Richard Quinn

Ilan Alhadeff, MD, SFHM, program medical director for Cogent HMG at Hackensack University Medical Center in Hackensack, N.J., pays a lot of attention to the work relative-value units (wRVUs) his hospitalists are producing and the number of encounters they’re tallying. But he’s not particularly worried about what he sees on a daily, weekly, or even monthly basis; he takes a monthslong view of his data when he wants to forecast whether he is going to need to think about adding staff.

“When you look at months, you can start seeing trends,” Dr. Alhadeff says. “Let’s say there’s 16 to 18 average encounters. If your average is 16, you’re saying, ‘OK, you’re on the lower end of your normal.’ And if your average is 18, you’re on the higher end of normal. But if you start seeing 18 every month, odds are you’re going to start getting to 19. So at that point, that’s raising the thought that we need to start thinking about bringing someone else on.”

Dr. Alhadeff

It’s a dance HM group leaders around the country have to do when confronted with the age-old question: Should we expand our service? The answer is more art than science, experts say, as there is no standardized formula for knowing when your HM group should request more support from administration to add an FTE—or two or three. And, in a nod to the HM adage that if you’ve seen one HM group (HMG), then you’ve seen one HMG, the roadmap to expansion varies from place to place. But in a series of interviews with The Hospitalist, physicians, consultants, and management experts suggest there are broad themes that guide the process, including:

• Data. Dashboard metrics, such as average daily census (ADC), wRVUs, patient encounters, and length of stay (LOS), must be quantified. No discussion on expansion can be intelligibly made without a firm understanding of where a practice currently stands.
• Benchmarking. Collating figures isn’t enough. Measure your group against other local HMGs, regional groups, and national standards. SHM’s 2012 State of Hospital Medicine report is a good place to start.
• Scope or schedule. Pushing into new business lines (e.g. orthopedic comanagement) often requires new staff, as does adding shifts to provide 24-hour on-site coverage. Those arguments are different from the case to be made for expanding based on increased patient encounters.
• Physician buy-in. Group leaders cannot unilaterally determine it’s time to add staff, particularly in small-group settings in which hiring a new physician means taking revenue away from the existing group, if only in the short term. Talk with group members before embarking on expansion. Keep track of physician turnover. If hospitalists are leaving often, it could be a sign the group is understaffed.
• Administrative buy-in. If a group leader’s request for a new hire comes without months of conversation ahead of it, it’s likely too late. Prepare C-suite executives in advance about potential growth needs so the discussion does not feel like a surprise.
• Know your market. Don’t wait until a new active-adult community floods the hospital with patients to begin analyzing the impact new residents might have. The same goes for companies that are bringing thousands of new workers to an area.
• Prepare to do nothing. Too often, group leaders think the easiest solution is hiring a physician to lessen workload. Instead, exhaust improved efficiency options and infrastructure improvements that could accomplish the same goal.

“There is no one specific measure,” says Burke Kealey, MD, SFHM, medical director of hospital specialties at HealthPartners Medical Group in St. Paul, Minn., and an SHM board member. “You have to look at it from several different aspects, and all or most need to line up and say that, yes, you could use more help.”

Practice Analysis

Dr. Kealey, board liaison to SHM’s Practice Analysis Committee, says that benchmarking might be among the most important first steps in determining the right time to grow a practice. Group leaders should keep in mind, though, that comparative analysis to outside measures is only step one of gauging a group’s performance.

“The external benchmarking is easy,” he says. “You can look at SHM survey data. There are a lot of places that will do local market surveys; that’s easy stuff to look at. It’s the internal stuff that’s a bit harder to make the case for, ‘OK, yes, I am a little below the national benchmarks, but here’s why.’”

Dr. Kealey

In those instances, group leaders need to “look at the value equation” and engage hospital administrators in a discussion on why such metrics as wRVUs and ADC might not match local, regional, or national standards. Perhaps a hospital has a lower payor mix than the sample pool, or comparable regional institutions have a better mix of medical and surgical comanagement populations. Regardless of the details of the tailored explanation, the conversation must be one that’s ongoing between a group leader and the C-suite or it is likely to fail, Dr. Kealey says.

“It really gets to the partnership between the hospital and the hospitalist group and working together throughout the whole year, and not just looking at staffing needs, but looking at the hospital’s quality,” he adds. “It’s looking at [the hospital’s] ability to retain the surgeons and the specialists. It’s the leadership that you’re providing. It’s showing that you’re a real partner, so that when it does come time to make that value argument, that we need to grow...there is buy-in.

“If you’re not a true partner and you just come in as an adversary, I think your odds of success are not very high.”

Dr. Sloan

Steve Sloan, MD, a partner at AIM Hospitalist Group of Westmont, Ill., says that group leaders would be wise to obtain input from all of their physicians before adding a new doctor, as each new hire impacts compensation for existing staff members. In Dr. Sloan’s 16-member group, 11 physicians are partners who discuss growth plans. The other doctors are on partnership tracks. And while that makes discussions more difficult than when nine physicians formed the group in 2007, up-front dialogue is crucial, Dr. Sloan says.

“We try to get all the partners together to make major decisions, such as hiring,” he says. “We don’t need everyone involved in every decision, but it’s not just one or two people making the decision.”

The conversation about growth also differs if new hires are needed to move the group into a new business line or if the group is adding staff to deal with its current patient load. Both require a business case for expansion to be made, but either way, codifying expectations with hospital clients is another way to streamline the growth process, says Dr. Alhadeff. His group contracts with his hospital to provide services and has the ability to autonomously add or delete staff as needed. Although personnel moves don’t require prior approval from the hospital, there is “an expected fiscal responsibility on our end and predetermined agreement do so.”

The group also keeps administrative stakeholders updated to make sure everyone is on the same page. Other groups might delineate in a contract what thresholds need to be met for expansion to be viable.

“It needs to be agreed upon,” Dr. Alhadeff says. “I like the flexibility of being able to determine within our company what we’re doing. But in answer to that, there are unintentional consequences. If we determine that we’re going to bring on someone else, and then we see after a few months that there is not enough volume to support this new physician, we could run into a problem. We will then have to make a financial decision, and the worst thing is to have to fire someone.”

Dr. Alhadeff also worries about the flipside: failing to hire when staff is overworked.

“We run that risk also,” he says. “We are walking a tightrope all the time, and we need to balance that tightrope.”

When you’re putting out fires every day, you don’t have the luxury and the time to look out there and see what’s happening and know everything that’s going on. [Group leaders] need to understand the importance of [long-term analysis] and how all the pieces tie in together.

—Kenneth Hertz, FACMPE, principal, Medical Group Management Association Health Care Consulting Group, Denver

The Long View

Another tightrope is timing. Kenneth Hertz, FACMPE, principal of the Medical Group Management Association’s Health Care Consulting Group, says that it can take six months or longer to hire a physician, which means group leaders need to have a continual focus on whether growth is needed or will soon be needed. He suggests forecasting at least 12 to 18 months in advance to stay ahead of staffing needs.

Unfortunately, he says, analysis often gets put on hold in the shuffle of dealing with daily duties. “This is kind of generic to practice administrators, who are putting out fires almost every day. And when you’re putting out fires every day, you don’t have the luxury and the time to look out there and see what’s happening and know everything that’s going on,” he says. “They need to understand the importance of it and how all the pieces tie in together.”

Brian Hazen, MD, medical director of Inova Fairfax Hospital Group in Fairfax, Va., says an important approach is to realize growth isn’t always a good thing. HM group leaders often want to grow before they have stabilized their existing business lines, he says, and that can be the worst tack to take. He also notes that a group leader should ingratiate their program into the fabric of their hospital and not just rely on data to make the argument of the group’s value. That means putting hospitalists on committees, spearheading safety programs, and being seen as a partner in the institution.

“Job One is always patient safety and physician sanity,” he says. “If you are careful about growth and buy-in, and you do the committee work and support everybody so that you’re firmly entrenched in the hospital as a value, it’s much safer to grow. Growing for the sake of growing, you risk overexpansion, and that’s dangerous.”

Many hospitalist groups looking to grow will use locum tenens to bridge the staffing gap while they hire new employees (see “No Strings Attached,” December 2012, p. 36), but Dr. Hazen says without a longer view, that only serves as a Band-Aid.

Hertz, the consultant, often uses an analogy to show how important it is to be constantly planning ahead of the growth curve.

“It is a little bit like building roads,” he says. “Once you decide you need to add two lanes, by the time those are finished, you realize we really need to add two more lanes.”

Richard Quinn is a freelance writer in New Jersey.

Ilan Alhadeff, MD, SFHM, program medical director for Cogent HMG at Hackensack University Medical Center in Hackensack, N.J., pays a lot of attention to the work relative-value units (wRVUs) his hospitalists are producing and the number of encounters they’re tallying. But he’s not particularly worried about what he sees on a daily, weekly, or even monthly basis; he takes a monthslong view of his data when he wants to forecast whether he is going to need to think about adding staff.

“When you look at months, you can start seeing trends,” Dr. Alhadeff says. “Let’s say there’s 16 to 18 average encounters. If your average is 16, you’re saying, ‘OK, you’re on the lower end of your normal.’ And if your average is 18, you’re on the higher end of normal. But if you start seeing 18 every month, odds are you’re going to start getting to 19. So at that point, that’s raising the thought that we need to start thinking about bringing someone else on.”

Dr. Alhadeff

It’s a dance HM group leaders around the country have to do when confronted with the age-old question: Should we expand our service? The answer is more art than science, experts say, as there is no standardized formula for knowing when your HM group should request more support from administration to add an FTE—or two or three. And, in a nod to the HM adage that if you’ve seen one HM group (HMG), then you’ve seen one HMG, the roadmap to expansion varies from place to place. But in a series of interviews with The Hospitalist, physicians, consultants, and management experts suggest there are broad themes that guide the process, including:

• Data. Dashboard metrics, such as average daily census (ADC), wRVUs, patient encounters, and length of stay (LOS), must be quantified. No discussion on expansion can be intelligibly made without a firm understanding of where a practice currently stands.
• Benchmarking. Collating figures isn’t enough. Measure your group against other local HMGs, regional groups, and national standards. SHM’s 2012 State of Hospital Medicine report is a good place to start.
• Scope or schedule. Pushing into new business lines (e.g. orthopedic comanagement) often requires new staff, as does adding shifts to provide 24-hour on-site coverage. Those arguments are different from the case to be made for expanding based on increased patient encounters.
• Physician buy-in. Group leaders cannot unilaterally determine it’s time to add staff, particularly in small-group settings in which hiring a new physician means taking revenue away from the existing group, if only in the short term. Talk with group members before embarking on expansion. Keep track of physician turnover. If hospitalists are leaving often, it could be a sign the group is understaffed.
• Administrative buy-in. If a group leader’s request for a new hire comes without months of conversation ahead of it, it’s likely too late. Prepare C-suite executives in advance about potential growth needs so the discussion does not feel like a surprise.
• Know your market. Don’t wait until a new active-adult community floods the hospital with patients to begin analyzing the impact new residents might have. The same goes for companies that are bringing thousands of new workers to an area.
• Prepare to do nothing. Too often, group leaders think the easiest solution is hiring a physician to lessen workload. Instead, exhaust improved efficiency options and infrastructure improvements that could accomplish the same goal.

“There is no one specific measure,” says Burke Kealey, MD, SFHM, medical director of hospital specialties at HealthPartners Medical Group in St. Paul, Minn., and an SHM board member. “You have to look at it from several different aspects, and all or most need to line up and say that, yes, you could use more help.”

Practice Analysis

Dr. Kealey, board liaison to SHM’s Practice Analysis Committee, says that benchmarking might be among the most important first steps in determining the right time to grow a practice. Group leaders should keep in mind, though, that comparative analysis to outside measures is only step one of gauging a group’s performance.

“The external benchmarking is easy,” he says. “You can look at SHM survey data. There are a lot of places that will do local market surveys; that’s easy stuff to look at. It’s the internal stuff that’s a bit harder to make the case for, ‘OK, yes, I am a little below the national benchmarks, but here’s why.’”

Dr. Kealey

In those instances, group leaders need to “look at the value equation” and engage hospital administrators in a discussion on why such metrics as wRVUs and ADC might not match local, regional, or national standards. Perhaps a hospital has a lower payor mix than the sample pool, or comparable regional institutions have a better mix of medical and surgical comanagement populations. Regardless of the details of the tailored explanation, the conversation must be one that’s ongoing between a group leader and the C-suite or it is likely to fail, Dr. Kealey says.

“It really gets to the partnership between the hospital and the hospitalist group and working together throughout the whole year, and not just looking at staffing needs, but looking at the hospital’s quality,” he adds. “It’s looking at [the hospital’s] ability to retain the surgeons and the specialists. It’s the leadership that you’re providing. It’s showing that you’re a real partner, so that when it does come time to make that value argument, that we need to grow...there is buy-in.

“If you’re not a true partner and you just come in as an adversary, I think your odds of success are not very high.”

Dr. Sloan

Steve Sloan, MD, a partner at AIM Hospitalist Group of Westmont, Ill., says that group leaders would be wise to obtain input from all of their physicians before adding a new doctor, as each new hire impacts compensation for existing staff members. In Dr. Sloan’s 16-member group, 11 physicians are partners who discuss growth plans. The other doctors are on partnership tracks. And while that makes discussions more difficult than when nine physicians formed the group in 2007, up-front dialogue is crucial, Dr. Sloan says.

“We try to get all the partners together to make major decisions, such as hiring,” he says. “We don’t need everyone involved in every decision, but it’s not just one or two people making the decision.”

The conversation about growth also differs if new hires are needed to move the group into a new business line or if the group is adding staff to deal with its current patient load. Both require a business case for expansion to be made, but either way, codifying expectations with hospital clients is another way to streamline the growth process, says Dr. Alhadeff. His group contracts with his hospital to provide services and has the ability to autonomously add or delete staff as needed. Although personnel moves don’t require prior approval from the hospital, there is “an expected fiscal responsibility on our end and predetermined agreement do so.”

The group also keeps administrative stakeholders updated to make sure everyone is on the same page. Other groups might delineate in a contract what thresholds need to be met for expansion to be viable.

“It needs to be agreed upon,” Dr. Alhadeff says. “I like the flexibility of being able to determine within our company what we’re doing. But in answer to that, there are unintentional consequences. If we determine that we’re going to bring on someone else, and then we see after a few months that there is not enough volume to support this new physician, we could run into a problem. We will then have to make a financial decision, and the worst thing is to have to fire someone.”

Dr. Alhadeff also worries about the flipside: failing to hire when staff is overworked.

“We run that risk also,” he says. “We are walking a tightrope all the time, and we need to balance that tightrope.”

When you’re putting out fires every day, you don’t have the luxury and the time to look out there and see what’s happening and know everything that’s going on. [Group leaders] need to understand the importance of [long-term analysis] and how all the pieces tie in together.

—Kenneth Hertz, FACMPE, principal, Medical Group Management Association Health Care Consulting Group, Denver

The Long View

Another tightrope is timing. Kenneth Hertz, FACMPE, principal of the Medical Group Management Association’s Health Care Consulting Group, says that it can take six months or longer to hire a physician, which means group leaders need to have a continual focus on whether growth is needed or will soon be needed. He suggests forecasting at least 12 to 18 months in advance to stay ahead of staffing needs.

Unfortunately, he says, analysis often gets put on hold in the shuffle of dealing with daily duties. “This is kind of generic to practice administrators, who are putting out fires almost every day. And when you’re putting out fires every day, you don’t have the luxury and the time to look out there and see what’s happening and know everything that’s going on,” he says. “They need to understand the importance of it and how all the pieces tie in together.”

Brian Hazen, MD, medical director of Inova Fairfax Hospital Group in Fairfax, Va., says an important approach is to realize growth isn’t always a good thing. HM group leaders often want to grow before they have stabilized their existing business lines, he says, and that can be the worst tack to take. He also notes that a group leader should ingratiate their program into the fabric of their hospital and not just rely on data to make the argument of the group’s value. That means putting hospitalists on committees, spearheading safety programs, and being seen as a partner in the institution.

“Job One is always patient safety and physician sanity,” he says. “If you are careful about growth and buy-in, and you do the committee work and support everybody so that you’re firmly entrenched in the hospital as a value, it’s much safer to grow. Growing for the sake of growing, you risk overexpansion, and that’s dangerous.”

Many hospitalist groups looking to grow will use locum tenens to bridge the staffing gap while they hire new employees (see “No Strings Attached,” December 2012, p. 36), but Dr. Hazen says without a longer view, that only serves as a Band-Aid.

Hertz, the consultant, often uses an analogy to show how important it is to be constantly planning ahead of the growth curve.

“It is a little bit like building roads,” he says. “Once you decide you need to add two lanes, by the time those are finished, you realize we really need to add two more lanes.”

Richard Quinn is a freelance writer in New Jersey.

Ilan Alhadeff, MD, SFHM, program medical director for Cogent HMG at Hackensack University Medical Center in Hackensack, N.J., pays a lot of attention to the work relative-value units (wRVUs) his hospitalists are producing and the number of encounters they’re tallying. But he’s not particularly worried about what he sees on a daily, weekly, or even monthly basis; he takes a monthslong view of his data when he wants to forecast whether he is going to need to think about adding staff.

“When you look at months, you can start seeing trends,” Dr. Alhadeff says. “Let’s say there’s 16 to 18 average encounters. If your average is 16, you’re saying, ‘OK, you’re on the lower end of your normal.’ And if your average is 18, you’re on the higher end of normal. But if you start seeing 18 every month, odds are you’re going to start getting to 19. So at that point, that’s raising the thought that we need to start thinking about bringing someone else on.”

Dr. Alhadeff

It’s a dance HM group leaders around the country have to do when confronted with the age-old question: Should we expand our service? The answer is more art than science, experts say, as there is no standardized formula for knowing when your HM group should request more support from administration to add an FTE—or two or three. And, in a nod to the HM adage that if you’ve seen one HM group (HMG), then you’ve seen one HMG, the roadmap to expansion varies from place to place. But in a series of interviews with The Hospitalist, physicians, consultants, and management experts suggest there are broad themes that guide the process, including:

• Data. Dashboard metrics, such as average daily census (ADC), wRVUs, patient encounters, and length of stay (LOS), must be quantified. No discussion on expansion can be intelligibly made without a firm understanding of where a practice currently stands.
• Benchmarking. Collating figures isn’t enough. Measure your group against other local HMGs, regional groups, and national standards. SHM’s 2012 State of Hospital Medicine report is a good place to start.
• Scope or schedule. Pushing into new business lines (e.g. orthopedic comanagement) often requires new staff, as does adding shifts to provide 24-hour on-site coverage. Those arguments are different from the case to be made for expanding based on increased patient encounters.
• Physician buy-in. Group leaders cannot unilaterally determine it’s time to add staff, particularly in small-group settings in which hiring a new physician means taking revenue away from the existing group, if only in the short term. Talk with group members before embarking on expansion. Keep track of physician turnover. If hospitalists are leaving often, it could be a sign the group is understaffed.
• Administrative buy-in. If a group leader’s request for a new hire comes without months of conversation ahead of it, it’s likely too late. Prepare C-suite executives in advance about potential growth needs so the discussion does not feel like a surprise.
• Know your market. Don’t wait until a new active-adult community floods the hospital with patients to begin analyzing the impact new residents might have. The same goes for companies that are bringing thousands of new workers to an area.
• Prepare to do nothing. Too often, group leaders think the easiest solution is hiring a physician to lessen workload. Instead, exhaust improved efficiency options and infrastructure improvements that could accomplish the same goal.

“There is no one specific measure,” says Burke Kealey, MD, SFHM, medical director of hospital specialties at HealthPartners Medical Group in St. Paul, Minn., and an SHM board member. “You have to look at it from several different aspects, and all or most need to line up and say that, yes, you could use more help.”

Practice Analysis

Dr. Kealey, board liaison to SHM’s Practice Analysis Committee, says that benchmarking might be among the most important first steps in determining the right time to grow a practice. Group leaders should keep in mind, though, that comparative analysis to outside measures is only step one of gauging a group’s performance.

“The external benchmarking is easy,” he says. “You can look at SHM survey data. There are a lot of places that will do local market surveys; that’s easy stuff to look at. It’s the internal stuff that’s a bit harder to make the case for, ‘OK, yes, I am a little below the national benchmarks, but here’s why.’”

Dr. Kealey

In those instances, group leaders need to “look at the value equation” and engage hospital administrators in a discussion on why such metrics as wRVUs and ADC might not match local, regional, or national standards. Perhaps a hospital has a lower payor mix than the sample pool, or comparable regional institutions have a better mix of medical and surgical comanagement populations. Regardless of the details of the tailored explanation, the conversation must be one that’s ongoing between a group leader and the C-suite or it is likely to fail, Dr. Kealey says.

“It really gets to the partnership between the hospital and the hospitalist group and working together throughout the whole year, and not just looking at staffing needs, but looking at the hospital’s quality,” he adds. “It’s looking at [the hospital’s] ability to retain the surgeons and the specialists. It’s the leadership that you’re providing. It’s showing that you’re a real partner, so that when it does come time to make that value argument, that we need to grow...there is buy-in.

“If you’re not a true partner and you just come in as an adversary, I think your odds of success are not very high.”

Dr. Sloan

Steve Sloan, MD, a partner at AIM Hospitalist Group of Westmont, Ill., says that group leaders would be wise to obtain input from all of their physicians before adding a new doctor, as each new hire impacts compensation for existing staff members. In Dr. Sloan’s 16-member group, 11 physicians are partners who discuss growth plans. The other doctors are on partnership tracks. And while that makes discussions more difficult than when nine physicians formed the group in 2007, up-front dialogue is crucial, Dr. Sloan says.

“We try to get all the partners together to make major decisions, such as hiring,” he says. “We don’t need everyone involved in every decision, but it’s not just one or two people making the decision.”

The conversation about growth also differs if new hires are needed to move the group into a new business line or if the group is adding staff to deal with its current patient load. Both require a business case for expansion to be made, but either way, codifying expectations with hospital clients is another way to streamline the growth process, says Dr. Alhadeff. His group contracts with his hospital to provide services and has the ability to autonomously add or delete staff as needed. Although personnel moves don’t require prior approval from the hospital, there is “an expected fiscal responsibility on our end and predetermined agreement do so.”

The group also keeps administrative stakeholders updated to make sure everyone is on the same page. Other groups might delineate in a contract what thresholds need to be met for expansion to be viable.

“It needs to be agreed upon,” Dr. Alhadeff says. “I like the flexibility of being able to determine within our company what we’re doing. But in answer to that, there are unintentional consequences. If we determine that we’re going to bring on someone else, and then we see after a few months that there is not enough volume to support this new physician, we could run into a problem. We will then have to make a financial decision, and the worst thing is to have to fire someone.”

Dr. Alhadeff also worries about the flipside: failing to hire when staff is overworked.

“We run that risk also,” he says. “We are walking a tightrope all the time, and we need to balance that tightrope.”

When you’re putting out fires every day, you don’t have the luxury and the time to look out there and see what’s happening and know everything that’s going on. [Group leaders] need to understand the importance of [long-term analysis] and how all the pieces tie in together.

—Kenneth Hertz, FACMPE, principal, Medical Group Management Association Health Care Consulting Group, Denver

The Long View

Another tightrope is timing. Kenneth Hertz, FACMPE, principal of the Medical Group Management Association’s Health Care Consulting Group, says that it can take six months or longer to hire a physician, which means group leaders need to have a continual focus on whether growth is needed or will soon be needed. He suggests forecasting at least 12 to 18 months in advance to stay ahead of staffing needs.

Unfortunately, he says, analysis often gets put on hold in the shuffle of dealing with daily duties. “This is kind of generic to practice administrators, who are putting out fires almost every day. And when you’re putting out fires every day, you don’t have the luxury and the time to look out there and see what’s happening and know everything that’s going on,” he says. “They need to understand the importance of it and how all the pieces tie in together.”

Brian Hazen, MD, medical director of Inova Fairfax Hospital Group in Fairfax, Va., says an important approach is to realize growth isn’t always a good thing. HM group leaders often want to grow before they have stabilized their existing business lines, he says, and that can be the worst tack to take. He also notes that a group leader should ingratiate their program into the fabric of their hospital and not just rely on data to make the argument of the group’s value. That means putting hospitalists on committees, spearheading safety programs, and being seen as a partner in the institution.

“Job One is always patient safety and physician sanity,” he says. “If you are careful about growth and buy-in, and you do the committee work and support everybody so that you’re firmly entrenched in the hospital as a value, it’s much safer to grow. Growing for the sake of growing, you risk overexpansion, and that’s dangerous.”

Many hospitalist groups looking to grow will use locum tenens to bridge the staffing gap while they hire new employees (see “No Strings Attached,” December 2012, p. 36), but Dr. Hazen says without a longer view, that only serves as a Band-Aid.

Hertz, the consultant, often uses an analogy to show how important it is to be constantly planning ahead of the growth curve.

“It is a little bit like building roads,” he says. “Once you decide you need to add two lanes, by the time those are finished, you realize we really need to add two more lanes.”

Richard Quinn is a freelance writer in New Jersey.

Click here to listen to Brian Hazen, MD, medical director of Inova Fairfax Hospital Group in Fairfax, Va.

Click here to listen to Brian Hazen, MD, medical director of Inova Fairfax Hospital Group in Fairfax, Va.

Click here to listen to Brian Hazen, MD, medical director of Inova Fairfax Hospital Group in Fairfax, Va.

Journal of Hospital Medicine editors are recognizing 39 peer reviewers for the “collegial and insightful nature of their reviews.” The editors congratulate the reviewers for their contributions and thank them for the important role they play in making JHM an important and useful resource for its authors and readers.

1. Brian Harte, MD, SFHM, South Pointe Hospital
2. Michael DeVita, MD, St. Vincent’s Medical Center
3. Gurpreet Dhaliwal, MD, University of California at San Francisco
4. Evan Fieldston, MD, MBA, MSHP, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania
5. S. Ryan Greysen, MD, MHS, MA, University of California at San Francisco
6. Luke Hansen, MD, Northwestern Memorial Hospital
7. Luci Leykum, MD, FHM, University of Texas HSC
8. Andrew Masica, MD, SFHM, Baylor Health Care System
9. James C. Pile, MD, FACP, SFHM, Cleveland Clinic
10. Steven Belknap, MD, Northwestern Memorial Hospital
11. Vincent Liu, MD, Santa Clara (Calif.) Medical Center
12. Basem Abdelmalak, MD, Cleveland Clinic
13. Marisha Burden, MD, Denver Health Medical Center
14. James Burke, MD, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor
15. Roy Carr-Hill, PhD, University of Liverpool
16. Lawrence Haber, MD, University of California at San Francisco
17. Keiki Hinami, MD,Northwestern Memorial Hospital
18. Michael Hwa, MD, University of California at San Francisco
19. Michael Jangigian, MD, New York University
20. Mansoor Khalid, MD, Saint Francis Hospitalists
21. Hilary Mosher, MD, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City
22. Andrew Odden, MD, Ann Arbor VA Medical Center, University of Michigan
23. Maria Raven, MD, MPH, MSc, University of California at San Francisco
24. Kristin Salottolo, MPH, St. Anthony Hospital
25. Jonathan Sevransky, MD, MHS, Emory Healthcare
26. Kittane Vishnupriya, MD, MBBS, Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center
27. Robert S. Young, MD, Northwestern University
28. Melissa Mattison, MD, SFHM, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston
29. Jeff Rohde, MD, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor
30. Henry Michtalik, MD, Johns Hopkins
31. Mark Shen, MD, Dell Children’s Medical Center of Central Texas, Austin
32. Sumant Ranji, MD, University of California at San Francisco
33. Greg Maynard, MD, SFHM, University of California at San Diego
34. Anand Kartha, MD, MSc, Boston University
35. Christopher Roy, MD, FHM, Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Boston
36. Zachary Goldberger, MD, MS, University of Washington School of Medicine
37. Chase Coffey, MD, Henry Ford Health System
38. Quinn Czosnowski, PharmD, University of the Sciences
39. Kenataro Iwata, MD, MSc, FACP, FIDSA, Kobe University Hospital

Journal of Hospital Medicine editors are recognizing 39 peer reviewers for the “collegial and insightful nature of their reviews.” The editors congratulate the reviewers for their contributions and thank them for the important role they play in making JHM an important and useful resource for its authors and readers.

1. Brian Harte, MD, SFHM, South Pointe Hospital
2. Michael DeVita, MD, St. Vincent’s Medical Center
3. Gurpreet Dhaliwal, MD, University of California at San Francisco
4. Evan Fieldston, MD, MBA, MSHP, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania
5. S. Ryan Greysen, MD, MHS, MA, University of California at San Francisco
6. Luke Hansen, MD, Northwestern Memorial Hospital
7. Luci Leykum, MD, FHM, University of Texas HSC
8. Andrew Masica, MD, SFHM, Baylor Health Care System
9. James C. Pile, MD, FACP, SFHM, Cleveland Clinic
10. Steven Belknap, MD, Northwestern Memorial Hospital
11. Vincent Liu, MD, Santa Clara (Calif.) Medical Center
12. Basem Abdelmalak, MD, Cleveland Clinic
13. Marisha Burden, MD, Denver Health Medical Center
14. James Burke, MD, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor
15. Roy Carr-Hill, PhD, University of Liverpool
16. Lawrence Haber, MD, University of California at San Francisco
17. Keiki Hinami, MD,Northwestern Memorial Hospital
18. Michael Hwa, MD, University of California at San Francisco
19. Michael Jangigian, MD, New York University
20. Mansoor Khalid, MD, Saint Francis Hospitalists
21. Hilary Mosher, MD, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City
22. Andrew Odden, MD, Ann Arbor VA Medical Center, University of Michigan
23. Maria Raven, MD, MPH, MSc, University of California at San Francisco
24. Kristin Salottolo, MPH, St. Anthony Hospital
25. Jonathan Sevransky, MD, MHS, Emory Healthcare
26. Kittane Vishnupriya, MD, MBBS, Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center
27. Robert S. Young, MD, Northwestern University
28. Melissa Mattison, MD, SFHM, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston
29. Jeff Rohde, MD, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor
30. Henry Michtalik, MD, Johns Hopkins
31. Mark Shen, MD, Dell Children’s Medical Center of Central Texas, Austin
32. Sumant Ranji, MD, University of California at San Francisco
33. Greg Maynard, MD, SFHM, University of California at San Diego
34. Anand Kartha, MD, MSc, Boston University
35. Christopher Roy, MD, FHM, Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Boston
36. Zachary Goldberger, MD, MS, University of Washington School of Medicine
37. Chase Coffey, MD, Henry Ford Health System
38. Quinn Czosnowski, PharmD, University of the Sciences
39. Kenataro Iwata, MD, MSc, FACP, FIDSA, Kobe University Hospital

Journal of Hospital Medicine editors are recognizing 39 peer reviewers for the “collegial and insightful nature of their reviews.” The editors congratulate the reviewers for their contributions and thank them for the important role they play in making JHM an important and useful resource for its authors and readers.

1. Brian Harte, MD, SFHM, South Pointe Hospital
2. Michael DeVita, MD, St. Vincent’s Medical Center
3. Gurpreet Dhaliwal, MD, University of California at San Francisco
4. Evan Fieldston, MD, MBA, MSHP, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania
5. S. Ryan Greysen, MD, MHS, MA, University of California at San Francisco
6. Luke Hansen, MD, Northwestern Memorial Hospital
7. Luci Leykum, MD, FHM, University of Texas HSC
8. Andrew Masica, MD, SFHM, Baylor Health Care System
9. James C. Pile, MD, FACP, SFHM, Cleveland Clinic
10. Steven Belknap, MD, Northwestern Memorial Hospital
11. Vincent Liu, MD, Santa Clara (Calif.) Medical Center
12. Basem Abdelmalak, MD, Cleveland Clinic
13. Marisha Burden, MD, Denver Health Medical Center
14. James Burke, MD, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor
15. Roy Carr-Hill, PhD, University of Liverpool
16. Lawrence Haber, MD, University of California at San Francisco
17. Keiki Hinami, MD,Northwestern Memorial Hospital
18. Michael Hwa, MD, University of California at San Francisco
19. Michael Jangigian, MD, New York University
20. Mansoor Khalid, MD, Saint Francis Hospitalists
21. Hilary Mosher, MD, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City
22. Andrew Odden, MD, Ann Arbor VA Medical Center, University of Michigan
23. Maria Raven, MD, MPH, MSc, University of California at San Francisco
24. Kristin Salottolo, MPH, St. Anthony Hospital
25. Jonathan Sevransky, MD, MHS, Emory Healthcare
26. Kittane Vishnupriya, MD, MBBS, Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center
27. Robert S. Young, MD, Northwestern University
28. Melissa Mattison, MD, SFHM, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston
29. Jeff Rohde, MD, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor
30. Henry Michtalik, MD, Johns Hopkins
31. Mark Shen, MD, Dell Children’s Medical Center of Central Texas, Austin
32. Sumant Ranji, MD, University of California at San Francisco
33. Greg Maynard, MD, SFHM, University of California at San Diego
34. Anand Kartha, MD, MSc, Boston University
35. Christopher Roy, MD, FHM, Brigham & Women’s Hospital, Boston
36. Zachary Goldberger, MD, MS, University of Washington School of Medicine
37. Chase Coffey, MD, Henry Ford Health System
38. Quinn Czosnowski, PharmD, University of the Sciences
39. Kenataro Iwata, MD, MSc, FACP, FIDSA, Kobe University Hospital

Physicians who rank poorly in their communication skills with patients were associated with reduced rates of medication adherence in a new report.

A cross-sectional study of nearly 9,4000 patients in the Diabetes Study of Northern California (DISTANCE) found roughly 30% of patients who gave their physicians poor ratings when it came to involving them in decisions, understanding their problems with medications, and eliciting their trust were less likely to refill their cardiometabolic medications than those whose doctors were deemed to be good communicators, researchers found. For each 10-point decrease in the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Survey (CAHPS), the prevalence of poor medication adherence increased by 0.9% (P +0.1), the researchers added.

“One of the tricks is that medication adherence is an inherently physician-centric concept,” says lead author Neda Ratanawongsa, MD, MPH, assistant professor in the department of medicine at the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF). “We’re asking you to take medicine that we think will be best for you. That’s been the way that physicians operate for years, often appropriately so. But part of this is figuring out how to encourage the patients to disclose their decision that ‘Yes, I do want to take that medicine’ or ‘No, here’s why I don’t want to take that medicine.’”

Dr. Ratanawongsa adds that hospitalists and other physicians have to develop a sense of trust with patients to build relationships. Future studies could then track patient satisfaction and adherence over time to see if a corollary exists. Also, she says, hospitalists shouldn’t be discouraged that most of their relationships aren’t long-term ones like those found in other specialties.

“I wouldn’t underestimate the impact a hospitalist could have, whether one-time interaction or not, to change an existing therapy program,” Dr. Ratanawongsa says. “It’s important for hospitalists to understand the power of their words.”

Richard Quinn is a freelance writer in New Jersey.

Physicians who rank poorly in their communication skills with patients were associated with reduced rates of medication adherence in a new report.

A cross-sectional study of nearly 9,4000 patients in the Diabetes Study of Northern California (DISTANCE) found roughly 30% of patients who gave their physicians poor ratings when it came to involving them in decisions, understanding their problems with medications, and eliciting their trust were less likely to refill their cardiometabolic medications than those whose doctors were deemed to be good communicators, researchers found. For each 10-point decrease in the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Survey (CAHPS), the prevalence of poor medication adherence increased by 0.9% (P +0.1), the researchers added.

“One of the tricks is that medication adherence is an inherently physician-centric concept,” says lead author Neda Ratanawongsa, MD, MPH, assistant professor in the department of medicine at the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF). “We’re asking you to take medicine that we think will be best for you. That’s been the way that physicians operate for years, often appropriately so. But part of this is figuring out how to encourage the patients to disclose their decision that ‘Yes, I do want to take that medicine’ or ‘No, here’s why I don’t want to take that medicine.’”

Dr. Ratanawongsa adds that hospitalists and other physicians have to develop a sense of trust with patients to build relationships. Future studies could then track patient satisfaction and adherence over time to see if a corollary exists. Also, she says, hospitalists shouldn’t be discouraged that most of their relationships aren’t long-term ones like those found in other specialties.

“I wouldn’t underestimate the impact a hospitalist could have, whether one-time interaction or not, to change an existing therapy program,” Dr. Ratanawongsa says. “It’s important for hospitalists to understand the power of their words.”

Richard Quinn is a freelance writer in New Jersey.

Physicians who rank poorly in their communication skills with patients were associated with reduced rates of medication adherence in a new report.

A cross-sectional study of nearly 9,4000 patients in the Diabetes Study of Northern California (DISTANCE) found roughly 30% of patients who gave their physicians poor ratings when it came to involving them in decisions, understanding their problems with medications, and eliciting their trust were less likely to refill their cardiometabolic medications than those whose doctors were deemed to be good communicators, researchers found. For each 10-point decrease in the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Survey (CAHPS), the prevalence of poor medication adherence increased by 0.9% (P +0.1), the researchers added.

“One of the tricks is that medication adherence is an inherently physician-centric concept,” says lead author Neda Ratanawongsa, MD, MPH, assistant professor in the department of medicine at the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF). “We’re asking you to take medicine that we think will be best for you. That’s been the way that physicians operate for years, often appropriately so. But part of this is figuring out how to encourage the patients to disclose their decision that ‘Yes, I do want to take that medicine’ or ‘No, here’s why I don’t want to take that medicine.’”

Dr. Ratanawongsa adds that hospitalists and other physicians have to develop a sense of trust with patients to build relationships. Future studies could then track patient satisfaction and adherence over time to see if a corollary exists. Also, she says, hospitalists shouldn’t be discouraged that most of their relationships aren’t long-term ones like those found in other specialties.

“I wouldn’t underestimate the impact a hospitalist could have, whether one-time interaction or not, to change an existing therapy program,” Dr. Ratanawongsa says. “It’s important for hospitalists to understand the power of their words.”

Richard Quinn is a freelance writer in New Jersey.

Rajan Gurunathan, MD, was an undergraduate student at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore in the early 1990s weighing his career options.

“I went through a lot of permutations, actually,” he says. “Scientist, clinical researcher, doctor, physician/scientist—all of those things entered my mind at some point.”

He applied to dual-track MD and PhD programs, but ultimately decided that interacting with people—patients in particular—was the goal for him. He earned his medical degree from UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in Camden, N.J., and completed his internship in the department of medicine at St. Luke’s-Roosevelt Hospital Center in New York City, not far from where he grew up as a child in northern New Jersey.

And he never left.

I’ve always enjoyed the collegiality of a hospital environment in terms of multiple disciplines working together in ways to help care for patients. It’s a paradox in the sense that it’s fascinating to see disease and be able to be impactful in that way, but it’s also unfortunate sometimes to see what people have to go through.

—Anthony Back, MD, professor of medicine, University of Washington, Seattle

Dr. Gurunathan has risen through the ranks at St. Luke’s-Roosevelt, from resident to chief resident to chief of the section of hospital medicine. He is a faculty member for the Clinical Quality Fellowship Program at the Great New York Hospital Association and an assistant clinical professor of medicine at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York.

His long tenure at St. Luke’s-Roosevelt has been “an incredible experience because I really get a sense and feeling of commitment from the community,” he adds. “I’ve seen it grow over time and see how the needs have changed and how the service the hospital has been able to provide has only grown over time.”

After several years of presenting posters at SHM’s annual meetings, Dr. Gurunathan joined Team Hospitalist in April 2012 to become an even more active member of his specialty.

QUESTION: When you started as an intern 15 years ago, did you expect that you’d still be at the same institution?

Answer: No, I wouldn’t have expected that at all. In fact, there was a time where I was briefly considering a general medicine fellowship at Johns Hopkins, and I was prepared to go there. And family circumstances, etc., made me decide not to move on and to make a commitment and join the department as faculty, first as a chief and then as faculty. And I was really lucky to have those opportunities, because while my course didn’t go exactly the way that I’d planned, I wouldn’t have changed a thing.

Q: When you now deal with the residents and younger staff members, what’s that experience like for you?

A: It’s a really neat experience, and often brings a chuckle to my face when I see that they’re frustrated about the same things, because I can certainly commiserate. But I can really also see the value of what they provide every day, and having been in their shoes, I know a little bit about what they’ve been through and the work that they do. So I have a real appreciation for that.

Q: What brought you to hospital medicine?

A: I’ve always enjoyed the collegiality of a hospital environment in terms of multiple disciplines working together in ways to help care for patients. It’s a paradox in the sense that it’s fascinating to see disease and be able to be impactful in that way, but it’s also unfortunate sometimes to see what people have to go through.

Q: Is there something specific about the setting that’s kept you in the academic world?

A: A lot of things, actually. As I mentioned, hospitals in general should have a collegial nature. Again, it’s a really nice place where people share a unique common goal of banding together and fighting a goal, and academic departments are the same. So it’s being with people with like-minded intellectual interests. And we’re fortunate enough to have a number of strong mentors within the department who have had a lot of clinical training and bring a lot of experience and a wealth of knowledge, and being able to utilize their experience and draw from their experiences only makes people better clinicians. And we’re fortunate enough to have a pretty supportive department in general where there is a lot of collegiality and camaraderie.

Q: As an administrator, what is the value of being an SHM member, to you?

A: I think what I’ve seen administratively is the changing face of healthcare and how hospitals are going to need to continue to transform with time due to things that are both regulatory- and quality-of-care-based, in terms of improving outcomes and keeping people healthy. SHM has really embraced [those changes] and taken them head-on for really important reasons, not only in terms of helping people adapt to the changing landscape, but also training them in the ways that we need to be thinking about problems now and in the future.

Q: You’ve attended multiple annual meetings and presented posters. What value have you taken out of them, and would you recommend the experience to others?

A: Absolutely. I think as people develop, it’s good to always learn new skills, and my clinical research is an area that I would actually like to build up. So I’ve had a little bit of exposure, and it’s been nice to be able to draw from the resources of SHM and be able to partake. We presented something last year, which was a really neat experience, and we’re looking to bring some new faculty this year and encourage them to get involved in the scholarship process. These are the kinds of things that can really help hone skills, and that’s a good thing.

Q: Once you’re inside the doors of a New York City hospital, is daily practice much different than anywhere else?

A: I would say yes and no. I would say no in that I think all hospitals are really neat places and really incredible places. I heard somebody say once at a talk that hospitals were places of refuge, and I really do believe that. That being said, I think there is something slightly unique about New York City in a lot of ways. Certainly the challenges that New York City hospitals face are somewhat unique in terms of patient population, difficulty in socioeconomic factors, insurance issues. I think they are really fun places to work, but they’re not for the faint of heart.

Richard Quinn is a freelance writer in New Jersey.

Rajan Gurunathan, MD, was an undergraduate student at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore in the early 1990s weighing his career options.

“I went through a lot of permutations, actually,” he says. “Scientist, clinical researcher, doctor, physician/scientist—all of those things entered my mind at some point.”

He applied to dual-track MD and PhD programs, but ultimately decided that interacting with people—patients in particular—was the goal for him. He earned his medical degree from UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in Camden, N.J., and completed his internship in the department of medicine at St. Luke’s-Roosevelt Hospital Center in New York City, not far from where he grew up as a child in northern New Jersey.

And he never left.

I’ve always enjoyed the collegiality of a hospital environment in terms of multiple disciplines working together in ways to help care for patients. It’s a paradox in the sense that it’s fascinating to see disease and be able to be impactful in that way, but it’s also unfortunate sometimes to see what people have to go through.

—Anthony Back, MD, professor of medicine, University of Washington, Seattle

Dr. Gurunathan has risen through the ranks at St. Luke’s-Roosevelt, from resident to chief resident to chief of the section of hospital medicine. He is a faculty member for the Clinical Quality Fellowship Program at the Great New York Hospital Association and an assistant clinical professor of medicine at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York.

His long tenure at St. Luke’s-Roosevelt has been “an incredible experience because I really get a sense and feeling of commitment from the community,” he adds. “I’ve seen it grow over time and see how the needs have changed and how the service the hospital has been able to provide has only grown over time.”

After several years of presenting posters at SHM’s annual meetings, Dr. Gurunathan joined Team Hospitalist in April 2012 to become an even more active member of his specialty.

QUESTION: When you started as an intern 15 years ago, did you expect that you’d still be at the same institution?

Answer: No, I wouldn’t have expected that at all. In fact, there was a time where I was briefly considering a general medicine fellowship at Johns Hopkins, and I was prepared to go there. And family circumstances, etc., made me decide not to move on and to make a commitment and join the department as faculty, first as a chief and then as faculty. And I was really lucky to have those opportunities, because while my course didn’t go exactly the way that I’d planned, I wouldn’t have changed a thing.

Q: When you now deal with the residents and younger staff members, what’s that experience like for you?

A: It’s a really neat experience, and often brings a chuckle to my face when I see that they’re frustrated about the same things, because I can certainly commiserate. But I can really also see the value of what they provide every day, and having been in their shoes, I know a little bit about what they’ve been through and the work that they do. So I have a real appreciation for that.

Q: What brought you to hospital medicine?

A: I’ve always enjoyed the collegiality of a hospital environment in terms of multiple disciplines working together in ways to help care for patients. It’s a paradox in the sense that it’s fascinating to see disease and be able to be impactful in that way, but it’s also unfortunate sometimes to see what people have to go through.

Q: Is there something specific about the setting that’s kept you in the academic world?

A: A lot of things, actually. As I mentioned, hospitals in general should have a collegial nature. Again, it’s a really nice place where people share a unique common goal of banding together and fighting a goal, and academic departments are the same. So it’s being with people with like-minded intellectual interests. And we’re fortunate enough to have a number of strong mentors within the department who have had a lot of clinical training and bring a lot of experience and a wealth of knowledge, and being able to utilize their experience and draw from their experiences only makes people better clinicians. And we’re fortunate enough to have a pretty supportive department in general where there is a lot of collegiality and camaraderie.

Q: As an administrator, what is the value of being an SHM member, to you?

A: I think what I’ve seen administratively is the changing face of healthcare and how hospitals are going to need to continue to transform with time due to things that are both regulatory- and quality-of-care-based, in terms of improving outcomes and keeping people healthy. SHM has really embraced [those changes] and taken them head-on for really important reasons, not only in terms of helping people adapt to the changing landscape, but also training them in the ways that we need to be thinking about problems now and in the future.

Q: You’ve attended multiple annual meetings and presented posters. What value have you taken out of them, and would you recommend the experience to others?

A: Absolutely. I think as people develop, it’s good to always learn new skills, and my clinical research is an area that I would actually like to build up. So I’ve had a little bit of exposure, and it’s been nice to be able to draw from the resources of SHM and be able to partake. We presented something last year, which was a really neat experience, and we’re looking to bring some new faculty this year and encourage them to get involved in the scholarship process. These are the kinds of things that can really help hone skills, and that’s a good thing.

Q: Once you’re inside the doors of a New York City hospital, is daily practice much different than anywhere else?

A: I would say yes and no. I would say no in that I think all hospitals are really neat places and really incredible places. I heard somebody say once at a talk that hospitals were places of refuge, and I really do believe that. That being said, I think there is something slightly unique about New York City in a lot of ways. Certainly the challenges that New York City hospitals face are somewhat unique in terms of patient population, difficulty in socioeconomic factors, insurance issues. I think they are really fun places to work, but they’re not for the faint of heart.

Richard Quinn is a freelance writer in New Jersey.

Rajan Gurunathan, MD, was an undergraduate student at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore in the early 1990s weighing his career options.

“I went through a lot of permutations, actually,” he says. “Scientist, clinical researcher, doctor, physician/scientist—all of those things entered my mind at some point.”

He applied to dual-track MD and PhD programs, but ultimately decided that interacting with people—patients in particular—was the goal for him. He earned his medical degree from UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in Camden, N.J., and completed his internship in the department of medicine at St. Luke’s-Roosevelt Hospital Center in New York City, not far from where he grew up as a child in northern New Jersey.

And he never left.

I’ve always enjoyed the collegiality of a hospital environment in terms of multiple disciplines working together in ways to help care for patients. It’s a paradox in the sense that it’s fascinating to see disease and be able to be impactful in that way, but it’s also unfortunate sometimes to see what people have to go through.

—Anthony Back, MD, professor of medicine, University of Washington, Seattle

Dr. Gurunathan has risen through the ranks at St. Luke’s-Roosevelt, from resident to chief resident to chief of the section of hospital medicine. He is a faculty member for the Clinical Quality Fellowship Program at the Great New York Hospital Association and an assistant clinical professor of medicine at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York.

His long tenure at St. Luke’s-Roosevelt has been “an incredible experience because I really get a sense and feeling of commitment from the community,” he adds. “I’ve seen it grow over time and see how the needs have changed and how the service the hospital has been able to provide has only grown over time.”

After several years of presenting posters at SHM’s annual meetings, Dr. Gurunathan joined Team Hospitalist in April 2012 to become an even more active member of his specialty.

QUESTION: When you started as an intern 15 years ago, did you expect that you’d still be at the same institution?

Answer: No, I wouldn’t have expected that at all. In fact, there was a time where I was briefly considering a general medicine fellowship at Johns Hopkins, and I was prepared to go there. And family circumstances, etc., made me decide not to move on and to make a commitment and join the department as faculty, first as a chief and then as faculty. And I was really lucky to have those opportunities, because while my course didn’t go exactly the way that I’d planned, I wouldn’t have changed a thing.

Q: When you now deal with the residents and younger staff members, what’s that experience like for you?

A: It’s a really neat experience, and often brings a chuckle to my face when I see that they’re frustrated about the same things, because I can certainly commiserate. But I can really also see the value of what they provide every day, and having been in their shoes, I know a little bit about what they’ve been through and the work that they do. So I have a real appreciation for that.

Q: What brought you to hospital medicine?

A: I’ve always enjoyed the collegiality of a hospital environment in terms of multiple disciplines working together in ways to help care for patients. It’s a paradox in the sense that it’s fascinating to see disease and be able to be impactful in that way, but it’s also unfortunate sometimes to see what people have to go through.

Q: Is there something specific about the setting that’s kept you in the academic world?

A: A lot of things, actually. As I mentioned, hospitals in general should have a collegial nature. Again, it’s a really nice place where people share a unique common goal of banding together and fighting a goal, and academic departments are the same. So it’s being with people with like-minded intellectual interests. And we’re fortunate enough to have a number of strong mentors within the department who have had a lot of clinical training and bring a lot of experience and a wealth of knowledge, and being able to utilize their experience and draw from their experiences only makes people better clinicians. And we’re fortunate enough to have a pretty supportive department in general where there is a lot of collegiality and camaraderie.

Q: As an administrator, what is the value of being an SHM member, to you?

A: I think what I’ve seen administratively is the changing face of healthcare and how hospitals are going to need to continue to transform with time due to things that are both regulatory- and quality-of-care-based, in terms of improving outcomes and keeping people healthy. SHM has really embraced [those changes] and taken them head-on for really important reasons, not only in terms of helping people adapt to the changing landscape, but also training them in the ways that we need to be thinking about problems now and in the future.

Q: You’ve attended multiple annual meetings and presented posters. What value have you taken out of them, and would you recommend the experience to others?

A: Absolutely. I think as people develop, it’s good to always learn new skills, and my clinical research is an area that I would actually like to build up. So I’ve had a little bit of exposure, and it’s been nice to be able to draw from the resources of SHM and be able to partake. We presented something last year, which was a really neat experience, and we’re looking to bring some new faculty this year and encourage them to get involved in the scholarship process. These are the kinds of things that can really help hone skills, and that’s a good thing.

Q: Once you’re inside the doors of a New York City hospital, is daily practice much different than anywhere else?

A: I would say yes and no. I would say no in that I think all hospitals are really neat places and really incredible places. I heard somebody say once at a talk that hospitals were places of refuge, and I really do believe that. That being said, I think there is something slightly unique about New York City in a lot of ways. Certainly the challenges that New York City hospitals face are somewhat unique in terms of patient population, difficulty in socioeconomic factors, insurance issues. I think they are really fun places to work, but they’re not for the faint of heart.

Richard Quinn is a freelance writer in New Jersey.

The short-term compromise congressional leaders reached earlier this month on Draconian cuts to Medicare payments can only be viewed as a good thing for hospital medicine, says the head of SHM's Public Policy Committee. However, the fight is far from over.

"Just like everything else they've been doing, they're kicking the can down the road,” says committee chair Ron Greeno, MD, FCCP, MHM. "At least they kicked it a year this time, so that gives us a little bit of breathing room in terms of our physician practices being able to plan."

The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 averts a 26.5% cut to Medicare payment rates and extends the current Medicare physician fee schedule through the end of this year. The downside is the one-year delay is to be paid for "largely through adjustments to payments for hospitals and non-physician providers, and reductions in Medicaid disproportionate share hospital payments," according to a report from SHM issued earlier this month.

Dr. Greeno agrees that by reducing hospital revenue, the compromise puts additional fiscal pressures on HM groups, but that is the reality of the political logjam in Washington. Still, SHM will continue to lobby for a long-term answer.

The decision has drawn criticism from hospital trade associations. Chip Kahn, president and CEO of the Federation of American Hospitals (FAH), described it as a plan to "rob hospital Peter to pay for fiscal cliff Paul." [PDF]

"This is all just another patch," Dr. Greeno says, "and it doesn't create the solution that everybody is looking for, which is basically repeal of the SGR and replacing it with something that creates the incentives needed to engage physicians in improving the healthcare system."

The compromise also does not address the budget sequester, which was delayed until the end of March. Without action on that front, SHM says providers will lose 2% from their Medicare payments. The sequestration also would reduce funding dedicated to medical research.

Visit our website for more information about efforts to repeal the SGR.

The short-term compromise congressional leaders reached earlier this month on Draconian cuts to Medicare payments can only be viewed as a good thing for hospital medicine, says the head of SHM's Public Policy Committee. However, the fight is far from over.

"Just like everything else they've been doing, they're kicking the can down the road,” says committee chair Ron Greeno, MD, FCCP, MHM. "At least they kicked it a year this time, so that gives us a little bit of breathing room in terms of our physician practices being able to plan."

The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 averts a 26.5% cut to Medicare payment rates and extends the current Medicare physician fee schedule through the end of this year. The downside is the one-year delay is to be paid for "largely through adjustments to payments for hospitals and non-physician providers, and reductions in Medicaid disproportionate share hospital payments," according to a report from SHM issued earlier this month.

Dr. Greeno agrees that by reducing hospital revenue, the compromise puts additional fiscal pressures on HM groups, but that is the reality of the political logjam in Washington. Still, SHM will continue to lobby for a long-term answer.

The decision has drawn criticism from hospital trade associations. Chip Kahn, president and CEO of the Federation of American Hospitals (FAH), described it as a plan to "rob hospital Peter to pay for fiscal cliff Paul." [PDF]

"This is all just another patch," Dr. Greeno says, "and it doesn't create the solution that everybody is looking for, which is basically repeal of the SGR and replacing it with something that creates the incentives needed to engage physicians in improving the healthcare system."

The compromise also does not address the budget sequester, which was delayed until the end of March. Without action on that front, SHM says providers will lose 2% from their Medicare payments. The sequestration also would reduce funding dedicated to medical research.

Visit our website for more information about efforts to repeal the SGR.

The short-term compromise congressional leaders reached earlier this month on Draconian cuts to Medicare payments can only be viewed as a good thing for hospital medicine, says the head of SHM's Public Policy Committee. However, the fight is far from over.

"Just like everything else they've been doing, they're kicking the can down the road,” says committee chair Ron Greeno, MD, FCCP, MHM. "At least they kicked it a year this time, so that gives us a little bit of breathing room in terms of our physician practices being able to plan."

The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 averts a 26.5% cut to Medicare payment rates and extends the current Medicare physician fee schedule through the end of this year. The downside is the one-year delay is to be paid for "largely through adjustments to payments for hospitals and non-physician providers, and reductions in Medicaid disproportionate share hospital payments," according to a report from SHM issued earlier this month.

Dr. Greeno agrees that by reducing hospital revenue, the compromise puts additional fiscal pressures on HM groups, but that is the reality of the political logjam in Washington. Still, SHM will continue to lobby for a long-term answer.

The decision has drawn criticism from hospital trade associations. Chip Kahn, president and CEO of the Federation of American Hospitals (FAH), described it as a plan to "rob hospital Peter to pay for fiscal cliff Paul." [PDF]

"This is all just another patch," Dr. Greeno says, "and it doesn't create the solution that everybody is looking for, which is basically repeal of the SGR and replacing it with something that creates the incentives needed to engage physicians in improving the healthcare system."

The compromise also does not address the budget sequester, which was delayed until the end of March. Without action on that front, SHM says providers will lose 2% from their Medicare payments. The sequestration also would reduce funding dedicated to medical research.

Visit our website for more information about efforts to repeal the SGR.

Physicians who rank poorly in their communication skills with patients were associated with reduced rates of medication adherence in a new report.

A cross-sectional study of nearly 9,4000 patients in the Diabetes Study of Northern California (DISTANCE) found roughly 30% of patients who gave their physicians poor ratings when it came to involving them in decisions, understanding their problems with medications, and eliciting their trust were less likely to refill their cardiometabolic medications than those whose doctors were deemed to be good communicators, researchers found. For each 10-point decrease in the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Survey (CAHPS), the prevalence of poor medication adherence increased by 0.9% (P +0.1), the researchers added.

“One of the tricks is that medication adherence is an inherently physician-centric concept,” says lead author Neda Ratanawongsa, MD, MPH, assistant professor in the department of medicine at the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF). “We’re asking you to take medicine that we think will be best for you. That’s been the way that physicians operate for years, often appropriately so. But part of this is figuring out how to encourage the patients to disclose their decision that ‘Yes, I do want to take that medicine’ or ‘No, here’s why I don’t want to take that medicine.’”

Dr. Ratanawongsa adds that hospitalists and other physicians have to develop a sense of trust with patients to build relationships. Future studies could then track patient satisfaction and adherence over time to see if a corollary exists. Also, she says, hospitalists shouldn’t be discouraged that most of their relationships aren’t long-term ones like those found in other specialties.

“I wouldn’t underestimate the impact a hospitalist could have, whether one-time interaction or not, to change an existing therapy program,” Dr. Ratanawongsa says. “It’s important for hospitalists to understand the power of their words.”

Visit our website for more information about medication reconciliation.

Physicians who rank poorly in their communication skills with patients were associated with reduced rates of medication adherence in a new report.

A cross-sectional study of nearly 9,4000 patients in the Diabetes Study of Northern California (DISTANCE) found roughly 30% of patients who gave their physicians poor ratings when it came to involving them in decisions, understanding their problems with medications, and eliciting their trust were less likely to refill their cardiometabolic medications than those whose doctors were deemed to be good communicators, researchers found. For each 10-point decrease in the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Survey (CAHPS), the prevalence of poor medication adherence increased by 0.9% (P +0.1), the researchers added.

“One of the tricks is that medication adherence is an inherently physician-centric concept,” says lead author Neda Ratanawongsa, MD, MPH, assistant professor in the department of medicine at the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF). “We’re asking you to take medicine that we think will be best for you. That’s been the way that physicians operate for years, often appropriately so. But part of this is figuring out how to encourage the patients to disclose their decision that ‘Yes, I do want to take that medicine’ or ‘No, here’s why I don’t want to take that medicine.’”

Dr. Ratanawongsa adds that hospitalists and other physicians have to develop a sense of trust with patients to build relationships. Future studies could then track patient satisfaction and adherence over time to see if a corollary exists. Also, she says, hospitalists shouldn’t be discouraged that most of their relationships aren’t long-term ones like those found in other specialties.

“I wouldn’t underestimate the impact a hospitalist could have, whether one-time interaction or not, to change an existing therapy program,” Dr. Ratanawongsa says. “It’s important for hospitalists to understand the power of their words.”

Visit our website for more information about medication reconciliation.

Physicians who rank poorly in their communication skills with patients were associated with reduced rates of medication adherence in a new report.

A cross-sectional study of nearly 9,4000 patients in the Diabetes Study of Northern California (DISTANCE) found roughly 30% of patients who gave their physicians poor ratings when it came to involving them in decisions, understanding their problems with medications, and eliciting their trust were less likely to refill their cardiometabolic medications than those whose doctors were deemed to be good communicators, researchers found. For each 10-point decrease in the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Survey (CAHPS), the prevalence of poor medication adherence increased by 0.9% (P +0.1), the researchers added.

“One of the tricks is that medication adherence is an inherently physician-centric concept,” says lead author Neda Ratanawongsa, MD, MPH, assistant professor in the department of medicine at the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF). “We’re asking you to take medicine that we think will be best for you. That’s been the way that physicians operate for years, often appropriately so. But part of this is figuring out how to encourage the patients to disclose their decision that ‘Yes, I do want to take that medicine’ or ‘No, here’s why I don’t want to take that medicine.’”

Dr. Ratanawongsa adds that hospitalists and other physicians have to develop a sense of trust with patients to build relationships. Future studies could then track patient satisfaction and adherence over time to see if a corollary exists. Also, she says, hospitalists shouldn’t be discouraged that most of their relationships aren’t long-term ones like those found in other specialties.

“I wouldn’t underestimate the impact a hospitalist could have, whether one-time interaction or not, to change an existing therapy program,” Dr. Ratanawongsa says. “It’s important for hospitalists to understand the power of their words.”

Visit our website for more information about medication reconciliation.

A new study in the Journal of Hospital Medicine is among the first to assess and characterize the effectiveness of teamwork in interdisciplinary rounds (IDR). The upshot: Varied performance on rounds suggests a need to improve the consistency of teamwork.

The report, "Assessment of Teamwork During Structured Interdisciplinary Rounds on Medical Units," adapted the Observational Teamwork Assessment for Surgery (OTAS) behavioral rating scale tool to evaluate and characterize teamwork of hospitalists. Mark Williams, MD, FACP, MHM, professor and chief of the division of hospital medicine at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, says the review shows that mere implementation of IDR is not enough. Physician leaders must occasionally check how the rounds operate to ensure against such roadblocks as a team member who dominates discussions, or the formation of hierarchal relationships that not everyone is comfortable participating in, he says.

"You can't just say, 'Oh, we're practicing teamwork, we have structured interdisciplinary rounds,'" says Dr. Williams, who credits the research to lead author Kevin O'Leary, MD, MS, also of Feinberg. "You need to ensure that it’s occurring."

The paper fills a gap in research, the authors write, as much of the prior work on IDR has focused on patient outcomes, cost, and length of stay. But Dr. Williams says he doesn't expect community hospital medicine groups to conduct similar research because of their busy schedules. Still, he hopes group leaders and administrators consider the research an impetus to periodically check those rounds.

"Even in an institution [like Northwestern] that has strong buy-in to this [teamwork], you need to go back and check," Dr. Williams adds. "We saw variation in performance and we realized we needed to do some retraining."

 Visit our website for more information about interdisciplinary rounds.

A new study in the Journal of Hospital Medicine is among the first to assess and characterize the effectiveness of teamwork in interdisciplinary rounds (IDR). The upshot: Varied performance on rounds suggests a need to improve the consistency of teamwork.

The report, "Assessment of Teamwork During Structured Interdisciplinary Rounds on Medical Units," adapted the Observational Teamwork Assessment for Surgery (OTAS) behavioral rating scale tool to evaluate and characterize teamwork of hospitalists. Mark Williams, MD, FACP, MHM, professor and chief of the division of hospital medicine at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, says the review shows that mere implementation of IDR is not enough. Physician leaders must occasionally check how the rounds operate to ensure against such roadblocks as a team member who dominates discussions, or the formation of hierarchal relationships that not everyone is comfortable participating in, he says.

"You can't just say, 'Oh, we're practicing teamwork, we have structured interdisciplinary rounds,'" says Dr. Williams, who credits the research to lead author Kevin O'Leary, MD, MS, also of Feinberg. "You need to ensure that it’s occurring."

The paper fills a gap in research, the authors write, as much of the prior work on IDR has focused on patient outcomes, cost, and length of stay. But Dr. Williams says he doesn't expect community hospital medicine groups to conduct similar research because of their busy schedules. Still, he hopes group leaders and administrators consider the research an impetus to periodically check those rounds.

"Even in an institution [like Northwestern] that has strong buy-in to this [teamwork], you need to go back and check," Dr. Williams adds. "We saw variation in performance and we realized we needed to do some retraining."

 Visit our website for more information about interdisciplinary rounds.

A new study in the Journal of Hospital Medicine is among the first to assess and characterize the effectiveness of teamwork in interdisciplinary rounds (IDR). The upshot: Varied performance on rounds suggests a need to improve the consistency of teamwork.

The report, "Assessment of Teamwork During Structured Interdisciplinary Rounds on Medical Units," adapted the Observational Teamwork Assessment for Surgery (OTAS) behavioral rating scale tool to evaluate and characterize teamwork of hospitalists. Mark Williams, MD, FACP, MHM, professor and chief of the division of hospital medicine at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, says the review shows that mere implementation of IDR is not enough. Physician leaders must occasionally check how the rounds operate to ensure against such roadblocks as a team member who dominates discussions, or the formation of hierarchal relationships that not everyone is comfortable participating in, he says.

"You can't just say, 'Oh, we're practicing teamwork, we have structured interdisciplinary rounds,'" says Dr. Williams, who credits the research to lead author Kevin O'Leary, MD, MS, also of Feinberg. "You need to ensure that it’s occurring."

The paper fills a gap in research, the authors write, as much of the prior work on IDR has focused on patient outcomes, cost, and length of stay. But Dr. Williams says he doesn't expect community hospital medicine groups to conduct similar research because of their busy schedules. Still, he hopes group leaders and administrators consider the research an impetus to periodically check those rounds.

"Even in an institution [like Northwestern] that has strong buy-in to this [teamwork], you need to go back and check," Dr. Williams adds. "We saw variation in performance and we realized we needed to do some retraining."

 Visit our website for more information about interdisciplinary rounds.

An author of a new study associating the hypnotic zolpidem (Ambien) with higher rates of patient falls says hospitalists should keep the popular drug’s risks front of mind.

The retrospective cohort study in the Journal of Hospital Medicine, “Zolpidem is Independently Associated with Increased Risk of Inpatient Falls,” found that the rate of falls increased nearly six times among patients taking the sleep agent.¹ The research team at the Center for Sleep Medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, N.Y., calculated one additional fall for every 55 admitted patients who were administered the treatment.

“What this says to me is if one is going to use zolpidem, you have to be aware you’re increasing the risk of fall,” says sleep specialist Timothy Morgenthaler, MD, the Mayo Clinic’s chief patient officer. “Knowledgeable of that, one ought to consider whether there are alternatives or whether the risks outweigh the goal in that setting.”

Dr. Morgenthaler says zolpidem is the most commonly prescribed hypnotic at his hospital, and believes it to be the most common treatment in the U.S. He began studying the issue after nurses reported that it appeared patients were falling after taking the agent. In response to the study, Mayo Clinic removed zolpidem from many of its admission order sets and attempted to help improve patient sleep via other methods, including noise reduction.

“We haven’t removed it from our formulary, and I’m not saying it doesn’t have a role in some points,” he says, “but rather than encouraging it as an option in patients being admitted into the patient, we’re choosing instead now to encourage nonpharmacologic sleep enhancements.”

Visit the-hospitalist.org for more information about HM’s approach to patient falls.

Reference

1. Kolla BP, Lovely JK, Mansukhani MP, Morgenthaler TI. Zolpidem is independently associated with increased risk of inpatient falls. J Hosp Med. 2012 Nov 19. doi: 10.1002/jhm.1985. [Epub ahead of print] First published in Dec. 19, 2012, edition of TH eWire.

An author of a new study associating the hypnotic zolpidem (Ambien) with higher rates of patient falls says hospitalists should keep the popular drug’s risks front of mind.

The retrospective cohort study in the Journal of Hospital Medicine, “Zolpidem is Independently Associated with Increased Risk of Inpatient Falls,” found that the rate of falls increased nearly six times among patients taking the sleep agent.¹ The research team at the Center for Sleep Medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, N.Y., calculated one additional fall for every 55 admitted patients who were administered the treatment.

“What this says to me is if one is going to use zolpidem, you have to be aware you’re increasing the risk of fall,” says sleep specialist Timothy Morgenthaler, MD, the Mayo Clinic’s chief patient officer. “Knowledgeable of that, one ought to consider whether there are alternatives or whether the risks outweigh the goal in that setting.”

Dr. Morgenthaler says zolpidem is the most commonly prescribed hypnotic at his hospital, and believes it to be the most common treatment in the U.S. He began studying the issue after nurses reported that it appeared patients were falling after taking the agent. In response to the study, Mayo Clinic removed zolpidem from many of its admission order sets and attempted to help improve patient sleep via other methods, including noise reduction.

“We haven’t removed it from our formulary, and I’m not saying it doesn’t have a role in some points,” he says, “but rather than encouraging it as an option in patients being admitted into the patient, we’re choosing instead now to encourage nonpharmacologic sleep enhancements.”

Visit the-hospitalist.org for more information about HM’s approach to patient falls.

Reference

1. Kolla BP, Lovely JK, Mansukhani MP, Morgenthaler TI. Zolpidem is independently associated with increased risk of inpatient falls. J Hosp Med. 2012 Nov 19. doi: 10.1002/jhm.1985. [Epub ahead of print] First published in Dec. 19, 2012, edition of TH eWire.

An author of a new study associating the hypnotic zolpidem (Ambien) with higher rates of patient falls says hospitalists should keep the popular drug’s risks front of mind.

The retrospective cohort study in the Journal of Hospital Medicine, “Zolpidem is Independently Associated with Increased Risk of Inpatient Falls,” found that the rate of falls increased nearly six times among patients taking the sleep agent.¹ The research team at the Center for Sleep Medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, N.Y., calculated one additional fall for every 55 admitted patients who were administered the treatment.

“What this says to me is if one is going to use zolpidem, you have to be aware you’re increasing the risk of fall,” says sleep specialist Timothy Morgenthaler, MD, the Mayo Clinic’s chief patient officer. “Knowledgeable of that, one ought to consider whether there are alternatives or whether the risks outweigh the goal in that setting.”

Dr. Morgenthaler says zolpidem is the most commonly prescribed hypnotic at his hospital, and believes it to be the most common treatment in the U.S. He began studying the issue after nurses reported that it appeared patients were falling after taking the agent. In response to the study, Mayo Clinic removed zolpidem from many of its admission order sets and attempted to help improve patient sleep via other methods, including noise reduction.

“We haven’t removed it from our formulary, and I’m not saying it doesn’t have a role in some points,” he says, “but rather than encouraging it as an option in patients being admitted into the patient, we’re choosing instead now to encourage nonpharmacologic sleep enhancements.”

Visit the-hospitalist.org for more information about HM’s approach to patient falls.

Reference

1. Kolla BP, Lovely JK, Mansukhani MP, Morgenthaler TI. Zolpidem is independently associated with increased risk of inpatient falls. J Hosp Med. 2012 Nov 19. doi: 10.1002/jhm.1985. [Epub ahead of print] First published in Dec. 19, 2012, edition of TH eWire.

Edward Ma, MD, wasn’t sure what he wanted to be when he grew up. As a biology student at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, he says friends “peer-pressured” him to choose a career in medicine. Once the decision was made and he began his training, he found out he was pretty good at the doctor thing.

“I realized that I like this,” he says. “I told myself, ‘I’m going to go for it.’”

Dr. Ma also realized he had a liking for business, and where better to study business than at Penn’s Wharton School of Business? He hasn’t completed an MBA, but he’s taken post-grad courses focused on healthcare management. And now he’s combining that knowledge with his experiences as a hospitalist and medical director to develop a consulting business.

“That sort of evolved because I sort of have a big mouth. When I see something wrong, or something that could be done better, I tend to vocalize it,” says Dr. Ma, medical director of hospitalist services at 168-bed Brandywine Hospital in Coatesville, Pa. “The biggest opportunity is to really help a hospitalist group realize its potential and its value.”

Dr. Ma joined Team Hospitalist in April 2012. Although his side business is evolving via “word of mouth,” he still spends the majority of his time in the hospital directing a six-member HM group and caring for hospitalized patients.

Question: What do you like most about caring for patients?

Answer: I like the acuity of the care. The acuity of the illness is pretty high for our patients, and you can see very quickly the impact hospitalists can have. A lot of outpatient medicine is preventive care, so usually you don’t have an immediate problem that needs to be fixed, whereas in HM, the patients are acutely ill and there’s an ability to get these patients better—and see a change in their medical condition in a day or two. There’s more immediate gratification in terms of the effort that we put in caring for a patient.

Q: What do you like least?

A: The paperwork. At my hospital, a lot of it is computerized. But there are tons of checklists, tons of quality measures that need to be addressed, which is good. Still, it ends up bogging down our ability to take care of the patient. For example, a patient comes in for pneumonia and you have to make sure that some of their chronic issues (e.g. diabetes) are addressed. Have they had their hemoglobin A1C checked in the last 60 days? Does it really matter right now when we’re taking care of the patient’s pneumonia that we have to address this? Smoking cessation, yes, it’s very important, and we need to address this, but is it really necessary that we do this at this point when a patient is really ill? I think there’s a lot of these government regulations that they want us to take care of sometimes in the acute setting, which sometimes feels awkward or not necessarily time-appropriate.

Q: You say your training as an internist prepared you for a seamless transition to a hospitalist job, but you also think IM training is “doing a disservice to medicine.” How so?

A: Don’t get me wrong, I love hospital medicine. But I think what we really need is more primary-care doctors. This is not just my commentary on hospital medicine, but all subspecialties. I know specifically speaking that we need more outpatient internists, outpatient family physicians. If there are many internists, they’re not going to have as much need for cardiology or GI, or a lot of other subspecialties. There’s enough of a population of internists that would satisfy the need for internists and obviously the need for subspecialties.

Q: What’s the biggest change in HM you’ve witnessed since you started 10 years ago?

A: Our acceptance as a field by the medical community. Other physicians have now come to be very accepting of our role as the primary caretakers of their hospitalized patients.

Q: Do you consider yourself to have an entrepreneurial spirit or are you more of a solutions-oriented physician?

A: I have more of the entrepreneurial spirit. I’ve been talking to a lot of hospitalists, and what I encourage them to do is completely counter to the current healthcare environment. I’ve been encouraging them to say, “Let’s get a bunch of us together and set up our own hospitalist practice and do it in a way that we can have a certain level of autonomy, but also do it in a way that we can collaborate with the hospital, work intimately with them, and get certain guarantees from them. And do it privately, so that we can maintain our autonomy.” I think that’s important because I see the difference between the private practices and the practices that are owned by a health system. People just care so much more when it’s their own practice.

Q: What are the biggest challenges you face as medical director?

A: Getting everyone to work as a team. Everyone has a different schedule, differing values, and priorities. It’s very important that we work as a team because when one person does something, it impacts what somebody else does.

Q: What’s the most important thing to know when starting an HM group or fixing a broken group?

A: For fixing a group, you have to look at the values of the group of doctors. What are the values? What are the objectives? What are the professional goals? What I’ve encountered in HM is a lot of people are just coming in to get a paycheck. They come in, they do their job, and they like to take care of patients. Don’t get me wrong about that, but they like the freedom and the high competition that’s provided by hospital medicine. Oftentimes they come in, they do their jobs very well, they take care of their patients, and then they’re out the door. They don’t really have an interest in building up that practice or building up something for the hospital. We as doctors are all part of a medical community, we’re part of a medical staff, and it’s very important for us to get involved.

Q: Last year, you became president of SHM’s Philadelphia Tri-State Region chapter. What are your goals?

A: I’ve always been involved with the chapter, but I saw it as a good opportunity to network and talk with more hospitalists. I wanted to get their viewpoints on things and bounce ideas. I’m a very vocal person, so when I hear a good idea, I like to spread it amongst other people. And if I see something that someone said was bad and I hear it from enough people, I like to bring it up and discuss with everybody.

Q: What’s the best part of being an SHM member?

A: Getting to interact with a lot of my colleagues. To see what struggles they’re going through, to see that their struggles are very similar to the struggles that my group is going through, that we’re all in the same boat, and that we need to collaborate a little more to make things work. Instead of each practice trying to reinvent the wheel, we can try to work together and build off each other.

Richard Quinn is a freelance writer in New Jersey.

Edward Ma, MD, wasn’t sure what he wanted to be when he grew up. As a biology student at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, he says friends “peer-pressured” him to choose a career in medicine. Once the decision was made and he began his training, he found out he was pretty good at the doctor thing.

“I realized that I like this,” he says. “I told myself, ‘I’m going to go for it.’”

Dr. Ma also realized he had a liking for business, and where better to study business than at Penn’s Wharton School of Business? He hasn’t completed an MBA, but he’s taken post-grad courses focused on healthcare management. And now he’s combining that knowledge with his experiences as a hospitalist and medical director to develop a consulting business.

“That sort of evolved because I sort of have a big mouth. When I see something wrong, or something that could be done better, I tend to vocalize it,” says Dr. Ma, medical director of hospitalist services at 168-bed Brandywine Hospital in Coatesville, Pa. “The biggest opportunity is to really help a hospitalist group realize its potential and its value.”

Dr. Ma joined Team Hospitalist in April 2012. Although his side business is evolving via “word of mouth,” he still spends the majority of his time in the hospital directing a six-member HM group and caring for hospitalized patients.

Question: What do you like most about caring for patients?

Answer: I like the acuity of the care. The acuity of the illness is pretty high for our patients, and you can see very quickly the impact hospitalists can have. A lot of outpatient medicine is preventive care, so usually you don’t have an immediate problem that needs to be fixed, whereas in HM, the patients are acutely ill and there’s an ability to get these patients better—and see a change in their medical condition in a day or two. There’s more immediate gratification in terms of the effort that we put in caring for a patient.

Q: What do you like least?

A: The paperwork. At my hospital, a lot of it is computerized. But there are tons of checklists, tons of quality measures that need to be addressed, which is good. Still, it ends up bogging down our ability to take care of the patient. For example, a patient comes in for pneumonia and you have to make sure that some of their chronic issues (e.g. diabetes) are addressed. Have they had their hemoglobin A1C checked in the last 60 days? Does it really matter right now when we’re taking care of the patient’s pneumonia that we have to address this? Smoking cessation, yes, it’s very important, and we need to address this, but is it really necessary that we do this at this point when a patient is really ill? I think there’s a lot of these government regulations that they want us to take care of sometimes in the acute setting, which sometimes feels awkward or not necessarily time-appropriate.

Q: You say your training as an internist prepared you for a seamless transition to a hospitalist job, but you also think IM training is “doing a disservice to medicine.” How so?

A: Don’t get me wrong, I love hospital medicine. But I think what we really need is more primary-care doctors. This is not just my commentary on hospital medicine, but all subspecialties. I know specifically speaking that we need more outpatient internists, outpatient family physicians. If there are many internists, they’re not going to have as much need for cardiology or GI, or a lot of other subspecialties. There’s enough of a population of internists that would satisfy the need for internists and obviously the need for subspecialties.

Q: What’s the biggest change in HM you’ve witnessed since you started 10 years ago?

A: Our acceptance as a field by the medical community. Other physicians have now come to be very accepting of our role as the primary caretakers of their hospitalized patients.

Q: Do you consider yourself to have an entrepreneurial spirit or are you more of a solutions-oriented physician?

A: I have more of the entrepreneurial spirit. I’ve been talking to a lot of hospitalists, and what I encourage them to do is completely counter to the current healthcare environment. I’ve been encouraging them to say, “Let’s get a bunch of us together and set up our own hospitalist practice and do it in a way that we can have a certain level of autonomy, but also do it in a way that we can collaborate with the hospital, work intimately with them, and get certain guarantees from them. And do it privately, so that we can maintain our autonomy.” I think that’s important because I see the difference between the private practices and the practices that are owned by a health system. People just care so much more when it’s their own practice.

Q: What are the biggest challenges you face as medical director?

A: Getting everyone to work as a team. Everyone has a different schedule, differing values, and priorities. It’s very important that we work as a team because when one person does something, it impacts what somebody else does.

Q: What’s the most important thing to know when starting an HM group or fixing a broken group?

A: For fixing a group, you have to look at the values of the group of doctors. What are the values? What are the objectives? What are the professional goals? What I’ve encountered in HM is a lot of people are just coming in to get a paycheck. They come in, they do their job, and they like to take care of patients. Don’t get me wrong about that, but they like the freedom and the high competition that’s provided by hospital medicine. Oftentimes they come in, they do their jobs very well, they take care of their patients, and then they’re out the door. They don’t really have an interest in building up that practice or building up something for the hospital. We as doctors are all part of a medical community, we’re part of a medical staff, and it’s very important for us to get involved.

Q: Last year, you became president of SHM’s Philadelphia Tri-State Region chapter. What are your goals?

A: I’ve always been involved with the chapter, but I saw it as a good opportunity to network and talk with more hospitalists. I wanted to get their viewpoints on things and bounce ideas. I’m a very vocal person, so when I hear a good idea, I like to spread it amongst other people. And if I see something that someone said was bad and I hear it from enough people, I like to bring it up and discuss with everybody.

Q: What’s the best part of being an SHM member?

A: Getting to interact with a lot of my colleagues. To see what struggles they’re going through, to see that their struggles are very similar to the struggles that my group is going through, that we’re all in the same boat, and that we need to collaborate a little more to make things work. Instead of each practice trying to reinvent the wheel, we can try to work together and build off each other.

Richard Quinn is a freelance writer in New Jersey.

Edward Ma, MD, wasn’t sure what he wanted to be when he grew up. As a biology student at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, he says friends “peer-pressured” him to choose a career in medicine. Once the decision was made and he began his training, he found out he was pretty good at the doctor thing.

“I realized that I like this,” he says. “I told myself, ‘I’m going to go for it.’”

Dr. Ma also realized he had a liking for business, and where better to study business than at Penn’s Wharton School of Business? He hasn’t completed an MBA, but he’s taken post-grad courses focused on healthcare management. And now he’s combining that knowledge with his experiences as a hospitalist and medical director to develop a consulting business.

“That sort of evolved because I sort of have a big mouth. When I see something wrong, or something that could be done better, I tend to vocalize it,” says Dr. Ma, medical director of hospitalist services at 168-bed Brandywine Hospital in Coatesville, Pa. “The biggest opportunity is to really help a hospitalist group realize its potential and its value.”

Dr. Ma joined Team Hospitalist in April 2012. Although his side business is evolving via “word of mouth,” he still spends the majority of his time in the hospital directing a six-member HM group and caring for hospitalized patients.

Question: What do you like most about caring for patients?

Answer: I like the acuity of the care. The acuity of the illness is pretty high for our patients, and you can see very quickly the impact hospitalists can have. A lot of outpatient medicine is preventive care, so usually you don’t have an immediate problem that needs to be fixed, whereas in HM, the patients are acutely ill and there’s an ability to get these patients better—and see a change in their medical condition in a day or two. There’s more immediate gratification in terms of the effort that we put in caring for a patient.

Q: What do you like least?

A: The paperwork. At my hospital, a lot of it is computerized. But there are tons of checklists, tons of quality measures that need to be addressed, which is good. Still, it ends up bogging down our ability to take care of the patient. For example, a patient comes in for pneumonia and you have to make sure that some of their chronic issues (e.g. diabetes) are addressed. Have they had their hemoglobin A1C checked in the last 60 days? Does it really matter right now when we’re taking care of the patient’s pneumonia that we have to address this? Smoking cessation, yes, it’s very important, and we need to address this, but is it really necessary that we do this at this point when a patient is really ill? I think there’s a lot of these government regulations that they want us to take care of sometimes in the acute setting, which sometimes feels awkward or not necessarily time-appropriate.

Q: You say your training as an internist prepared you for a seamless transition to a hospitalist job, but you also think IM training is “doing a disservice to medicine.” How so?

A: Don’t get me wrong, I love hospital medicine. But I think what we really need is more primary-care doctors. This is not just my commentary on hospital medicine, but all subspecialties. I know specifically speaking that we need more outpatient internists, outpatient family physicians. If there are many internists, they’re not going to have as much need for cardiology or GI, or a lot of other subspecialties. There’s enough of a population of internists that would satisfy the need for internists and obviously the need for subspecialties.

Q: What’s the biggest change in HM you’ve witnessed since you started 10 years ago?

A: Our acceptance as a field by the medical community. Other physicians have now come to be very accepting of our role as the primary caretakers of their hospitalized patients.

Q: Do you consider yourself to have an entrepreneurial spirit or are you more of a solutions-oriented physician?

A: I have more of the entrepreneurial spirit. I’ve been talking to a lot of hospitalists, and what I encourage them to do is completely counter to the current healthcare environment. I’ve been encouraging them to say, “Let’s get a bunch of us together and set up our own hospitalist practice and do it in a way that we can have a certain level of autonomy, but also do it in a way that we can collaborate with the hospital, work intimately with them, and get certain guarantees from them. And do it privately, so that we can maintain our autonomy.” I think that’s important because I see the difference between the private practices and the practices that are owned by a health system. People just care so much more when it’s their own practice.

Q: What are the biggest challenges you face as medical director?

A: Getting everyone to work as a team. Everyone has a different schedule, differing values, and priorities. It’s very important that we work as a team because when one person does something, it impacts what somebody else does.

Q: What’s the most important thing to know when starting an HM group or fixing a broken group?

A: For fixing a group, you have to look at the values of the group of doctors. What are the values? What are the objectives? What are the professional goals? What I’ve encountered in HM is a lot of people are just coming in to get a paycheck. They come in, they do their job, and they like to take care of patients. Don’t get me wrong about that, but they like the freedom and the high competition that’s provided by hospital medicine. Oftentimes they come in, they do their jobs very well, they take care of their patients, and then they’re out the door. They don’t really have an interest in building up that practice or building up something for the hospital. We as doctors are all part of a medical community, we’re part of a medical staff, and it’s very important for us to get involved.

Q: Last year, you became president of SHM’s Philadelphia Tri-State Region chapter. What are your goals?

A: I’ve always been involved with the chapter, but I saw it as a good opportunity to network and talk with more hospitalists. I wanted to get their viewpoints on things and bounce ideas. I’m a very vocal person, so when I hear a good idea, I like to spread it amongst other people. And if I see something that someone said was bad and I hear it from enough people, I like to bring it up and discuss with everybody.

Q: What’s the best part of being an SHM member?

A: Getting to interact with a lot of my colleagues. To see what struggles they’re going through, to see that their struggles are very similar to the struggles that my group is going through, that we’re all in the same boat, and that we need to collaborate a little more to make things work. Instead of each practice trying to reinvent the wheel, we can try to work together and build off each other.

Richard Quinn is a freelance writer in New Jersey.