Transitions of Care

The headline was as biting as it was inciting. “Frustrations with hospitalist care: Need to improve transitions and communication,” it screamed from the cover of a recent issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine.1 Reading on the run, I thumbed to page 469 and glanced at the first few paragraphs, my mind spinning with the implications.

The article was an editorial following a recent thought piece by a primary-care physician (PCP) frustrated with his interactions with the HM model—mainly around the lack of communication from hospitalists about his patients, his marginalized role with his patients’ hospital care, and the lack of information transfer around transitions.2

Frustrations and Slapstick Comedy

Frustration with hospitalist care? Is this how PCPs see us? Are we really “frustrating” our outpatient colleagues? To an outsider, this presented a one-sided view of the issue—the side that sounds simplistically negative. What if someone important to our group should read this article, someone like my hospital CEO? I didn’t have to wonder for long as I looked up from my elevator reading to note my hospital CEO entering.

What followed eerily resembled one of those scenes from a slapstick comedy, as the boob, played perfectly by me, obviously fumbles something he intends to hide from his boss behind his back to escape the knowing eye of said boss. And, like a pornographic-magazine-sniffing parent, my CEO knowingly diagnosed the situation.

“Whatcha reading?” he sagely queried.

“Nothing,” I replied unconvincingly.

“Nothing? It sure looks like you hastily stuffed a magazine or something down the back of your pants as I walked in.”

“Oh, this?” I responded, unearthing a large medical journal from my pants, leaving an untucked shirt in its wake. “This is just a medical journal. You know, lots of medical stuff. It’s pretty complex. Probably hard for nonmedical types to understand,” I replied, employing a bit of professorial condescension to throw him off track.

“Annals of Internal Medicine,” he replied. “What a coincidence. I just received an e-mail from a friend with an Annals article about the issues of transitions of care with the hospitalist model. Sounds like a real problem. Maybe our new electronic health records will fix that. If not, you should fix it. Let’s chat about it soon.”

“Right,” I said as the elevator doors swished behind him, leaving me disheveled in both appearance and thoughts.

Testimonials?

The more recent Annals editorial summarized—and then printed—a few of the many online responses to the original thought piece.3 The responses ranged from outrage with the HM model of care to more measured discussions of the limitations of the “old” model it replaced. However, the tone and implications were clear: At least some, if not many, PCPs are displeased with the HM model.

One writer related a recent example in which his elderly patient was admitted unbeknownst to him. After receiving a query from a family member, he called the hospitalist on duty, who was uninformed about the patient details, had made questionable therapeutic changes, and was “unapologetic” about her team’s lack of communication, arguing that the ED physician “should have called.” That led this PCP to conclude that the system is “disjointed and isolating,” leaving “patients feeling abandoned.” Another writer commented that the current system of communication results in “potentially detrimental and demoralizing degrees of separation.” A response by a hospitalist detailed how they were able to put a system in place to contact PCPs with whom they are contracted 80% of the time.

The Annals editors concluded that the letters they received in response to the first article “reflect a schism that exists in internal medicine about the positive and negative effects of hospitalist care,” noting that “the evidence is still deficient about how to deliver care optimally when complex, seriously-ill patients must transition between multiple providers in diverse health care settings.” The authors go on to call for “intensive research and productive debates” about the HM model of care.

A Challenge to You

“Disjointed and isolating”? … “Detrimental and demoralizing”? … Lauding 80% PCP contact rates? … “Intensive research and debate”?

I get that this is a complex issue and that healthcare in the U.S. is fragmented to the point of fracture. To wit, it can be agonizingly time-consuming to track down PCPs and wade through their automated phone systems. And this assumes that your patient has a PCP, can identify that PCP, and has their phone number. If they don’t, you’re left to sift through online phone books, clinic websites, or Google searches with the hopes that you can summon the right Dr. Davis, Davies, or Daves—the patient’s not quite sure of the spelling but knows “she’s a nice lady doctor.” I know firsthand the tension between taking the time to make that PCP call and getting home in time for dinner with my family—I’m often guilty of choosing dinner.

However, I’m not sure “intensive research” is the answer. Nor is this a problem that can wait for technological solutions. I don’t want to diminish the great strides that have been made or understate the need to continue to innovate around transitions—this needs to be an area of ongoing study. But this is a problem that has at least one relatively simple, short-term solution: Just pick up the phone. As one Annals writer rightly questions: “How has inter-physician communication come to be regarded as an unexpected courtesy rather than an obligation?”

Good question.

So, I have a simple challenge for you: For one week, join me in committing to calling 100% of the available PCPs on patient discharge. I can guarantee you this will prove to be a hard, time-consuming, and, at times, migraine-inducing process. But it is an intervention that will make a difference, can be launched tomorrow, and does not require “intensive research and debate.”

We’ll no doubt gain some insight into our patients’ current therapeutic regimens, enlist PCPs’ help with the treatment decisions, and ensure that our patients’ transitions are as safe as possible. My guess is that we’ll also find it valuable to the point it becomes habit.

Start by committing with me to just one week.

Then go home and have dinner. TH

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

References

1. Frustrations with hospitalist care: need to improve transitions and communication. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152(7):469.
2. Beckman H. Three degrees of separation. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(12):890-891.
3. The relationship between hospitalists and primary care physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152(7):474-6.

The headline was as biting as it was inciting. “Frustrations with hospitalist care: Need to improve transitions and communication,” it screamed from the cover of a recent issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine.1 Reading on the run, I thumbed to page 469 and glanced at the first few paragraphs, my mind spinning with the implications.

The article was an editorial following a recent thought piece by a primary-care physician (PCP) frustrated with his interactions with the HM model—mainly around the lack of communication from hospitalists about his patients, his marginalized role with his patients’ hospital care, and the lack of information transfer around transitions.2

Frustrations and Slapstick Comedy

Frustration with hospitalist care? Is this how PCPs see us? Are we really “frustrating” our outpatient colleagues? To an outsider, this presented a one-sided view of the issue—the side that sounds simplistically negative. What if someone important to our group should read this article, someone like my hospital CEO? I didn’t have to wonder for long as I looked up from my elevator reading to note my hospital CEO entering.

What followed eerily resembled one of those scenes from a slapstick comedy, as the boob, played perfectly by me, obviously fumbles something he intends to hide from his boss behind his back to escape the knowing eye of said boss. And, like a pornographic-magazine-sniffing parent, my CEO knowingly diagnosed the situation.

“Whatcha reading?” he sagely queried.

“Nothing,” I replied unconvincingly.

“Nothing? It sure looks like you hastily stuffed a magazine or something down the back of your pants as I walked in.”

“Oh, this?” I responded, unearthing a large medical journal from my pants, leaving an untucked shirt in its wake. “This is just a medical journal. You know, lots of medical stuff. It’s pretty complex. Probably hard for nonmedical types to understand,” I replied, employing a bit of professorial condescension to throw him off track.

“Annals of Internal Medicine,” he replied. “What a coincidence. I just received an e-mail from a friend with an Annals article about the issues of transitions of care with the hospitalist model. Sounds like a real problem. Maybe our new electronic health records will fix that. If not, you should fix it. Let’s chat about it soon.”

“Right,” I said as the elevator doors swished behind him, leaving me disheveled in both appearance and thoughts.

Testimonials?

The more recent Annals editorial summarized—and then printed—a few of the many online responses to the original thought piece.3 The responses ranged from outrage with the HM model of care to more measured discussions of the limitations of the “old” model it replaced. However, the tone and implications were clear: At least some, if not many, PCPs are displeased with the HM model.

One writer related a recent example in which his elderly patient was admitted unbeknownst to him. After receiving a query from a family member, he called the hospitalist on duty, who was uninformed about the patient details, had made questionable therapeutic changes, and was “unapologetic” about her team’s lack of communication, arguing that the ED physician “should have called.” That led this PCP to conclude that the system is “disjointed and isolating,” leaving “patients feeling abandoned.” Another writer commented that the current system of communication results in “potentially detrimental and demoralizing degrees of separation.” A response by a hospitalist detailed how they were able to put a system in place to contact PCPs with whom they are contracted 80% of the time.

The Annals editors concluded that the letters they received in response to the first article “reflect a schism that exists in internal medicine about the positive and negative effects of hospitalist care,” noting that “the evidence is still deficient about how to deliver care optimally when complex, seriously-ill patients must transition between multiple providers in diverse health care settings.” The authors go on to call for “intensive research and productive debates” about the HM model of care.

A Challenge to You

“Disjointed and isolating”? … “Detrimental and demoralizing”? … Lauding 80% PCP contact rates? … “Intensive research and debate”?

I get that this is a complex issue and that healthcare in the U.S. is fragmented to the point of fracture. To wit, it can be agonizingly time-consuming to track down PCPs and wade through their automated phone systems. And this assumes that your patient has a PCP, can identify that PCP, and has their phone number. If they don’t, you’re left to sift through online phone books, clinic websites, or Google searches with the hopes that you can summon the right Dr. Davis, Davies, or Daves—the patient’s not quite sure of the spelling but knows “she’s a nice lady doctor.” I know firsthand the tension between taking the time to make that PCP call and getting home in time for dinner with my family—I’m often guilty of choosing dinner.

However, I’m not sure “intensive research” is the answer. Nor is this a problem that can wait for technological solutions. I don’t want to diminish the great strides that have been made or understate the need to continue to innovate around transitions—this needs to be an area of ongoing study. But this is a problem that has at least one relatively simple, short-term solution: Just pick up the phone. As one Annals writer rightly questions: “How has inter-physician communication come to be regarded as an unexpected courtesy rather than an obligation?”

Good question.

So, I have a simple challenge for you: For one week, join me in committing to calling 100% of the available PCPs on patient discharge. I can guarantee you this will prove to be a hard, time-consuming, and, at times, migraine-inducing process. But it is an intervention that will make a difference, can be launched tomorrow, and does not require “intensive research and debate.”

We’ll no doubt gain some insight into our patients’ current therapeutic regimens, enlist PCPs’ help with the treatment decisions, and ensure that our patients’ transitions are as safe as possible. My guess is that we’ll also find it valuable to the point it becomes habit.

Start by committing with me to just one week.

Then go home and have dinner. TH

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

References

1. Frustrations with hospitalist care: need to improve transitions and communication. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152(7):469.
2. Beckman H. Three degrees of separation. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(12):890-891.
3. The relationship between hospitalists and primary care physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152(7):474-6.

The headline was as biting as it was inciting. “Frustrations with hospitalist care: Need to improve transitions and communication,” it screamed from the cover of a recent issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine.1 Reading on the run, I thumbed to page 469 and glanced at the first few paragraphs, my mind spinning with the implications.

The article was an editorial following a recent thought piece by a primary-care physician (PCP) frustrated with his interactions with the HM model—mainly around the lack of communication from hospitalists about his patients, his marginalized role with his patients’ hospital care, and the lack of information transfer around transitions.2

Frustrations and Slapstick Comedy

Frustration with hospitalist care? Is this how PCPs see us? Are we really “frustrating” our outpatient colleagues? To an outsider, this presented a one-sided view of the issue—the side that sounds simplistically negative. What if someone important to our group should read this article, someone like my hospital CEO? I didn’t have to wonder for long as I looked up from my elevator reading to note my hospital CEO entering.

What followed eerily resembled one of those scenes from a slapstick comedy, as the boob, played perfectly by me, obviously fumbles something he intends to hide from his boss behind his back to escape the knowing eye of said boss. And, like a pornographic-magazine-sniffing parent, my CEO knowingly diagnosed the situation.

“Whatcha reading?” he sagely queried.

“Nothing,” I replied unconvincingly.

“Nothing? It sure looks like you hastily stuffed a magazine or something down the back of your pants as I walked in.”

“Oh, this?” I responded, unearthing a large medical journal from my pants, leaving an untucked shirt in its wake. “This is just a medical journal. You know, lots of medical stuff. It’s pretty complex. Probably hard for nonmedical types to understand,” I replied, employing a bit of professorial condescension to throw him off track.

“Annals of Internal Medicine,” he replied. “What a coincidence. I just received an e-mail from a friend with an Annals article about the issues of transitions of care with the hospitalist model. Sounds like a real problem. Maybe our new electronic health records will fix that. If not, you should fix it. Let’s chat about it soon.”

“Right,” I said as the elevator doors swished behind him, leaving me disheveled in both appearance and thoughts.

Testimonials?

The more recent Annals editorial summarized—and then printed—a few of the many online responses to the original thought piece.3 The responses ranged from outrage with the HM model of care to more measured discussions of the limitations of the “old” model it replaced. However, the tone and implications were clear: At least some, if not many, PCPs are displeased with the HM model.

One writer related a recent example in which his elderly patient was admitted unbeknownst to him. After receiving a query from a family member, he called the hospitalist on duty, who was uninformed about the patient details, had made questionable therapeutic changes, and was “unapologetic” about her team’s lack of communication, arguing that the ED physician “should have called.” That led this PCP to conclude that the system is “disjointed and isolating,” leaving “patients feeling abandoned.” Another writer commented that the current system of communication results in “potentially detrimental and demoralizing degrees of separation.” A response by a hospitalist detailed how they were able to put a system in place to contact PCPs with whom they are contracted 80% of the time.

The Annals editors concluded that the letters they received in response to the first article “reflect a schism that exists in internal medicine about the positive and negative effects of hospitalist care,” noting that “the evidence is still deficient about how to deliver care optimally when complex, seriously-ill patients must transition between multiple providers in diverse health care settings.” The authors go on to call for “intensive research and productive debates” about the HM model of care.

A Challenge to You

“Disjointed and isolating”? … “Detrimental and demoralizing”? … Lauding 80% PCP contact rates? … “Intensive research and debate”?

I get that this is a complex issue and that healthcare in the U.S. is fragmented to the point of fracture. To wit, it can be agonizingly time-consuming to track down PCPs and wade through their automated phone systems. And this assumes that your patient has a PCP, can identify that PCP, and has their phone number. If they don’t, you’re left to sift through online phone books, clinic websites, or Google searches with the hopes that you can summon the right Dr. Davis, Davies, or Daves—the patient’s not quite sure of the spelling but knows “she’s a nice lady doctor.” I know firsthand the tension between taking the time to make that PCP call and getting home in time for dinner with my family—I’m often guilty of choosing dinner.

However, I’m not sure “intensive research” is the answer. Nor is this a problem that can wait for technological solutions. I don’t want to diminish the great strides that have been made or understate the need to continue to innovate around transitions—this needs to be an area of ongoing study. But this is a problem that has at least one relatively simple, short-term solution: Just pick up the phone. As one Annals writer rightly questions: “How has inter-physician communication come to be regarded as an unexpected courtesy rather than an obligation?”

Good question.

So, I have a simple challenge for you: For one week, join me in committing to calling 100% of the available PCPs on patient discharge. I can guarantee you this will prove to be a hard, time-consuming, and, at times, migraine-inducing process. But it is an intervention that will make a difference, can be launched tomorrow, and does not require “intensive research and debate.”

We’ll no doubt gain some insight into our patients’ current therapeutic regimens, enlist PCPs’ help with the treatment decisions, and ensure that our patients’ transitions are as safe as possible. My guess is that we’ll also find it valuable to the point it becomes habit.

Start by committing with me to just one week.

Then go home and have dinner. TH

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

References

1. Frustrations with hospitalist care: need to improve transitions and communication. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152(7):469.
2. Beckman H. Three degrees of separation. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(12):890-891.
3. The relationship between hospitalists and primary care physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152(7):474-6.

Editor’s note: Third of a three-part series.

In the two monthly columns preceding this one, I’ve provided an overview of some ways hospitalist groups distribute new referrals among the providers. This month, I’ll review things that cause some groups to make exceptions to their typical method of distributing patients, and turn from how patients are distributed over 24 hours to thoughts about how they might be assigned over the course of consecutive days worked by a doctor.

Equitable Exceptions

There are a number of reasons groups decide to depart from their typical method of assigning patients. These include:

• “Bouncebacks”;
• One hospitalist is at the cap, others aren’t;
• Consult requested of a specific hospitalist;
• Hospitalists with unique skills (e.g., ICU expertise); and
• A patient “fires” the hospitalist.

There isn’t a standard “hospitalist way” of dealing with these issues, and each group will need to work out its own system. The most common of these issues is “bouncebacks.” Every group should try to have patients readmitted within three or four days of discharge go back to the discharging hospitalist. However, this proves difficult in many cases for several reasons, most commonly because the original discharging doctor might not be working when the patient returns.

The Alpha & Omega

Nearly every hospitalist practice makes some effort to maximize continuity between a single hospitalist and patient over the course of a hospital stay. But the effect of the method of patient assignment on continuity often is overlooked.

A reasonable way to think about or measure continuity is to estimate the portion of patients seen by the group that see the same hospitalist for each daytime visit over the course of their stay. (Assume that in most HM groups the same hospitalist can’t make both day and night visits over the course of the hospital stay. So, just for simplicity, I’ve intentionally left night visits, including an initial admission visit at night, out of the continuity calculation.) Plug the numbers for your practice into the formula (see Figure 1, right) and see what you get.

If a hospitalist always works seven consecutive day shifts (e.g., a seven-on/seven-off schedule) and the hospitalist’s patients have an average LOS of 4.2 days, then 54% of patients will see the same hospitalist for all daytime visits, and 46% will experience at least one handoff. (To keep things simple, I’m ignoring the effect on continuity of patients being admitted by an “admitter” or nocturnist who doesn’t see the patient subsequently.)

Changing the number of consecutive day shifts a hospitalist works has the most significant impact on continuity, but just how many consecutive days can one work routinely before fatigue and burnout—not too mention increased errors and decreased patient satisfaction—become a problem? (Many hospitalists make the mistake of trying to stuff what might be a reasonable annual workload into the smallest number of shifts possible with the goal of maximizing the number of days off. That means each worked day will be very busy, making it really hard to work many consecutive days. But you always have the option of titrating out that same annual workload over more days so that each day is less busy and it becomes easier to work more consecutive days.)

An often-overlooked way to improve continuity without having to work more consecutive day shifts is to have a hospitalist who is early in their series of worked days take on more new admissions and consults, and perhaps exempt that doctor from taking on new referrals for the last day or two he or she is on service. Eric Howell, MD, FHM, an SHM board member, calls this method “slam and dwindle.” This has been the approach I’ve experienced my whole career, and it is hard for me to imagine doing it any other way.

Here’s how it might work: Let’s say Dr. Petty always works seven consecutive day shifts, and on the first day he picks up a list of patients remaining from the doctor he’s replacing. To keep things simple, let’s assume he’s not in a large group, and during his first day of seven days on service he accepts and “keeps” all new referrals to the practice. On each successive day, he might assume the care of some new patients, but none on days six and seven. This means he takes on a disproportionately large number of new referrals at the beginning of his consecutive worked days, or “front-loads” new referrals. And because many of these patients will discharge before the end of his seven days and he takes on no new patients on days six and seven, his census will drop a lot before he rotates off, which in turn means there will be few patients who will have to get to know a new doctor on the first day Dr. Petty starts his seven-off schedule.

This system of patient distribution means continuity improved without requiring Dr. Petty to work more consecutive day shifts. Even though he works seven consecutive days and his average (or median) LOS is 4.2, as in the example above, his continuity will be much better than 54%. In fact, as many as 70% to 80% of Dr. Petty’s patients will see him for every daytime visit during their stay.

click for large version

Other benefits of assigning more patients early and none late in a series of worked days are that on his last day of service, he will have more time to “tee up” patients for the next doctor, including preparing for patients anticipated to discharge the next day (e.g., dictate discharge summary, complete paperwork, etc.), and might be able to wrap up a little earlier that day. And when rotating back on service, he will pick up a small list of patients left by Dr. Tench, maybe fewer than eight, rather than the group’s average daily load of 15 patients per doctor, so he will have the capacity to admit a lot of patients that day.

I think there are three main reasons this isn’t a more common approach:

1. Many HM groups just haven’t considered it.
2. HM groups might have a schedule that has all doctors rotate off/on the same days each week. For example, all doctors rotate off on Tuesdays and are replaced by new doctors on Wednesday. That makes it impossible to exempt a doctor from taking on new referrals on the last day of service because all of the group’s doctors have their last day on Tuesday. These groups could stagger the day each doctor rotates off—one on Monday, one on Tuesday, and so on.
3. Every doctor is so busy each day that it wouldn’t be feasible to exempt any individual doctor from taking on new patients, even if they are off the next day.

Despite the difficulties implementing a system of front-loading new referrals, I think most hospitalists would find that they like it. Because it reduces handoffs, it reduces, at least modestly, the group’s overall workload and probably benefits the group’s quality and patient satisfaction. TH

Dr. Nelson has been a practicing hospitalist since 1988 and is co-founder and past president of SHM. He is a principal in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants, a national hospitalist practice management consulting firm (www.nelsonflores.com). He is also course co-director and faculty for SHM’s “Best Practices in Managing a Hospital Medicine Program” course. This column represents his views and is not intended to reflect an official position of SHM.

Editor’s note: Third of a three-part series.

In the two monthly columns preceding this one, I’ve provided an overview of some ways hospitalist groups distribute new referrals among the providers. This month, I’ll review things that cause some groups to make exceptions to their typical method of distributing patients, and turn from how patients are distributed over 24 hours to thoughts about how they might be assigned over the course of consecutive days worked by a doctor.

Equitable Exceptions

There are a number of reasons groups decide to depart from their typical method of assigning patients. These include:

• “Bouncebacks”;
• One hospitalist is at the cap, others aren’t;
• Consult requested of a specific hospitalist;
• Hospitalists with unique skills (e.g., ICU expertise); and
• A patient “fires” the hospitalist.

There isn’t a standard “hospitalist way” of dealing with these issues, and each group will need to work out its own system. The most common of these issues is “bouncebacks.” Every group should try to have patients readmitted within three or four days of discharge go back to the discharging hospitalist. However, this proves difficult in many cases for several reasons, most commonly because the original discharging doctor might not be working when the patient returns.

The Alpha & Omega

Nearly every hospitalist practice makes some effort to maximize continuity between a single hospitalist and patient over the course of a hospital stay. But the effect of the method of patient assignment on continuity often is overlooked.

A reasonable way to think about or measure continuity is to estimate the portion of patients seen by the group that see the same hospitalist for each daytime visit over the course of their stay. (Assume that in most HM groups the same hospitalist can’t make both day and night visits over the course of the hospital stay. So, just for simplicity, I’ve intentionally left night visits, including an initial admission visit at night, out of the continuity calculation.) Plug the numbers for your practice into the formula (see Figure 1, right) and see what you get.

If a hospitalist always works seven consecutive day shifts (e.g., a seven-on/seven-off schedule) and the hospitalist’s patients have an average LOS of 4.2 days, then 54% of patients will see the same hospitalist for all daytime visits, and 46% will experience at least one handoff. (To keep things simple, I’m ignoring the effect on continuity of patients being admitted by an “admitter” or nocturnist who doesn’t see the patient subsequently.)

Changing the number of consecutive day shifts a hospitalist works has the most significant impact on continuity, but just how many consecutive days can one work routinely before fatigue and burnout—not too mention increased errors and decreased patient satisfaction—become a problem? (Many hospitalists make the mistake of trying to stuff what might be a reasonable annual workload into the smallest number of shifts possible with the goal of maximizing the number of days off. That means each worked day will be very busy, making it really hard to work many consecutive days. But you always have the option of titrating out that same annual workload over more days so that each day is less busy and it becomes easier to work more consecutive days.)

An often-overlooked way to improve continuity without having to work more consecutive day shifts is to have a hospitalist who is early in their series of worked days take on more new admissions and consults, and perhaps exempt that doctor from taking on new referrals for the last day or two he or she is on service. Eric Howell, MD, FHM, an SHM board member, calls this method “slam and dwindle.” This has been the approach I’ve experienced my whole career, and it is hard for me to imagine doing it any other way.

Here’s how it might work: Let’s say Dr. Petty always works seven consecutive day shifts, and on the first day he picks up a list of patients remaining from the doctor he’s replacing. To keep things simple, let’s assume he’s not in a large group, and during his first day of seven days on service he accepts and “keeps” all new referrals to the practice. On each successive day, he might assume the care of some new patients, but none on days six and seven. This means he takes on a disproportionately large number of new referrals at the beginning of his consecutive worked days, or “front-loads” new referrals. And because many of these patients will discharge before the end of his seven days and he takes on no new patients on days six and seven, his census will drop a lot before he rotates off, which in turn means there will be few patients who will have to get to know a new doctor on the first day Dr. Petty starts his seven-off schedule.

This system of patient distribution means continuity improved without requiring Dr. Petty to work more consecutive day shifts. Even though he works seven consecutive days and his average (or median) LOS is 4.2, as in the example above, his continuity will be much better than 54%. In fact, as many as 70% to 80% of Dr. Petty’s patients will see him for every daytime visit during their stay.

click for large version

Other benefits of assigning more patients early and none late in a series of worked days are that on his last day of service, he will have more time to “tee up” patients for the next doctor, including preparing for patients anticipated to discharge the next day (e.g., dictate discharge summary, complete paperwork, etc.), and might be able to wrap up a little earlier that day. And when rotating back on service, he will pick up a small list of patients left by Dr. Tench, maybe fewer than eight, rather than the group’s average daily load of 15 patients per doctor, so he will have the capacity to admit a lot of patients that day.

I think there are three main reasons this isn’t a more common approach:

1. Many HM groups just haven’t considered it.
2. HM groups might have a schedule that has all doctors rotate off/on the same days each week. For example, all doctors rotate off on Tuesdays and are replaced by new doctors on Wednesday. That makes it impossible to exempt a doctor from taking on new referrals on the last day of service because all of the group’s doctors have their last day on Tuesday. These groups could stagger the day each doctor rotates off—one on Monday, one on Tuesday, and so on.
3. Every doctor is so busy each day that it wouldn’t be feasible to exempt any individual doctor from taking on new patients, even if they are off the next day.

Despite the difficulties implementing a system of front-loading new referrals, I think most hospitalists would find that they like it. Because it reduces handoffs, it reduces, at least modestly, the group’s overall workload and probably benefits the group’s quality and patient satisfaction. TH

Dr. Nelson has been a practicing hospitalist since 1988 and is co-founder and past president of SHM. He is a principal in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants, a national hospitalist practice management consulting firm (www.nelsonflores.com). He is also course co-director and faculty for SHM’s “Best Practices in Managing a Hospital Medicine Program” course. This column represents his views and is not intended to reflect an official position of SHM.

Editor’s note: Third of a three-part series.

In the two monthly columns preceding this one, I’ve provided an overview of some ways hospitalist groups distribute new referrals among the providers. This month, I’ll review things that cause some groups to make exceptions to their typical method of distributing patients, and turn from how patients are distributed over 24 hours to thoughts about how they might be assigned over the course of consecutive days worked by a doctor.

Equitable Exceptions

There are a number of reasons groups decide to depart from their typical method of assigning patients. These include:

• “Bouncebacks”;
• One hospitalist is at the cap, others aren’t;
• Consult requested of a specific hospitalist;
• Hospitalists with unique skills (e.g., ICU expertise); and
• A patient “fires” the hospitalist.

There isn’t a standard “hospitalist way” of dealing with these issues, and each group will need to work out its own system. The most common of these issues is “bouncebacks.” Every group should try to have patients readmitted within three or four days of discharge go back to the discharging hospitalist. However, this proves difficult in many cases for several reasons, most commonly because the original discharging doctor might not be working when the patient returns.

The Alpha & Omega

Nearly every hospitalist practice makes some effort to maximize continuity between a single hospitalist and patient over the course of a hospital stay. But the effect of the method of patient assignment on continuity often is overlooked.

A reasonable way to think about or measure continuity is to estimate the portion of patients seen by the group that see the same hospitalist for each daytime visit over the course of their stay. (Assume that in most HM groups the same hospitalist can’t make both day and night visits over the course of the hospital stay. So, just for simplicity, I’ve intentionally left night visits, including an initial admission visit at night, out of the continuity calculation.) Plug the numbers for your practice into the formula (see Figure 1, right) and see what you get.

If a hospitalist always works seven consecutive day shifts (e.g., a seven-on/seven-off schedule) and the hospitalist’s patients have an average LOS of 4.2 days, then 54% of patients will see the same hospitalist for all daytime visits, and 46% will experience at least one handoff. (To keep things simple, I’m ignoring the effect on continuity of patients being admitted by an “admitter” or nocturnist who doesn’t see the patient subsequently.)

Changing the number of consecutive day shifts a hospitalist works has the most significant impact on continuity, but just how many consecutive days can one work routinely before fatigue and burnout—not too mention increased errors and decreased patient satisfaction—become a problem? (Many hospitalists make the mistake of trying to stuff what might be a reasonable annual workload into the smallest number of shifts possible with the goal of maximizing the number of days off. That means each worked day will be very busy, making it really hard to work many consecutive days. But you always have the option of titrating out that same annual workload over more days so that each day is less busy and it becomes easier to work more consecutive days.)

An often-overlooked way to improve continuity without having to work more consecutive day shifts is to have a hospitalist who is early in their series of worked days take on more new admissions and consults, and perhaps exempt that doctor from taking on new referrals for the last day or two he or she is on service. Eric Howell, MD, FHM, an SHM board member, calls this method “slam and dwindle.” This has been the approach I’ve experienced my whole career, and it is hard for me to imagine doing it any other way.

Here’s how it might work: Let’s say Dr. Petty always works seven consecutive day shifts, and on the first day he picks up a list of patients remaining from the doctor he’s replacing. To keep things simple, let’s assume he’s not in a large group, and during his first day of seven days on service he accepts and “keeps” all new referrals to the practice. On each successive day, he might assume the care of some new patients, but none on days six and seven. This means he takes on a disproportionately large number of new referrals at the beginning of his consecutive worked days, or “front-loads” new referrals. And because many of these patients will discharge before the end of his seven days and he takes on no new patients on days six and seven, his census will drop a lot before he rotates off, which in turn means there will be few patients who will have to get to know a new doctor on the first day Dr. Petty starts his seven-off schedule.

This system of patient distribution means continuity improved without requiring Dr. Petty to work more consecutive day shifts. Even though he works seven consecutive days and his average (or median) LOS is 4.2, as in the example above, his continuity will be much better than 54%. In fact, as many as 70% to 80% of Dr. Petty’s patients will see him for every daytime visit during their stay.

click for large version

Other benefits of assigning more patients early and none late in a series of worked days are that on his last day of service, he will have more time to “tee up” patients for the next doctor, including preparing for patients anticipated to discharge the next day (e.g., dictate discharge summary, complete paperwork, etc.), and might be able to wrap up a little earlier that day. And when rotating back on service, he will pick up a small list of patients left by Dr. Tench, maybe fewer than eight, rather than the group’s average daily load of 15 patients per doctor, so he will have the capacity to admit a lot of patients that day.

I think there are three main reasons this isn’t a more common approach:

1. Many HM groups just haven’t considered it.
2. HM groups might have a schedule that has all doctors rotate off/on the same days each week. For example, all doctors rotate off on Tuesdays and are replaced by new doctors on Wednesday. That makes it impossible to exempt a doctor from taking on new referrals on the last day of service because all of the group’s doctors have their last day on Tuesday. These groups could stagger the day each doctor rotates off—one on Monday, one on Tuesday, and so on.
3. Every doctor is so busy each day that it wouldn’t be feasible to exempt any individual doctor from taking on new patients, even if they are off the next day.

Despite the difficulties implementing a system of front-loading new referrals, I think most hospitalists would find that they like it. Because it reduces handoffs, it reduces, at least modestly, the group’s overall workload and probably benefits the group’s quality and patient satisfaction. TH

Dr. Nelson has been a practicing hospitalist since 1988 and is co-founder and past president of SHM. He is a principal in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants, a national hospitalist practice management consulting firm (www.nelsonflores.com). He is also course co-director and faculty for SHM’s “Best Practices in Managing a Hospital Medicine Program” course. This column represents his views and is not intended to reflect an official position of SHM.

Thousands of Michigan residents will have a better chance of avoiding readmission to the hospital thanks to a groundbreaking new collaboration between three of the state’s healthcare leaders.

Based on SHM’s Project BOOST (Better Outcomes for Older Adults through Safe Transitions) model, the collaborative program will be managed by the University of Michigan in collaboration with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. The Michigan Blues provide and administer health benefits to 4.7 million Michigan residents.

Project BOOST helps hospitals reduce readmission rates by providing them with proven resources and expert mentoring to optimize the discharge transition process, enhance patient and family education practices, and improve the flow of information between inpatient and outpatient providers. Project BOOST was developed through a grant from the John A. Hartford Foundation. Earlier in the year, the program recruited 15 Michigan sites to participate. Training begins in May.

Each improvement team will be assigned a mentor to coach them through the process of planning, implementing, and evaluating Project BOOST at their site. Program participants will receive face-to-face training, monthly coaching sessions with their mentors, and a comprehensive toolkit to implement Project BOOST. Sites also participate in an online peer learning and collaboration network.

“This kind of innovative, targeted program benefits both the patient and the healthcare provider by establishing better communication between all parties,” says Scott Flanders, MD, FHM, associate professor and director of hospital medicine at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, and SHM president.

To Flanders, it’s no coincidence that hospitalists are taking the lead in improving hospital discharges. “Readmissions are a pervasive but preventable problem,” he says. “Hospitalists are uniquely positioned to provide leadership within the hospital, to promote positive, system-based changes that improve patient satisfaction, and promote collaboration between hospitalists and primary-care physicians.”

In addition to being preventable, readmissions are costly, draining the resources, time, and energy of the patient, PCPs, and hospitals. Research in the April 2009 New England Journal of Medicine indicates that 20% of hospitalized patients are readmitted to the hospital within a month of their discharge.1 Nationally, readmissions cost Medicare $17.4 billion each year.1

Collaborative Partnerships

Prior to the program’s launch in Michigan, SHM recruited and mentored Project BOOST sites independently. However, like many productive relationships in a hospital, Project BOOST in Michigan depends on collaboration between experts.

“Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan is confident that this project, like our other Value Partnership programs that focus on robust, statewide, data-driven quality-improvement (QI) partnerships, will have a positive impact on thousands of Michigan lives,” says David Share, MD, MPH, BCBS Michigan’s senior associate medical director of Healthcare Quality. “We look forward to helping hospitals, physicians, and patients work together to assure smooth transitions between inpatient and outpatient care, and to reduce readmissions and improve the patient experience.”

For University of Michigan hospitalist Christopher Kim, MD, MBA, FHM, Project BOOST is a chance to work with a diverse set of groups. “We are grateful for the opportunity to work with not just Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, but also with the other physician organizations across our state to implement and share best-practice ideas in transitions of care,” says Kim, director of the statewide collaborative program on transitions of care.

Results and Reports

Having launched six pilot sites just two years ago, adding 24 additional sites in 2009, Project BOOST is still a relatively young QI program, which makes reliable quantitative data about its effectiveness tough to come by. The expansion into Michigan gives SHM and others the prospect of programwide measurement of how Project BOOST affects discharge and reduces readmissions.

“This is a tremendous opportunity to improve patient safety, reduce readmissions, and study the impact of Project BOOST interventions through patient-level data,” says Mark Williams, MD, FHM, Journal of Hospital Medicine editor, principal investigator for Project BOOST, and former SHM president. “We’re thrilled to be working with the state’s healthcare leaders to implement this critical program.”

Nonetheless, in the absence of comprehensive data, the early reports from Project BOOST sites are promising. At Piedmont Hospital in the Atlanta area, the rate of readmission among patients under the age of 70 participating in BOOST is 8.5%, compared with 25.5% among nonparticipants. The readmission rate among BOOST participants at Piedmont over the age of 70 was 22%, compared with 26% of nonparticipants. When SSM St. Mary’s Medical Center in St. Louis implemented BOOST at its 33-bed hospitalist unit, 30-day readmissions dropped to 7% from 12% within three months.

Patient satisfaction rates also increased markedly, to 68% from 52%. And in 2009, the University of Pennsylvania Health System awarded its annual Operational Quality and Safety Award to the Project BOOST implementation team at the hospital.

BOOST’s Reach Expands

Project BOOST leaders are planning an aggressive expansion in the near future. In addition to the potential for new program sites, SHM has made materials available to hospitalists through the Project BOOST Resource Room at SHM’s newly redesigned Web site (see “The New Face of HospitalMedicine.org,” p. 12), www.hospitalmedicine.org/boost.

In addition to free resources, new BOOST materials are for sale through SHM’s online store. The Project BOOST Implementation Guide—available electronically for free through the resource room—is now available for sale as a hard copy. The online store also features a new Project BOOST instructional DVD for hospitalists, “Using Teach Back to Improve Communication with Patients.” TH

Brendon Shank is a freelance writer based in Philadelphia.

Reference

1. Rehospitalizations among patients in the Medicare fee-for-service program. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(14): 1418-1428.

Chapter Updates

The Historic Main Street Trolley in Memphis, Tenn.

Memphis

The Memphis chapter held its quarterly meeting Feb. 4 at Erling Jensen in Memphis, Tenn. Dr. William Edmonson of the North Mississippi Medical Center in Tupelo, Miss., discussed “Updates on COPD.” Boehringer Engelheim sponsored the dinner meeting, which was attended by hospitalists and physicians in the area as well as hospital nurses and administration.

Milwaukee/Southeast Wisconsin

The Milwaukee/Southeast Wisconsin chapter’s Feb. 27 meeting in the Columbia Hospital Auditorium brought together hospitalists, nurse practitioners, pharmacists, and others from the Milwaukee area. Attendees were able to obtain CME credit on topics including acute coronary syndrome, hyponatremia, and sepsis. The meeting highlight was a presentation from Dr. Alpesh Amin, interim chair of the Department of Medicine at the University of California at Irvine. Dr. Amin discussed how to start up a local SHM chapter. Sponsorship from CME University helped make the chapter’s first HM symposium a success.

Nebraska Area

Lincoln HM group Bryan LGH hosted the Nebraska Area chapter quarterly meeting Feb. 23. Dr. Tamer Mahrous gave an overview of coding issues for hospitalists. A copy of the presentation will be sent to all of the chapter members.

The chapter elected officers to serve terms through 2012. They include: Dr. Eric Rice, president; Russ Cowles, vice president; Alissa Clough, secretary; and Jay Snow, officer at large.

Several additional items were discussed, including topics for upcoming meetings, how the chapter can best take advantage of opportunities at HM10, the possibility of launching a chapter newsletter, and organizational issues.

Thousands of Michigan residents will have a better chance of avoiding readmission to the hospital thanks to a groundbreaking new collaboration between three of the state’s healthcare leaders.

Based on SHM’s Project BOOST (Better Outcomes for Older Adults through Safe Transitions) model, the collaborative program will be managed by the University of Michigan in collaboration with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. The Michigan Blues provide and administer health benefits to 4.7 million Michigan residents.

Project BOOST helps hospitals reduce readmission rates by providing them with proven resources and expert mentoring to optimize the discharge transition process, enhance patient and family education practices, and improve the flow of information between inpatient and outpatient providers. Project BOOST was developed through a grant from the John A. Hartford Foundation. Earlier in the year, the program recruited 15 Michigan sites to participate. Training begins in May.

Each improvement team will be assigned a mentor to coach them through the process of planning, implementing, and evaluating Project BOOST at their site. Program participants will receive face-to-face training, monthly coaching sessions with their mentors, and a comprehensive toolkit to implement Project BOOST. Sites also participate in an online peer learning and collaboration network.

“This kind of innovative, targeted program benefits both the patient and the healthcare provider by establishing better communication between all parties,” says Scott Flanders, MD, FHM, associate professor and director of hospital medicine at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, and SHM president.

To Flanders, it’s no coincidence that hospitalists are taking the lead in improving hospital discharges. “Readmissions are a pervasive but preventable problem,” he says. “Hospitalists are uniquely positioned to provide leadership within the hospital, to promote positive, system-based changes that improve patient satisfaction, and promote collaboration between hospitalists and primary-care physicians.”

In addition to being preventable, readmissions are costly, draining the resources, time, and energy of the patient, PCPs, and hospitals. Research in the April 2009 New England Journal of Medicine indicates that 20% of hospitalized patients are readmitted to the hospital within a month of their discharge.1 Nationally, readmissions cost Medicare $17.4 billion each year.1

Collaborative Partnerships

Prior to the program’s launch in Michigan, SHM recruited and mentored Project BOOST sites independently. However, like many productive relationships in a hospital, Project BOOST in Michigan depends on collaboration between experts.

“Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan is confident that this project, like our other Value Partnership programs that focus on robust, statewide, data-driven quality-improvement (QI) partnerships, will have a positive impact on thousands of Michigan lives,” says David Share, MD, MPH, BCBS Michigan’s senior associate medical director of Healthcare Quality. “We look forward to helping hospitals, physicians, and patients work together to assure smooth transitions between inpatient and outpatient care, and to reduce readmissions and improve the patient experience.”

For University of Michigan hospitalist Christopher Kim, MD, MBA, FHM, Project BOOST is a chance to work with a diverse set of groups. “We are grateful for the opportunity to work with not just Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, but also with the other physician organizations across our state to implement and share best-practice ideas in transitions of care,” says Kim, director of the statewide collaborative program on transitions of care.

Results and Reports

Having launched six pilot sites just two years ago, adding 24 additional sites in 2009, Project BOOST is still a relatively young QI program, which makes reliable quantitative data about its effectiveness tough to come by. The expansion into Michigan gives SHM and others the prospect of programwide measurement of how Project BOOST affects discharge and reduces readmissions.

“This is a tremendous opportunity to improve patient safety, reduce readmissions, and study the impact of Project BOOST interventions through patient-level data,” says Mark Williams, MD, FHM, Journal of Hospital Medicine editor, principal investigator for Project BOOST, and former SHM president. “We’re thrilled to be working with the state’s healthcare leaders to implement this critical program.”

Nonetheless, in the absence of comprehensive data, the early reports from Project BOOST sites are promising. At Piedmont Hospital in the Atlanta area, the rate of readmission among patients under the age of 70 participating in BOOST is 8.5%, compared with 25.5% among nonparticipants. The readmission rate among BOOST participants at Piedmont over the age of 70 was 22%, compared with 26% of nonparticipants. When SSM St. Mary’s Medical Center in St. Louis implemented BOOST at its 33-bed hospitalist unit, 30-day readmissions dropped to 7% from 12% within three months.

Patient satisfaction rates also increased markedly, to 68% from 52%. And in 2009, the University of Pennsylvania Health System awarded its annual Operational Quality and Safety Award to the Project BOOST implementation team at the hospital.

BOOST’s Reach Expands

Project BOOST leaders are planning an aggressive expansion in the near future. In addition to the potential for new program sites, SHM has made materials available to hospitalists through the Project BOOST Resource Room at SHM’s newly redesigned Web site (see “The New Face of HospitalMedicine.org,” p. 12), www.hospitalmedicine.org/boost.

In addition to free resources, new BOOST materials are for sale through SHM’s online store. The Project BOOST Implementation Guide—available electronically for free through the resource room—is now available for sale as a hard copy. The online store also features a new Project BOOST instructional DVD for hospitalists, “Using Teach Back to Improve Communication with Patients.” TH

Brendon Shank is a freelance writer based in Philadelphia.

Reference

1. Rehospitalizations among patients in the Medicare fee-for-service program. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(14): 1418-1428.

Chapter Updates

The Historic Main Street Trolley in Memphis, Tenn.

Memphis

The Memphis chapter held its quarterly meeting Feb. 4 at Erling Jensen in Memphis, Tenn. Dr. William Edmonson of the North Mississippi Medical Center in Tupelo, Miss., discussed “Updates on COPD.” Boehringer Engelheim sponsored the dinner meeting, which was attended by hospitalists and physicians in the area as well as hospital nurses and administration.

Milwaukee/Southeast Wisconsin

The Milwaukee/Southeast Wisconsin chapter’s Feb. 27 meeting in the Columbia Hospital Auditorium brought together hospitalists, nurse practitioners, pharmacists, and others from the Milwaukee area. Attendees were able to obtain CME credit on topics including acute coronary syndrome, hyponatremia, and sepsis. The meeting highlight was a presentation from Dr. Alpesh Amin, interim chair of the Department of Medicine at the University of California at Irvine. Dr. Amin discussed how to start up a local SHM chapter. Sponsorship from CME University helped make the chapter’s first HM symposium a success.

Nebraska Area

Lincoln HM group Bryan LGH hosted the Nebraska Area chapter quarterly meeting Feb. 23. Dr. Tamer Mahrous gave an overview of coding issues for hospitalists. A copy of the presentation will be sent to all of the chapter members.

The chapter elected officers to serve terms through 2012. They include: Dr. Eric Rice, president; Russ Cowles, vice president; Alissa Clough, secretary; and Jay Snow, officer at large.

Several additional items were discussed, including topics for upcoming meetings, how the chapter can best take advantage of opportunities at HM10, the possibility of launching a chapter newsletter, and organizational issues.

Thousands of Michigan residents will have a better chance of avoiding readmission to the hospital thanks to a groundbreaking new collaboration between three of the state’s healthcare leaders.

Based on SHM’s Project BOOST (Better Outcomes for Older Adults through Safe Transitions) model, the collaborative program will be managed by the University of Michigan in collaboration with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. The Michigan Blues provide and administer health benefits to 4.7 million Michigan residents.

Project BOOST helps hospitals reduce readmission rates by providing them with proven resources and expert mentoring to optimize the discharge transition process, enhance patient and family education practices, and improve the flow of information between inpatient and outpatient providers. Project BOOST was developed through a grant from the John A. Hartford Foundation. Earlier in the year, the program recruited 15 Michigan sites to participate. Training begins in May.

Each improvement team will be assigned a mentor to coach them through the process of planning, implementing, and evaluating Project BOOST at their site. Program participants will receive face-to-face training, monthly coaching sessions with their mentors, and a comprehensive toolkit to implement Project BOOST. Sites also participate in an online peer learning and collaboration network.

“This kind of innovative, targeted program benefits both the patient and the healthcare provider by establishing better communication between all parties,” says Scott Flanders, MD, FHM, associate professor and director of hospital medicine at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, and SHM president.

To Flanders, it’s no coincidence that hospitalists are taking the lead in improving hospital discharges. “Readmissions are a pervasive but preventable problem,” he says. “Hospitalists are uniquely positioned to provide leadership within the hospital, to promote positive, system-based changes that improve patient satisfaction, and promote collaboration between hospitalists and primary-care physicians.”

In addition to being preventable, readmissions are costly, draining the resources, time, and energy of the patient, PCPs, and hospitals. Research in the April 2009 New England Journal of Medicine indicates that 20% of hospitalized patients are readmitted to the hospital within a month of their discharge.1 Nationally, readmissions cost Medicare $17.4 billion each year.1

Collaborative Partnerships

Prior to the program’s launch in Michigan, SHM recruited and mentored Project BOOST sites independently. However, like many productive relationships in a hospital, Project BOOST in Michigan depends on collaboration between experts.

“Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan is confident that this project, like our other Value Partnership programs that focus on robust, statewide, data-driven quality-improvement (QI) partnerships, will have a positive impact on thousands of Michigan lives,” says David Share, MD, MPH, BCBS Michigan’s senior associate medical director of Healthcare Quality. “We look forward to helping hospitals, physicians, and patients work together to assure smooth transitions between inpatient and outpatient care, and to reduce readmissions and improve the patient experience.”

For University of Michigan hospitalist Christopher Kim, MD, MBA, FHM, Project BOOST is a chance to work with a diverse set of groups. “We are grateful for the opportunity to work with not just Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, but also with the other physician organizations across our state to implement and share best-practice ideas in transitions of care,” says Kim, director of the statewide collaborative program on transitions of care.

Results and Reports

Having launched six pilot sites just two years ago, adding 24 additional sites in 2009, Project BOOST is still a relatively young QI program, which makes reliable quantitative data about its effectiveness tough to come by. The expansion into Michigan gives SHM and others the prospect of programwide measurement of how Project BOOST affects discharge and reduces readmissions.

“This is a tremendous opportunity to improve patient safety, reduce readmissions, and study the impact of Project BOOST interventions through patient-level data,” says Mark Williams, MD, FHM, Journal of Hospital Medicine editor, principal investigator for Project BOOST, and former SHM president. “We’re thrilled to be working with the state’s healthcare leaders to implement this critical program.”

Nonetheless, in the absence of comprehensive data, the early reports from Project BOOST sites are promising. At Piedmont Hospital in the Atlanta area, the rate of readmission among patients under the age of 70 participating in BOOST is 8.5%, compared with 25.5% among nonparticipants. The readmission rate among BOOST participants at Piedmont over the age of 70 was 22%, compared with 26% of nonparticipants. When SSM St. Mary’s Medical Center in St. Louis implemented BOOST at its 33-bed hospitalist unit, 30-day readmissions dropped to 7% from 12% within three months.

Patient satisfaction rates also increased markedly, to 68% from 52%. And in 2009, the University of Pennsylvania Health System awarded its annual Operational Quality and Safety Award to the Project BOOST implementation team at the hospital.

BOOST’s Reach Expands

Project BOOST leaders are planning an aggressive expansion in the near future. In addition to the potential for new program sites, SHM has made materials available to hospitalists through the Project BOOST Resource Room at SHM’s newly redesigned Web site (see “The New Face of HospitalMedicine.org,” p. 12), www.hospitalmedicine.org/boost.

In addition to free resources, new BOOST materials are for sale through SHM’s online store. The Project BOOST Implementation Guide—available electronically for free through the resource room—is now available for sale as a hard copy. The online store also features a new Project BOOST instructional DVD for hospitalists, “Using Teach Back to Improve Communication with Patients.” TH

Brendon Shank is a freelance writer based in Philadelphia.

Reference

1. Rehospitalizations among patients in the Medicare fee-for-service program. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(14): 1418-1428.

Chapter Updates

The Historic Main Street Trolley in Memphis, Tenn.

Memphis

The Memphis chapter held its quarterly meeting Feb. 4 at Erling Jensen in Memphis, Tenn. Dr. William Edmonson of the North Mississippi Medical Center in Tupelo, Miss., discussed “Updates on COPD.” Boehringer Engelheim sponsored the dinner meeting, which was attended by hospitalists and physicians in the area as well as hospital nurses and administration.

Milwaukee/Southeast Wisconsin

The Milwaukee/Southeast Wisconsin chapter’s Feb. 27 meeting in the Columbia Hospital Auditorium brought together hospitalists, nurse practitioners, pharmacists, and others from the Milwaukee area. Attendees were able to obtain CME credit on topics including acute coronary syndrome, hyponatremia, and sepsis. The meeting highlight was a presentation from Dr. Alpesh Amin, interim chair of the Department of Medicine at the University of California at Irvine. Dr. Amin discussed how to start up a local SHM chapter. Sponsorship from CME University helped make the chapter’s first HM symposium a success.

Nebraska Area

Lincoln HM group Bryan LGH hosted the Nebraska Area chapter quarterly meeting Feb. 23. Dr. Tamer Mahrous gave an overview of coding issues for hospitalists. A copy of the presentation will be sent to all of the chapter members.

The chapter elected officers to serve terms through 2012. They include: Dr. Eric Rice, president; Russ Cowles, vice president; Alissa Clough, secretary; and Jay Snow, officer at large.

Several additional items were discussed, including topics for upcoming meetings, how the chapter can best take advantage of opportunities at HM10, the possibility of launching a chapter newsletter, and organizational issues.

DR. HOSPITALIST

Transitions of Care Integral to HM Patient Care

I just finished my internal-medicine training and started a job as a hospitalist. We are a new hospitalist group, and I have been told that “transitions of care” is important to HM groups. I understand that getting information back to the patients’ primary-care physicians (PCPs) is important, but I am worried that I don’t have the whole picture. Is there something I am missing?

E. Parkhurst, MD

Tampa, Fla.

Dr. Hospitalist responds: Congrats on your new job. I am pleased to hear that you are motivated to learn more about transitions of care. It is important to hospitalist groups, but even more important to patients. I suspect your instincts are correct. You have an idea of what is meant by “transitions of care,” but probably do not appreciate all the nuances of the term. I certainly did not when I came out of training many years ago.

Transitions of care is a critical aspect of every patient’s care, and thus should be important to every healthcare provider. Our job is to care for the hospitalized patient and help them navigate through the complex systems of the hospital. How well we guide the patients through these transitions is reflected in their outcomes.

What is the definition of “transitions of care”? I find it useful to think about the patient’s journey when the decision is made to hospitalize the patient. When the patient is hospitalized, it is easy to recognize that the patient’s physical location is different; some, if not all, of the patient’s providers are different, too. The patient might have the same PCP caring for them in the hospital, but the nurses are different. The contrast is more evident if all of the patient’s providers are different. The ED is the point of entry for most patients. This is another location with another group of providers who do not have knowledge of all of the patient’s medical issues.

The hospital discharge is another inevitable transition. Most patients go home, but some will go to another healthcare facility (e.g., rehabilitation hospital) with another group of providers.

As you can see, the admission and discharge from the hospital involves multiple transitions. But multiple transitions also occur within the hospital. The patient could move from the general medical ward to the ICU and back; the patient might spend time in the surgical suite or operating room. Many patients go to radiology or other parts of the hospital for testing or procedures. At each location, the patient has a new group of providers.

But even if a physical location does not change, there could be a transition in care. During the day, one hospitalist or nurse might care for the patient. At night, another group of doctors and nurses are responsible for the patient’s care. Information must be transmitted and received between all of the parties at each transition in order for the appropriate care to proceed.

Effective transitions can improve provider efficiency. Think about how much easier it is to care for a patient whose care you assume when you have a clear understanding of the patient’s issues. Minimizing medical errors and increasing effective communication can reduce medical and legal risks. Effective transitions also minimize the length of hospital stay for the patient and minimize the risk of unnecessary readmission to the hospital. These can result in enhanced financial outcomes.

I think the key to effective and safe transitions of care is to create a mutually-agreed-upon process of communication and a level of expectation from all providers to carry out their role in the process. This is always easier said than done. In fact, the lack of an agreed-upon process often is a common barrier to effective transitions of care. Each participant’s role in the patient’s transitions might compete with another set of agendas.

As you can see, transitions of care is a complex topic, and I have only briefly reviewed it here. For more information, visit www.hospitalmedicine.org/boost. TH

Image Source: AMANE KANEKO

DR. HOSPITALIST

Transitions of Care Integral to HM Patient Care

I just finished my internal-medicine training and started a job as a hospitalist. We are a new hospitalist group, and I have been told that “transitions of care” is important to HM groups. I understand that getting information back to the patients’ primary-care physicians (PCPs) is important, but I am worried that I don’t have the whole picture. Is there something I am missing?

E. Parkhurst, MD

Tampa, Fla.

Dr. Hospitalist responds: Congrats on your new job. I am pleased to hear that you are motivated to learn more about transitions of care. It is important to hospitalist groups, but even more important to patients. I suspect your instincts are correct. You have an idea of what is meant by “transitions of care,” but probably do not appreciate all the nuances of the term. I certainly did not when I came out of training many years ago.

Transitions of care is a critical aspect of every patient’s care, and thus should be important to every healthcare provider. Our job is to care for the hospitalized patient and help them navigate through the complex systems of the hospital. How well we guide the patients through these transitions is reflected in their outcomes.

What is the definition of “transitions of care”? I find it useful to think about the patient’s journey when the decision is made to hospitalize the patient. When the patient is hospitalized, it is easy to recognize that the patient’s physical location is different; some, if not all, of the patient’s providers are different, too. The patient might have the same PCP caring for them in the hospital, but the nurses are different. The contrast is more evident if all of the patient’s providers are different. The ED is the point of entry for most patients. This is another location with another group of providers who do not have knowledge of all of the patient’s medical issues.

The hospital discharge is another inevitable transition. Most patients go home, but some will go to another healthcare facility (e.g., rehabilitation hospital) with another group of providers.

As you can see, the admission and discharge from the hospital involves multiple transitions. But multiple transitions also occur within the hospital. The patient could move from the general medical ward to the ICU and back; the patient might spend time in the surgical suite or operating room. Many patients go to radiology or other parts of the hospital for testing or procedures. At each location, the patient has a new group of providers.

But even if a physical location does not change, there could be a transition in care. During the day, one hospitalist or nurse might care for the patient. At night, another group of doctors and nurses are responsible for the patient’s care. Information must be transmitted and received between all of the parties at each transition in order for the appropriate care to proceed.

Effective transitions can improve provider efficiency. Think about how much easier it is to care for a patient whose care you assume when you have a clear understanding of the patient’s issues. Minimizing medical errors and increasing effective communication can reduce medical and legal risks. Effective transitions also minimize the length of hospital stay for the patient and minimize the risk of unnecessary readmission to the hospital. These can result in enhanced financial outcomes.

I think the key to effective and safe transitions of care is to create a mutually-agreed-upon process of communication and a level of expectation from all providers to carry out their role in the process. This is always easier said than done. In fact, the lack of an agreed-upon process often is a common barrier to effective transitions of care. Each participant’s role in the patient’s transitions might compete with another set of agendas.

As you can see, transitions of care is a complex topic, and I have only briefly reviewed it here. For more information, visit www.hospitalmedicine.org/boost. TH

Image Source: AMANE KANEKO

DR. HOSPITALIST

Transitions of Care Integral to HM Patient Care

I just finished my internal-medicine training and started a job as a hospitalist. We are a new hospitalist group, and I have been told that “transitions of care” is important to HM groups. I understand that getting information back to the patients’ primary-care physicians (PCPs) is important, but I am worried that I don’t have the whole picture. Is there something I am missing?

E. Parkhurst, MD

Tampa, Fla.

Dr. Hospitalist responds: Congrats on your new job. I am pleased to hear that you are motivated to learn more about transitions of care. It is important to hospitalist groups, but even more important to patients. I suspect your instincts are correct. You have an idea of what is meant by “transitions of care,” but probably do not appreciate all the nuances of the term. I certainly did not when I came out of training many years ago.

Transitions of care is a critical aspect of every patient’s care, and thus should be important to every healthcare provider. Our job is to care for the hospitalized patient and help them navigate through the complex systems of the hospital. How well we guide the patients through these transitions is reflected in their outcomes.

What is the definition of “transitions of care”? I find it useful to think about the patient’s journey when the decision is made to hospitalize the patient. When the patient is hospitalized, it is easy to recognize that the patient’s physical location is different; some, if not all, of the patient’s providers are different, too. The patient might have the same PCP caring for them in the hospital, but the nurses are different. The contrast is more evident if all of the patient’s providers are different. The ED is the point of entry for most patients. This is another location with another group of providers who do not have knowledge of all of the patient’s medical issues.

The hospital discharge is another inevitable transition. Most patients go home, but some will go to another healthcare facility (e.g., rehabilitation hospital) with another group of providers.

As you can see, the admission and discharge from the hospital involves multiple transitions. But multiple transitions also occur within the hospital. The patient could move from the general medical ward to the ICU and back; the patient might spend time in the surgical suite or operating room. Many patients go to radiology or other parts of the hospital for testing or procedures. At each location, the patient has a new group of providers.

But even if a physical location does not change, there could be a transition in care. During the day, one hospitalist or nurse might care for the patient. At night, another group of doctors and nurses are responsible for the patient’s care. Information must be transmitted and received between all of the parties at each transition in order for the appropriate care to proceed.

Effective transitions can improve provider efficiency. Think about how much easier it is to care for a patient whose care you assume when you have a clear understanding of the patient’s issues. Minimizing medical errors and increasing effective communication can reduce medical and legal risks. Effective transitions also minimize the length of hospital stay for the patient and minimize the risk of unnecessary readmission to the hospital. These can result in enhanced financial outcomes.

I think the key to effective and safe transitions of care is to create a mutually-agreed-upon process of communication and a level of expectation from all providers to carry out their role in the process. This is always easier said than done. In fact, the lack of an agreed-upon process often is a common barrier to effective transitions of care. Each participant’s role in the patient’s transitions might compete with another set of agendas.

As you can see, transitions of care is a complex topic, and I have only briefly reviewed it here. For more information, visit www.hospitalmedicine.org/boost. TH

Image Source: AMANE KANEKO