User login
Bipartisan Proposal to Repeal SGR Plan Likely to be Reintroduced
As the Obama administration begins its second term, a great deal of attention is being paid to the advance of its healthcare reform agenda. Long overdue for reform is the sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula—an ill-fated attempt to provide predictable control for federal spending on Medicare by providing yearly updates (i.e. reductions) to Medicare’s physician reimbursement rates.
By adjusting the payment rates, the SGR was supposed to help control the cost of healthcare by linking it more closely with national growth and changes in the Medicare-eligible population. With each passing year, however, bipartisan consensus has grown stronger, the message being that a straight, fee-for-service system that is updated annually based on an expenditure target cannot substitute for fundamental delivery system reforms.
Congress has acted to override the SGR’s implementation every year since 2003, with the latest round being a potential 27% gutting of Medicare reimbursement rates. This cycle is not only tiresome, but threatens a massive disruption to physician practices and to seniors’ access to the Medicare program.
“The SGR, while well-intentioned, is flawed, and Congress can provide its temporary override for only so long, while Medicare spending continues to grow,” says Ryan Genzink, PA-C, an SHM Public Policy Committee member and a physician assistant with IPC: The Hospitalist Co. in Grand Rapids, Mich.
Repeal and Reform
Although various SGR repeal bills have been introduced over the years, only one—the Medicare Physician Payment Innovation Act of 2012 (H.R. 5707)—supplements repeal with a realistic plan to move away from the current fee-for-service payment system (and its inherent inefficiencies) toward more cost-effective reimbursement models that are designed to promote quality and value through coordinated patient care.
This bipartisan bill, introduced by U.S. Reps. Allyson Schwartz (D-Pa.) and Joe Heck, DO (R-Nev.), would repeal the SGR, stabilize payments at current rates for 2013, replace scheduled reductions with positive and predictable updates from 2014 to 2017, and set an aggressive timetable for testing and evaluating new payment systems focused on improving quality and reducing costs (see “Specific Components of the Schwartz-Heck Proposal,” left). The bill is expected to be reintroduced in 2013.
“SHM agrees that it is time finally to eliminate the SGR and move away from the prevailing fee-for-service payment system, which rewards physicians for simply providing more services, to one that provides incentives to deliver higher-quality, cost-effective care to our nation’s seniors,” wrote SHM President Shaun Frost, MD, SFHM, in a letter of support last year to Schwartz and Heck, commending them for introducing their bill.
“By providing a menu of options for physician participation, including an alternative, value-driven fee-for-service system for physicians who are not able to participate in one of the new payment and delivery models, the legislation does not force all providers into a ‘one size fits all’ solution, allowing for broader support, innovation, and flexibility,” Dr. Frost said.
Advancing New Reimbursement Models
The Schwartz-Heck bill “gives a timeline for CMS to test and adopt different reimbursement models, which presents advantageous options for hospitalists,” says Lauren Doctoroff, MD, an SHM Public Policy Committee member, hospitalist, and medical director of the post-discharge clinic at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. “Hospitalists already focus on providing higher-quality, lower-cost care to hospitalized patients in their daily practice. We build effective care transitions to the outpatient and extended care settings. Our strengths are perfectly aligned to help these new, value-based payment models succeed.”
In fact, Dr. Doctoroff notes, Beth Israel is a participant in CMS’ Medicare Pioneer Accountable Care Organization project as well as Massachusetts Blue Cross Blue Shield’s Alternative Quality Contract, both of which use a risk-sharing global payment model in which the hospital and its physician network agree to provide for the healthcare needs of a defined population for a pre-arranged reimbursement amount.
“The global payment model is an attractive one for hospitalists because we play a key role in managing hospitalized patients efficiently and well, while also encouraging collaboration between inpatient and outpatient providers to avoid duplication of services,” Dr. Doctoroff says. “Some bundled payment models, which tie reimbursement to a defined episode of care, also could be advantageous for hospitalists, who coordinate the patient’s care throughout their entire healthcare episode, from inpatient diagnosis through post-discharge.”
Alternative Fee-for-Service System
For physicians who choose not to adopt one of the new reimbursement models, the bill directs CMS to offer an alternative fee-for-service system with incentives for improved quality and lower cost. This alternative would be available to physicians (including hospitalists) who participate in approved quality-reporting options, including the Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS) or an approved Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program with quality registries. It also would apply to physicians who fall into the top 25% of CMS’ Value-Based Payment Modifier program (VBPM).
Boosting Primary Care
In addition to expediting the rollout of CMS-endorsed alternate payment models, the Schwartz bill recognizes the importance of primary care as the foundation of an effective healthcare delivery system and redresses its undervaluation with a 2.5% reimbursement update for physicians and other healthcare professionals for whom 60% of their Medicare physician fee schedule allowable charges are from a designated set of primary-care, preventive, and care-coordination codes.
“SHM specifically advocated for the inclusion of primary-care billing codes that hospitalists use,” Dr. Doctoroff says, “including hospital inpatient visits and observational services.”
“Of all the attempts to deal with the SGR over the past several years, Rep. Schwartz’s bill makes the most sense,” Genzink says. “While it doesn’t answer all of the healthcare system’s problems, it encapsulates many of the goals of reform—especially the shift from fee-for-service toward a payment system based on quality and outcomes. It recognizes that no one model will work for all physicians and offers the flexibility of multiple pathways. And it has bipartisan support, which seems to be a rarity these days.”
Chris Guadagnino is a freelance medical writer in Philadelphia.
As the Obama administration begins its second term, a great deal of attention is being paid to the advance of its healthcare reform agenda. Long overdue for reform is the sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula—an ill-fated attempt to provide predictable control for federal spending on Medicare by providing yearly updates (i.e. reductions) to Medicare’s physician reimbursement rates.
By adjusting the payment rates, the SGR was supposed to help control the cost of healthcare by linking it more closely with national growth and changes in the Medicare-eligible population. With each passing year, however, bipartisan consensus has grown stronger, the message being that a straight, fee-for-service system that is updated annually based on an expenditure target cannot substitute for fundamental delivery system reforms.
Congress has acted to override the SGR’s implementation every year since 2003, with the latest round being a potential 27% gutting of Medicare reimbursement rates. This cycle is not only tiresome, but threatens a massive disruption to physician practices and to seniors’ access to the Medicare program.
“The SGR, while well-intentioned, is flawed, and Congress can provide its temporary override for only so long, while Medicare spending continues to grow,” says Ryan Genzink, PA-C, an SHM Public Policy Committee member and a physician assistant with IPC: The Hospitalist Co. in Grand Rapids, Mich.
Repeal and Reform
Although various SGR repeal bills have been introduced over the years, only one—the Medicare Physician Payment Innovation Act of 2012 (H.R. 5707)—supplements repeal with a realistic plan to move away from the current fee-for-service payment system (and its inherent inefficiencies) toward more cost-effective reimbursement models that are designed to promote quality and value through coordinated patient care.
This bipartisan bill, introduced by U.S. Reps. Allyson Schwartz (D-Pa.) and Joe Heck, DO (R-Nev.), would repeal the SGR, stabilize payments at current rates for 2013, replace scheduled reductions with positive and predictable updates from 2014 to 2017, and set an aggressive timetable for testing and evaluating new payment systems focused on improving quality and reducing costs (see “Specific Components of the Schwartz-Heck Proposal,” left). The bill is expected to be reintroduced in 2013.
“SHM agrees that it is time finally to eliminate the SGR and move away from the prevailing fee-for-service payment system, which rewards physicians for simply providing more services, to one that provides incentives to deliver higher-quality, cost-effective care to our nation’s seniors,” wrote SHM President Shaun Frost, MD, SFHM, in a letter of support last year to Schwartz and Heck, commending them for introducing their bill.
“By providing a menu of options for physician participation, including an alternative, value-driven fee-for-service system for physicians who are not able to participate in one of the new payment and delivery models, the legislation does not force all providers into a ‘one size fits all’ solution, allowing for broader support, innovation, and flexibility,” Dr. Frost said.
Advancing New Reimbursement Models
The Schwartz-Heck bill “gives a timeline for CMS to test and adopt different reimbursement models, which presents advantageous options for hospitalists,” says Lauren Doctoroff, MD, an SHM Public Policy Committee member, hospitalist, and medical director of the post-discharge clinic at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. “Hospitalists already focus on providing higher-quality, lower-cost care to hospitalized patients in their daily practice. We build effective care transitions to the outpatient and extended care settings. Our strengths are perfectly aligned to help these new, value-based payment models succeed.”
In fact, Dr. Doctoroff notes, Beth Israel is a participant in CMS’ Medicare Pioneer Accountable Care Organization project as well as Massachusetts Blue Cross Blue Shield’s Alternative Quality Contract, both of which use a risk-sharing global payment model in which the hospital and its physician network agree to provide for the healthcare needs of a defined population for a pre-arranged reimbursement amount.
“The global payment model is an attractive one for hospitalists because we play a key role in managing hospitalized patients efficiently and well, while also encouraging collaboration between inpatient and outpatient providers to avoid duplication of services,” Dr. Doctoroff says. “Some bundled payment models, which tie reimbursement to a defined episode of care, also could be advantageous for hospitalists, who coordinate the patient’s care throughout their entire healthcare episode, from inpatient diagnosis through post-discharge.”
Alternative Fee-for-Service System
For physicians who choose not to adopt one of the new reimbursement models, the bill directs CMS to offer an alternative fee-for-service system with incentives for improved quality and lower cost. This alternative would be available to physicians (including hospitalists) who participate in approved quality-reporting options, including the Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS) or an approved Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program with quality registries. It also would apply to physicians who fall into the top 25% of CMS’ Value-Based Payment Modifier program (VBPM).
Boosting Primary Care
In addition to expediting the rollout of CMS-endorsed alternate payment models, the Schwartz bill recognizes the importance of primary care as the foundation of an effective healthcare delivery system and redresses its undervaluation with a 2.5% reimbursement update for physicians and other healthcare professionals for whom 60% of their Medicare physician fee schedule allowable charges are from a designated set of primary-care, preventive, and care-coordination codes.
“SHM specifically advocated for the inclusion of primary-care billing codes that hospitalists use,” Dr. Doctoroff says, “including hospital inpatient visits and observational services.”
“Of all the attempts to deal with the SGR over the past several years, Rep. Schwartz’s bill makes the most sense,” Genzink says. “While it doesn’t answer all of the healthcare system’s problems, it encapsulates many of the goals of reform—especially the shift from fee-for-service toward a payment system based on quality and outcomes. It recognizes that no one model will work for all physicians and offers the flexibility of multiple pathways. And it has bipartisan support, which seems to be a rarity these days.”
Chris Guadagnino is a freelance medical writer in Philadelphia.
As the Obama administration begins its second term, a great deal of attention is being paid to the advance of its healthcare reform agenda. Long overdue for reform is the sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula—an ill-fated attempt to provide predictable control for federal spending on Medicare by providing yearly updates (i.e. reductions) to Medicare’s physician reimbursement rates.
By adjusting the payment rates, the SGR was supposed to help control the cost of healthcare by linking it more closely with national growth and changes in the Medicare-eligible population. With each passing year, however, bipartisan consensus has grown stronger, the message being that a straight, fee-for-service system that is updated annually based on an expenditure target cannot substitute for fundamental delivery system reforms.
Congress has acted to override the SGR’s implementation every year since 2003, with the latest round being a potential 27% gutting of Medicare reimbursement rates. This cycle is not only tiresome, but threatens a massive disruption to physician practices and to seniors’ access to the Medicare program.
“The SGR, while well-intentioned, is flawed, and Congress can provide its temporary override for only so long, while Medicare spending continues to grow,” says Ryan Genzink, PA-C, an SHM Public Policy Committee member and a physician assistant with IPC: The Hospitalist Co. in Grand Rapids, Mich.
Repeal and Reform
Although various SGR repeal bills have been introduced over the years, only one—the Medicare Physician Payment Innovation Act of 2012 (H.R. 5707)—supplements repeal with a realistic plan to move away from the current fee-for-service payment system (and its inherent inefficiencies) toward more cost-effective reimbursement models that are designed to promote quality and value through coordinated patient care.
This bipartisan bill, introduced by U.S. Reps. Allyson Schwartz (D-Pa.) and Joe Heck, DO (R-Nev.), would repeal the SGR, stabilize payments at current rates for 2013, replace scheduled reductions with positive and predictable updates from 2014 to 2017, and set an aggressive timetable for testing and evaluating new payment systems focused on improving quality and reducing costs (see “Specific Components of the Schwartz-Heck Proposal,” left). The bill is expected to be reintroduced in 2013.
“SHM agrees that it is time finally to eliminate the SGR and move away from the prevailing fee-for-service payment system, which rewards physicians for simply providing more services, to one that provides incentives to deliver higher-quality, cost-effective care to our nation’s seniors,” wrote SHM President Shaun Frost, MD, SFHM, in a letter of support last year to Schwartz and Heck, commending them for introducing their bill.
“By providing a menu of options for physician participation, including an alternative, value-driven fee-for-service system for physicians who are not able to participate in one of the new payment and delivery models, the legislation does not force all providers into a ‘one size fits all’ solution, allowing for broader support, innovation, and flexibility,” Dr. Frost said.
Advancing New Reimbursement Models
The Schwartz-Heck bill “gives a timeline for CMS to test and adopt different reimbursement models, which presents advantageous options for hospitalists,” says Lauren Doctoroff, MD, an SHM Public Policy Committee member, hospitalist, and medical director of the post-discharge clinic at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. “Hospitalists already focus on providing higher-quality, lower-cost care to hospitalized patients in their daily practice. We build effective care transitions to the outpatient and extended care settings. Our strengths are perfectly aligned to help these new, value-based payment models succeed.”
In fact, Dr. Doctoroff notes, Beth Israel is a participant in CMS’ Medicare Pioneer Accountable Care Organization project as well as Massachusetts Blue Cross Blue Shield’s Alternative Quality Contract, both of which use a risk-sharing global payment model in which the hospital and its physician network agree to provide for the healthcare needs of a defined population for a pre-arranged reimbursement amount.
“The global payment model is an attractive one for hospitalists because we play a key role in managing hospitalized patients efficiently and well, while also encouraging collaboration between inpatient and outpatient providers to avoid duplication of services,” Dr. Doctoroff says. “Some bundled payment models, which tie reimbursement to a defined episode of care, also could be advantageous for hospitalists, who coordinate the patient’s care throughout their entire healthcare episode, from inpatient diagnosis through post-discharge.”
Alternative Fee-for-Service System
For physicians who choose not to adopt one of the new reimbursement models, the bill directs CMS to offer an alternative fee-for-service system with incentives for improved quality and lower cost. This alternative would be available to physicians (including hospitalists) who participate in approved quality-reporting options, including the Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS) or an approved Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program with quality registries. It also would apply to physicians who fall into the top 25% of CMS’ Value-Based Payment Modifier program (VBPM).
Boosting Primary Care
In addition to expediting the rollout of CMS-endorsed alternate payment models, the Schwartz bill recognizes the importance of primary care as the foundation of an effective healthcare delivery system and redresses its undervaluation with a 2.5% reimbursement update for physicians and other healthcare professionals for whom 60% of their Medicare physician fee schedule allowable charges are from a designated set of primary-care, preventive, and care-coordination codes.
“SHM specifically advocated for the inclusion of primary-care billing codes that hospitalists use,” Dr. Doctoroff says, “including hospital inpatient visits and observational services.”
“Of all the attempts to deal with the SGR over the past several years, Rep. Schwartz’s bill makes the most sense,” Genzink says. “While it doesn’t answer all of the healthcare system’s problems, it encapsulates many of the goals of reform—especially the shift from fee-for-service toward a payment system based on quality and outcomes. It recognizes that no one model will work for all physicians and offers the flexibility of multiple pathways. And it has bipartisan support, which seems to be a rarity these days.”
Chris Guadagnino is a freelance medical writer in Philadelphia.
Why Hospitalists Should Pay Special Attention to Kidney Disease
Need another reason to hone your skills in treating people with kidney disease?
Take a look at a study out of the University of Washington: Kidney disease, researchers there found, is the diagnosis associated with the highest rate of readmission to the hospital and the emergency room and hospital mortality—controlling for cardiovascular disease, infection, sepsis, encephalopathy and “all the usual suspects associated with readmission,” says Katherine Tuttle, MD, clinical professor of medicine in the University of Washington Division of Nephrology.
The reasons are not known.
“One reason we think is really important is this issue of medication management,” Dr. Tuttle says.
Researchers then did a pilot study showing that, at the time of discharge, if a pharmacist visited within the first week, the rates of readmission were reduced by 50 percent. “The goal of that visit was basically do what probably should have been done through the hospital, which is adjust drug doses properly for kidney function and address drug interaction,” Dr. Tuttle says.
The research team is working on a large study funded by the National Institutes of Health to validate those findings and look at a broader population of patients. This is more evidence pointing to the importance of handoffs, she says.
"These transitions in care are dangerous situations,” Dr. Tuttle says. “But they’re also opportunities for improvement. And I think anything we can do to enhance education management is likely to be very beneficial in people with chronic kidney disease.”
Hospitalists have "serious work to do in improving continuity in care, and handoffs in general,” she adds.
“So much of what they do in the hospital is influenced by kidney function, whether it’s the drugs they give or the diagnostic tests that they want to do,” she says. “I’m not being critical at all. It’s a new area, relatively speaking, and there are lots of opportunities for improvement in the system.”
Tom Collins is a freelance writer in South Florida.
Reference
1. Risks of subsequent hospitalization and death in patients with kidney disease. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2012;7(3):409-416.
Need another reason to hone your skills in treating people with kidney disease?
Take a look at a study out of the University of Washington: Kidney disease, researchers there found, is the diagnosis associated with the highest rate of readmission to the hospital and the emergency room and hospital mortality—controlling for cardiovascular disease, infection, sepsis, encephalopathy and “all the usual suspects associated with readmission,” says Katherine Tuttle, MD, clinical professor of medicine in the University of Washington Division of Nephrology.
The reasons are not known.
“One reason we think is really important is this issue of medication management,” Dr. Tuttle says.
Researchers then did a pilot study showing that, at the time of discharge, if a pharmacist visited within the first week, the rates of readmission were reduced by 50 percent. “The goal of that visit was basically do what probably should have been done through the hospital, which is adjust drug doses properly for kidney function and address drug interaction,” Dr. Tuttle says.
The research team is working on a large study funded by the National Institutes of Health to validate those findings and look at a broader population of patients. This is more evidence pointing to the importance of handoffs, she says.
"These transitions in care are dangerous situations,” Dr. Tuttle says. “But they’re also opportunities for improvement. And I think anything we can do to enhance education management is likely to be very beneficial in people with chronic kidney disease.”
Hospitalists have "serious work to do in improving continuity in care, and handoffs in general,” she adds.
“So much of what they do in the hospital is influenced by kidney function, whether it’s the drugs they give or the diagnostic tests that they want to do,” she says. “I’m not being critical at all. It’s a new area, relatively speaking, and there are lots of opportunities for improvement in the system.”
Tom Collins is a freelance writer in South Florida.
Reference
1. Risks of subsequent hospitalization and death in patients with kidney disease. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2012;7(3):409-416.
Need another reason to hone your skills in treating people with kidney disease?
Take a look at a study out of the University of Washington: Kidney disease, researchers there found, is the diagnosis associated with the highest rate of readmission to the hospital and the emergency room and hospital mortality—controlling for cardiovascular disease, infection, sepsis, encephalopathy and “all the usual suspects associated with readmission,” says Katherine Tuttle, MD, clinical professor of medicine in the University of Washington Division of Nephrology.
The reasons are not known.
“One reason we think is really important is this issue of medication management,” Dr. Tuttle says.
Researchers then did a pilot study showing that, at the time of discharge, if a pharmacist visited within the first week, the rates of readmission were reduced by 50 percent. “The goal of that visit was basically do what probably should have been done through the hospital, which is adjust drug doses properly for kidney function and address drug interaction,” Dr. Tuttle says.
The research team is working on a large study funded by the National Institutes of Health to validate those findings and look at a broader population of patients. This is more evidence pointing to the importance of handoffs, she says.
"These transitions in care are dangerous situations,” Dr. Tuttle says. “But they’re also opportunities for improvement. And I think anything we can do to enhance education management is likely to be very beneficial in people with chronic kidney disease.”
Hospitalists have "serious work to do in improving continuity in care, and handoffs in general,” she adds.
“So much of what they do in the hospital is influenced by kidney function, whether it’s the drugs they give or the diagnostic tests that they want to do,” she says. “I’m not being critical at all. It’s a new area, relatively speaking, and there are lots of opportunities for improvement in the system.”
Tom Collins is a freelance writer in South Florida.
Reference
1. Risks of subsequent hospitalization and death in patients with kidney disease. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2012;7(3):409-416.
Performance Disconnect: Measures Don’t Improve Hospitals’ Readmissions Experience
Two recent studies have reached the same surprising conclusion: Adherence to national quality and performance guidelines does not translate into reduced readmissions rates.
Sula Mazimba, MD, MPH, and colleagues at Kettering Medical Center in Kettering, Ohio, focused on congestive heart failure (CHF) patients, documenting compliance with four core CHF performance measures at discharge and subsequent 30-day readmissions. Only one measure-assessment of left ventricular function-had a significant association with readmissions.
A second study published the same month looked at a wider range of diagnoses in a Medicare population at more than 2,000 hospitals nationwide. That study reached similar conclusions about the disconnect between hospitals that followed Hospital Compare process quality measures and their readmission rates.
Dr. Mazimba says hospitalists and other physicians involved in quality improvement (QI) should be more involved in defining quality measures that reflect quality of care for their patients.
“We should be looking for parameters that have a higher yield for outcomes, such as preventing readmissions,” he says, encouraging better symptom management before the CHF patient is hospitalized and enhanced coordination of care after discharge.
Alpesh Amin, MD, MBA, SFHM, professor and chair of the department of medicine and executive director of the hospitalist program at the University of California at Irvine, says the findings are important, but he adds that the core quality measures studied were never designed to address readmissions.
“The challenge is to find a way to connect the dots between the core measures and readmissions,” he says.
Learn more about the four "core" heart failure quality measures for hospitals by visiting the Resource Rooms on the SHM website, or check out this 80-page implementation guide, “Improving Heart Failure Care for Hospitalized Patients [PDF],” also available on SHM’s website.
Read The Hospitalist columnist Win Whitcomb’s take on readmissions penalty programs.
Two recent studies have reached the same surprising conclusion: Adherence to national quality and performance guidelines does not translate into reduced readmissions rates.
Sula Mazimba, MD, MPH, and colleagues at Kettering Medical Center in Kettering, Ohio, focused on congestive heart failure (CHF) patients, documenting compliance with four core CHF performance measures at discharge and subsequent 30-day readmissions. Only one measure-assessment of left ventricular function-had a significant association with readmissions.
A second study published the same month looked at a wider range of diagnoses in a Medicare population at more than 2,000 hospitals nationwide. That study reached similar conclusions about the disconnect between hospitals that followed Hospital Compare process quality measures and their readmission rates.
Dr. Mazimba says hospitalists and other physicians involved in quality improvement (QI) should be more involved in defining quality measures that reflect quality of care for their patients.
“We should be looking for parameters that have a higher yield for outcomes, such as preventing readmissions,” he says, encouraging better symptom management before the CHF patient is hospitalized and enhanced coordination of care after discharge.
Alpesh Amin, MD, MBA, SFHM, professor and chair of the department of medicine and executive director of the hospitalist program at the University of California at Irvine, says the findings are important, but he adds that the core quality measures studied were never designed to address readmissions.
“The challenge is to find a way to connect the dots between the core measures and readmissions,” he says.
Learn more about the four "core" heart failure quality measures for hospitals by visiting the Resource Rooms on the SHM website, or check out this 80-page implementation guide, “Improving Heart Failure Care for Hospitalized Patients [PDF],” also available on SHM’s website.
Read The Hospitalist columnist Win Whitcomb’s take on readmissions penalty programs.
Two recent studies have reached the same surprising conclusion: Adherence to national quality and performance guidelines does not translate into reduced readmissions rates.
Sula Mazimba, MD, MPH, and colleagues at Kettering Medical Center in Kettering, Ohio, focused on congestive heart failure (CHF) patients, documenting compliance with four core CHF performance measures at discharge and subsequent 30-day readmissions. Only one measure-assessment of left ventricular function-had a significant association with readmissions.
A second study published the same month looked at a wider range of diagnoses in a Medicare population at more than 2,000 hospitals nationwide. That study reached similar conclusions about the disconnect between hospitals that followed Hospital Compare process quality measures and their readmission rates.
Dr. Mazimba says hospitalists and other physicians involved in quality improvement (QI) should be more involved in defining quality measures that reflect quality of care for their patients.
“We should be looking for parameters that have a higher yield for outcomes, such as preventing readmissions,” he says, encouraging better symptom management before the CHF patient is hospitalized and enhanced coordination of care after discharge.
Alpesh Amin, MD, MBA, SFHM, professor and chair of the department of medicine and executive director of the hospitalist program at the University of California at Irvine, says the findings are important, but he adds that the core quality measures studied were never designed to address readmissions.
“The challenge is to find a way to connect the dots between the core measures and readmissions,” he says.
Learn more about the four "core" heart failure quality measures for hospitals by visiting the Resource Rooms on the SHM website, or check out this 80-page implementation guide, “Improving Heart Failure Care for Hospitalized Patients [PDF],” also available on SHM’s website.
Read The Hospitalist columnist Win Whitcomb’s take on readmissions penalty programs.
Hospitalist Approach Good Model for Managing Patients
Applying the HM model to specialties that can dedicate themselves to managing inpatients could improve care efficiency, says the coauthor of a new report from the American Hospital Association's (AHA) Physician Leadership Forum.
The 20-page report, "Creating the Hospital of the Future: The Implications for Hospital-Focused Physician Practice [PDF]," codified a daylong summit of hospitalist leaders and hospital administrators following the annual Health Forum/AHA Leadership Summit last July in San Francisco. SHM helped organize the meeting, which focused on the growing role and importance of "hyphenated hospitalists."
"With the hospitalist movement, it's critical that there is coordination between the inpatient and the outpatient world … but also inpatient-wise, there should be some coordination of services between the various specialties that are dedicated to the hospital," says John Combes, MD, AHA senior vice president. "We have an opportunity here, as more and more subspecialties develop hospital-based and hospital-focused practices, to construct it right."
Dr. Combes says the model is not applicable to all specialties, but early adoption by fields including OBGYN, orthopedics, neurology, and surgery is a good sign. Hospitalist could look at forming large, multispecialty groups to bring all hospital-focused programs under one proverbial roof. "So there's not only coordination at the hospital level, but also at the group level," he adds.
The continued growth of specialty hospitalists might hinge on whether research shows that the approach improves patient outcomes.
"The jury is out on that right now," Dr. Combes says. "As hospitalists get better at defining what their role is within the inpatient setting—particularly around care coordination, care improvement, efficiency, reduction of unnecessary procedures and testing—we'll be able to document more value."
Visit our website for more information about hospital-based medical practices.
Applying the HM model to specialties that can dedicate themselves to managing inpatients could improve care efficiency, says the coauthor of a new report from the American Hospital Association's (AHA) Physician Leadership Forum.
The 20-page report, "Creating the Hospital of the Future: The Implications for Hospital-Focused Physician Practice [PDF]," codified a daylong summit of hospitalist leaders and hospital administrators following the annual Health Forum/AHA Leadership Summit last July in San Francisco. SHM helped organize the meeting, which focused on the growing role and importance of "hyphenated hospitalists."
"With the hospitalist movement, it's critical that there is coordination between the inpatient and the outpatient world … but also inpatient-wise, there should be some coordination of services between the various specialties that are dedicated to the hospital," says John Combes, MD, AHA senior vice president. "We have an opportunity here, as more and more subspecialties develop hospital-based and hospital-focused practices, to construct it right."
Dr. Combes says the model is not applicable to all specialties, but early adoption by fields including OBGYN, orthopedics, neurology, and surgery is a good sign. Hospitalist could look at forming large, multispecialty groups to bring all hospital-focused programs under one proverbial roof. "So there's not only coordination at the hospital level, but also at the group level," he adds.
The continued growth of specialty hospitalists might hinge on whether research shows that the approach improves patient outcomes.
"The jury is out on that right now," Dr. Combes says. "As hospitalists get better at defining what their role is within the inpatient setting—particularly around care coordination, care improvement, efficiency, reduction of unnecessary procedures and testing—we'll be able to document more value."
Visit our website for more information about hospital-based medical practices.
Applying the HM model to specialties that can dedicate themselves to managing inpatients could improve care efficiency, says the coauthor of a new report from the American Hospital Association's (AHA) Physician Leadership Forum.
The 20-page report, "Creating the Hospital of the Future: The Implications for Hospital-Focused Physician Practice [PDF]," codified a daylong summit of hospitalist leaders and hospital administrators following the annual Health Forum/AHA Leadership Summit last July in San Francisco. SHM helped organize the meeting, which focused on the growing role and importance of "hyphenated hospitalists."
"With the hospitalist movement, it's critical that there is coordination between the inpatient and the outpatient world … but also inpatient-wise, there should be some coordination of services between the various specialties that are dedicated to the hospital," says John Combes, MD, AHA senior vice president. "We have an opportunity here, as more and more subspecialties develop hospital-based and hospital-focused practices, to construct it right."
Dr. Combes says the model is not applicable to all specialties, but early adoption by fields including OBGYN, orthopedics, neurology, and surgery is a good sign. Hospitalist could look at forming large, multispecialty groups to bring all hospital-focused programs under one proverbial roof. "So there's not only coordination at the hospital level, but also at the group level," he adds.
The continued growth of specialty hospitalists might hinge on whether research shows that the approach improves patient outcomes.
"The jury is out on that right now," Dr. Combes says. "As hospitalists get better at defining what their role is within the inpatient setting—particularly around care coordination, care improvement, efficiency, reduction of unnecessary procedures and testing—we'll be able to document more value."
Visit our website for more information about hospital-based medical practices.
Report Outlines Ways Hospital Medicine Can Redefine Healthcare Delivery
There are 10 industry-changing recommendations in the recent Institute of Medicine (IOM) report “Best Care at Lower Cost: The Path to Continuously Learning Health Care in America.” Suggestions include reforming payment, adopting digital infrastructure, and improving the continuity of care. And to Brent James, MD, all of those recommendations are areas in which hospitalists can help lead healthcare from fee-for-service to an organized-care model.
Dr. James, executive director of the Institute for Health Care Delivery Research and chief quality officer at Intermountain Healthcare in Salt Lake City, says hospitalists can be linchpins to that hoped-for sea change because the specialty’s growth the past 15 years shows that physicians taking a collaborative, evidence-based approach to patient care can improve outcomes and lower costs.
“In some sense, the hospitalist movement triggered [the move to organized care],” says Dr. James, one of the IOM report’s authors. “You started to have teams caring for inpatients in a coordinated way. Pieces started to kind of fall into place underneath it. So I regard this as … [hospitalists] coming into their own, their vision of the future starting to really take hold.”
The report estimates the national cost of unnecessary or wasteful healthcare at $750 billion per year. Published in September, the report was crafted by a nationwide committee of healthcare leaders, including hospitalist and medical researcher David Meltzer, MD, PhD, chief of University of Chicago’s Division of Hospital Medicine and director of the Center for Health and Social Sciences in Chicago.
Dr. Meltzer says that for a relatively young specialty, hospitalists have been “remarkably forward-looking.” The specialty, in his view, has embraced teamwork, digital infrastructure, and quality initiatives. As the U.S. healthcare system evolves, he notes, HM leaders need to keep that mentality. Hospitalists are confronted daily with a combination of sicker patients and more treatment options, and making the right decisions is paramount to a “learning healthcare system,” Dr. Meltzer adds.
“As the database of options grows, decision-making becomes more difficult,” he says. “We have an important role to play in how to think about trying to control costs.”
Gary Kaplan, MD, FACP, FACMPE, FACPE, chairman and chief executive officer of Virginia Mason Health System in Seattle, agrees that HM’s priorities dovetail nicely with reform efforts. He hopes the IOM report’s findings will serve as a springboard for hospitalists to further spearhead improvements.
In particular, Dr. Kaplan notes that healthcare delivery organizations should develop, implement, and fine-tune their “systems, engineering tools, and process-improvement methods.” Such changes would help “eliminate inefficiencies, remove unnecessary burdens on clinicians and staff, enhance patient experience, and improve patient health outcomes,” he says.
“The hospitalists and the care teams with which the hospitalist connects are very critical to streamlining operations,” Dr. Kaplan adds.
Dr. James, who has long championed process improvement as the key to improved clinical outcomes, says that extending the hospitalist model throughout healthcare can only have good results. He preaches the implementation of standardized protocols and sees hospitalists as natural torchbearers for the cause.
“When you start to focus on process—our old jargon for it was ‘continuum of care’—it forces you to patient-centered care,” he says. “Instead of building your care around the physicians, or around the hospital, or around the technology, you build the care around the patient.”
Dr. James has heard physicians say protocols are too rigid and do not improve patient care. He disagrees—vehemently.
—Brent James, MD, executive director of the Institute for Health Care Delivery Research and chief quality officer, Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City
“It’s not just that we allow, or even that we encourage, we demand that you modify [the protocol] for individual patient needs,” he says. “What I have is a standard process of care. That means that you don’t have to bird-dog every little step. I take my most important resource—a trained, expert mind—and focus it on that relatively small set of problems that need to be modified. We’ve found that it massively improves patient outcomes.”
Many of the IOM report’s complaints about unnecessary testing, poor communication, and inefficient care delivery connect with the quality, patient-safety, and practice-management improvements HM groups already push, Dr. Kaplan adds. To advance healthcare delivery’s evolution, hospitalists should view the task of reform as an opportunity, not a challenge.
“There are very powerful opportunities for the hospitalist now to have great impact,” he says. “To not just be the passive participants in a broken and dysfunctional system, but in many ways, [to be] one of the architects of an improved care system going forward.”
Richard Quinn is a freelance writer in New Jersey.
There are 10 industry-changing recommendations in the recent Institute of Medicine (IOM) report “Best Care at Lower Cost: The Path to Continuously Learning Health Care in America.” Suggestions include reforming payment, adopting digital infrastructure, and improving the continuity of care. And to Brent James, MD, all of those recommendations are areas in which hospitalists can help lead healthcare from fee-for-service to an organized-care model.
Dr. James, executive director of the Institute for Health Care Delivery Research and chief quality officer at Intermountain Healthcare in Salt Lake City, says hospitalists can be linchpins to that hoped-for sea change because the specialty’s growth the past 15 years shows that physicians taking a collaborative, evidence-based approach to patient care can improve outcomes and lower costs.
“In some sense, the hospitalist movement triggered [the move to organized care],” says Dr. James, one of the IOM report’s authors. “You started to have teams caring for inpatients in a coordinated way. Pieces started to kind of fall into place underneath it. So I regard this as … [hospitalists] coming into their own, their vision of the future starting to really take hold.”
The report estimates the national cost of unnecessary or wasteful healthcare at $750 billion per year. Published in September, the report was crafted by a nationwide committee of healthcare leaders, including hospitalist and medical researcher David Meltzer, MD, PhD, chief of University of Chicago’s Division of Hospital Medicine and director of the Center for Health and Social Sciences in Chicago.
Dr. Meltzer says that for a relatively young specialty, hospitalists have been “remarkably forward-looking.” The specialty, in his view, has embraced teamwork, digital infrastructure, and quality initiatives. As the U.S. healthcare system evolves, he notes, HM leaders need to keep that mentality. Hospitalists are confronted daily with a combination of sicker patients and more treatment options, and making the right decisions is paramount to a “learning healthcare system,” Dr. Meltzer adds.
“As the database of options grows, decision-making becomes more difficult,” he says. “We have an important role to play in how to think about trying to control costs.”
Gary Kaplan, MD, FACP, FACMPE, FACPE, chairman and chief executive officer of Virginia Mason Health System in Seattle, agrees that HM’s priorities dovetail nicely with reform efforts. He hopes the IOM report’s findings will serve as a springboard for hospitalists to further spearhead improvements.
In particular, Dr. Kaplan notes that healthcare delivery organizations should develop, implement, and fine-tune their “systems, engineering tools, and process-improvement methods.” Such changes would help “eliminate inefficiencies, remove unnecessary burdens on clinicians and staff, enhance patient experience, and improve patient health outcomes,” he says.
“The hospitalists and the care teams with which the hospitalist connects are very critical to streamlining operations,” Dr. Kaplan adds.
Dr. James, who has long championed process improvement as the key to improved clinical outcomes, says that extending the hospitalist model throughout healthcare can only have good results. He preaches the implementation of standardized protocols and sees hospitalists as natural torchbearers for the cause.
“When you start to focus on process—our old jargon for it was ‘continuum of care’—it forces you to patient-centered care,” he says. “Instead of building your care around the physicians, or around the hospital, or around the technology, you build the care around the patient.”
Dr. James has heard physicians say protocols are too rigid and do not improve patient care. He disagrees—vehemently.
—Brent James, MD, executive director of the Institute for Health Care Delivery Research and chief quality officer, Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City
“It’s not just that we allow, or even that we encourage, we demand that you modify [the protocol] for individual patient needs,” he says. “What I have is a standard process of care. That means that you don’t have to bird-dog every little step. I take my most important resource—a trained, expert mind—and focus it on that relatively small set of problems that need to be modified. We’ve found that it massively improves patient outcomes.”
Many of the IOM report’s complaints about unnecessary testing, poor communication, and inefficient care delivery connect with the quality, patient-safety, and practice-management improvements HM groups already push, Dr. Kaplan adds. To advance healthcare delivery’s evolution, hospitalists should view the task of reform as an opportunity, not a challenge.
“There are very powerful opportunities for the hospitalist now to have great impact,” he says. “To not just be the passive participants in a broken and dysfunctional system, but in many ways, [to be] one of the architects of an improved care system going forward.”
Richard Quinn is a freelance writer in New Jersey.
There are 10 industry-changing recommendations in the recent Institute of Medicine (IOM) report “Best Care at Lower Cost: The Path to Continuously Learning Health Care in America.” Suggestions include reforming payment, adopting digital infrastructure, and improving the continuity of care. And to Brent James, MD, all of those recommendations are areas in which hospitalists can help lead healthcare from fee-for-service to an organized-care model.
Dr. James, executive director of the Institute for Health Care Delivery Research and chief quality officer at Intermountain Healthcare in Salt Lake City, says hospitalists can be linchpins to that hoped-for sea change because the specialty’s growth the past 15 years shows that physicians taking a collaborative, evidence-based approach to patient care can improve outcomes and lower costs.
“In some sense, the hospitalist movement triggered [the move to organized care],” says Dr. James, one of the IOM report’s authors. “You started to have teams caring for inpatients in a coordinated way. Pieces started to kind of fall into place underneath it. So I regard this as … [hospitalists] coming into their own, their vision of the future starting to really take hold.”
The report estimates the national cost of unnecessary or wasteful healthcare at $750 billion per year. Published in September, the report was crafted by a nationwide committee of healthcare leaders, including hospitalist and medical researcher David Meltzer, MD, PhD, chief of University of Chicago’s Division of Hospital Medicine and director of the Center for Health and Social Sciences in Chicago.
Dr. Meltzer says that for a relatively young specialty, hospitalists have been “remarkably forward-looking.” The specialty, in his view, has embraced teamwork, digital infrastructure, and quality initiatives. As the U.S. healthcare system evolves, he notes, HM leaders need to keep that mentality. Hospitalists are confronted daily with a combination of sicker patients and more treatment options, and making the right decisions is paramount to a “learning healthcare system,” Dr. Meltzer adds.
“As the database of options grows, decision-making becomes more difficult,” he says. “We have an important role to play in how to think about trying to control costs.”
Gary Kaplan, MD, FACP, FACMPE, FACPE, chairman and chief executive officer of Virginia Mason Health System in Seattle, agrees that HM’s priorities dovetail nicely with reform efforts. He hopes the IOM report’s findings will serve as a springboard for hospitalists to further spearhead improvements.
In particular, Dr. Kaplan notes that healthcare delivery organizations should develop, implement, and fine-tune their “systems, engineering tools, and process-improvement methods.” Such changes would help “eliminate inefficiencies, remove unnecessary burdens on clinicians and staff, enhance patient experience, and improve patient health outcomes,” he says.
“The hospitalists and the care teams with which the hospitalist connects are very critical to streamlining operations,” Dr. Kaplan adds.
Dr. James, who has long championed process improvement as the key to improved clinical outcomes, says that extending the hospitalist model throughout healthcare can only have good results. He preaches the implementation of standardized protocols and sees hospitalists as natural torchbearers for the cause.
“When you start to focus on process—our old jargon for it was ‘continuum of care’—it forces you to patient-centered care,” he says. “Instead of building your care around the physicians, or around the hospital, or around the technology, you build the care around the patient.”
Dr. James has heard physicians say protocols are too rigid and do not improve patient care. He disagrees—vehemently.
—Brent James, MD, executive director of the Institute for Health Care Delivery Research and chief quality officer, Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City
“It’s not just that we allow, or even that we encourage, we demand that you modify [the protocol] for individual patient needs,” he says. “What I have is a standard process of care. That means that you don’t have to bird-dog every little step. I take my most important resource—a trained, expert mind—and focus it on that relatively small set of problems that need to be modified. We’ve found that it massively improves patient outcomes.”
Many of the IOM report’s complaints about unnecessary testing, poor communication, and inefficient care delivery connect with the quality, patient-safety, and practice-management improvements HM groups already push, Dr. Kaplan adds. To advance healthcare delivery’s evolution, hospitalists should view the task of reform as an opportunity, not a challenge.
“There are very powerful opportunities for the hospitalist now to have great impact,” he says. “To not just be the passive participants in a broken and dysfunctional system, but in many ways, [to be] one of the architects of an improved care system going forward.”
Richard Quinn is a freelance writer in New Jersey.
Hospitalists Take Greater Role in Assessing and Treating Pain
A multidisciplinary pain-management research group at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City has been evaluating numerical pain-rating scales, independent predictors of severe pain, their association with patient satisfaction rates, and improved inpatient pain outcomes resulting from targeted interventions with physicians. However, they found that while overall pain scores on medicine floors were lower than for surgical patients, they were also less responsive to the targeted interventions.
The group is piloting a program to promote pain champions in its department of medicine and encourage hospitalists to partner with nurses in focusing on pain assessment and treatment.
David L. Reich, MD, an anesthesiologist at Mount Sinai who leads the pain group, and colleagues recently published results from their research in the American Journal of Medical Quality.1 Pain increasingly will be an issue for hospitals and hospitalists, he says, with two pain-related questions now included on the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey that is part of the government’s value-based purchasing initiative.
“It is our belief that unrelieved pain is an overall driver of other patient-reported metrics,” Dr. Reich says.
Andrew Dunn, MD, SFHM, head of the hospitalist service at Mount Sinai, acknowledges that medicine floors have been less successful at improving pain management, in part because the patient population is so much more heterogeneous.
“One thing that did not work was to have the pain team join medical rounds. That’s just not systematic or robust enough,” Dr. Dunn says. “We have piloted a program where patients’ pain scores are now delivered twice a day in reports to nurse managers and floor medical directors.”
Consecutive reports of pain scores of 5 or more (on a scale of 0 to 10) trigger consideration of a consultation with either the anesthesiology pain-management service or palliative-care service.
Reference
A multidisciplinary pain-management research group at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City has been evaluating numerical pain-rating scales, independent predictors of severe pain, their association with patient satisfaction rates, and improved inpatient pain outcomes resulting from targeted interventions with physicians. However, they found that while overall pain scores on medicine floors were lower than for surgical patients, they were also less responsive to the targeted interventions.
The group is piloting a program to promote pain champions in its department of medicine and encourage hospitalists to partner with nurses in focusing on pain assessment and treatment.
David L. Reich, MD, an anesthesiologist at Mount Sinai who leads the pain group, and colleagues recently published results from their research in the American Journal of Medical Quality.1 Pain increasingly will be an issue for hospitals and hospitalists, he says, with two pain-related questions now included on the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey that is part of the government’s value-based purchasing initiative.
“It is our belief that unrelieved pain is an overall driver of other patient-reported metrics,” Dr. Reich says.
Andrew Dunn, MD, SFHM, head of the hospitalist service at Mount Sinai, acknowledges that medicine floors have been less successful at improving pain management, in part because the patient population is so much more heterogeneous.
“One thing that did not work was to have the pain team join medical rounds. That’s just not systematic or robust enough,” Dr. Dunn says. “We have piloted a program where patients’ pain scores are now delivered twice a day in reports to nurse managers and floor medical directors.”
Consecutive reports of pain scores of 5 or more (on a scale of 0 to 10) trigger consideration of a consultation with either the anesthesiology pain-management service or palliative-care service.
Reference
A multidisciplinary pain-management research group at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City has been evaluating numerical pain-rating scales, independent predictors of severe pain, their association with patient satisfaction rates, and improved inpatient pain outcomes resulting from targeted interventions with physicians. However, they found that while overall pain scores on medicine floors were lower than for surgical patients, they were also less responsive to the targeted interventions.
The group is piloting a program to promote pain champions in its department of medicine and encourage hospitalists to partner with nurses in focusing on pain assessment and treatment.
David L. Reich, MD, an anesthesiologist at Mount Sinai who leads the pain group, and colleagues recently published results from their research in the American Journal of Medical Quality.1 Pain increasingly will be an issue for hospitals and hospitalists, he says, with two pain-related questions now included on the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey that is part of the government’s value-based purchasing initiative.
“It is our belief that unrelieved pain is an overall driver of other patient-reported metrics,” Dr. Reich says.
Andrew Dunn, MD, SFHM, head of the hospitalist service at Mount Sinai, acknowledges that medicine floors have been less successful at improving pain management, in part because the patient population is so much more heterogeneous.
“One thing that did not work was to have the pain team join medical rounds. That’s just not systematic or robust enough,” Dr. Dunn says. “We have piloted a program where patients’ pain scores are now delivered twice a day in reports to nurse managers and floor medical directors.”
Consecutive reports of pain scores of 5 or more (on a scale of 0 to 10) trigger consideration of a consultation with either the anesthesiology pain-management service or palliative-care service.
Reference
Innovator of Care Transitions Model for Hospital Patients Honored
University of Colorado at Denver geriatrician Eric Coleman, MD, MPH—who pioneered the celebrated Care Transitions Model (www.caretransitions.org), which sends “coaches” on home visits and has them make phone calls to patients in an effort to smooth post-hospital discharge transitions and enhance self-care—has been honored with a MacArthur Foundation “genius” award.
Dr. Coleman also co-chairs the advisory board for SHM’s Project BOOST (Better Outcomes for Older Adults through Safe Transitions) national quality initiative.
The MacArthur Fellowship is known for honoring individuals who have shown exceptional originality and creativity, bestowing them with a $500,000 award—no strings attached. Dr. Coleman says the award “promotes the opportunity for approaching complex problems in new light—taking risks with new approaches and serving in the role of a ‘change agent.’”
“I look forward to working collaboratively with hospitalists and hospitals on finding new strategies and solutions for improving the discharge experience,” he says.
University of Colorado at Denver geriatrician Eric Coleman, MD, MPH—who pioneered the celebrated Care Transitions Model (www.caretransitions.org), which sends “coaches” on home visits and has them make phone calls to patients in an effort to smooth post-hospital discharge transitions and enhance self-care—has been honored with a MacArthur Foundation “genius” award.
Dr. Coleman also co-chairs the advisory board for SHM’s Project BOOST (Better Outcomes for Older Adults through Safe Transitions) national quality initiative.
The MacArthur Fellowship is known for honoring individuals who have shown exceptional originality and creativity, bestowing them with a $500,000 award—no strings attached. Dr. Coleman says the award “promotes the opportunity for approaching complex problems in new light—taking risks with new approaches and serving in the role of a ‘change agent.’”
“I look forward to working collaboratively with hospitalists and hospitals on finding new strategies and solutions for improving the discharge experience,” he says.
University of Colorado at Denver geriatrician Eric Coleman, MD, MPH—who pioneered the celebrated Care Transitions Model (www.caretransitions.org), which sends “coaches” on home visits and has them make phone calls to patients in an effort to smooth post-hospital discharge transitions and enhance self-care—has been honored with a MacArthur Foundation “genius” award.
Dr. Coleman also co-chairs the advisory board for SHM’s Project BOOST (Better Outcomes for Older Adults through Safe Transitions) national quality initiative.
The MacArthur Fellowship is known for honoring individuals who have shown exceptional originality and creativity, bestowing them with a $500,000 award—no strings attached. Dr. Coleman says the award “promotes the opportunity for approaching complex problems in new light—taking risks with new approaches and serving in the role of a ‘change agent.’”
“I look forward to working collaboratively with hospitalists and hospitals on finding new strategies and solutions for improving the discharge experience,” he says.
The Hospital Home Team: Physicians Increase Focus on Inpatient Care
For most of my medical career, the hospital functioned more as a swap meet, where every physician had his or her own booth, than as an integrated, community health resource with a focused mission. Although the innovation of HM might be counted as the beginning of a new, more aligned approach between physicians and the hospital as an institution, the rapidly evolving employment of physicians by hospitals and the focusing of physician practice primarily on inpatient care has taken this to another level.
The New Paradigm
A number of recent surveys by physician recruitment firms and physician management companies have found that less than 25% of physicians are self-employed. Planned changes to insurance and Medicare reimbursement for healthcare have driven cardiologists, orthopedists, surgeons, and many other physicians, who want to protect their flow of patients and dollars, to readily become hospital or large-group-practice employees. The entrance of accountable-care organizations (ACOs) to the landscape and the greater need for physician and hospital alignment have only accelerated this trend.
At the same time, the growth of all sorts of hospitalist specialties has further changed the medical staff of the hospital. Internal-medicine and family-practice hospitalists now number more than 35,000. There are probably more than 2,000 pediatric hospitalists. The newly formed Society of OB/GYN Hospitalists (SOGH) estimates there are more than 1,500 so-called laborists in the U.S., and there are several hundred neurohospitalists, orthopedic hospitalists, and acute-care surgeons.
It is clear to me that a “home team” for the hospital of the future is developing, and it includes hospitalists, ED physicians, critical-care physicians, and the growing panoply of hospital-employed cardiologists and surgeons. There is an opportunity for alignment and integration in what has been a fragmented delivery of healthcare.
On the commercial side of the equation, this new opportunity for physician-hospital alignment might allow for a new distribution of compensation. It already is common for hospitals to be transferring some of “their” Medicare Part A dollars to hospitalists. With penalties or additional payments in the ACO model (e.g. shared savings) or in value-based purchasing, there certainly are mechanisms to redistribute funding to new physician compensation models, based more on performance than on volume of services (i.e. the old productivity model).
On another level, where compensation and performance merge, the new medical staff has the ability to deliver a safer hospital experience to our patients and to improve performance. This could take the form of reduction in hospital-acquired infections (HAIs) or reducing unnecessary DVTs and PEs. It could take the form of a better discharge process that leads to fewer unnecessary readmissions or fewer preventable ED visits. On the OB side, 24-hour on-site availability of OB hospitalists has been shown to reduce adverse birth events and, therefore, reduce liability risk and malpractice premiums. On-site availability for patients with fractures and trauma cases by orthopedic hospitalists or hospital-employed orthopedists also can reduce expenses and adverse events for these acutely ill patients.
HM’s Role
With all these changes occurring so rapidly and with all these new players being thrown into the stew at the hospital, it may be worth a few minutes for the “traditional” hospitalist on the medical service to step back and see how our role may evolve. We already have an increasing role in comanagement of surgical and subspecialty patients, as well as a more integrated role at the ED-hospitalist interface. As hospitals look for hospital-focused physicians, there is a potential for scope creep that must be thoughtfully managed.
This may require “rules of engagement” with other key services. While it may be appropriate for a patient with an acute abdomen to be admitted to the hospitalist service, if the hospitalist determines that this patient needs surgery sooner rather than later, there needs to be a straightforward way to get the surgeon in house and on the case and the patient to the operating room. To this point, medical hospitalists can help manage the medical aspects of a neurosurgical case, but we don’t do burr holes. And if there is to be pushback from the surgeon, this can’t happen at 2 a.m. over the telephone; it must be handled by the service leaders at their weekly meeting.
On another level, hospitalists need to be careful that the hospital doesn’t just hand us the administrative functions of other physicians’ care. Hospitalists are not the default to do H&Ps on surgical cases or handle their discharges, even if this falls into the hospital strategy to be able to employ fewer high-priced surgeons and subspecialists by handing off some of their work to their hospitalists.
On the other hand, it is totally appropriate for many of the hospital-focused physicians to come together, possibly under the leadership of the hospital CMO, to look at the workflow and to set up a new way to deliver healthcare that not only redefines the workload, but also involves the rest of the team, including nursing, pharmacy, case management, and social services. Medical hospitalists will need to consider whether we should be the hub of the new physician enterprise and what that would mean for workload, FTEs, and scope of practice.
Such organizations as SHM and the American Hospital Association (AHA) are thinking how best to support and convene the hospital-based physician. AHA has developed a Physician Forum with more than 6,000 members who now have their practices aligned with their hospital. SHM has held meetings of the leaders of hospital-focused practice and is developing virtual forums on Hospital Medicine Exchange to keep the discussion going. Through the Hospital Care Collaborative (HCC), SHM is engaging the leadership of pharmacy, nursing, case management, social services, and respiratory therapy.
Although we are still early in creating the direction for the new medical staff, the water is rising and the current is moving rapidly. The strong forces that are driving new payment paradigms are leading to changes in compensation and an emphasis on definable, measureable outcomes of performance and safety. Hospitalists, who have been thinking in this way and who have some experience in the new ways, should be well positioned to lead and participate actively in the formation of the new hospital home team.
When opportunity knocks, you still have to get up and answer the door. It’s time to get ready to step up.
Dr. Wellikson is CEO of SHM.
For most of my medical career, the hospital functioned more as a swap meet, where every physician had his or her own booth, than as an integrated, community health resource with a focused mission. Although the innovation of HM might be counted as the beginning of a new, more aligned approach between physicians and the hospital as an institution, the rapidly evolving employment of physicians by hospitals and the focusing of physician practice primarily on inpatient care has taken this to another level.
The New Paradigm
A number of recent surveys by physician recruitment firms and physician management companies have found that less than 25% of physicians are self-employed. Planned changes to insurance and Medicare reimbursement for healthcare have driven cardiologists, orthopedists, surgeons, and many other physicians, who want to protect their flow of patients and dollars, to readily become hospital or large-group-practice employees. The entrance of accountable-care organizations (ACOs) to the landscape and the greater need for physician and hospital alignment have only accelerated this trend.
At the same time, the growth of all sorts of hospitalist specialties has further changed the medical staff of the hospital. Internal-medicine and family-practice hospitalists now number more than 35,000. There are probably more than 2,000 pediatric hospitalists. The newly formed Society of OB/GYN Hospitalists (SOGH) estimates there are more than 1,500 so-called laborists in the U.S., and there are several hundred neurohospitalists, orthopedic hospitalists, and acute-care surgeons.
It is clear to me that a “home team” for the hospital of the future is developing, and it includes hospitalists, ED physicians, critical-care physicians, and the growing panoply of hospital-employed cardiologists and surgeons. There is an opportunity for alignment and integration in what has been a fragmented delivery of healthcare.
On the commercial side of the equation, this new opportunity for physician-hospital alignment might allow for a new distribution of compensation. It already is common for hospitals to be transferring some of “their” Medicare Part A dollars to hospitalists. With penalties or additional payments in the ACO model (e.g. shared savings) or in value-based purchasing, there certainly are mechanisms to redistribute funding to new physician compensation models, based more on performance than on volume of services (i.e. the old productivity model).
On another level, where compensation and performance merge, the new medical staff has the ability to deliver a safer hospital experience to our patients and to improve performance. This could take the form of reduction in hospital-acquired infections (HAIs) or reducing unnecessary DVTs and PEs. It could take the form of a better discharge process that leads to fewer unnecessary readmissions or fewer preventable ED visits. On the OB side, 24-hour on-site availability of OB hospitalists has been shown to reduce adverse birth events and, therefore, reduce liability risk and malpractice premiums. On-site availability for patients with fractures and trauma cases by orthopedic hospitalists or hospital-employed orthopedists also can reduce expenses and adverse events for these acutely ill patients.
HM’s Role
With all these changes occurring so rapidly and with all these new players being thrown into the stew at the hospital, it may be worth a few minutes for the “traditional” hospitalist on the medical service to step back and see how our role may evolve. We already have an increasing role in comanagement of surgical and subspecialty patients, as well as a more integrated role at the ED-hospitalist interface. As hospitals look for hospital-focused physicians, there is a potential for scope creep that must be thoughtfully managed.
This may require “rules of engagement” with other key services. While it may be appropriate for a patient with an acute abdomen to be admitted to the hospitalist service, if the hospitalist determines that this patient needs surgery sooner rather than later, there needs to be a straightforward way to get the surgeon in house and on the case and the patient to the operating room. To this point, medical hospitalists can help manage the medical aspects of a neurosurgical case, but we don’t do burr holes. And if there is to be pushback from the surgeon, this can’t happen at 2 a.m. over the telephone; it must be handled by the service leaders at their weekly meeting.
On another level, hospitalists need to be careful that the hospital doesn’t just hand us the administrative functions of other physicians’ care. Hospitalists are not the default to do H&Ps on surgical cases or handle their discharges, even if this falls into the hospital strategy to be able to employ fewer high-priced surgeons and subspecialists by handing off some of their work to their hospitalists.
On the other hand, it is totally appropriate for many of the hospital-focused physicians to come together, possibly under the leadership of the hospital CMO, to look at the workflow and to set up a new way to deliver healthcare that not only redefines the workload, but also involves the rest of the team, including nursing, pharmacy, case management, and social services. Medical hospitalists will need to consider whether we should be the hub of the new physician enterprise and what that would mean for workload, FTEs, and scope of practice.
Such organizations as SHM and the American Hospital Association (AHA) are thinking how best to support and convene the hospital-based physician. AHA has developed a Physician Forum with more than 6,000 members who now have their practices aligned with their hospital. SHM has held meetings of the leaders of hospital-focused practice and is developing virtual forums on Hospital Medicine Exchange to keep the discussion going. Through the Hospital Care Collaborative (HCC), SHM is engaging the leadership of pharmacy, nursing, case management, social services, and respiratory therapy.
Although we are still early in creating the direction for the new medical staff, the water is rising and the current is moving rapidly. The strong forces that are driving new payment paradigms are leading to changes in compensation and an emphasis on definable, measureable outcomes of performance and safety. Hospitalists, who have been thinking in this way and who have some experience in the new ways, should be well positioned to lead and participate actively in the formation of the new hospital home team.
When opportunity knocks, you still have to get up and answer the door. It’s time to get ready to step up.
Dr. Wellikson is CEO of SHM.
For most of my medical career, the hospital functioned more as a swap meet, where every physician had his or her own booth, than as an integrated, community health resource with a focused mission. Although the innovation of HM might be counted as the beginning of a new, more aligned approach between physicians and the hospital as an institution, the rapidly evolving employment of physicians by hospitals and the focusing of physician practice primarily on inpatient care has taken this to another level.
The New Paradigm
A number of recent surveys by physician recruitment firms and physician management companies have found that less than 25% of physicians are self-employed. Planned changes to insurance and Medicare reimbursement for healthcare have driven cardiologists, orthopedists, surgeons, and many other physicians, who want to protect their flow of patients and dollars, to readily become hospital or large-group-practice employees. The entrance of accountable-care organizations (ACOs) to the landscape and the greater need for physician and hospital alignment have only accelerated this trend.
At the same time, the growth of all sorts of hospitalist specialties has further changed the medical staff of the hospital. Internal-medicine and family-practice hospitalists now number more than 35,000. There are probably more than 2,000 pediatric hospitalists. The newly formed Society of OB/GYN Hospitalists (SOGH) estimates there are more than 1,500 so-called laborists in the U.S., and there are several hundred neurohospitalists, orthopedic hospitalists, and acute-care surgeons.
It is clear to me that a “home team” for the hospital of the future is developing, and it includes hospitalists, ED physicians, critical-care physicians, and the growing panoply of hospital-employed cardiologists and surgeons. There is an opportunity for alignment and integration in what has been a fragmented delivery of healthcare.
On the commercial side of the equation, this new opportunity for physician-hospital alignment might allow for a new distribution of compensation. It already is common for hospitals to be transferring some of “their” Medicare Part A dollars to hospitalists. With penalties or additional payments in the ACO model (e.g. shared savings) or in value-based purchasing, there certainly are mechanisms to redistribute funding to new physician compensation models, based more on performance than on volume of services (i.e. the old productivity model).
On another level, where compensation and performance merge, the new medical staff has the ability to deliver a safer hospital experience to our patients and to improve performance. This could take the form of reduction in hospital-acquired infections (HAIs) or reducing unnecessary DVTs and PEs. It could take the form of a better discharge process that leads to fewer unnecessary readmissions or fewer preventable ED visits. On the OB side, 24-hour on-site availability of OB hospitalists has been shown to reduce adverse birth events and, therefore, reduce liability risk and malpractice premiums. On-site availability for patients with fractures and trauma cases by orthopedic hospitalists or hospital-employed orthopedists also can reduce expenses and adverse events for these acutely ill patients.
HM’s Role
With all these changes occurring so rapidly and with all these new players being thrown into the stew at the hospital, it may be worth a few minutes for the “traditional” hospitalist on the medical service to step back and see how our role may evolve. We already have an increasing role in comanagement of surgical and subspecialty patients, as well as a more integrated role at the ED-hospitalist interface. As hospitals look for hospital-focused physicians, there is a potential for scope creep that must be thoughtfully managed.
This may require “rules of engagement” with other key services. While it may be appropriate for a patient with an acute abdomen to be admitted to the hospitalist service, if the hospitalist determines that this patient needs surgery sooner rather than later, there needs to be a straightforward way to get the surgeon in house and on the case and the patient to the operating room. To this point, medical hospitalists can help manage the medical aspects of a neurosurgical case, but we don’t do burr holes. And if there is to be pushback from the surgeon, this can’t happen at 2 a.m. over the telephone; it must be handled by the service leaders at their weekly meeting.
On another level, hospitalists need to be careful that the hospital doesn’t just hand us the administrative functions of other physicians’ care. Hospitalists are not the default to do H&Ps on surgical cases or handle their discharges, even if this falls into the hospital strategy to be able to employ fewer high-priced surgeons and subspecialists by handing off some of their work to their hospitalists.
On the other hand, it is totally appropriate for many of the hospital-focused physicians to come together, possibly under the leadership of the hospital CMO, to look at the workflow and to set up a new way to deliver healthcare that not only redefines the workload, but also involves the rest of the team, including nursing, pharmacy, case management, and social services. Medical hospitalists will need to consider whether we should be the hub of the new physician enterprise and what that would mean for workload, FTEs, and scope of practice.
Such organizations as SHM and the American Hospital Association (AHA) are thinking how best to support and convene the hospital-based physician. AHA has developed a Physician Forum with more than 6,000 members who now have their practices aligned with their hospital. SHM has held meetings of the leaders of hospital-focused practice and is developing virtual forums on Hospital Medicine Exchange to keep the discussion going. Through the Hospital Care Collaborative (HCC), SHM is engaging the leadership of pharmacy, nursing, case management, social services, and respiratory therapy.
Although we are still early in creating the direction for the new medical staff, the water is rising and the current is moving rapidly. The strong forces that are driving new payment paradigms are leading to changes in compensation and an emphasis on definable, measureable outcomes of performance and safety. Hospitalists, who have been thinking in this way and who have some experience in the new ways, should be well positioned to lead and participate actively in the formation of the new hospital home team.
When opportunity knocks, you still have to get up and answer the door. It’s time to get ready to step up.
Dr. Wellikson is CEO of SHM.
The Numerators: Treating Noncompliant, Medically Complicated Hospital Patients
We hospitalists are scientifically minded. We understand basic statistics, including percentages, percentiles, numerators, denominators (see Figure 1, right). In healthcare, we see a lot of patients we call denominators; these denominators are generally the types of patients to whom not much happens. They come in “pre-” and they leave “post-.” They generally pass through our walls, and our lives, according to plan, without leaving an impenetrable memory of who they were or what they experienced.
The numerators, on the other hand, do have something happen to them—something unexpected, untoward, unanticipated, unlikely. Sometimes we describe numerators as “noncompliant” or “medically complicated” or “refractory to treatment.” We often find ways to rationalize and explain how the patient turned from a denominator into a numerator—something they did, or didn’t do, to nudge them above the line. They smoked, they ate too much, they didn’t take their medications “as prescribed.” Often there is a less robust discussion about what we could have done to reduce the nudge: understand their background, their literacy, their finances, their physical/cognitive limitations, their understanding of risks and benefits.
I read a powerful piece about “numerators” written by Kerry O’Connell. In this piece, she describes what it was like to cross over the line into being a numerator after acquiring a hospital-acquired infection:
Five years ago this summer while under deep anesthesia for arm surgery number 3, I drifted above the line and joined the group called Numerators. … Numerators have lost a lot to join this group; many have lost organs, and some have lost all their limbs, all have many kinds of scars from their journey. It was not our choice to leave the world of Denominators … and many will struggle the rest of their lives to understand why...
There are lots of silly rules for not counting some infected souls, as if by not counting us we might not exist. Numerators that are identified are then divided by the Denominators to create a nameless, faceless, mysteriously small number called infection rates. “Rates,” like their cousin “odds,” claim to portray hope while predicting doom for some of us. Denominators are in love with rates, for no matter how many Numerators they have sired, someone else has sired more. Rates soothe the Denominator conscious and allow them to sleep peacefully at night ...
Numerators don’t ask for much from the world. We ask that Denominators look behind the numbers to see the people, to love us, count us, respect our suffering, and help keep us out of bankruptcy, for once we were Denominators just like you. Our greatest dream is that you find the daily strength to truly care. To care enough to follow the checklists, to care enough to wash your hands, to care enough to only use virgin needles, for the saddest day for all Numerators is when another unsuspecting Denominator rises above the line to join our group.1
CB’s Story
Now think of all the numerators you have met. I am going to repeat that phrase. Think of all the numerators you have met. I have met quite a few. Now I am going to tell you about my most memorable numerator.
CB was a 36-year-old white female admitted to the hospital with a recent diagnosis of ulcerative colitis. She had a protracted hospital course on various immunosuppressant drugs, none of which relieved her symptoms. During her hospital stay, her family, including her 2-year-old twins, visited every single day. After several weeks with no improvement, the decision was made to proceed to a colectomy. The surgical procedure itself was uncomplicated, a true denominator.
Then, on post-op Day 5, the day of her anticipated discharge, a pulmonary embolus thrust her into the numerator position. A preventable, eventually fatal numerator—a numerator who “just would not keep her compression devices on” and whom the staff tried to get out of bed, “but she just wouldn’t do it.” A numerator who just so happened to be my sister.
Every year on April 2, when I call my niece and nephew to wish them a happy birthday, I think about numerators. And I think about how incredibly different life would be for those 10-year-old twins, had their mom just stayed a denominator. And every day, when I sit in conference rooms and hear from countless people about how difficult it is to prevent this and reduce that, and how zero is not feasible, I think about numerators. I don’t look at their bar chart, or their run chart, or their red line, or their blue line, or whether their line is within the control limits, or what their P-value is. I think about who represents that black dot, and about how we are going to actually convince ourselves to “First, do no harm.”
When I find myself amongst a crowd quibbling about finances, lunch breaks, workflows, accountability, and about who is going to check the box or fill out the form, I think about the numerators, and how we are truly wasting their time, their livelihood, and their ability to stay below the line.
And someday, when my niece and nephew are old enough to understand, I will try to help them tolerate and accept the fact that “preventable” and “prevented” are not interchangeable. At least not in the medical industry. At least not yet.
In memory of Colleen Conlin Bowen, May 14, 2004
Dr. Scheurer is a hospitalist and chief quality officer at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston. She is physician editor of The Hospitalist. Email her at [email protected].
Reference
We hospitalists are scientifically minded. We understand basic statistics, including percentages, percentiles, numerators, denominators (see Figure 1, right). In healthcare, we see a lot of patients we call denominators; these denominators are generally the types of patients to whom not much happens. They come in “pre-” and they leave “post-.” They generally pass through our walls, and our lives, according to plan, without leaving an impenetrable memory of who they were or what they experienced.
The numerators, on the other hand, do have something happen to them—something unexpected, untoward, unanticipated, unlikely. Sometimes we describe numerators as “noncompliant” or “medically complicated” or “refractory to treatment.” We often find ways to rationalize and explain how the patient turned from a denominator into a numerator—something they did, or didn’t do, to nudge them above the line. They smoked, they ate too much, they didn’t take their medications “as prescribed.” Often there is a less robust discussion about what we could have done to reduce the nudge: understand their background, their literacy, their finances, their physical/cognitive limitations, their understanding of risks and benefits.
I read a powerful piece about “numerators” written by Kerry O’Connell. In this piece, she describes what it was like to cross over the line into being a numerator after acquiring a hospital-acquired infection:
Five years ago this summer while under deep anesthesia for arm surgery number 3, I drifted above the line and joined the group called Numerators. … Numerators have lost a lot to join this group; many have lost organs, and some have lost all their limbs, all have many kinds of scars from their journey. It was not our choice to leave the world of Denominators … and many will struggle the rest of their lives to understand why...
There are lots of silly rules for not counting some infected souls, as if by not counting us we might not exist. Numerators that are identified are then divided by the Denominators to create a nameless, faceless, mysteriously small number called infection rates. “Rates,” like their cousin “odds,” claim to portray hope while predicting doom for some of us. Denominators are in love with rates, for no matter how many Numerators they have sired, someone else has sired more. Rates soothe the Denominator conscious and allow them to sleep peacefully at night ...
Numerators don’t ask for much from the world. We ask that Denominators look behind the numbers to see the people, to love us, count us, respect our suffering, and help keep us out of bankruptcy, for once we were Denominators just like you. Our greatest dream is that you find the daily strength to truly care. To care enough to follow the checklists, to care enough to wash your hands, to care enough to only use virgin needles, for the saddest day for all Numerators is when another unsuspecting Denominator rises above the line to join our group.1
CB’s Story
Now think of all the numerators you have met. I am going to repeat that phrase. Think of all the numerators you have met. I have met quite a few. Now I am going to tell you about my most memorable numerator.
CB was a 36-year-old white female admitted to the hospital with a recent diagnosis of ulcerative colitis. She had a protracted hospital course on various immunosuppressant drugs, none of which relieved her symptoms. During her hospital stay, her family, including her 2-year-old twins, visited every single day. After several weeks with no improvement, the decision was made to proceed to a colectomy. The surgical procedure itself was uncomplicated, a true denominator.
Then, on post-op Day 5, the day of her anticipated discharge, a pulmonary embolus thrust her into the numerator position. A preventable, eventually fatal numerator—a numerator who “just would not keep her compression devices on” and whom the staff tried to get out of bed, “but she just wouldn’t do it.” A numerator who just so happened to be my sister.
Every year on April 2, when I call my niece and nephew to wish them a happy birthday, I think about numerators. And I think about how incredibly different life would be for those 10-year-old twins, had their mom just stayed a denominator. And every day, when I sit in conference rooms and hear from countless people about how difficult it is to prevent this and reduce that, and how zero is not feasible, I think about numerators. I don’t look at their bar chart, or their run chart, or their red line, or their blue line, or whether their line is within the control limits, or what their P-value is. I think about who represents that black dot, and about how we are going to actually convince ourselves to “First, do no harm.”
When I find myself amongst a crowd quibbling about finances, lunch breaks, workflows, accountability, and about who is going to check the box or fill out the form, I think about the numerators, and how we are truly wasting their time, their livelihood, and their ability to stay below the line.
And someday, when my niece and nephew are old enough to understand, I will try to help them tolerate and accept the fact that “preventable” and “prevented” are not interchangeable. At least not in the medical industry. At least not yet.
In memory of Colleen Conlin Bowen, May 14, 2004
Dr. Scheurer is a hospitalist and chief quality officer at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston. She is physician editor of The Hospitalist. Email her at [email protected].
Reference
We hospitalists are scientifically minded. We understand basic statistics, including percentages, percentiles, numerators, denominators (see Figure 1, right). In healthcare, we see a lot of patients we call denominators; these denominators are generally the types of patients to whom not much happens. They come in “pre-” and they leave “post-.” They generally pass through our walls, and our lives, according to plan, without leaving an impenetrable memory of who they were or what they experienced.
The numerators, on the other hand, do have something happen to them—something unexpected, untoward, unanticipated, unlikely. Sometimes we describe numerators as “noncompliant” or “medically complicated” or “refractory to treatment.” We often find ways to rationalize and explain how the patient turned from a denominator into a numerator—something they did, or didn’t do, to nudge them above the line. They smoked, they ate too much, they didn’t take their medications “as prescribed.” Often there is a less robust discussion about what we could have done to reduce the nudge: understand their background, their literacy, their finances, their physical/cognitive limitations, their understanding of risks and benefits.
I read a powerful piece about “numerators” written by Kerry O’Connell. In this piece, she describes what it was like to cross over the line into being a numerator after acquiring a hospital-acquired infection:
Five years ago this summer while under deep anesthesia for arm surgery number 3, I drifted above the line and joined the group called Numerators. … Numerators have lost a lot to join this group; many have lost organs, and some have lost all their limbs, all have many kinds of scars from their journey. It was not our choice to leave the world of Denominators … and many will struggle the rest of their lives to understand why...
There are lots of silly rules for not counting some infected souls, as if by not counting us we might not exist. Numerators that are identified are then divided by the Denominators to create a nameless, faceless, mysteriously small number called infection rates. “Rates,” like their cousin “odds,” claim to portray hope while predicting doom for some of us. Denominators are in love with rates, for no matter how many Numerators they have sired, someone else has sired more. Rates soothe the Denominator conscious and allow them to sleep peacefully at night ...
Numerators don’t ask for much from the world. We ask that Denominators look behind the numbers to see the people, to love us, count us, respect our suffering, and help keep us out of bankruptcy, for once we were Denominators just like you. Our greatest dream is that you find the daily strength to truly care. To care enough to follow the checklists, to care enough to wash your hands, to care enough to only use virgin needles, for the saddest day for all Numerators is when another unsuspecting Denominator rises above the line to join our group.1
CB’s Story
Now think of all the numerators you have met. I am going to repeat that phrase. Think of all the numerators you have met. I have met quite a few. Now I am going to tell you about my most memorable numerator.
CB was a 36-year-old white female admitted to the hospital with a recent diagnosis of ulcerative colitis. She had a protracted hospital course on various immunosuppressant drugs, none of which relieved her symptoms. During her hospital stay, her family, including her 2-year-old twins, visited every single day. After several weeks with no improvement, the decision was made to proceed to a colectomy. The surgical procedure itself was uncomplicated, a true denominator.
Then, on post-op Day 5, the day of her anticipated discharge, a pulmonary embolus thrust her into the numerator position. A preventable, eventually fatal numerator—a numerator who “just would not keep her compression devices on” and whom the staff tried to get out of bed, “but she just wouldn’t do it.” A numerator who just so happened to be my sister.
Every year on April 2, when I call my niece and nephew to wish them a happy birthday, I think about numerators. And I think about how incredibly different life would be for those 10-year-old twins, had their mom just stayed a denominator. And every day, when I sit in conference rooms and hear from countless people about how difficult it is to prevent this and reduce that, and how zero is not feasible, I think about numerators. I don’t look at their bar chart, or their run chart, or their red line, or their blue line, or whether their line is within the control limits, or what their P-value is. I think about who represents that black dot, and about how we are going to actually convince ourselves to “First, do no harm.”
When I find myself amongst a crowd quibbling about finances, lunch breaks, workflows, accountability, and about who is going to check the box or fill out the form, I think about the numerators, and how we are truly wasting their time, their livelihood, and their ability to stay below the line.
And someday, when my niece and nephew are old enough to understand, I will try to help them tolerate and accept the fact that “preventable” and “prevented” are not interchangeable. At least not in the medical industry. At least not yet.
In memory of Colleen Conlin Bowen, May 14, 2004
Dr. Scheurer is a hospitalist and chief quality officer at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston. She is physician editor of The Hospitalist. Email her at [email protected].
Reference
ONLINE EXCLUSIVE: Listen to Derek C. Angus discuss incorporating hospitalists into a tiered system of ICU care
Click here to listen to Dr. Angus
Click here to listen to Dr. Angus
Click here to listen to Dr. Angus