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

—Libby Gardner

Dr. Hospitalist responds:

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

For one, on the subject of admissions, I am a firm believer that hospitalists should admit all adult hip fractures. The overwhelming majority of the time, these patients are elderly with comorbid conditions. Sure, they are going to get their hip fixed, because the alternative usually is unacceptable, but some thought needs to go into the process.

The orthopedic surgeon sees a hip that needs fixing and not much else. When such issues as renal failure, afib, congestive heart failure, prior DVT, dementia, and all the other common conditions are present, we as adult hospitalists should take charge of the case. That is the best way to ensure that the patient receives optimal medical care and the documentation that goes along with it. I love our orthopedic surgeons, but I don’t want them primarily admitting, managing, and discharging my elderly patients. Let the surgeon do what they do best—operate—and leave the rest to us as hospitalists.

On the subject of orthopedic trauma, I take the exact opposite approach—this is not something where we have daily expertise. A young, healthy patient with trauma should be admitted by the orthopedic service; that patient population’s complications are much more likely to be directly related to their trauma.

When it comes to elective surgery when the admitting surgeon (orthopedic or otherwise) wants the help of a hospitalist, then I think it is of paramount importance to establish clear “rules of engagement” (see “The Comanagement Conundrum,” April 2011, p. 1). I think with good expectations, you can have a fantastic relationship with your surgeons. Without them, it becomes a nightmare. As a real-life example, here are my HM group’s rules for elective orthopedic surgery:

• Orthopedics handles all pain medications and VTE prophylaxis, including discharge prescriptions;
• Medicine does the admission and medication reconciliation (“med rec”) at discharge;
• There is shared discussion on the need for transfusion; and
• There is shared discussion on the need for VTE prophylaxis when a patient already is on chronic anticoagulation.

We do not vary from this protocol. I never adjust a patient’s pain medications—even the floor nurses know this. Because I’m doing the admit and med rec, it also means that the patient doesn’t have their HCTZ continued after 600cc of EBL and spinal anesthesia. It works because the rules are clear and the communication is consistent.

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

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

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

Laura Vento, MSN, RN, first took an interest in the teach-back process when her father had a liver transplant. Following a prolonged hospitalization, Vento’s dad was sent home with little understanding of how to take care of himself; most notably, he had no wound-care education. And when she reviewed his medications, Vento found serious discrepancies with his anti-rejection drug prescriptions.

Her mind was filled with questions: “What kind of transition of care was this? How well am I as a nurse preparing my patients for discharge?” says Vento, a clinical nurse leader on an acute-care medical unit at the University of California at San Diego (UCSD) Medical Center. “I have since learned that shocking numbers of [hospitalized] patients receive little or no education about how to care for themselves.”

About the same time as her dad’s recovery, Vento’s nurse manager heard about SHM’s Project BOOST. They applied for a grant to support training hospital staff in the teach-back system, an integral Project BOOST strategy for educating patients about their post-discharge care needs.

At UCSD, teach-back was incorporated into a larger process of improving care transitions and preventing avoidable readmissions. In addition to the new communication techniques, the process also includes risk assessment, post-discharge follow-up phone calls, and other strategies, supported by a hospitalwide, multidisciplinary education council.

Following a four-hour teach-back curriculum presented to nursing staff, “we did role modeling and role plays,” Vento says. “We followed up with a teach-back coach, me, going to patients’ bedsides with the nurses, because the workshop content alone was not enough without the patient interaction. We needed to verify the nurses’ competency.”

From its initial piloting on two units, teach-back is being hard-wired into UCSD’s electronic health record, with guides to ask for five basic teach-back checks: reason for admission, self-care needs, when to call a physician or 9ll, scheduled follow-up appointments, and changes to the medication list. The education council is now rolling out teach-back to nurses across the system. For her efforts in disseminating the strategy the past two years, Vento was named the UCSD health system’s Nurse of the Year for 2011.

And yet, despite this systemwide recognition, “the focus up to this point has mostly been on the nurses, who are responsible for the bulk of patient education,” says UCSD hospitalist and Project BOOST mentor Jennifer Quartarolo, MD, SFHM. “It’s probably been underutilized by other members of the care team.”

Despite competing demands on physicians’ time, Dr. Quartarolo says hospitalists need to improve their patient education skills. “Teach-back can help us effectively communicate the key teaching points that we’d like our hospitalized patients and their caregivers to take home with them,” she says.

Laura Vento, MSN, RN, first took an interest in the teach-back process when her father had a liver transplant. Following a prolonged hospitalization, Vento’s dad was sent home with little understanding of how to take care of himself; most notably, he had no wound-care education. And when she reviewed his medications, Vento found serious discrepancies with his anti-rejection drug prescriptions.

Her mind was filled with questions: “What kind of transition of care was this? How well am I as a nurse preparing my patients for discharge?” says Vento, a clinical nurse leader on an acute-care medical unit at the University of California at San Diego (UCSD) Medical Center. “I have since learned that shocking numbers of [hospitalized] patients receive little or no education about how to care for themselves.”

About the same time as her dad’s recovery, Vento’s nurse manager heard about SHM’s Project BOOST. They applied for a grant to support training hospital staff in the teach-back system, an integral Project BOOST strategy for educating patients about their post-discharge care needs.

At UCSD, teach-back was incorporated into a larger process of improving care transitions and preventing avoidable readmissions. In addition to the new communication techniques, the process also includes risk assessment, post-discharge follow-up phone calls, and other strategies, supported by a hospitalwide, multidisciplinary education council.

Following a four-hour teach-back curriculum presented to nursing staff, “we did role modeling and role plays,” Vento says. “We followed up with a teach-back coach, me, going to patients’ bedsides with the nurses, because the workshop content alone was not enough without the patient interaction. We needed to verify the nurses’ competency.”

From its initial piloting on two units, teach-back is being hard-wired into UCSD’s electronic health record, with guides to ask for five basic teach-back checks: reason for admission, self-care needs, when to call a physician or 9ll, scheduled follow-up appointments, and changes to the medication list. The education council is now rolling out teach-back to nurses across the system. For her efforts in disseminating the strategy the past two years, Vento was named the UCSD health system’s Nurse of the Year for 2011.

And yet, despite this systemwide recognition, “the focus up to this point has mostly been on the nurses, who are responsible for the bulk of patient education,” says UCSD hospitalist and Project BOOST mentor Jennifer Quartarolo, MD, SFHM. “It’s probably been underutilized by other members of the care team.”

Despite competing demands on physicians’ time, Dr. Quartarolo says hospitalists need to improve their patient education skills. “Teach-back can help us effectively communicate the key teaching points that we’d like our hospitalized patients and their caregivers to take home with them,” she says.

Laura Vento, MSN, RN, first took an interest in the teach-back process when her father had a liver transplant. Following a prolonged hospitalization, Vento’s dad was sent home with little understanding of how to take care of himself; most notably, he had no wound-care education. And when she reviewed his medications, Vento found serious discrepancies with his anti-rejection drug prescriptions.

Her mind was filled with questions: “What kind of transition of care was this? How well am I as a nurse preparing my patients for discharge?” says Vento, a clinical nurse leader on an acute-care medical unit at the University of California at San Diego (UCSD) Medical Center. “I have since learned that shocking numbers of [hospitalized] patients receive little or no education about how to care for themselves.”

About the same time as her dad’s recovery, Vento’s nurse manager heard about SHM’s Project BOOST. They applied for a grant to support training hospital staff in the teach-back system, an integral Project BOOST strategy for educating patients about their post-discharge care needs.

At UCSD, teach-back was incorporated into a larger process of improving care transitions and preventing avoidable readmissions. In addition to the new communication techniques, the process also includes risk assessment, post-discharge follow-up phone calls, and other strategies, supported by a hospitalwide, multidisciplinary education council.

Following a four-hour teach-back curriculum presented to nursing staff, “we did role modeling and role plays,” Vento says. “We followed up with a teach-back coach, me, going to patients’ bedsides with the nurses, because the workshop content alone was not enough without the patient interaction. We needed to verify the nurses’ competency.”

From its initial piloting on two units, teach-back is being hard-wired into UCSD’s electronic health record, with guides to ask for five basic teach-back checks: reason for admission, self-care needs, when to call a physician or 9ll, scheduled follow-up appointments, and changes to the medication list. The education council is now rolling out teach-back to nurses across the system. For her efforts in disseminating the strategy the past two years, Vento was named the UCSD health system’s Nurse of the Year for 2011.

And yet, despite this systemwide recognition, “the focus up to this point has mostly been on the nurses, who are responsible for the bulk of patient education,” says UCSD hospitalist and Project BOOST mentor Jennifer Quartarolo, MD, SFHM. “It’s probably been underutilized by other members of the care team.”

Despite competing demands on physicians’ time, Dr. Quartarolo says hospitalists need to improve their patient education skills. “Teach-back can help us effectively communicate the key teaching points that we’d like our hospitalized patients and their caregivers to take home with them,” she says.

Six out of 7 respondents to an unscientific survey at the-hospitalist.org correctly answered the question "Which patient being discharged DOES NOT require VTE prophylaxis?" while 14% of respondents answered incorrectly, according to veteran hospitalists who reviewed survey results.

Nearly 200 people responded to the survey, which provided the following answers:

• Hip/knee replacement patients;

• Hip-fracture surgery patients;

• Patients with advanced solid tumors;

• Patients with congestive heart failure; and

• Immobile or bed-bound patients.

The survey ran from June 29 to July 27 and was not limited to physicians. Sixty-six percent of respondents chose "patients with congestive heart failure" as their answer; 20% of respondents chose "patients with advanced solid tumors." Both types of discharged patients do not require VTE prophylaxis, according to the new American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) guidelines, says Joseph Ming Wah Li, MD, SFHM, FACP, past president of SHM, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, and hospitalist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

"Hospitalists are familiar with the fact that patients with advanced solid tumors without additional risk factors do not need extended prophylaxis, as per the guidelines put out by ACCP," Dr. Li says. "And patients with congestive heart failure being discharged from the hospital do not need extended thromboprophylaxis, either."

As for the 14% of respondents who chose incorrectly, Gregory Maynard, MD, MSc, SFHM, health sciences professor of medicine at the University of California at San Diego, says extended prophylaxis "may not be on their radar."

"Hospitalists are still struggling to get a consistent approach to inpatient VTE prophylaxis, especially since the ACCP 9 guidelines changed methodologies and provided weaker support for prophylaxis," says Dr. Maynard, senior vice president of SHM's Center for Hospital Innovation and Improvement.

For more information, check out our "Key Clinical Question" outlining VTE prophylaxis guidelines.

Six out of 7 respondents to an unscientific survey at the-hospitalist.org correctly answered the question "Which patient being discharged DOES NOT require VTE prophylaxis?" while 14% of respondents answered incorrectly, according to veteran hospitalists who reviewed survey results.

Nearly 200 people responded to the survey, which provided the following answers:

• Hip/knee replacement patients;

• Hip-fracture surgery patients;

• Patients with advanced solid tumors;

• Patients with congestive heart failure; and

• Immobile or bed-bound patients.

The survey ran from June 29 to July 27 and was not limited to physicians. Sixty-six percent of respondents chose "patients with congestive heart failure" as their answer; 20% of respondents chose "patients with advanced solid tumors." Both types of discharged patients do not require VTE prophylaxis, according to the new American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) guidelines, says Joseph Ming Wah Li, MD, SFHM, FACP, past president of SHM, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, and hospitalist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

"Hospitalists are familiar with the fact that patients with advanced solid tumors without additional risk factors do not need extended prophylaxis, as per the guidelines put out by ACCP," Dr. Li says. "And patients with congestive heart failure being discharged from the hospital do not need extended thromboprophylaxis, either."

As for the 14% of respondents who chose incorrectly, Gregory Maynard, MD, MSc, SFHM, health sciences professor of medicine at the University of California at San Diego, says extended prophylaxis "may not be on their radar."

"Hospitalists are still struggling to get a consistent approach to inpatient VTE prophylaxis, especially since the ACCP 9 guidelines changed methodologies and provided weaker support for prophylaxis," says Dr. Maynard, senior vice president of SHM's Center for Hospital Innovation and Improvement.

For more information, check out our "Key Clinical Question" outlining VTE prophylaxis guidelines.

Six out of 7 respondents to an unscientific survey at the-hospitalist.org correctly answered the question "Which patient being discharged DOES NOT require VTE prophylaxis?" while 14% of respondents answered incorrectly, according to veteran hospitalists who reviewed survey results.

Nearly 200 people responded to the survey, which provided the following answers:

• Hip/knee replacement patients;

• Hip-fracture surgery patients;

• Patients with advanced solid tumors;

• Patients with congestive heart failure; and

• Immobile or bed-bound patients.

The survey ran from June 29 to July 27 and was not limited to physicians. Sixty-six percent of respondents chose "patients with congestive heart failure" as their answer; 20% of respondents chose "patients with advanced solid tumors." Both types of discharged patients do not require VTE prophylaxis, according to the new American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) guidelines, says Joseph Ming Wah Li, MD, SFHM, FACP, past president of SHM, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, and hospitalist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

"Hospitalists are familiar with the fact that patients with advanced solid tumors without additional risk factors do not need extended prophylaxis, as per the guidelines put out by ACCP," Dr. Li says. "And patients with congestive heart failure being discharged from the hospital do not need extended thromboprophylaxis, either."

As for the 14% of respondents who chose incorrectly, Gregory Maynard, MD, MSc, SFHM, health sciences professor of medicine at the University of California at San Diego, says extended prophylaxis "may not be on their radar."

"Hospitalists are still struggling to get a consistent approach to inpatient VTE prophylaxis, especially since the ACCP 9 guidelines changed methodologies and provided weaker support for prophylaxis," says Dr. Maynard, senior vice president of SHM's Center for Hospital Innovation and Improvement.

For more information, check out our "Key Clinical Question" outlining VTE prophylaxis guidelines.

Discordant antibiotic therapy for urinary tract infections (UTIs) is common and associated with higher length of stay (LOS) in hospitalized children, according to a study published online last month in the Journal of Hospital Medicine. But lead author Karen Jerardi, MD, division of hospital medicine at Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center says the reason might be related to physicians, not their patients.

"First, use our knowledge of local resistance patterns and patient factors to select an antibiotic likely to be concordant," she says. "The second thing is [that] we probably need to analyze our practice a little bit more and try to figure out if we are just keeping patients in the hospital because we want to see them be on the concordant antibiotic for X number of hours before we send them home. Does that benefit the patient more, or are we keeping them in the hospital longer for our own peace of mind?"

The report, "Discordant Antibiotic Therapy and Length of Stay in Children Hospitalized for Urinary Tract Infection," found that discordant therapy occurred in 10% of cases in which patients had laboratory-confirmed UTIs and, in adjusted analyses, was associated with a 1.8-day increase in LOS.

Dr. Jerardi says that future studies are needed to determine whether pediatric hospitalists are extending LOS by keeping patients longer than absolutely necessary. She cautions, though, that how long a child is kept in the hospital should be determined by case-specific circumstances.

"Hopefully, this will make people analyze how they do things," she adds, "and think to themselves, 'Would I keep that patient an extra day longer because I had to switch their antibiotic—even if their fever went away, they were drinking great, and Mom and Dad were ready to go home—just for my peace of mind?'"

Discordant antibiotic therapy for urinary tract infections (UTIs) is common and associated with higher length of stay (LOS) in hospitalized children, according to a study published online last month in the Journal of Hospital Medicine. But lead author Karen Jerardi, MD, division of hospital medicine at Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center says the reason might be related to physicians, not their patients.

"First, use our knowledge of local resistance patterns and patient factors to select an antibiotic likely to be concordant," she says. "The second thing is [that] we probably need to analyze our practice a little bit more and try to figure out if we are just keeping patients in the hospital because we want to see them be on the concordant antibiotic for X number of hours before we send them home. Does that benefit the patient more, or are we keeping them in the hospital longer for our own peace of mind?"

The report, "Discordant Antibiotic Therapy and Length of Stay in Children Hospitalized for Urinary Tract Infection," found that discordant therapy occurred in 10% of cases in which patients had laboratory-confirmed UTIs and, in adjusted analyses, was associated with a 1.8-day increase in LOS.

Dr. Jerardi says that future studies are needed to determine whether pediatric hospitalists are extending LOS by keeping patients longer than absolutely necessary. She cautions, though, that how long a child is kept in the hospital should be determined by case-specific circumstances.

"Hopefully, this will make people analyze how they do things," she adds, "and think to themselves, 'Would I keep that patient an extra day longer because I had to switch their antibiotic—even if their fever went away, they were drinking great, and Mom and Dad were ready to go home—just for my peace of mind?'"

Discordant antibiotic therapy for urinary tract infections (UTIs) is common and associated with higher length of stay (LOS) in hospitalized children, according to a study published online last month in the Journal of Hospital Medicine. But lead author Karen Jerardi, MD, division of hospital medicine at Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center says the reason might be related to physicians, not their patients.

"First, use our knowledge of local resistance patterns and patient factors to select an antibiotic likely to be concordant," she says. "The second thing is [that] we probably need to analyze our practice a little bit more and try to figure out if we are just keeping patients in the hospital because we want to see them be on the concordant antibiotic for X number of hours before we send them home. Does that benefit the patient more, or are we keeping them in the hospital longer for our own peace of mind?"

The report, "Discordant Antibiotic Therapy and Length of Stay in Children Hospitalized for Urinary Tract Infection," found that discordant therapy occurred in 10% of cases in which patients had laboratory-confirmed UTIs and, in adjusted analyses, was associated with a 1.8-day increase in LOS.

Dr. Jerardi says that future studies are needed to determine whether pediatric hospitalists are extending LOS by keeping patients longer than absolutely necessary. She cautions, though, that how long a child is kept in the hospital should be determined by case-specific circumstances.

"Hopefully, this will make people analyze how they do things," she adds, "and think to themselves, 'Would I keep that patient an extra day longer because I had to switch their antibiotic—even if their fever went away, they were drinking great, and Mom and Dad were ready to go home—just for my peace of mind?'"

At first blush, some hospitalists might see it as bad news that a recent report found a pharmacist-assisted medication reconciliation ("med rec") intervention did not significantly reduce clinically important medication errors after discharge. But a deeper reading of the study tells a different story, says a hospitalist who worked on the report.

"This is the latest in our growing understanding of the roles of certain interventions on transitions of care," says Jeffrey Schnipper, MD, MPH, FHM, director of clinical research and an associate physician in the general medicine division at Brigham and Women's Hospitalist Service in Boston, and co-author of the study "Effect of a Pharmacist Intervention on Clinically Important Medication Errors after Hospital Discharge." "What I don't want to have happen is for people to read this article ... and say, 'Oh, pharmacists don't make a difference.' They absolutely make a difference. This is a more nuanced issue of who do they have the biggest impact with, and 'On top of what other interventions are you doing this?'"

The researchers set out to determine whether a pharmacist-delivered intervention on patients with low health literacy (including a post-discharge telephone call) would lower adverse drug events and other clinically important medication errors. They concluded that it did not (unadjusted incidence rate ratio, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.77 to 1.10]).

Dr. Schnipper says the impact was likely muted because the patients studied had higher health-literacy levels than researchers expected. Also, because most follow-up phone calls occurred within a few days of discharge, the intervention failed to capture any events that happened in the 30 days after discharge.

He also notes that the institutions that participated in the study have already implemented multiple med-rec interventions over the past few years. Hospitals that have not focused intently on the issue could find much larger gains from implementing pharmacist-led programs.

"If you're a hospital that has not been fixated on improving medication safety and transitions of care, I think pharmacists are huge," Dr. Schnipper says. "The key, then, is to focus them on the highest-risk patients."

At first blush, some hospitalists might see it as bad news that a recent report found a pharmacist-assisted medication reconciliation ("med rec") intervention did not significantly reduce clinically important medication errors after discharge. But a deeper reading of the study tells a different story, says a hospitalist who worked on the report.

"This is the latest in our growing understanding of the roles of certain interventions on transitions of care," says Jeffrey Schnipper, MD, MPH, FHM, director of clinical research and an associate physician in the general medicine division at Brigham and Women's Hospitalist Service in Boston, and co-author of the study "Effect of a Pharmacist Intervention on Clinically Important Medication Errors after Hospital Discharge." "What I don't want to have happen is for people to read this article ... and say, 'Oh, pharmacists don't make a difference.' They absolutely make a difference. This is a more nuanced issue of who do they have the biggest impact with, and 'On top of what other interventions are you doing this?'"

The researchers set out to determine whether a pharmacist-delivered intervention on patients with low health literacy (including a post-discharge telephone call) would lower adverse drug events and other clinically important medication errors. They concluded that it did not (unadjusted incidence rate ratio, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.77 to 1.10]).

Dr. Schnipper says the impact was likely muted because the patients studied had higher health-literacy levels than researchers expected. Also, because most follow-up phone calls occurred within a few days of discharge, the intervention failed to capture any events that happened in the 30 days after discharge.

He also notes that the institutions that participated in the study have already implemented multiple med-rec interventions over the past few years. Hospitals that have not focused intently on the issue could find much larger gains from implementing pharmacist-led programs.

"If you're a hospital that has not been fixated on improving medication safety and transitions of care, I think pharmacists are huge," Dr. Schnipper says. "The key, then, is to focus them on the highest-risk patients."

At first blush, some hospitalists might see it as bad news that a recent report found a pharmacist-assisted medication reconciliation ("med rec") intervention did not significantly reduce clinically important medication errors after discharge. But a deeper reading of the study tells a different story, says a hospitalist who worked on the report.

"This is the latest in our growing understanding of the roles of certain interventions on transitions of care," says Jeffrey Schnipper, MD, MPH, FHM, director of clinical research and an associate physician in the general medicine division at Brigham and Women's Hospitalist Service in Boston, and co-author of the study "Effect of a Pharmacist Intervention on Clinically Important Medication Errors after Hospital Discharge." "What I don't want to have happen is for people to read this article ... and say, 'Oh, pharmacists don't make a difference.' They absolutely make a difference. This is a more nuanced issue of who do they have the biggest impact with, and 'On top of what other interventions are you doing this?'"

The researchers set out to determine whether a pharmacist-delivered intervention on patients with low health literacy (including a post-discharge telephone call) would lower adverse drug events and other clinically important medication errors. They concluded that it did not (unadjusted incidence rate ratio, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.77 to 1.10]).

Dr. Schnipper says the impact was likely muted because the patients studied had higher health-literacy levels than researchers expected. Also, because most follow-up phone calls occurred within a few days of discharge, the intervention failed to capture any events that happened in the 30 days after discharge.

He also notes that the institutions that participated in the study have already implemented multiple med-rec interventions over the past few years. Hospitals that have not focused intently on the issue could find much larger gains from implementing pharmacist-led programs.

"If you're a hospital that has not been fixated on improving medication safety and transitions of care, I think pharmacists are huge," Dr. Schnipper says. "The key, then, is to focus them on the highest-risk patients."

Clinical question: Can a quality-improvement (QI) collaborative decrease patient identification (ID) band errors?

Background: ID band errors often result in medication errors and unsafe care. Consequently, correct patient identification, through the use of at least two identifiers, has been an ongoing Joint Commission National Patient Safety Goal. Although individual sites have demonstrated improvement in accuracy of patient identification, there have not been reports of dissemination of successful practices.

Study design: Collaborative quality-improvement initiative.

Setting: Six hospitals.

Synopsis: ID band audits in 11,377 patients were performed in the learning collaborative’s six participating hospitals.

The audits were organized primarily around monthly conference calls. The hospital settings were diverse: community hospitals, hospitals within an academic medical center, and freestanding children’s hospitals. The aim of the collaborative was to reduce ID band errors by 50% within a one-year time frame across the collective sites.

Key interventions included transparent data collection and reporting; engagement of staff, families and leadership; voluntary event reporting; and auditing of failures. The mean combined ID band failure rate decreased to 4% from 22% within 13 months, representing a 77% relative reduction (P<0.001).

QI collaboratives are not designed to specifically result in generalizable knowledge, yet they might produce widespread improvement, as this effort demonstrates. The careful documentation of iterative factors implemented across sites in this initiative provides a blueprint for hospitals looking to replicate this success. Additionally, the interventions represent feasible and logical concepts within the basic constructs of improvement science methodology.

Bottom line: A QI collaborative might result in rapid and significant reductions in ID band errors.

Citation: Phillips SC, Saysana M, Worley S, Hain PD. Reduction in pediatric identification band errors: a quality collaborative. Pediatrics. 2012;129(6):e1587-e1593.

Reviewed by Pediatric Editor Mark Shen, MD, SFHM, medical director of hospital medicine at Dell Children's Medical Center, Austin, Texas.

Clinical question: Can a quality-improvement (QI) collaborative decrease patient identification (ID) band errors?

Background: ID band errors often result in medication errors and unsafe care. Consequently, correct patient identification, through the use of at least two identifiers, has been an ongoing Joint Commission National Patient Safety Goal. Although individual sites have demonstrated improvement in accuracy of patient identification, there have not been reports of dissemination of successful practices.

Study design: Collaborative quality-improvement initiative.

Setting: Six hospitals.

Synopsis: ID band audits in 11,377 patients were performed in the learning collaborative’s six participating hospitals.

The audits were organized primarily around monthly conference calls. The hospital settings were diverse: community hospitals, hospitals within an academic medical center, and freestanding children’s hospitals. The aim of the collaborative was to reduce ID band errors by 50% within a one-year time frame across the collective sites.

Key interventions included transparent data collection and reporting; engagement of staff, families and leadership; voluntary event reporting; and auditing of failures. The mean combined ID band failure rate decreased to 4% from 22% within 13 months, representing a 77% relative reduction (P<0.001).

QI collaboratives are not designed to specifically result in generalizable knowledge, yet they might produce widespread improvement, as this effort demonstrates. The careful documentation of iterative factors implemented across sites in this initiative provides a blueprint for hospitals looking to replicate this success. Additionally, the interventions represent feasible and logical concepts within the basic constructs of improvement science methodology.

Bottom line: A QI collaborative might result in rapid and significant reductions in ID band errors.

Citation: Phillips SC, Saysana M, Worley S, Hain PD. Reduction in pediatric identification band errors: a quality collaborative. Pediatrics. 2012;129(6):e1587-e1593.

Reviewed by Pediatric Editor Mark Shen, MD, SFHM, medical director of hospital medicine at Dell Children's Medical Center, Austin, Texas.

Clinical question: Can a quality-improvement (QI) collaborative decrease patient identification (ID) band errors?

Background: ID band errors often result in medication errors and unsafe care. Consequently, correct patient identification, through the use of at least two identifiers, has been an ongoing Joint Commission National Patient Safety Goal. Although individual sites have demonstrated improvement in accuracy of patient identification, there have not been reports of dissemination of successful practices.

Study design: Collaborative quality-improvement initiative.

Setting: Six hospitals.

Synopsis: ID band audits in 11,377 patients were performed in the learning collaborative’s six participating hospitals.

The audits were organized primarily around monthly conference calls. The hospital settings were diverse: community hospitals, hospitals within an academic medical center, and freestanding children’s hospitals. The aim of the collaborative was to reduce ID band errors by 50% within a one-year time frame across the collective sites.

Key interventions included transparent data collection and reporting; engagement of staff, families and leadership; voluntary event reporting; and auditing of failures. The mean combined ID band failure rate decreased to 4% from 22% within 13 months, representing a 77% relative reduction (P<0.001).

QI collaboratives are not designed to specifically result in generalizable knowledge, yet they might produce widespread improvement, as this effort demonstrates. The careful documentation of iterative factors implemented across sites in this initiative provides a blueprint for hospitals looking to replicate this success. Additionally, the interventions represent feasible and logical concepts within the basic constructs of improvement science methodology.

Bottom line: A QI collaborative might result in rapid and significant reductions in ID band errors.

Citation: Phillips SC, Saysana M, Worley S, Hain PD. Reduction in pediatric identification band errors: a quality collaborative. Pediatrics. 2012;129(6):e1587-e1593.

Reviewed by Pediatric Editor Mark Shen, MD, SFHM, medical director of hospital medicine at Dell Children's Medical Center, Austin, Texas.

Hospitalists often are involved in the postoperative care of the surgical patient. However, HM is emerging in the admitting/attending role for procedural patients. Confusion can arise as to the nature of the hospitalist service, and whether it is deemed billable. Knowing the surgical package requirements can help hospitalists consider the issues.

Global Surgical Package Period¹

Surgical procedures, categorized as major or minor surgery, are reimbursed for pre-, intra-, and postoperative care. Postoperative care varies according to the procedure’s assigned global period, which designates zero, 10, or 90 postoperative days. (Physicians can review the global period for any given CPT code in the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, available at www.cms.gov/apps/physician-fee-schedule/search/search-criteria.aspx.)

Services classified with “XXX” do not have the global period concept. “ZZZ” services denote an “add-on” procedure code that must always be reported with a primary procedure code and assumes the global period assigned to the primary procedure performed.

Major surgery allocates a 90-day global period in which the surgeon is responsible for all related surgical care one day before surgery through 90 postoperative days with no additional charge. Minor surgery, including endoscopy, appoints a zero-day or 10-day postoperative period. The zero-day global period encompasses only services provided on the surgical day, whereas 10-day global periods include services on the surgical day through 10 postoperative days.

Global Surgical Package Components²

The global surgical package comprises a host of responsibilities that include standard facility requirements of filling out all necessary paperwork involved in surgical cases (e.g. preoperative H&P, operative consent forms, preoperative orders). Additionally, the surgeon’s packaged payment includes (at no extra charge):

• Preoperative visits after making the decision for surgery beginning one day prior to surgery;
• All additional postoperative medical or surgical services provided by the surgeon related to complications but not requiring additional trips to the operating room;
• Postoperative visits by the surgeon related to recovery from surgery, including but not limited to dressing changes; local incisional care; removal of cutaneous sutures and staples; line removals; changes and removal of tracheostomy tubes; and discharge services; and
• Postoperative pain management provided by the surgeon.
• Examples of services that are not included in the global surgical package, (i.e. are separately billable and may require an appropriate modifier) are:
• The initial consultation or evaluation of the problem by the surgeon to determine the need for surgery;
• Services of other physicians except where the other physicians are providing coverage for the surgeon or agree on a transfer of care (i.e. a formal agreement in the form of a letter or an annotation in the discharge summary, hospital record, or ASC record);
• Postoperative visits by the surgeon unrelated to the diagnosis for which the surgical procedure is performed, unless the visits occur due to complications of the surgery;
• Diagnostic tests and procedures, including diagnostic radiological procedures;
• Clearly distinct surgical procedures during the postoperative period that do not result in repeat operations or treatment for complications;
• Treatment for postoperative complications that requires a return trip to the operating room (OR), catheterization lab or endoscopy suite;
• Immunosuppressive therapy for organ transplants; and
• Critical-care services (CPT codes 99291 and 99292) unrelated to the surgery where a seriously injured or burned patient is critically ill and requires constant attendance of the surgeon.

Classification of “Surgeon”

For billing purposes, the “surgeon” is a qualified physician who can perform “surgical” services within their scope of practice. All physicians with the same specialty designation in the same group practice as the “surgeon” (i.e. reporting services under the same tax identification number) are considered a single entity and must adhere to the global period billing rules initiated by the “surgeon.”

Alternately, physicians with different specialty designations in the same group practice (e.g. a hospitalist and a cardiologist in a multispecialty group who report services under the same tax identification number) or different group practices can perform and separately report medically necessary services during the surgeon’s global period, as long as a formal (mutually agreed-upon) transfer of care did not occur.

Medical Necessity

With the growth of HM programs and the admission/attending role expansion, involvement in surgical cases comes under scrutiny for medical necessity. Admitting a patient who has active medical conditions (e.g. hypertension, diabetes, emphysema) is reasonable and necessary because the patient has a well-defined need for medical management by the hospitalist. Participation in the care of these patients is separately billable from the surgeon’s global period package.

Alternatively, a hospitalist might be required to admit and follow surgical patients who have no other identifiable chronic or acute conditions aside from the surgical problem. In these cases, hospitalist involvement may satisfy facility policy (quality of care, risk reduction, etc.) and administrative functions (discharge services or coordination of care) rather than active clinical management. This “medical management” will not be considered “medically necessary” by the payor, and may be denied as incidental to the surgeon’s perioperative services. Erroneous payment can occur, which will result in refund requests, as payors do not want to pay twice for duplicate services. Hospitalists can attempt to negotiate other terms with facilities to account for the unpaid time and effort directed toward these types of cases.

Consider the Case

A patient with numerous medical comorbidities is admitted to the hospitalist service for stabilization prior to surgery, which will occur the next day. The hospitalist can report the appropriate admission code (99221-99223) without need for modifiers because the hospitalist is the attending of record and in a different specialty group. If a private insurer denies the claim as inclusive to the surgical service, the hospitalist can appeal with notes and a cover letter, along with the Medicare guidelines for global surgical package. The hospitalist may continue to provide postoperative daily care, as needed, to manage the patient’s chronic conditions, and report each service as subsequent hospital care (99231-99233) without modifier until the day of discharge (99238-99239). Again, if a payor issues a denial (inclusive to surgery), appealing with notes might be necessary.

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

References

1. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Medicare Claims Processing Manual: Chapter 12, Section 40. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services website. Available at: http://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/Manuals/Downloads/clm104c12.pdf. Accessed May 5, 2012.
2. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. ICD-10: HHS proposes one-year delay of ICD-10 compliance date. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services website. Available at: http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Coding/ICD10/index.html?redirect=/ICD10. Accessed May 5, 2012.
3. Abraham M, Ahlman J, Anderson C, Boudreau A, Connelly J. Current Procedural Terminology 2012 Professional Edition. Chicago: American Medical Association Press; 2011.

Hospitalists often are involved in the postoperative care of the surgical patient. However, HM is emerging in the admitting/attending role for procedural patients. Confusion can arise as to the nature of the hospitalist service, and whether it is deemed billable. Knowing the surgical package requirements can help hospitalists consider the issues.

Global Surgical Package Period¹

Surgical procedures, categorized as major or minor surgery, are reimbursed for pre-, intra-, and postoperative care. Postoperative care varies according to the procedure’s assigned global period, which designates zero, 10, or 90 postoperative days. (Physicians can review the global period for any given CPT code in the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, available at www.cms.gov/apps/physician-fee-schedule/search/search-criteria.aspx.)

Services classified with “XXX” do not have the global period concept. “ZZZ” services denote an “add-on” procedure code that must always be reported with a primary procedure code and assumes the global period assigned to the primary procedure performed.

Major surgery allocates a 90-day global period in which the surgeon is responsible for all related surgical care one day before surgery through 90 postoperative days with no additional charge. Minor surgery, including endoscopy, appoints a zero-day or 10-day postoperative period. The zero-day global period encompasses only services provided on the surgical day, whereas 10-day global periods include services on the surgical day through 10 postoperative days.

Global Surgical Package Components²

The global surgical package comprises a host of responsibilities that include standard facility requirements of filling out all necessary paperwork involved in surgical cases (e.g. preoperative H&P, operative consent forms, preoperative orders). Additionally, the surgeon’s packaged payment includes (at no extra charge):

• Preoperative visits after making the decision for surgery beginning one day prior to surgery;
• All additional postoperative medical or surgical services provided by the surgeon related to complications but not requiring additional trips to the operating room;
• Postoperative visits by the surgeon related to recovery from surgery, including but not limited to dressing changes; local incisional care; removal of cutaneous sutures and staples; line removals; changes and removal of tracheostomy tubes; and discharge services; and
• Postoperative pain management provided by the surgeon.
• Examples of services that are not included in the global surgical package, (i.e. are separately billable and may require an appropriate modifier) are:
• The initial consultation or evaluation of the problem by the surgeon to determine the need for surgery;
• Services of other physicians except where the other physicians are providing coverage for the surgeon or agree on a transfer of care (i.e. a formal agreement in the form of a letter or an annotation in the discharge summary, hospital record, or ASC record);
• Postoperative visits by the surgeon unrelated to the diagnosis for which the surgical procedure is performed, unless the visits occur due to complications of the surgery;
• Diagnostic tests and procedures, including diagnostic radiological procedures;
• Clearly distinct surgical procedures during the postoperative period that do not result in repeat operations or treatment for complications;
• Treatment for postoperative complications that requires a return trip to the operating room (OR), catheterization lab or endoscopy suite;
• Immunosuppressive therapy for organ transplants; and
• Critical-care services (CPT codes 99291 and 99292) unrelated to the surgery where a seriously injured or burned patient is critically ill and requires constant attendance of the surgeon.

Classification of “Surgeon”

For billing purposes, the “surgeon” is a qualified physician who can perform “surgical” services within their scope of practice. All physicians with the same specialty designation in the same group practice as the “surgeon” (i.e. reporting services under the same tax identification number) are considered a single entity and must adhere to the global period billing rules initiated by the “surgeon.”

Alternately, physicians with different specialty designations in the same group practice (e.g. a hospitalist and a cardiologist in a multispecialty group who report services under the same tax identification number) or different group practices can perform and separately report medically necessary services during the surgeon’s global period, as long as a formal (mutually agreed-upon) transfer of care did not occur.

Medical Necessity

With the growth of HM programs and the admission/attending role expansion, involvement in surgical cases comes under scrutiny for medical necessity. Admitting a patient who has active medical conditions (e.g. hypertension, diabetes, emphysema) is reasonable and necessary because the patient has a well-defined need for medical management by the hospitalist. Participation in the care of these patients is separately billable from the surgeon’s global period package.

Alternatively, a hospitalist might be required to admit and follow surgical patients who have no other identifiable chronic or acute conditions aside from the surgical problem. In these cases, hospitalist involvement may satisfy facility policy (quality of care, risk reduction, etc.) and administrative functions (discharge services or coordination of care) rather than active clinical management. This “medical management” will not be considered “medically necessary” by the payor, and may be denied as incidental to the surgeon’s perioperative services. Erroneous payment can occur, which will result in refund requests, as payors do not want to pay twice for duplicate services. Hospitalists can attempt to negotiate other terms with facilities to account for the unpaid time and effort directed toward these types of cases.

Consider the Case

A patient with numerous medical comorbidities is admitted to the hospitalist service for stabilization prior to surgery, which will occur the next day. The hospitalist can report the appropriate admission code (99221-99223) without need for modifiers because the hospitalist is the attending of record and in a different specialty group. If a private insurer denies the claim as inclusive to the surgical service, the hospitalist can appeal with notes and a cover letter, along with the Medicare guidelines for global surgical package. The hospitalist may continue to provide postoperative daily care, as needed, to manage the patient’s chronic conditions, and report each service as subsequent hospital care (99231-99233) without modifier until the day of discharge (99238-99239). Again, if a payor issues a denial (inclusive to surgery), appealing with notes might be necessary.

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

References

1. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Medicare Claims Processing Manual: Chapter 12, Section 40. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services website. Available at: http://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/Manuals/Downloads/clm104c12.pdf. Accessed May 5, 2012.
2. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. ICD-10: HHS proposes one-year delay of ICD-10 compliance date. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services website. Available at: http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Coding/ICD10/index.html?redirect=/ICD10. Accessed May 5, 2012.
3. Abraham M, Ahlman J, Anderson C, Boudreau A, Connelly J. Current Procedural Terminology 2012 Professional Edition. Chicago: American Medical Association Press; 2011.

Hospitalists often are involved in the postoperative care of the surgical patient. However, HM is emerging in the admitting/attending role for procedural patients. Confusion can arise as to the nature of the hospitalist service, and whether it is deemed billable. Knowing the surgical package requirements can help hospitalists consider the issues.

Global Surgical Package Period¹

Surgical procedures, categorized as major or minor surgery, are reimbursed for pre-, intra-, and postoperative care. Postoperative care varies according to the procedure’s assigned global period, which designates zero, 10, or 90 postoperative days. (Physicians can review the global period for any given CPT code in the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, available at www.cms.gov/apps/physician-fee-schedule/search/search-criteria.aspx.)

Services classified with “XXX” do not have the global period concept. “ZZZ” services denote an “add-on” procedure code that must always be reported with a primary procedure code and assumes the global period assigned to the primary procedure performed.

Major surgery allocates a 90-day global period in which the surgeon is responsible for all related surgical care one day before surgery through 90 postoperative days with no additional charge. Minor surgery, including endoscopy, appoints a zero-day or 10-day postoperative period. The zero-day global period encompasses only services provided on the surgical day, whereas 10-day global periods include services on the surgical day through 10 postoperative days.

Global Surgical Package Components²

The global surgical package comprises a host of responsibilities that include standard facility requirements of filling out all necessary paperwork involved in surgical cases (e.g. preoperative H&P, operative consent forms, preoperative orders). Additionally, the surgeon’s packaged payment includes (at no extra charge):

• Preoperative visits after making the decision for surgery beginning one day prior to surgery;
• All additional postoperative medical or surgical services provided by the surgeon related to complications but not requiring additional trips to the operating room;
• Postoperative visits by the surgeon related to recovery from surgery, including but not limited to dressing changes; local incisional care; removal of cutaneous sutures and staples; line removals; changes and removal of tracheostomy tubes; and discharge services; and
• Postoperative pain management provided by the surgeon.
• Examples of services that are not included in the global surgical package, (i.e. are separately billable and may require an appropriate modifier) are:
• The initial consultation or evaluation of the problem by the surgeon to determine the need for surgery;
• Services of other physicians except where the other physicians are providing coverage for the surgeon or agree on a transfer of care (i.e. a formal agreement in the form of a letter or an annotation in the discharge summary, hospital record, or ASC record);
• Postoperative visits by the surgeon unrelated to the diagnosis for which the surgical procedure is performed, unless the visits occur due to complications of the surgery;
• Diagnostic tests and procedures, including diagnostic radiological procedures;
• Clearly distinct surgical procedures during the postoperative period that do not result in repeat operations or treatment for complications;
• Treatment for postoperative complications that requires a return trip to the operating room (OR), catheterization lab or endoscopy suite;
• Immunosuppressive therapy for organ transplants; and
• Critical-care services (CPT codes 99291 and 99292) unrelated to the surgery where a seriously injured or burned patient is critically ill and requires constant attendance of the surgeon.

Classification of “Surgeon”

For billing purposes, the “surgeon” is a qualified physician who can perform “surgical” services within their scope of practice. All physicians with the same specialty designation in the same group practice as the “surgeon” (i.e. reporting services under the same tax identification number) are considered a single entity and must adhere to the global period billing rules initiated by the “surgeon.”

Alternately, physicians with different specialty designations in the same group practice (e.g. a hospitalist and a cardiologist in a multispecialty group who report services under the same tax identification number) or different group practices can perform and separately report medically necessary services during the surgeon’s global period, as long as a formal (mutually agreed-upon) transfer of care did not occur.

Medical Necessity

With the growth of HM programs and the admission/attending role expansion, involvement in surgical cases comes under scrutiny for medical necessity. Admitting a patient who has active medical conditions (e.g. hypertension, diabetes, emphysema) is reasonable and necessary because the patient has a well-defined need for medical management by the hospitalist. Participation in the care of these patients is separately billable from the surgeon’s global period package.

Alternatively, a hospitalist might be required to admit and follow surgical patients who have no other identifiable chronic or acute conditions aside from the surgical problem. In these cases, hospitalist involvement may satisfy facility policy (quality of care, risk reduction, etc.) and administrative functions (discharge services or coordination of care) rather than active clinical management. This “medical management” will not be considered “medically necessary” by the payor, and may be denied as incidental to the surgeon’s perioperative services. Erroneous payment can occur, which will result in refund requests, as payors do not want to pay twice for duplicate services. Hospitalists can attempt to negotiate other terms with facilities to account for the unpaid time and effort directed toward these types of cases.

Consider the Case

A patient with numerous medical comorbidities is admitted to the hospitalist service for stabilization prior to surgery, which will occur the next day. The hospitalist can report the appropriate admission code (99221-99223) without need for modifiers because the hospitalist is the attending of record and in a different specialty group. If a private insurer denies the claim as inclusive to the surgical service, the hospitalist can appeal with notes and a cover letter, along with the Medicare guidelines for global surgical package. The hospitalist may continue to provide postoperative daily care, as needed, to manage the patient’s chronic conditions, and report each service as subsequent hospital care (99231-99233) without modifier until the day of discharge (99238-99239). Again, if a payor issues a denial (inclusive to surgery), appealing with notes might be necessary.

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

References

1. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Medicare Claims Processing Manual: Chapter 12, Section 40. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services website. Available at: http://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/Manuals/Downloads/clm104c12.pdf. Accessed May 5, 2012.
2. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. ICD-10: HHS proposes one-year delay of ICD-10 compliance date. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services website. Available at: http://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Coding/ICD10/index.html?redirect=/ICD10. Accessed May 5, 2012.
3. Abraham M, Ahlman J, Anderson C, Boudreau A, Connelly J. Current Procedural Terminology 2012 Professional Edition. Chicago: American Medical Association Press; 2011.

The most recent report on hospital quality issued by independent healthcare rating company HealthGrades estimates that 254,000 safety incidents that occurred in U.S. hospitals from 2008 to 2010 could have been prevented, and that 56,367 hospitalized patients who died experienced one or more of those preventable events.¹

Drawing upon consumer-reported quality data in CMS’ Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey, HealthGrades concluded that 15% more patient safety incidents occurred at hospitals who ranked lowest (the bottom 10%) on the quality of their physician communication.

Reference

1. CPM Healthgrades. Patient safety and satisfaction: the state of American hospitals. CPM Healthgrades website. Available at: https://www.cpm.com/CPM/assets/File/HealthGradesPatientSafetySatisfactionReport2012.pdf. Accessed July 8, 2012.

The most recent report on hospital quality issued by independent healthcare rating company HealthGrades estimates that 254,000 safety incidents that occurred in U.S. hospitals from 2008 to 2010 could have been prevented, and that 56,367 hospitalized patients who died experienced one or more of those preventable events.¹

Drawing upon consumer-reported quality data in CMS’ Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey, HealthGrades concluded that 15% more patient safety incidents occurred at hospitals who ranked lowest (the bottom 10%) on the quality of their physician communication.

Reference

1. CPM Healthgrades. Patient safety and satisfaction: the state of American hospitals. CPM Healthgrades website. Available at: https://www.cpm.com/CPM/assets/File/HealthGradesPatientSafetySatisfactionReport2012.pdf. Accessed July 8, 2012.

The most recent report on hospital quality issued by independent healthcare rating company HealthGrades estimates that 254,000 safety incidents that occurred in U.S. hospitals from 2008 to 2010 could have been prevented, and that 56,367 hospitalized patients who died experienced one or more of those preventable events.¹

Drawing upon consumer-reported quality data in CMS’ Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey, HealthGrades concluded that 15% more patient safety incidents occurred at hospitals who ranked lowest (the bottom 10%) on the quality of their physician communication.

Reference

1. CPM Healthgrades. Patient safety and satisfaction: the state of American hospitals. CPM Healthgrades website. Available at: https://www.cpm.com/CPM/assets/File/HealthGradesPatientSafetySatisfactionReport2012.pdf. Accessed July 8, 2012.