Transitions of Care

Although Medicare's looming financial penalties for hospitals with excessive readmissions might seem like a blunt weapon, private health plans often have the flexibility to negotiate with partnering hospitals around incentives for readmissions prevention.

"We have arrangements with private insurance companies where we put at risk future compensation, based on achieving negotiated readmissions results," says Mark Carley, vice president of managed care and network development for Centura Health, a 13-hospital system in Colorado.

Payors, including United Healthcare, have developed their own readmissions programs and reporting mechanisms, although each program’s incentives are a little different, Carley says. Target rates are negotiated based on each hospital's readmissions in the previous 12-month period and national averages. The plan can also provide helpful data on its beneficiaries and other forms of assistance, because it wants to see the hospital hit the target, he adds. "If the target has been set too high, they may be willing to renegotiate."

But the plan doesn't tell the hospital how to reach that target.

"Where the complexity comes in is how we as a system implement internal policies and procedures to improve our care coordination, discharge processes, follow-up, and communication with downstream providers," says Carley. Centura Health's approach to readmissions has included close study of past performance data in search of opportunities for improvement, fine-tuning of the discharge planning process, and follow-up phone calls to patients and providers.

"In addition, we are working with post-acute providers to provide smoother transitions in the discharge process," he says.

Although Medicare's looming financial penalties for hospitals with excessive readmissions might seem like a blunt weapon, private health plans often have the flexibility to negotiate with partnering hospitals around incentives for readmissions prevention.

"We have arrangements with private insurance companies where we put at risk future compensation, based on achieving negotiated readmissions results," says Mark Carley, vice president of managed care and network development for Centura Health, a 13-hospital system in Colorado.

Payors, including United Healthcare, have developed their own readmissions programs and reporting mechanisms, although each program’s incentives are a little different, Carley says. Target rates are negotiated based on each hospital's readmissions in the previous 12-month period and national averages. The plan can also provide helpful data on its beneficiaries and other forms of assistance, because it wants to see the hospital hit the target, he adds. "If the target has been set too high, they may be willing to renegotiate."

But the plan doesn't tell the hospital how to reach that target.

"Where the complexity comes in is how we as a system implement internal policies and procedures to improve our care coordination, discharge processes, follow-up, and communication with downstream providers," says Carley. Centura Health's approach to readmissions has included close study of past performance data in search of opportunities for improvement, fine-tuning of the discharge planning process, and follow-up phone calls to patients and providers.

"In addition, we are working with post-acute providers to provide smoother transitions in the discharge process," he says.

Although Medicare's looming financial penalties for hospitals with excessive readmissions might seem like a blunt weapon, private health plans often have the flexibility to negotiate with partnering hospitals around incentives for readmissions prevention.

"We have arrangements with private insurance companies where we put at risk future compensation, based on achieving negotiated readmissions results," says Mark Carley, vice president of managed care and network development for Centura Health, a 13-hospital system in Colorado.

Payors, including United Healthcare, have developed their own readmissions programs and reporting mechanisms, although each program’s incentives are a little different, Carley says. Target rates are negotiated based on each hospital's readmissions in the previous 12-month period and national averages. The plan can also provide helpful data on its beneficiaries and other forms of assistance, because it wants to see the hospital hit the target, he adds. "If the target has been set too high, they may be willing to renegotiate."

But the plan doesn't tell the hospital how to reach that target.

"Where the complexity comes in is how we as a system implement internal policies and procedures to improve our care coordination, discharge processes, follow-up, and communication with downstream providers," says Carley. Centura Health's approach to readmissions has included close study of past performance data in search of opportunities for improvement, fine-tuning of the discharge planning process, and follow-up phone calls to patients and providers.

"In addition, we are working with post-acute providers to provide smoother transitions in the discharge process," he says.

More than 100 hospitals across the country have used Project BOOST to reduce readmissions and improve their discharge processes. You and your hospital can be next by applying for Project BOOST. The deadline for the next national cohort of Project BOOST is Sept. 1.

To improve your chances of acceptance, start soon. In addition to an online form, the application requires a letter of support from an executive sponsor from each institution.

In October, accepted Project BOOST sites will receive:

• A comprehensive intervention developed by a panel of nationally recognized experts based on the best available evidence;
• A comprehensive implementation guide that provides step-by-step instructions and project management tools, such as the “teachback” training curriculum, to help interdisciplinary teams redesign work flow and plan, implement, and evaluate the intervention;
• Longitudinal technical assistance that provides face-to-face training and a year of expert mentoring and coaching to implement BOOST interventions that build a culture that supports safe and complete transitions. The mentoring program provides a “train-the-trainer” DVD and curriculum for nurses and case managers on using the teachback process, and webinars targeting the educational needs of other team members, including administrators, data analysts, physicians, nurses; and others;
• A collaboration that allows sites to communicate with and learn from each other via the BOOST listserv, BOOST community site, and quarterly all-site teleconferences and webinars; and
• Access to the BOOST data center, an online resource center that allows sites to store and benchmark data against control units and other sites and generate reports.

To start the application process, visit www.hospitalmedicine.org/boost.

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

More than 100 hospitals across the country have used Project BOOST to reduce readmissions and improve their discharge processes. You and your hospital can be next by applying for Project BOOST. The deadline for the next national cohort of Project BOOST is Sept. 1.

To improve your chances of acceptance, start soon. In addition to an online form, the application requires a letter of support from an executive sponsor from each institution.

In October, accepted Project BOOST sites will receive:

• A comprehensive intervention developed by a panel of nationally recognized experts based on the best available evidence;
• A comprehensive implementation guide that provides step-by-step instructions and project management tools, such as the “teachback” training curriculum, to help interdisciplinary teams redesign work flow and plan, implement, and evaluate the intervention;
• Longitudinal technical assistance that provides face-to-face training and a year of expert mentoring and coaching to implement BOOST interventions that build a culture that supports safe and complete transitions. The mentoring program provides a “train-the-trainer” DVD and curriculum for nurses and case managers on using the teachback process, and webinars targeting the educational needs of other team members, including administrators, data analysts, physicians, nurses; and others;
• A collaboration that allows sites to communicate with and learn from each other via the BOOST listserv, BOOST community site, and quarterly all-site teleconferences and webinars; and
• Access to the BOOST data center, an online resource center that allows sites to store and benchmark data against control units and other sites and generate reports.

To start the application process, visit www.hospitalmedicine.org/boost.

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

More than 100 hospitals across the country have used Project BOOST to reduce readmissions and improve their discharge processes. You and your hospital can be next by applying for Project BOOST. The deadline for the next national cohort of Project BOOST is Sept. 1.

To improve your chances of acceptance, start soon. In addition to an online form, the application requires a letter of support from an executive sponsor from each institution.

In October, accepted Project BOOST sites will receive:

• A comprehensive intervention developed by a panel of nationally recognized experts based on the best available evidence;
• A comprehensive implementation guide that provides step-by-step instructions and project management tools, such as the “teachback” training curriculum, to help interdisciplinary teams redesign work flow and plan, implement, and evaluate the intervention;
• Longitudinal technical assistance that provides face-to-face training and a year of expert mentoring and coaching to implement BOOST interventions that build a culture that supports safe and complete transitions. The mentoring program provides a “train-the-trainer” DVD and curriculum for nurses and case managers on using the teachback process, and webinars targeting the educational needs of other team members, including administrators, data analysts, physicians, nurses; and others;
• A collaboration that allows sites to communicate with and learn from each other via the BOOST listserv, BOOST community site, and quarterly all-site teleconferences and webinars; and
• Access to the BOOST data center, an online resource center that allows sites to store and benchmark data against control units and other sites and generate reports.

To start the application process, visit www.hospitalmedicine.org/boost.

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

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

Global Surgical Package Period¹

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

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

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

Global Surgical Package Components²

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

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

 

Classification of “Surgeon”

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

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

Medical Necessity

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

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

Consider the Case

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

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

 

References

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

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

Global Surgical Package Period¹

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

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

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

Global Surgical Package Components²

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

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

 

Classification of “Surgeon”

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

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

Medical Necessity

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

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

Consider the Case

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

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

 

References

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

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

Global Surgical Package Period¹

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

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

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

Global Surgical Package Components²

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

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

 

Classification of “Surgeon”

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

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

Medical Necessity

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

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

Consider the Case

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

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

 

References

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

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

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

Reference

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

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

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

Reference

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

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

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

Reference

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

When Harbor UCLA Medical Center, a teaching hospital in Torrance, Calif., and a major safety-net facility for Los Angeles County, looked at its 30-day readmissions data, it found that readmissions for heart failure patients had increased by about 25% in just one year.

“We parsed the data and said we’re going have to sort this out,” explains Charles McKay, MD, a cardiologist at the hospital. “Then the opportunity to join Project BOOST came along. It’s been helpful to have their tools, mentors, and the whole collaborative experience.”

Harbor UCLA is one of seven Southern California hospitals participating in the yearlong Readmissions Reduction Collaborative, co-sponsored by SHM and the Hospital Association of Southern California (HASC). The hospitals convened in early June in Montebello, Calif., to report results from their quality initiatives. Four of the hospitals reported reductions in readmissions ranging from 24% to 55%. The other three were slower in implementing their quality processes and are just now starting to see results, executives said.

Project BOOST is a national quality initiative created by SHM to improve hospital discharges and care transitions while reducing readmissions—a growing focus for hospitals and health policy makers. About 100 participating sites across the country have benefited from BOOST’s expert mentoring and collaboration, as well as access to such tools as the “teachback” communication techniques and the “8Ps” comprehensive patient risk assessment.

Harbor UCLA’s multidisciplinary readmissions team, with Dr. McKay as its physician champion, zeroed in on heart failure and developed a Cardiovascular Open Access Rapid Evaluation (CORE) service, which he describes as a sort of observation or clinical decisions unit aimed at relieving pressure on the ED. Open 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., the CORE service coordinates medical interventions—stress tests and trips to the cardiac catheter lab, for example—for patients who have not been admitted to the hospital.

The team also focuses on discharged patients who return to the hospital within 72 hours, before the hospital could place post-discharge follow-up phone calls. Many of these patients could not be reached after they left the hospital.

“These are the patients where the system has failed,” Dr. McKay says. “But you could flip it over and say they are our biggest opportunity. That’s where BOOST comes in, to talk about interventions during hospitalization, implementing teachback, streamlining the coordination of care.”

BOOST aims to accelerate the quality-improvement (QI) process, identifying readmission risks and making them a higher priority for nurses and doctors to mobilize resources in the discharge process. “That’s where BOOST shone at our institution,” Dr. McKay says, “and where we still have a lot to learn.”

Harbor UCLA also brought a home healthcare representative onto the team, engaged a discharge advocate, and referred appropriate patients to a heart failure disease management registry. Over the year of the collaborative, it posted a 5.5% decrease in readmissions of heart failure patients.

Hospitalists do not have prominent roles at most HASC readmissions sites; traditional hospitalist services are less common in Southern California hospitals, in part due to the prevalence of independent practice associations (IPAs), which act as intermediaries between physicians and health plans in the region, explains Z. Joseph Wanski, MD, FACE, medical director of the public L.A. Care Health Plan, which co-sponsored the readmissions collaborative. “The IPA is in charge of its members’ hospital and post-hospital care,” he says.

Dr. Wanski, a practicing endocrinologist and a hospitalist at California Hospital Medical Center in Los Angeles, says L.A. Care is now testing the use of hospitalists at some of its contracted acute-care facilities.

 

In many cases, readmissions involve avoidable costs, as well as reduce patient satisfaction. “If they do not get rehospitalized, patients are happier, their caretakers are happier, and I feel the quality of their care is better,” Dr. Wanski says. “If you can keep the person well at home, make sure they take their medications, hopefully not go back to the ER, and get on with their lives—all those things together are why we’re supporting this collaborative.”

But hospitalists, especially in larger groups, potentially have the leverage to negotiate access to services and the care coordination needed to reduce hospital costs and preventable readmissions, Dr. McKay notes. “In 2012, hospitalists are key, and we need to find a way to make readmission reduction part of their job description, so that they can direct that,” he says.

At Valley Presbyterian Hospital in Van Nuys, which employs three part-time hospitalists who also maintain busy office practices, “the hospitalists have been very cooperative with our project,” reports Adriana Quintero, MSW, the hospital’s full-time Project BOOST facilitator. “They see a lot of our patients in their offices.” The physicians have agreed to carve out time to see, within seven days, discharge patients going home without scheduled appointments with their primary-care physicians (PCPs).

“We find that many of our discharged patients do not call their primary-care physicians for post-discharge appointments” and decline the hospital team’s offers for help—which makes it important for the discharge coordinator to follow up as soon as possible after the patient goes home, Quintero says.

At the collaborative congress in early June, team member Alice Gunderson reported results for Saint Francis Hospital in Lynwood. Gunderson, who sits on the hospital’s quality and safety board, has been a volunteer patient family advocate (PFA) for the past year and a half; she was inspired by her own experience as a family caregiver for her husband and mother, both of whom were Saint Francis patients. Gunderson challenged those in the audience to bring a PFA from their own hospital to the next BOOST meeting.

“From my point of view, wherever healthcare goes, the patient is becoming more educated, with all of the communication technology that is out there, and claiming that empowerment,” Gunderson says. “We must all work together, not in separate silos, for the best outcomes, and we can all learn from one another.”

Larry Beresford is a freelance writer in Oakland, Calif.

When Harbor UCLA Medical Center, a teaching hospital in Torrance, Calif., and a major safety-net facility for Los Angeles County, looked at its 30-day readmissions data, it found that readmissions for heart failure patients had increased by about 25% in just one year.

“We parsed the data and said we’re going have to sort this out,” explains Charles McKay, MD, a cardiologist at the hospital. “Then the opportunity to join Project BOOST came along. It’s been helpful to have their tools, mentors, and the whole collaborative experience.”

Harbor UCLA is one of seven Southern California hospitals participating in the yearlong Readmissions Reduction Collaborative, co-sponsored by SHM and the Hospital Association of Southern California (HASC). The hospitals convened in early June in Montebello, Calif., to report results from their quality initiatives. Four of the hospitals reported reductions in readmissions ranging from 24% to 55%. The other three were slower in implementing their quality processes and are just now starting to see results, executives said.

Project BOOST is a national quality initiative created by SHM to improve hospital discharges and care transitions while reducing readmissions—a growing focus for hospitals and health policy makers. About 100 participating sites across the country have benefited from BOOST’s expert mentoring and collaboration, as well as access to such tools as the “teachback” communication techniques and the “8Ps” comprehensive patient risk assessment.

Harbor UCLA’s multidisciplinary readmissions team, with Dr. McKay as its physician champion, zeroed in on heart failure and developed a Cardiovascular Open Access Rapid Evaluation (CORE) service, which he describes as a sort of observation or clinical decisions unit aimed at relieving pressure on the ED. Open 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., the CORE service coordinates medical interventions—stress tests and trips to the cardiac catheter lab, for example—for patients who have not been admitted to the hospital.

The team also focuses on discharged patients who return to the hospital within 72 hours, before the hospital could place post-discharge follow-up phone calls. Many of these patients could not be reached after they left the hospital.

“These are the patients where the system has failed,” Dr. McKay says. “But you could flip it over and say they are our biggest opportunity. That’s where BOOST comes in, to talk about interventions during hospitalization, implementing teachback, streamlining the coordination of care.”

BOOST aims to accelerate the quality-improvement (QI) process, identifying readmission risks and making them a higher priority for nurses and doctors to mobilize resources in the discharge process. “That’s where BOOST shone at our institution,” Dr. McKay says, “and where we still have a lot to learn.”

Harbor UCLA also brought a home healthcare representative onto the team, engaged a discharge advocate, and referred appropriate patients to a heart failure disease management registry. Over the year of the collaborative, it posted a 5.5% decrease in readmissions of heart failure patients.

Hospitalists do not have prominent roles at most HASC readmissions sites; traditional hospitalist services are less common in Southern California hospitals, in part due to the prevalence of independent practice associations (IPAs), which act as intermediaries between physicians and health plans in the region, explains Z. Joseph Wanski, MD, FACE, medical director of the public L.A. Care Health Plan, which co-sponsored the readmissions collaborative. “The IPA is in charge of its members’ hospital and post-hospital care,” he says.

Dr. Wanski, a practicing endocrinologist and a hospitalist at California Hospital Medical Center in Los Angeles, says L.A. Care is now testing the use of hospitalists at some of its contracted acute-care facilities.

 

In many cases, readmissions involve avoidable costs, as well as reduce patient satisfaction. “If they do not get rehospitalized, patients are happier, their caretakers are happier, and I feel the quality of their care is better,” Dr. Wanski says. “If you can keep the person well at home, make sure they take their medications, hopefully not go back to the ER, and get on with their lives—all those things together are why we’re supporting this collaborative.”

But hospitalists, especially in larger groups, potentially have the leverage to negotiate access to services and the care coordination needed to reduce hospital costs and preventable readmissions, Dr. McKay notes. “In 2012, hospitalists are key, and we need to find a way to make readmission reduction part of their job description, so that they can direct that,” he says.

At Valley Presbyterian Hospital in Van Nuys, which employs three part-time hospitalists who also maintain busy office practices, “the hospitalists have been very cooperative with our project,” reports Adriana Quintero, MSW, the hospital’s full-time Project BOOST facilitator. “They see a lot of our patients in their offices.” The physicians have agreed to carve out time to see, within seven days, discharge patients going home without scheduled appointments with their primary-care physicians (PCPs).

“We find that many of our discharged patients do not call their primary-care physicians for post-discharge appointments” and decline the hospital team’s offers for help—which makes it important for the discharge coordinator to follow up as soon as possible after the patient goes home, Quintero says.

At the collaborative congress in early June, team member Alice Gunderson reported results for Saint Francis Hospital in Lynwood. Gunderson, who sits on the hospital’s quality and safety board, has been a volunteer patient family advocate (PFA) for the past year and a half; she was inspired by her own experience as a family caregiver for her husband and mother, both of whom were Saint Francis patients. Gunderson challenged those in the audience to bring a PFA from their own hospital to the next BOOST meeting.

“From my point of view, wherever healthcare goes, the patient is becoming more educated, with all of the communication technology that is out there, and claiming that empowerment,” Gunderson says. “We must all work together, not in separate silos, for the best outcomes, and we can all learn from one another.”

Larry Beresford is a freelance writer in Oakland, Calif.

When Harbor UCLA Medical Center, a teaching hospital in Torrance, Calif., and a major safety-net facility for Los Angeles County, looked at its 30-day readmissions data, it found that readmissions for heart failure patients had increased by about 25% in just one year.

“We parsed the data and said we’re going have to sort this out,” explains Charles McKay, MD, a cardiologist at the hospital. “Then the opportunity to join Project BOOST came along. It’s been helpful to have their tools, mentors, and the whole collaborative experience.”

Harbor UCLA is one of seven Southern California hospitals participating in the yearlong Readmissions Reduction Collaborative, co-sponsored by SHM and the Hospital Association of Southern California (HASC). The hospitals convened in early June in Montebello, Calif., to report results from their quality initiatives. Four of the hospitals reported reductions in readmissions ranging from 24% to 55%. The other three were slower in implementing their quality processes and are just now starting to see results, executives said.

Project BOOST is a national quality initiative created by SHM to improve hospital discharges and care transitions while reducing readmissions—a growing focus for hospitals and health policy makers. About 100 participating sites across the country have benefited from BOOST’s expert mentoring and collaboration, as well as access to such tools as the “teachback” communication techniques and the “8Ps” comprehensive patient risk assessment.

Harbor UCLA’s multidisciplinary readmissions team, with Dr. McKay as its physician champion, zeroed in on heart failure and developed a Cardiovascular Open Access Rapid Evaluation (CORE) service, which he describes as a sort of observation or clinical decisions unit aimed at relieving pressure on the ED. Open 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., the CORE service coordinates medical interventions—stress tests and trips to the cardiac catheter lab, for example—for patients who have not been admitted to the hospital.

The team also focuses on discharged patients who return to the hospital within 72 hours, before the hospital could place post-discharge follow-up phone calls. Many of these patients could not be reached after they left the hospital.

“These are the patients where the system has failed,” Dr. McKay says. “But you could flip it over and say they are our biggest opportunity. That’s where BOOST comes in, to talk about interventions during hospitalization, implementing teachback, streamlining the coordination of care.”

BOOST aims to accelerate the quality-improvement (QI) process, identifying readmission risks and making them a higher priority for nurses and doctors to mobilize resources in the discharge process. “That’s where BOOST shone at our institution,” Dr. McKay says, “and where we still have a lot to learn.”

Harbor UCLA also brought a home healthcare representative onto the team, engaged a discharge advocate, and referred appropriate patients to a heart failure disease management registry. Over the year of the collaborative, it posted a 5.5% decrease in readmissions of heart failure patients.

Hospitalists do not have prominent roles at most HASC readmissions sites; traditional hospitalist services are less common in Southern California hospitals, in part due to the prevalence of independent practice associations (IPAs), which act as intermediaries between physicians and health plans in the region, explains Z. Joseph Wanski, MD, FACE, medical director of the public L.A. Care Health Plan, which co-sponsored the readmissions collaborative. “The IPA is in charge of its members’ hospital and post-hospital care,” he says.

Dr. Wanski, a practicing endocrinologist and a hospitalist at California Hospital Medical Center in Los Angeles, says L.A. Care is now testing the use of hospitalists at some of its contracted acute-care facilities.

 

In many cases, readmissions involve avoidable costs, as well as reduce patient satisfaction. “If they do not get rehospitalized, patients are happier, their caretakers are happier, and I feel the quality of their care is better,” Dr. Wanski says. “If you can keep the person well at home, make sure they take their medications, hopefully not go back to the ER, and get on with their lives—all those things together are why we’re supporting this collaborative.”

But hospitalists, especially in larger groups, potentially have the leverage to negotiate access to services and the care coordination needed to reduce hospital costs and preventable readmissions, Dr. McKay notes. “In 2012, hospitalists are key, and we need to find a way to make readmission reduction part of their job description, so that they can direct that,” he says.

At Valley Presbyterian Hospital in Van Nuys, which employs three part-time hospitalists who also maintain busy office practices, “the hospitalists have been very cooperative with our project,” reports Adriana Quintero, MSW, the hospital’s full-time Project BOOST facilitator. “They see a lot of our patients in their offices.” The physicians have agreed to carve out time to see, within seven days, discharge patients going home without scheduled appointments with their primary-care physicians (PCPs).

“We find that many of our discharged patients do not call their primary-care physicians for post-discharge appointments” and decline the hospital team’s offers for help—which makes it important for the discharge coordinator to follow up as soon as possible after the patient goes home, Quintero says.

At the collaborative congress in early June, team member Alice Gunderson reported results for Saint Francis Hospital in Lynwood. Gunderson, who sits on the hospital’s quality and safety board, has been a volunteer patient family advocate (PFA) for the past year and a half; she was inspired by her own experience as a family caregiver for her husband and mother, both of whom were Saint Francis patients. Gunderson challenged those in the audience to bring a PFA from their own hospital to the next BOOST meeting.

“From my point of view, wherever healthcare goes, the patient is becoming more educated, with all of the communication technology that is out there, and claiming that empowerment,” Gunderson says. “We must all work together, not in separate silos, for the best outcomes, and we can all learn from one another.”

Larry Beresford is a freelance writer in Oakland, Calif.

End-of-life conversations are common in hospital medicine, and Caitlin Foxley, MD, FHM, is no stranger to their nuance. She offers patients and loved ones as much factual information as she can. And regardless of their preference—aggressive treatment, comfort care, something in between—it’s ultimately their choice, not hers. But no matter what, she will ensure the patient’s pain remains under control.

“The way I practice is to allow my patients to make the end-of-life decision that is in accordance with their wishes, and not simply push the least expensive one on them,” says Dr. Foxley, medical director of IMI Hospitalists and hospital service chief of internal medicine at Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha. However, she adds, “most people, given accurate information in a compassionate manner, would choose to die at home, and not in an ICU on a ventilator, with chemo and pressers going through a central line.”

Although hospitalists differ in their approaches to end-of-life discussions, most agree that the majority of critically ill patients want to know their prognosis. Tested end-of-life prediction tools can help physicians provide realistic ranges for patients and families (see “Helpful End-of-Life Prediction Tools,” p. 39). Armed with this insight, they can hope to deliver better and more cost-effective end-of-life care.

Nonetheless, “we cannot rely solely on a tool to make decisions,” says Alvin H. Moss, MD, FAAHPM, professor of medicine in the nephrology section and director of the Center for Health Ethics and Law at West Virginia University School of Medicine in Morgantown. “The tool is a decision aid.”

Clinicians still need to help patients and families identify their treatment goals while determining which life-sustaining options they would or wouldn’t want to pursue, Dr. Moss says. That conversation would include an estimated prognosis of survival.

“If you try to prognosticate a specific length of time, you will be wrong,” says Steven Z. Pantilat, MD, FACP, SFHM, professor of clinical medicine and director of the palliative care program at the University of California San Francisco Medical Center. “You can give patients a lot of useful information by speaking in ranges.”

But it’s important to also convey the inherent uncertainty of any prognosis, considering that a very sick patient might suffer a sudden decline. For this reason, even the best prognostic indicators aren’t exact, Dr. Pantilat cautions. A prediction tool could forecast a 20% chance of six-month survival on the day before a patient’s death in the ICU.

 

“Predictions really apply to groups of people, not individuals,” says J. Randall Curtis, MD, MPH, professor and section head in the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at the University of Washington’s Harborview Medical Center in Seattle. Physicians can’t possibly know whether someone will fall into the 95% of patients who die or the 5% of patients who beat the odds.

“It’s never certain that a patient is not going to survive,” says Dr. Curtis, who is director of the Harborview/University of Washington End-of-Life Care Research Program. While patients are less likely to request aggressive care in light of a poor prognosis, some will elect intensive treatment in hopes of defying even the grimmest statistics.

More Medical Tests and Procedures

In the U.S., it’s much more common for patients to receive life-saving treatments than in other countries. The expectation is that expensive medical technology can always prolong life.¹

“A lot of patients have that mentality,” says Ann Sheehy, MD, MS, director of the hospitalist service at University of Wisconsin Medical Center in Madison. “That makes it harder to have the discussion with patients that there isn’t something else we can do.” Patients feel “that you’re almost abandoning them, that there’s something you’re withholding.”

The widespread assumption that more medical tests and procedures lead to better outcomes goes hand in hand with the misperception that sufficiently controlling pain and other symptoms draws death closer. As a result, many patients end up dying with distressing symptoms in the hospital instead of peacefully at home.¹

As physicians, Dr. Sheehy points out, “We don’t do a good job of saying, ‘This care probably is not going to help you or that it will leave you with a very bad quality of life in the end.’” But projections are far from perfect.

“Telling patients there is a 20% chance that they might die in the next year isn’t usually enough to change their thinking. Nor is it enough to justify withholding treatment,” says David Casarett, MD, MA, associate professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania and chief medical officer of Penn-Wissahickon Hospice in Philadelphia.

What prognostic information can do is play an important part in guiding appropriate screening and preventive health measures. For example, if a male patient has a 50% chance of dying within four years, it doesn’t make sense to screen for prostate cancer, a slow-growing malignancy that often takes years to develop. This protocol may also apply to cancer screenings, as well as treatments for diabetes, high blood pressure, or high cholesterol, Dr. Casarett says. 

End-of-Life Conversations

By not taking a patient’s prognosis into account, many clinical decisions are not fully informed. In physicians’ clinical practice and training, there tends to be less emphasis on estimating prognosis than on diagnosing and treating illness. This is particularly significant in older adults with competing chronic conditions and diminished life expectancy.²

“Many physicians have not been trained in how to have these conversations, which is something we’re trying to change,” says Dr. Curtis, the pulmonary and critical care specialist at the University of Washington. “This is very emotionally difficult for patients and families, and therefore, it can also be emotionally difficult for physicians.”

Starting this summer, medical residents at Cooper University Hospital in Camden, N.J., will have mandated exposure to palliative care. The rotation, lasting from two to four weeks, will occur in their second year of training, says Mark Angelo, MD, FACP, director of palliative medicine.

Residents will accompany the palliative-care team for an intensive period of time to learn about different techniques for symptom control and to observe end-of-life conversations, which often elicit patients’ angst, depression, and physiologic and spiritual unrest.

 

“We already have residents rotating with us now in the palliative-care program, and everybody is very struck by how honest patients want you to be,” Dr. Angelo says. “It certainly is devastating, and we understand that. But it does give patients the opportunity to reorganize their lives and to prioritize a number of issues, including medical treatment.”

Some patients opt to spend more time with their grandchildren rather than stay in the hospital. Others prefer to eat and drink whatever they want. Many terminally ill Hispanic patients in the Camden area travel to Latin America, where they were born, or they invite relatives to visit them here, Dr. Angelo says.

While it’s difficult to accept finality, “there’s a certain amount of freedom that comes with that,” he says. “If someone has a prognosis of two months, they may make very different decisions than someone who has a prognosis of two years.”

Physicians tend to be overly optimistic, notes JoAnn Wood, MD, MSEd, MHA, a hospitalist and division director of general internal medicine at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences in Little Rock. “The data suggest that, if you ask a physician to provide you with his or her impression of a patient progression, we generally tend to overestimate how well they’re doing,” particularly with cancer patients, Dr. Wood says. “Physicians don’t choose this line of work to facilitate people’s dying.”

When Doing Less Is More

End-of-life prediction tools enable clinicians to keep their expectations of a patient’s survival grounded in reality. And in many hospitals, palliative-care providers are available to lend their expertise. “The field of palliative medicine has taken a lot of strides,” Dr. Wood says, “in helping us to seeing that dying is something that can be done well, just like living can be done well.”

In fact, growing evidence indicates that treating a patient’s discomfort is linked to improvement in physical status and might even increase survival.³ What this means is that, at the end of life, sometimes doing less is actually more. And if patients request less medical care, physicians should honor those desires.^4,5

Dr. Pantilat, the UCSF palliative-care expert, suggests asking open-ended questions to get at the heart of a patient’s wishes. For instance: “‘When you look to the future, what do you hope will happen?’ Or ‘When you think of life ahead, what worries you the most?’” The responses guide physicians in devising a plan of care that is consistent with a patient’s values. Having these discussions sooner rather than later is best for everyone involved, Dr. Pantilat says. Unfortunately, that’s not what usually happens.

About half of the more than 40% of Americans who die annually under hospice care do so within two weeks after being admitted. In such a short timeframe, even the most skilled experts are limited in what they can do, according to the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization. To reverse this trend, Dr. Pantilat recommends that physicians consider making referrals to palliative care much earlier, whenever they sense that a patient may have a year or less to live.

Providing palliative care can be done in conjunction with life-prolonging therapies or as the central focus. The goal is to prevent and relieve suffering and to ensure the best possible quality of life for patients and their families, regardless of disease stage or the need for other treatments. Such care is suitable for patients with cancer, heart conditions, liver or renal failure, Alzheimer’s disease, spinal cord injuries, and a number of other illnesses, according to the National Consensus Project for Quality Palliative Care.

 

Planning Ahead

In Arkansas, Dr. Wood typically turns to the hospital’s palliative-care team in end-of-life situations, asking its members to join in a conference with the patient and family. The team typically consists of a nurse, social worker and chaplain who can address various concerns. An employee from the medical billing department participates if necessary.

“Physicians should never assume that they understand the healthcare system, because it’s incredibly complicated,” Dr. Wood says, adding that she doesn’t pretend to be an expert in Medicare, Medicaid, or private insurance reimbursement issues.

Helping patients with advanced care planning can minimize difficulties later. Most patients who die in hospitals are admitted with end-stage disease, and most spend time in the ICU with mechanical ventilation. Physicians often are unaware of patients’ preferences, and this could lead to misunderstandings, especially in the ICU setting, where prognoses can shift quickly. One study showed that, in order for some of these patients to die, clinicians and families generally had to decide explicitly to strive toward less-than-completely-aggressive care.¹

“We’re trying to make sure that patients and families have an opportunity to do advanced-care planning,” Dr. Curtis says. Talking with them about their values and goals is essential for clinicians to understand their preferences.

Part of this involves crafting advanced-care directives. One such directive would be a power of attorney for healthcare, in which a patient states who is authorized to make decisions if he or she becomes unable to do so. This is particularly important for patients who select someone other than whom their state’s law would normally designate.

Another document—the living will—allows patients to specify their own preferences for end-of-life care. Yet “it’s often very difficult to know exactly what decisions will need to be made,” Dr. Curtis says. “Those documents are rarely determinative.” Even when a patient stipulates his or her wishes against “extraordinary life-sustaining measures, it still leaves a lot for interpretation.”

Some patients may spell out more clearly whether they wouldn’t want tube-feeding, CPR, or ventilation. This can be prescribed in written and signed Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST).

Educating the Public

End-of-life discussions also pose a threat of litigation. “It takes a significant amount of time, often during a very busy day, to sit down with a patient and family members to bring up an issue that will undoubtedly raise many questions, some of which are impossible to answer,” says Dr. Foxley, the hospitalist service chief in Omaha. “I’m sure many physicians are uncomfortable with the tears that are shed.”

When Dr. Foxley recently advised a patient’s family that aggressive care would be futile, they directed their anger toward her. Their loved one died, despite the intensive treatment. It’s just one example of many in which Dr. Foxley has witnessed how high-tech medical treatments can incur astronomical hospital bills after just a few days while doing little—if anything—helpful for the patient.

“We have a lot of work to do to educate the public about the dying process,” she says, adding that the entire burden shouldn’t fall on physicians, and that patients should inform family members of their end-of-life wishes. “We are all going to die someday, and we all need to think about how and where we want to be when it happens, if we have any choice in it.”

 

Susan Kreimer is a freelance medical writer based in New York.

References

1. Walling AM, Asch SM, Lorenz KA, et al. The quality of care provided to hospitalized patients at the end of life. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(12):1057-1063.
2. Yourman LC, Lee SJ, Schonberg MA, Widera EW, Smith AK. Prognostic indices for older adults: a systematic review. JAMA. 2012;307(2):182-192.
3. Grudzen C, Grady D. Improving care at the end of life. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(13):1202.
4. Grudzen C. At the end of life, sometimes less is more. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(13):1201.
5. Bale PW. Honoring patients’ wishes for less health care. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(13):1200.

End-of-life conversations are common in hospital medicine, and Caitlin Foxley, MD, FHM, is no stranger to their nuance. She offers patients and loved ones as much factual information as she can. And regardless of their preference—aggressive treatment, comfort care, something in between—it’s ultimately their choice, not hers. But no matter what, she will ensure the patient’s pain remains under control.

“The way I practice is to allow my patients to make the end-of-life decision that is in accordance with their wishes, and not simply push the least expensive one on them,” says Dr. Foxley, medical director of IMI Hospitalists and hospital service chief of internal medicine at Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha. However, she adds, “most people, given accurate information in a compassionate manner, would choose to die at home, and not in an ICU on a ventilator, with chemo and pressers going through a central line.”

Although hospitalists differ in their approaches to end-of-life discussions, most agree that the majority of critically ill patients want to know their prognosis. Tested end-of-life prediction tools can help physicians provide realistic ranges for patients and families (see “Helpful End-of-Life Prediction Tools,” p. 39). Armed with this insight, they can hope to deliver better and more cost-effective end-of-life care.

Nonetheless, “we cannot rely solely on a tool to make decisions,” says Alvin H. Moss, MD, FAAHPM, professor of medicine in the nephrology section and director of the Center for Health Ethics and Law at West Virginia University School of Medicine in Morgantown. “The tool is a decision aid.”

Clinicians still need to help patients and families identify their treatment goals while determining which life-sustaining options they would or wouldn’t want to pursue, Dr. Moss says. That conversation would include an estimated prognosis of survival.

“If you try to prognosticate a specific length of time, you will be wrong,” says Steven Z. Pantilat, MD, FACP, SFHM, professor of clinical medicine and director of the palliative care program at the University of California San Francisco Medical Center. “You can give patients a lot of useful information by speaking in ranges.”

But it’s important to also convey the inherent uncertainty of any prognosis, considering that a very sick patient might suffer a sudden decline. For this reason, even the best prognostic indicators aren’t exact, Dr. Pantilat cautions. A prediction tool could forecast a 20% chance of six-month survival on the day before a patient’s death in the ICU.

 

“Predictions really apply to groups of people, not individuals,” says J. Randall Curtis, MD, MPH, professor and section head in the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at the University of Washington’s Harborview Medical Center in Seattle. Physicians can’t possibly know whether someone will fall into the 95% of patients who die or the 5% of patients who beat the odds.

“It’s never certain that a patient is not going to survive,” says Dr. Curtis, who is director of the Harborview/University of Washington End-of-Life Care Research Program. While patients are less likely to request aggressive care in light of a poor prognosis, some will elect intensive treatment in hopes of defying even the grimmest statistics.

More Medical Tests and Procedures

In the U.S., it’s much more common for patients to receive life-saving treatments than in other countries. The expectation is that expensive medical technology can always prolong life.¹

“A lot of patients have that mentality,” says Ann Sheehy, MD, MS, director of the hospitalist service at University of Wisconsin Medical Center in Madison. “That makes it harder to have the discussion with patients that there isn’t something else we can do.” Patients feel “that you’re almost abandoning them, that there’s something you’re withholding.”

The widespread assumption that more medical tests and procedures lead to better outcomes goes hand in hand with the misperception that sufficiently controlling pain and other symptoms draws death closer. As a result, many patients end up dying with distressing symptoms in the hospital instead of peacefully at home.¹

As physicians, Dr. Sheehy points out, “We don’t do a good job of saying, ‘This care probably is not going to help you or that it will leave you with a very bad quality of life in the end.’” But projections are far from perfect.

“Telling patients there is a 20% chance that they might die in the next year isn’t usually enough to change their thinking. Nor is it enough to justify withholding treatment,” says David Casarett, MD, MA, associate professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania and chief medical officer of Penn-Wissahickon Hospice in Philadelphia.

What prognostic information can do is play an important part in guiding appropriate screening and preventive health measures. For example, if a male patient has a 50% chance of dying within four years, it doesn’t make sense to screen for prostate cancer, a slow-growing malignancy that often takes years to develop. This protocol may also apply to cancer screenings, as well as treatments for diabetes, high blood pressure, or high cholesterol, Dr. Casarett says. 

End-of-Life Conversations

By not taking a patient’s prognosis into account, many clinical decisions are not fully informed. In physicians’ clinical practice and training, there tends to be less emphasis on estimating prognosis than on diagnosing and treating illness. This is particularly significant in older adults with competing chronic conditions and diminished life expectancy.²

“Many physicians have not been trained in how to have these conversations, which is something we’re trying to change,” says Dr. Curtis, the pulmonary and critical care specialist at the University of Washington. “This is very emotionally difficult for patients and families, and therefore, it can also be emotionally difficult for physicians.”

Starting this summer, medical residents at Cooper University Hospital in Camden, N.J., will have mandated exposure to palliative care. The rotation, lasting from two to four weeks, will occur in their second year of training, says Mark Angelo, MD, FACP, director of palliative medicine.

Residents will accompany the palliative-care team for an intensive period of time to learn about different techniques for symptom control and to observe end-of-life conversations, which often elicit patients’ angst, depression, and physiologic and spiritual unrest.

 

“We already have residents rotating with us now in the palliative-care program, and everybody is very struck by how honest patients want you to be,” Dr. Angelo says. “It certainly is devastating, and we understand that. But it does give patients the opportunity to reorganize their lives and to prioritize a number of issues, including medical treatment.”

Some patients opt to spend more time with their grandchildren rather than stay in the hospital. Others prefer to eat and drink whatever they want. Many terminally ill Hispanic patients in the Camden area travel to Latin America, where they were born, or they invite relatives to visit them here, Dr. Angelo says.

While it’s difficult to accept finality, “there’s a certain amount of freedom that comes with that,” he says. “If someone has a prognosis of two months, they may make very different decisions than someone who has a prognosis of two years.”

Physicians tend to be overly optimistic, notes JoAnn Wood, MD, MSEd, MHA, a hospitalist and division director of general internal medicine at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences in Little Rock. “The data suggest that, if you ask a physician to provide you with his or her impression of a patient progression, we generally tend to overestimate how well they’re doing,” particularly with cancer patients, Dr. Wood says. “Physicians don’t choose this line of work to facilitate people’s dying.”

When Doing Less Is More

End-of-life prediction tools enable clinicians to keep their expectations of a patient’s survival grounded in reality. And in many hospitals, palliative-care providers are available to lend their expertise. “The field of palliative medicine has taken a lot of strides,” Dr. Wood says, “in helping us to seeing that dying is something that can be done well, just like living can be done well.”

In fact, growing evidence indicates that treating a patient’s discomfort is linked to improvement in physical status and might even increase survival.³ What this means is that, at the end of life, sometimes doing less is actually more. And if patients request less medical care, physicians should honor those desires.^4,5

Dr. Pantilat, the UCSF palliative-care expert, suggests asking open-ended questions to get at the heart of a patient’s wishes. For instance: “‘When you look to the future, what do you hope will happen?’ Or ‘When you think of life ahead, what worries you the most?’” The responses guide physicians in devising a plan of care that is consistent with a patient’s values. Having these discussions sooner rather than later is best for everyone involved, Dr. Pantilat says. Unfortunately, that’s not what usually happens.

About half of the more than 40% of Americans who die annually under hospice care do so within two weeks after being admitted. In such a short timeframe, even the most skilled experts are limited in what they can do, according to the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization. To reverse this trend, Dr. Pantilat recommends that physicians consider making referrals to palliative care much earlier, whenever they sense that a patient may have a year or less to live.

Providing palliative care can be done in conjunction with life-prolonging therapies or as the central focus. The goal is to prevent and relieve suffering and to ensure the best possible quality of life for patients and their families, regardless of disease stage or the need for other treatments. Such care is suitable for patients with cancer, heart conditions, liver or renal failure, Alzheimer’s disease, spinal cord injuries, and a number of other illnesses, according to the National Consensus Project for Quality Palliative Care.

 

Planning Ahead

In Arkansas, Dr. Wood typically turns to the hospital’s palliative-care team in end-of-life situations, asking its members to join in a conference with the patient and family. The team typically consists of a nurse, social worker and chaplain who can address various concerns. An employee from the medical billing department participates if necessary.

“Physicians should never assume that they understand the healthcare system, because it’s incredibly complicated,” Dr. Wood says, adding that she doesn’t pretend to be an expert in Medicare, Medicaid, or private insurance reimbursement issues.

Helping patients with advanced care planning can minimize difficulties later. Most patients who die in hospitals are admitted with end-stage disease, and most spend time in the ICU with mechanical ventilation. Physicians often are unaware of patients’ preferences, and this could lead to misunderstandings, especially in the ICU setting, where prognoses can shift quickly. One study showed that, in order for some of these patients to die, clinicians and families generally had to decide explicitly to strive toward less-than-completely-aggressive care.¹

“We’re trying to make sure that patients and families have an opportunity to do advanced-care planning,” Dr. Curtis says. Talking with them about their values and goals is essential for clinicians to understand their preferences.

Part of this involves crafting advanced-care directives. One such directive would be a power of attorney for healthcare, in which a patient states who is authorized to make decisions if he or she becomes unable to do so. This is particularly important for patients who select someone other than whom their state’s law would normally designate.

Another document—the living will—allows patients to specify their own preferences for end-of-life care. Yet “it’s often very difficult to know exactly what decisions will need to be made,” Dr. Curtis says. “Those documents are rarely determinative.” Even when a patient stipulates his or her wishes against “extraordinary life-sustaining measures, it still leaves a lot for interpretation.”

Some patients may spell out more clearly whether they wouldn’t want tube-feeding, CPR, or ventilation. This can be prescribed in written and signed Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST).

Educating the Public

End-of-life discussions also pose a threat of litigation. “It takes a significant amount of time, often during a very busy day, to sit down with a patient and family members to bring up an issue that will undoubtedly raise many questions, some of which are impossible to answer,” says Dr. Foxley, the hospitalist service chief in Omaha. “I’m sure many physicians are uncomfortable with the tears that are shed.”

When Dr. Foxley recently advised a patient’s family that aggressive care would be futile, they directed their anger toward her. Their loved one died, despite the intensive treatment. It’s just one example of many in which Dr. Foxley has witnessed how high-tech medical treatments can incur astronomical hospital bills after just a few days while doing little—if anything—helpful for the patient.

“We have a lot of work to do to educate the public about the dying process,” she says, adding that the entire burden shouldn’t fall on physicians, and that patients should inform family members of their end-of-life wishes. “We are all going to die someday, and we all need to think about how and where we want to be when it happens, if we have any choice in it.”

 

Susan Kreimer is a freelance medical writer based in New York.

References

1. Walling AM, Asch SM, Lorenz KA, et al. The quality of care provided to hospitalized patients at the end of life. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(12):1057-1063.
2. Yourman LC, Lee SJ, Schonberg MA, Widera EW, Smith AK. Prognostic indices for older adults: a systematic review. JAMA. 2012;307(2):182-192.
3. Grudzen C, Grady D. Improving care at the end of life. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(13):1202.
4. Grudzen C. At the end of life, sometimes less is more. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(13):1201.
5. Bale PW. Honoring patients’ wishes for less health care. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(13):1200.

End-of-life conversations are common in hospital medicine, and Caitlin Foxley, MD, FHM, is no stranger to their nuance. She offers patients and loved ones as much factual information as she can. And regardless of their preference—aggressive treatment, comfort care, something in between—it’s ultimately their choice, not hers. But no matter what, she will ensure the patient’s pain remains under control.

“The way I practice is to allow my patients to make the end-of-life decision that is in accordance with their wishes, and not simply push the least expensive one on them,” says Dr. Foxley, medical director of IMI Hospitalists and hospital service chief of internal medicine at Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha. However, she adds, “most people, given accurate information in a compassionate manner, would choose to die at home, and not in an ICU on a ventilator, with chemo and pressers going through a central line.”

Although hospitalists differ in their approaches to end-of-life discussions, most agree that the majority of critically ill patients want to know their prognosis. Tested end-of-life prediction tools can help physicians provide realistic ranges for patients and families (see “Helpful End-of-Life Prediction Tools,” p. 39). Armed with this insight, they can hope to deliver better and more cost-effective end-of-life care.

Nonetheless, “we cannot rely solely on a tool to make decisions,” says Alvin H. Moss, MD, FAAHPM, professor of medicine in the nephrology section and director of the Center for Health Ethics and Law at West Virginia University School of Medicine in Morgantown. “The tool is a decision aid.”

Clinicians still need to help patients and families identify their treatment goals while determining which life-sustaining options they would or wouldn’t want to pursue, Dr. Moss says. That conversation would include an estimated prognosis of survival.

“If you try to prognosticate a specific length of time, you will be wrong,” says Steven Z. Pantilat, MD, FACP, SFHM, professor of clinical medicine and director of the palliative care program at the University of California San Francisco Medical Center. “You can give patients a lot of useful information by speaking in ranges.”

But it’s important to also convey the inherent uncertainty of any prognosis, considering that a very sick patient might suffer a sudden decline. For this reason, even the best prognostic indicators aren’t exact, Dr. Pantilat cautions. A prediction tool could forecast a 20% chance of six-month survival on the day before a patient’s death in the ICU.

 

“Predictions really apply to groups of people, not individuals,” says J. Randall Curtis, MD, MPH, professor and section head in the division of pulmonary and critical care medicine at the University of Washington’s Harborview Medical Center in Seattle. Physicians can’t possibly know whether someone will fall into the 95% of patients who die or the 5% of patients who beat the odds.

“It’s never certain that a patient is not going to survive,” says Dr. Curtis, who is director of the Harborview/University of Washington End-of-Life Care Research Program. While patients are less likely to request aggressive care in light of a poor prognosis, some will elect intensive treatment in hopes of defying even the grimmest statistics.

More Medical Tests and Procedures

In the U.S., it’s much more common for patients to receive life-saving treatments than in other countries. The expectation is that expensive medical technology can always prolong life.¹

“A lot of patients have that mentality,” says Ann Sheehy, MD, MS, director of the hospitalist service at University of Wisconsin Medical Center in Madison. “That makes it harder to have the discussion with patients that there isn’t something else we can do.” Patients feel “that you’re almost abandoning them, that there’s something you’re withholding.”

The widespread assumption that more medical tests and procedures lead to better outcomes goes hand in hand with the misperception that sufficiently controlling pain and other symptoms draws death closer. As a result, many patients end up dying with distressing symptoms in the hospital instead of peacefully at home.¹

As physicians, Dr. Sheehy points out, “We don’t do a good job of saying, ‘This care probably is not going to help you or that it will leave you with a very bad quality of life in the end.’” But projections are far from perfect.

“Telling patients there is a 20% chance that they might die in the next year isn’t usually enough to change their thinking. Nor is it enough to justify withholding treatment,” says David Casarett, MD, MA, associate professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania and chief medical officer of Penn-Wissahickon Hospice in Philadelphia.

What prognostic information can do is play an important part in guiding appropriate screening and preventive health measures. For example, if a male patient has a 50% chance of dying within four years, it doesn’t make sense to screen for prostate cancer, a slow-growing malignancy that often takes years to develop. This protocol may also apply to cancer screenings, as well as treatments for diabetes, high blood pressure, or high cholesterol, Dr. Casarett says. 

End-of-Life Conversations

By not taking a patient’s prognosis into account, many clinical decisions are not fully informed. In physicians’ clinical practice and training, there tends to be less emphasis on estimating prognosis than on diagnosing and treating illness. This is particularly significant in older adults with competing chronic conditions and diminished life expectancy.²

“Many physicians have not been trained in how to have these conversations, which is something we’re trying to change,” says Dr. Curtis, the pulmonary and critical care specialist at the University of Washington. “This is very emotionally difficult for patients and families, and therefore, it can also be emotionally difficult for physicians.”

Starting this summer, medical residents at Cooper University Hospital in Camden, N.J., will have mandated exposure to palliative care. The rotation, lasting from two to four weeks, will occur in their second year of training, says Mark Angelo, MD, FACP, director of palliative medicine.

Residents will accompany the palliative-care team for an intensive period of time to learn about different techniques for symptom control and to observe end-of-life conversations, which often elicit patients’ angst, depression, and physiologic and spiritual unrest.

 

“We already have residents rotating with us now in the palliative-care program, and everybody is very struck by how honest patients want you to be,” Dr. Angelo says. “It certainly is devastating, and we understand that. But it does give patients the opportunity to reorganize their lives and to prioritize a number of issues, including medical treatment.”

Some patients opt to spend more time with their grandchildren rather than stay in the hospital. Others prefer to eat and drink whatever they want. Many terminally ill Hispanic patients in the Camden area travel to Latin America, where they were born, or they invite relatives to visit them here, Dr. Angelo says.

While it’s difficult to accept finality, “there’s a certain amount of freedom that comes with that,” he says. “If someone has a prognosis of two months, they may make very different decisions than someone who has a prognosis of two years.”

Physicians tend to be overly optimistic, notes JoAnn Wood, MD, MSEd, MHA, a hospitalist and division director of general internal medicine at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences in Little Rock. “The data suggest that, if you ask a physician to provide you with his or her impression of a patient progression, we generally tend to overestimate how well they’re doing,” particularly with cancer patients, Dr. Wood says. “Physicians don’t choose this line of work to facilitate people’s dying.”

When Doing Less Is More

End-of-life prediction tools enable clinicians to keep their expectations of a patient’s survival grounded in reality. And in many hospitals, palliative-care providers are available to lend their expertise. “The field of palliative medicine has taken a lot of strides,” Dr. Wood says, “in helping us to seeing that dying is something that can be done well, just like living can be done well.”

In fact, growing evidence indicates that treating a patient’s discomfort is linked to improvement in physical status and might even increase survival.³ What this means is that, at the end of life, sometimes doing less is actually more. And if patients request less medical care, physicians should honor those desires.^4,5

Dr. Pantilat, the UCSF palliative-care expert, suggests asking open-ended questions to get at the heart of a patient’s wishes. For instance: “‘When you look to the future, what do you hope will happen?’ Or ‘When you think of life ahead, what worries you the most?’” The responses guide physicians in devising a plan of care that is consistent with a patient’s values. Having these discussions sooner rather than later is best for everyone involved, Dr. Pantilat says. Unfortunately, that’s not what usually happens.

About half of the more than 40% of Americans who die annually under hospice care do so within two weeks after being admitted. In such a short timeframe, even the most skilled experts are limited in what they can do, according to the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization. To reverse this trend, Dr. Pantilat recommends that physicians consider making referrals to palliative care much earlier, whenever they sense that a patient may have a year or less to live.

Providing palliative care can be done in conjunction with life-prolonging therapies or as the central focus. The goal is to prevent and relieve suffering and to ensure the best possible quality of life for patients and their families, regardless of disease stage or the need for other treatments. Such care is suitable for patients with cancer, heart conditions, liver or renal failure, Alzheimer’s disease, spinal cord injuries, and a number of other illnesses, according to the National Consensus Project for Quality Palliative Care.

 

Planning Ahead

In Arkansas, Dr. Wood typically turns to the hospital’s palliative-care team in end-of-life situations, asking its members to join in a conference with the patient and family. The team typically consists of a nurse, social worker and chaplain who can address various concerns. An employee from the medical billing department participates if necessary.

“Physicians should never assume that they understand the healthcare system, because it’s incredibly complicated,” Dr. Wood says, adding that she doesn’t pretend to be an expert in Medicare, Medicaid, or private insurance reimbursement issues.

Helping patients with advanced care planning can minimize difficulties later. Most patients who die in hospitals are admitted with end-stage disease, and most spend time in the ICU with mechanical ventilation. Physicians often are unaware of patients’ preferences, and this could lead to misunderstandings, especially in the ICU setting, where prognoses can shift quickly. One study showed that, in order for some of these patients to die, clinicians and families generally had to decide explicitly to strive toward less-than-completely-aggressive care.¹

“We’re trying to make sure that patients and families have an opportunity to do advanced-care planning,” Dr. Curtis says. Talking with them about their values and goals is essential for clinicians to understand their preferences.

Part of this involves crafting advanced-care directives. One such directive would be a power of attorney for healthcare, in which a patient states who is authorized to make decisions if he or she becomes unable to do so. This is particularly important for patients who select someone other than whom their state’s law would normally designate.

Another document—the living will—allows patients to specify their own preferences for end-of-life care. Yet “it’s often very difficult to know exactly what decisions will need to be made,” Dr. Curtis says. “Those documents are rarely determinative.” Even when a patient stipulates his or her wishes against “extraordinary life-sustaining measures, it still leaves a lot for interpretation.”

Some patients may spell out more clearly whether they wouldn’t want tube-feeding, CPR, or ventilation. This can be prescribed in written and signed Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST).

Educating the Public

End-of-life discussions also pose a threat of litigation. “It takes a significant amount of time, often during a very busy day, to sit down with a patient and family members to bring up an issue that will undoubtedly raise many questions, some of which are impossible to answer,” says Dr. Foxley, the hospitalist service chief in Omaha. “I’m sure many physicians are uncomfortable with the tears that are shed.”

When Dr. Foxley recently advised a patient’s family that aggressive care would be futile, they directed their anger toward her. Their loved one died, despite the intensive treatment. It’s just one example of many in which Dr. Foxley has witnessed how high-tech medical treatments can incur astronomical hospital bills after just a few days while doing little—if anything—helpful for the patient.

“We have a lot of work to do to educate the public about the dying process,” she says, adding that the entire burden shouldn’t fall on physicians, and that patients should inform family members of their end-of-life wishes. “We are all going to die someday, and we all need to think about how and where we want to be when it happens, if we have any choice in it.”

 

Susan Kreimer is a freelance medical writer based in New York.

References

1. Walling AM, Asch SM, Lorenz KA, et al. The quality of care provided to hospitalized patients at the end of life. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(12):1057-1063.
2. Yourman LC, Lee SJ, Schonberg MA, Widera EW, Smith AK. Prognostic indices for older adults: a systematic review. JAMA. 2012;307(2):182-192.
3. Grudzen C, Grady D. Improving care at the end of life. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(13):1202.
4. Grudzen C. At the end of life, sometimes less is more. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(13):1201.
5. Bale PW. Honoring patients’ wishes for less health care. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(13):1200.

Editor’s note: Second in a two-part series.

I used last month’s column to frame the issue of disagreement between doctors over who should admit a particular patient, as well as discuss the value of good social connections to reduce the chance that divergent opinions lead to outright conflict. This month, I’ll review another worthwhile strategy—one that could be a definitive solution to these disagreements but often falls short of that goal in practice.

Service Agreements, or “Compacts,” between Physician Groups

If, at your hospital, there are reasonably frequent cases of divergent opinions regarding whether an ED admission or transfer from elsewhere should be admitted by a hospitalist or doctor in another specialty, why not meet in advance to decide this? Many hospitalist groups have held meetings with doctors in other specialties and now have a collection of agreements outlining scenarios, such as:

• ESRD patients: Hospitalist admits for non-dialysis issues (pneumonia, diabetic issues, etc.); nephrologist admits for urgent dialysis issues (K+>6.3, pH<7.3, etc.).
• Cardiology: Hospitalist admits CHF and non-ST elevation chest pain; cardiologist admits STEMI.
• General surgery: Hospitalist admits ileus, pseudo obstruction, and SBO due to adhesions; general surgery admits bowel obstruction in “virgin abdomen,” volvulus, and any obstruction thought to require urgent surgery.

To be clear, I’m not suggesting the above guidelines are evidence-based or are the right ones for your institution. I just made these up, so yours might differ significantly. I just want to provide a sense of the kinds of issues these agreements typically cover. The comanagement section of the SHM website has several documents regarding hospitalist-orthopedic service agreements.

The Negotiation Process

It’s tempting for the lead hospitalist to just have a hallway chat with a spokesperson from the other specialty, then email a draft agreement, exchange a few messages until both parties are satisfied, then email a copy of the final document to all the doctors in both groups. This might work for some simple service agreements, but for any area with significant ambiguity or disagreements (or potential for disagreements), one or more in-person meetings are usually necessary. Ideally, several doctors in both groups will attend these meetings.

Much work could be done in advance of the first meeting, including surveying other practices to see how they decide which group admits the same kinds of patents, gathering any relevant published research, and possibly drafting a “straw man” proposed agreement. When meeting in person, the doctors will have a chance to explain their points of view, needs, and concerns, and gain a greater appreciation of the way “the other guy” sees things. An important purpose of the in-person meeting is to “look the other guy in the eye” to know if he or she really is committed to following through.

Remember that written agreements like these might become an issue in malpractice suits, so you might want to have them reviewed first by risk managers. You might also write them as guidelines rather than rigid protocols that don’t allow variations.

Maximize Effectiveness

Ideally, every doctor involved in the agreement should document their approval with a signature and date. My experience is that this doesn’t happen at most places, but if there is concern about whether everyone will comply, signing the document will probably help at least a little.

The completed agreements should be provided to all doctors in both groups, the ED, affected hospital nursing units, and others. Any new doctor should get a copy of all such agreements that might be relevant. And, most important, it should be made available electronically so that it is easy to find at any time. Some agreements cover uncommon events, and the doctors on duty might not remember what the agreement said and will need ready access to it.

 

Most service agreements should be reviewed and updated every two or three years or as needed. If there is confusion or controversy around a particular agreement, or if disagreements about which doctor does the admission are common despite the agreement, then an in-person meeting between the physician groups should be scheduled to revise or update it.

Keep Your Fingers Crossed

If it sounds like a lot of work to develop and maintain these agreements, it is. But they’re worth every bit of that work if they reduce confusion or discord. Sadly, for several reasons, they rarely prove so effective.

One doctor might think the agreement applies, but the other doctor says this patient is an exception and the agreement doesn’t apply. It is impossible to write an agreement that addresses all possible scenarios, so a doctor can argue that any particular patient falls outside the agreement because of things like comorbidities, which service admitted the patient last time (many agreements will have defined “bounce back” intervals), which primary-care physician (PCP) the patient sees, etc.

Even if there is no dispute about whether the agreement covers a particular patient, many doctors simply don’t feel obligated to uphold the agreement. Such a doctor might tell the ED doctor: “Yep, I signed the agreement, but only as a way to get the meeting over with. I was never in favor of it and just can’t admit the patient. Call the other guy to admit.” So in spite of all the work done to create a reasonable agreement, some doctors might feel entitled to ignore it when it suits them.

Compliance Is Critical

Sadly, my take is that despite the tremendous hoped-for benefits that service agreements might provide, poor compliance means they rarely achieve their potential. Even so, they are usually worth the time and effort to create them if it leads doctors in the two specialties to schedule time away from patient care to listen to the other group’s point of view and discuss how best to handle particular types of patients. In some cases, it will be the first time the two groups of doctors have set aside time to talk about the work they do together; that alone can have significant value.

Tom Lorence, MD, a Kaiser hospitalist in Portland, Ore., who is chief of hospital medicine for Northwest Permanente, developed more than 20 service agreements with many different specialties at his institution. He has found that they are worth the effort, and that they helped allay hospitalists’ feeling of being “dumped on.”

He also told me a rule that probably applies to all such agreements in any setting: The tie goes to the hospitalist—that is, when there is reasonable uncertainty or disagreement about which group should admit a patient, it is nearly always the hospitalist who will do so.

Dr. Nelson has been a practicing hospitalist since 1988. He is co-founder and past president of SHM, and principal in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants. He is co-director for SHM’s “Best Practices in Managing a Hospital Medicine Program” course.

Editor’s note: Second in a two-part series.

I used last month’s column to frame the issue of disagreement between doctors over who should admit a particular patient, as well as discuss the value of good social connections to reduce the chance that divergent opinions lead to outright conflict. This month, I’ll review another worthwhile strategy—one that could be a definitive solution to these disagreements but often falls short of that goal in practice.

Service Agreements, or “Compacts,” between Physician Groups

If, at your hospital, there are reasonably frequent cases of divergent opinions regarding whether an ED admission or transfer from elsewhere should be admitted by a hospitalist or doctor in another specialty, why not meet in advance to decide this? Many hospitalist groups have held meetings with doctors in other specialties and now have a collection of agreements outlining scenarios, such as:

• ESRD patients: Hospitalist admits for non-dialysis issues (pneumonia, diabetic issues, etc.); nephrologist admits for urgent dialysis issues (K+>6.3, pH<7.3, etc.).
• Cardiology: Hospitalist admits CHF and non-ST elevation chest pain; cardiologist admits STEMI.
• General surgery: Hospitalist admits ileus, pseudo obstruction, and SBO due to adhesions; general surgery admits bowel obstruction in “virgin abdomen,” volvulus, and any obstruction thought to require urgent surgery.

To be clear, I’m not suggesting the above guidelines are evidence-based or are the right ones for your institution. I just made these up, so yours might differ significantly. I just want to provide a sense of the kinds of issues these agreements typically cover. The comanagement section of the SHM website has several documents regarding hospitalist-orthopedic service agreements.

The Negotiation Process

It’s tempting for the lead hospitalist to just have a hallway chat with a spokesperson from the other specialty, then email a draft agreement, exchange a few messages until both parties are satisfied, then email a copy of the final document to all the doctors in both groups. This might work for some simple service agreements, but for any area with significant ambiguity or disagreements (or potential for disagreements), one or more in-person meetings are usually necessary. Ideally, several doctors in both groups will attend these meetings.

Much work could be done in advance of the first meeting, including surveying other practices to see how they decide which group admits the same kinds of patents, gathering any relevant published research, and possibly drafting a “straw man” proposed agreement. When meeting in person, the doctors will have a chance to explain their points of view, needs, and concerns, and gain a greater appreciation of the way “the other guy” sees things. An important purpose of the in-person meeting is to “look the other guy in the eye” to know if he or she really is committed to following through.

Remember that written agreements like these might become an issue in malpractice suits, so you might want to have them reviewed first by risk managers. You might also write them as guidelines rather than rigid protocols that don’t allow variations.

Maximize Effectiveness

Ideally, every doctor involved in the agreement should document their approval with a signature and date. My experience is that this doesn’t happen at most places, but if there is concern about whether everyone will comply, signing the document will probably help at least a little.

The completed agreements should be provided to all doctors in both groups, the ED, affected hospital nursing units, and others. Any new doctor should get a copy of all such agreements that might be relevant. And, most important, it should be made available electronically so that it is easy to find at any time. Some agreements cover uncommon events, and the doctors on duty might not remember what the agreement said and will need ready access to it.

 

Most service agreements should be reviewed and updated every two or three years or as needed. If there is confusion or controversy around a particular agreement, or if disagreements about which doctor does the admission are common despite the agreement, then an in-person meeting between the physician groups should be scheduled to revise or update it.

Keep Your Fingers Crossed

If it sounds like a lot of work to develop and maintain these agreements, it is. But they’re worth every bit of that work if they reduce confusion or discord. Sadly, for several reasons, they rarely prove so effective.

One doctor might think the agreement applies, but the other doctor says this patient is an exception and the agreement doesn’t apply. It is impossible to write an agreement that addresses all possible scenarios, so a doctor can argue that any particular patient falls outside the agreement because of things like comorbidities, which service admitted the patient last time (many agreements will have defined “bounce back” intervals), which primary-care physician (PCP) the patient sees, etc.

Even if there is no dispute about whether the agreement covers a particular patient, many doctors simply don’t feel obligated to uphold the agreement. Such a doctor might tell the ED doctor: “Yep, I signed the agreement, but only as a way to get the meeting over with. I was never in favor of it and just can’t admit the patient. Call the other guy to admit.” So in spite of all the work done to create a reasonable agreement, some doctors might feel entitled to ignore it when it suits them.

Compliance Is Critical

Sadly, my take is that despite the tremendous hoped-for benefits that service agreements might provide, poor compliance means they rarely achieve their potential. Even so, they are usually worth the time and effort to create them if it leads doctors in the two specialties to schedule time away from patient care to listen to the other group’s point of view and discuss how best to handle particular types of patients. In some cases, it will be the first time the two groups of doctors have set aside time to talk about the work they do together; that alone can have significant value.

Tom Lorence, MD, a Kaiser hospitalist in Portland, Ore., who is chief of hospital medicine for Northwest Permanente, developed more than 20 service agreements with many different specialties at his institution. He has found that they are worth the effort, and that they helped allay hospitalists’ feeling of being “dumped on.”

He also told me a rule that probably applies to all such agreements in any setting: The tie goes to the hospitalist—that is, when there is reasonable uncertainty or disagreement about which group should admit a patient, it is nearly always the hospitalist who will do so.

Dr. Nelson has been a practicing hospitalist since 1988. He is co-founder and past president of SHM, and principal in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants. He is co-director for SHM’s “Best Practices in Managing a Hospital Medicine Program” course.

Editor’s note: Second in a two-part series.

I used last month’s column to frame the issue of disagreement between doctors over who should admit a particular patient, as well as discuss the value of good social connections to reduce the chance that divergent opinions lead to outright conflict. This month, I’ll review another worthwhile strategy—one that could be a definitive solution to these disagreements but often falls short of that goal in practice.

Service Agreements, or “Compacts,” between Physician Groups

If, at your hospital, there are reasonably frequent cases of divergent opinions regarding whether an ED admission or transfer from elsewhere should be admitted by a hospitalist or doctor in another specialty, why not meet in advance to decide this? Many hospitalist groups have held meetings with doctors in other specialties and now have a collection of agreements outlining scenarios, such as:

• ESRD patients: Hospitalist admits for non-dialysis issues (pneumonia, diabetic issues, etc.); nephrologist admits for urgent dialysis issues (K+>6.3, pH<7.3, etc.).
• Cardiology: Hospitalist admits CHF and non-ST elevation chest pain; cardiologist admits STEMI.
• General surgery: Hospitalist admits ileus, pseudo obstruction, and SBO due to adhesions; general surgery admits bowel obstruction in “virgin abdomen,” volvulus, and any obstruction thought to require urgent surgery.

To be clear, I’m not suggesting the above guidelines are evidence-based or are the right ones for your institution. I just made these up, so yours might differ significantly. I just want to provide a sense of the kinds of issues these agreements typically cover. The comanagement section of the SHM website has several documents regarding hospitalist-orthopedic service agreements.

The Negotiation Process

It’s tempting for the lead hospitalist to just have a hallway chat with a spokesperson from the other specialty, then email a draft agreement, exchange a few messages until both parties are satisfied, then email a copy of the final document to all the doctors in both groups. This might work for some simple service agreements, but for any area with significant ambiguity or disagreements (or potential for disagreements), one or more in-person meetings are usually necessary. Ideally, several doctors in both groups will attend these meetings.

Much work could be done in advance of the first meeting, including surveying other practices to see how they decide which group admits the same kinds of patents, gathering any relevant published research, and possibly drafting a “straw man” proposed agreement. When meeting in person, the doctors will have a chance to explain their points of view, needs, and concerns, and gain a greater appreciation of the way “the other guy” sees things. An important purpose of the in-person meeting is to “look the other guy in the eye” to know if he or she really is committed to following through.

Remember that written agreements like these might become an issue in malpractice suits, so you might want to have them reviewed first by risk managers. You might also write them as guidelines rather than rigid protocols that don’t allow variations.

Maximize Effectiveness

Ideally, every doctor involved in the agreement should document their approval with a signature and date. My experience is that this doesn’t happen at most places, but if there is concern about whether everyone will comply, signing the document will probably help at least a little.

The completed agreements should be provided to all doctors in both groups, the ED, affected hospital nursing units, and others. Any new doctor should get a copy of all such agreements that might be relevant. And, most important, it should be made available electronically so that it is easy to find at any time. Some agreements cover uncommon events, and the doctors on duty might not remember what the agreement said and will need ready access to it.

 

Most service agreements should be reviewed and updated every two or three years or as needed. If there is confusion or controversy around a particular agreement, or if disagreements about which doctor does the admission are common despite the agreement, then an in-person meeting between the physician groups should be scheduled to revise or update it.

Keep Your Fingers Crossed

If it sounds like a lot of work to develop and maintain these agreements, it is. But they’re worth every bit of that work if they reduce confusion or discord. Sadly, for several reasons, they rarely prove so effective.

One doctor might think the agreement applies, but the other doctor says this patient is an exception and the agreement doesn’t apply. It is impossible to write an agreement that addresses all possible scenarios, so a doctor can argue that any particular patient falls outside the agreement because of things like comorbidities, which service admitted the patient last time (many agreements will have defined “bounce back” intervals), which primary-care physician (PCP) the patient sees, etc.

Even if there is no dispute about whether the agreement covers a particular patient, many doctors simply don’t feel obligated to uphold the agreement. Such a doctor might tell the ED doctor: “Yep, I signed the agreement, but only as a way to get the meeting over with. I was never in favor of it and just can’t admit the patient. Call the other guy to admit.” So in spite of all the work done to create a reasonable agreement, some doctors might feel entitled to ignore it when it suits them.

Compliance Is Critical

Sadly, my take is that despite the tremendous hoped-for benefits that service agreements might provide, poor compliance means they rarely achieve their potential. Even so, they are usually worth the time and effort to create them if it leads doctors in the two specialties to schedule time away from patient care to listen to the other group’s point of view and discuss how best to handle particular types of patients. In some cases, it will be the first time the two groups of doctors have set aside time to talk about the work they do together; that alone can have significant value.

Tom Lorence, MD, a Kaiser hospitalist in Portland, Ore., who is chief of hospital medicine for Northwest Permanente, developed more than 20 service agreements with many different specialties at his institution. He has found that they are worth the effort, and that they helped allay hospitalists’ feeling of being “dumped on.”

He also told me a rule that probably applies to all such agreements in any setting: The tie goes to the hospitalist—that is, when there is reasonable uncertainty or disagreement about which group should admit a patient, it is nearly always the hospitalist who will do so.

Dr. Nelson has been a practicing hospitalist since 1988. He is co-founder and past president of SHM, and principal in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants. He is co-director for SHM’s “Best Practices in Managing a Hospital Medicine Program” course.

A recent survey of nearly 1,000 students from three medical schools found that just 15% planned to become primary-care physicians, including 11.2% of first-year students.¹

That startlingly low number might not be reflective of the whole country, and other national surveys have suggested significantly higher rates. But the responses underscore some important contributors beyond financial concerns that include a more negative overall view of PCPs’ work life compared to that of specialists. “Our data suggest that although medical school does not create these negative views of primary-care work life, it may reinforce them,” the authors write.

Conversely, the results suggest that time spent observing physicians could help break negative stereotypes about the ability to develop good relationships with patients, and that career plans might not be based on perceptions, but rather on values and goals. “The study reinforces the importance of admitting students with primary-care-oriented values and primary-care interest and reinforcing those values over the course of medical school,” the authors conclude.

“Maybe we’re not selecting medical students in the optimal way for what society needs,” says Elbert Huang, MD, associate professor of medicine at the University of Chicago. By emphasizing GPA and test scores, “maybe when you do that, you end with people who don’t want to actually take care of patients in primary care.”

Other studies suggest he’s on to something. Research conducted by the Washington, D.C.-based Robert Graham Center found that students in rural medical schools are significantly more likely to go into rural healthcare and primary care than students in urban medical schools.

“The problem there is that we’ve cut the number of people from rural areas going to medical school by half over the last 20 years,” center director Robert Phillips, MD, MSPH, says. “A lot of students just don’t have the background to make them competitive.” Many students in minority communities face similar challenges.

Ed Salsberg, director of the National Center for Health Workforce Analysis in the Health Resources and Services Administration, says many newer osteopathic schools are positioning themselves in rural communities, helping them attract students who might not have gone to medical school otherwise.

Reaching back even earlier into the pipeline to help mentor elementary and high school students might be another way to help build capacity. Medical organizations also seem to be getting the message. New MCAT recommendations by the Association of American Medical Colleges, for example, place less emphasis on scientific knowledge in favor of a more holistic assessment of critical analysis and reasoning skills. The association also is encouraging medical schools to pay more attention to such personal characteristics as integrity and service orientation.

“That’s more of a long-term strategy, but I think it has an impact on who gets recruited to medical school,” Salsberg says.

Reference

1. Phillips J, Weismantel D, Gold K, Schwenk T. How do medical students view the work life of primary care and specialty physicians? Fam Med. 2012;44(1):7-13.

A recent survey of nearly 1,000 students from three medical schools found that just 15% planned to become primary-care physicians, including 11.2% of first-year students.¹

That startlingly low number might not be reflective of the whole country, and other national surveys have suggested significantly higher rates. But the responses underscore some important contributors beyond financial concerns that include a more negative overall view of PCPs’ work life compared to that of specialists. “Our data suggest that although medical school does not create these negative views of primary-care work life, it may reinforce them,” the authors write.

Conversely, the results suggest that time spent observing physicians could help break negative stereotypes about the ability to develop good relationships with patients, and that career plans might not be based on perceptions, but rather on values and goals. “The study reinforces the importance of admitting students with primary-care-oriented values and primary-care interest and reinforcing those values over the course of medical school,” the authors conclude.

“Maybe we’re not selecting medical students in the optimal way for what society needs,” says Elbert Huang, MD, associate professor of medicine at the University of Chicago. By emphasizing GPA and test scores, “maybe when you do that, you end with people who don’t want to actually take care of patients in primary care.”

Other studies suggest he’s on to something. Research conducted by the Washington, D.C.-based Robert Graham Center found that students in rural medical schools are significantly more likely to go into rural healthcare and primary care than students in urban medical schools.

“The problem there is that we’ve cut the number of people from rural areas going to medical school by half over the last 20 years,” center director Robert Phillips, MD, MSPH, says. “A lot of students just don’t have the background to make them competitive.” Many students in minority communities face similar challenges.

Ed Salsberg, director of the National Center for Health Workforce Analysis in the Health Resources and Services Administration, says many newer osteopathic schools are positioning themselves in rural communities, helping them attract students who might not have gone to medical school otherwise.

Reaching back even earlier into the pipeline to help mentor elementary and high school students might be another way to help build capacity. Medical organizations also seem to be getting the message. New MCAT recommendations by the Association of American Medical Colleges, for example, place less emphasis on scientific knowledge in favor of a more holistic assessment of critical analysis and reasoning skills. The association also is encouraging medical schools to pay more attention to such personal characteristics as integrity and service orientation.

“That’s more of a long-term strategy, but I think it has an impact on who gets recruited to medical school,” Salsberg says.

Reference

1. Phillips J, Weismantel D, Gold K, Schwenk T. How do medical students view the work life of primary care and specialty physicians? Fam Med. 2012;44(1):7-13.

A recent survey of nearly 1,000 students from three medical schools found that just 15% planned to become primary-care physicians, including 11.2% of first-year students.¹

That startlingly low number might not be reflective of the whole country, and other national surveys have suggested significantly higher rates. But the responses underscore some important contributors beyond financial concerns that include a more negative overall view of PCPs’ work life compared to that of specialists. “Our data suggest that although medical school does not create these negative views of primary-care work life, it may reinforce them,” the authors write.

Conversely, the results suggest that time spent observing physicians could help break negative stereotypes about the ability to develop good relationships with patients, and that career plans might not be based on perceptions, but rather on values and goals. “The study reinforces the importance of admitting students with primary-care-oriented values and primary-care interest and reinforcing those values over the course of medical school,” the authors conclude.

“Maybe we’re not selecting medical students in the optimal way for what society needs,” says Elbert Huang, MD, associate professor of medicine at the University of Chicago. By emphasizing GPA and test scores, “maybe when you do that, you end with people who don’t want to actually take care of patients in primary care.”

Other studies suggest he’s on to something. Research conducted by the Washington, D.C.-based Robert Graham Center found that students in rural medical schools are significantly more likely to go into rural healthcare and primary care than students in urban medical schools.

“The problem there is that we’ve cut the number of people from rural areas going to medical school by half over the last 20 years,” center director Robert Phillips, MD, MSPH, says. “A lot of students just don’t have the background to make them competitive.” Many students in minority communities face similar challenges.

Ed Salsberg, director of the National Center for Health Workforce Analysis in the Health Resources and Services Administration, says many newer osteopathic schools are positioning themselves in rural communities, helping them attract students who might not have gone to medical school otherwise.

Reaching back even earlier into the pipeline to help mentor elementary and high school students might be another way to help build capacity. Medical organizations also seem to be getting the message. New MCAT recommendations by the Association of American Medical Colleges, for example, place less emphasis on scientific knowledge in favor of a more holistic assessment of critical analysis and reasoning skills. The association also is encouraging medical schools to pay more attention to such personal characteristics as integrity and service orientation.

“That’s more of a long-term strategy, but I think it has an impact on who gets recruited to medical school,” Salsberg says.

Reference

1. Phillips J, Weismantel D, Gold K, Schwenk T. How do medical students view the work life of primary care and specialty physicians? Fam Med. 2012;44(1):7-13.

Click here to listen to Dr. Wanski

Click here to listen to Dr. Wanski

Click here to listen to Dr. Wanski

Seven Southern California hospitals participating in the yearlong Readmissions Reduction Collaborative, modeled after Project BOOST and sponsored by SHM and the Hospital Association of Southern California (HASC), reported on their experience at a June meeting in Montebello, Calif. Quality teams from four of the seven hospitals demonstrated reductions in readmission rates ranging from 24% to 55%. The other three hospitals are still implementing quality processes and are just now starting to see measurable results.

Several of the participating hospitals do not employ traditional hospitalist services. However, all seven benefit from mentoring by Project BOOST experts and have adopted a number of its approaches and techniques: 72-hour follow-up calls to discharged patients, the use of discharge advocates, medication reconciliation at time of discharge, enhanced discharge planning, and BOOST’s “8Ps” patient risk stratification tool. Another popular approach in use is the “teachback” communication technique, in which patients are asked to repeat in their own words what they understand the professional has told them about their condition and self-care.

One reason many Southern California hospitals do not have a strong hospitalist presence is the widespread prevalence of independent practice associations (IPAs), which often designate members of their medical groups to fill the hospitalist role for patients at a given hospital, says Z. Joseph Wanski, MD, FA

CE, medical director of the public L.A. Care Health Plan, which co-sponsored the readmissions collaborative. Dr. Wanski, a practicing endocrinologist and a hospitalist at California Hospital Medical Center in Los Angeles, says L.A. Care will be testing the use of hospitalists at some of its contracted acute-care facilities starting in July. (Click here to listen to more of Dr. Wanski’s interview.)

At Harbor UCLA Medical Center in Torrance, a major safety-net facility for Los Angeles County, the readmissions team initially focused on heart failure patients and was able to demonstrate a 5.5% decrease in readmissions for all heart failure patients at a time when readmissions for the hospital as a whole remained the same. The team built relationships with outside partners, including a nearby adult daycare center, home health agencies, and a care-transitions coach while emphasizing early identification of patients for referral to a heart failure disease management registry. The readmissions team also was instrumental in developing the Cardiovascular Open Access Rapid Evaluation (CORE) service, an observation unit for heart failure patients aimed at allieviating ED overcrowding.

“Hospitalists have been very cooperative with our project,” reports Adriana Quintero, MSW, the full-time Project BOOST facilitator at Valley Presbyterian Hospital in Van Nuys. “They see a lot of our patients in their offices.”

Three Valley Presbyterian physicians who work part-time as hospitalists and maintain office practices have agreed to carve out time to see patients who are going home without scheduled appointments with their primary-care physicians (PCPs) within seven days of discharge.

“We find that many of our discharged patients do not call their primary-care physicians for post-discharge appointments,” says Quintero, adding that such patients often decline the hospital team’s offers for help. The readmissions team at Valley Presbyterian is redesigning its clinical multidisciplinary rounds using a rounding script focusing more on discharge planning in rounding.

Larry Beresford is a freelance writer in Oakland, Calif.

Seven Southern California hospitals participating in the yearlong Readmissions Reduction Collaborative, modeled after Project BOOST and sponsored by SHM and the Hospital Association of Southern California (HASC), reported on their experience at a June meeting in Montebello, Calif. Quality teams from four of the seven hospitals demonstrated reductions in readmission rates ranging from 24% to 55%. The other three hospitals are still implementing quality processes and are just now starting to see measurable results.

Several of the participating hospitals do not employ traditional hospitalist services. However, all seven benefit from mentoring by Project BOOST experts and have adopted a number of its approaches and techniques: 72-hour follow-up calls to discharged patients, the use of discharge advocates, medication reconciliation at time of discharge, enhanced discharge planning, and BOOST’s “8Ps” patient risk stratification tool. Another popular approach in use is the “teachback” communication technique, in which patients are asked to repeat in their own words what they understand the professional has told them about their condition and self-care.

One reason many Southern California hospitals do not have a strong hospitalist presence is the widespread prevalence of independent practice associations (IPAs), which often designate members of their medical groups to fill the hospitalist role for patients at a given hospital, says Z. Joseph Wanski, MD, FA

CE, medical director of the public L.A. Care Health Plan, which co-sponsored the readmissions collaborative. Dr. Wanski, a practicing endocrinologist and a hospitalist at California Hospital Medical Center in Los Angeles, says L.A. Care will be testing the use of hospitalists at some of its contracted acute-care facilities starting in July. (Click here to listen to more of Dr. Wanski’s interview.)

At Harbor UCLA Medical Center in Torrance, a major safety-net facility for Los Angeles County, the readmissions team initially focused on heart failure patients and was able to demonstrate a 5.5% decrease in readmissions for all heart failure patients at a time when readmissions for the hospital as a whole remained the same. The team built relationships with outside partners, including a nearby adult daycare center, home health agencies, and a care-transitions coach while emphasizing early identification of patients for referral to a heart failure disease management registry. The readmissions team also was instrumental in developing the Cardiovascular Open Access Rapid Evaluation (CORE) service, an observation unit for heart failure patients aimed at allieviating ED overcrowding.

“Hospitalists have been very cooperative with our project,” reports Adriana Quintero, MSW, the full-time Project BOOST facilitator at Valley Presbyterian Hospital in Van Nuys. “They see a lot of our patients in their offices.”

Three Valley Presbyterian physicians who work part-time as hospitalists and maintain office practices have agreed to carve out time to see patients who are going home without scheduled appointments with their primary-care physicians (PCPs) within seven days of discharge.

“We find that many of our discharged patients do not call their primary-care physicians for post-discharge appointments,” says Quintero, adding that such patients often decline the hospital team’s offers for help. The readmissions team at Valley Presbyterian is redesigning its clinical multidisciplinary rounds using a rounding script focusing more on discharge planning in rounding.

Larry Beresford is a freelance writer in Oakland, Calif.

Seven Southern California hospitals participating in the yearlong Readmissions Reduction Collaborative, modeled after Project BOOST and sponsored by SHM and the Hospital Association of Southern California (HASC), reported on their experience at a June meeting in Montebello, Calif. Quality teams from four of the seven hospitals demonstrated reductions in readmission rates ranging from 24% to 55%. The other three hospitals are still implementing quality processes and are just now starting to see measurable results.

Several of the participating hospitals do not employ traditional hospitalist services. However, all seven benefit from mentoring by Project BOOST experts and have adopted a number of its approaches and techniques: 72-hour follow-up calls to discharged patients, the use of discharge advocates, medication reconciliation at time of discharge, enhanced discharge planning, and BOOST’s “8Ps” patient risk stratification tool. Another popular approach in use is the “teachback” communication technique, in which patients are asked to repeat in their own words what they understand the professional has told them about their condition and self-care.

One reason many Southern California hospitals do not have a strong hospitalist presence is the widespread prevalence of independent practice associations (IPAs), which often designate members of their medical groups to fill the hospitalist role for patients at a given hospital, says Z. Joseph Wanski, MD, FA

CE, medical director of the public L.A. Care Health Plan, which co-sponsored the readmissions collaborative. Dr. Wanski, a practicing endocrinologist and a hospitalist at California Hospital Medical Center in Los Angeles, says L.A. Care will be testing the use of hospitalists at some of its contracted acute-care facilities starting in July. (Click here to listen to more of Dr. Wanski’s interview.)

At Harbor UCLA Medical Center in Torrance, a major safety-net facility for Los Angeles County, the readmissions team initially focused on heart failure patients and was able to demonstrate a 5.5% decrease in readmissions for all heart failure patients at a time when readmissions for the hospital as a whole remained the same. The team built relationships with outside partners, including a nearby adult daycare center, home health agencies, and a care-transitions coach while emphasizing early identification of patients for referral to a heart failure disease management registry. The readmissions team also was instrumental in developing the Cardiovascular Open Access Rapid Evaluation (CORE) service, an observation unit for heart failure patients aimed at allieviating ED overcrowding.

“Hospitalists have been very cooperative with our project,” reports Adriana Quintero, MSW, the full-time Project BOOST facilitator at Valley Presbyterian Hospital in Van Nuys. “They see a lot of our patients in their offices.”

Three Valley Presbyterian physicians who work part-time as hospitalists and maintain office practices have agreed to carve out time to see patients who are going home without scheduled appointments with their primary-care physicians (PCPs) within seven days of discharge.

“We find that many of our discharged patients do not call their primary-care physicians for post-discharge appointments,” says Quintero, adding that such patients often decline the hospital team’s offers for help. The readmissions team at Valley Presbyterian is redesigning its clinical multidisciplinary rounds using a rounding script focusing more on discharge planning in rounding.

Larry Beresford is a freelance writer in Oakland, Calif.