Richard Quinn

Recertification is a fact of life for physicians. But at today’s ABIM Maintenance of Certification pre-course, the conversation is about more than just answers. It’s about the questions.

“When you take the actual recertification exam, it’s an exam,” Ethan Cumbler, MD, FACP, of University of Colorado Denver, says between leading question-and-answer sessions at the Hm12 pre-course this afternoon. “You find out whether it’s pass or fail. But when you go through this process of getting to look at the questions, look at all the answers, ask questions, discuss it as a group for the controversies - that’s an entirely different process."

Dr. Cumbler also tells pre-course attendees that the MOC is more than an evaluation.

“What this is is a learning process," he says, "and I think the people who come want to be part of that."

Recertification is a fact of life for physicians. But at today’s ABIM Maintenance of Certification pre-course, the conversation is about more than just answers. It’s about the questions.

“When you take the actual recertification exam, it’s an exam,” Ethan Cumbler, MD, FACP, of University of Colorado Denver, says between leading question-and-answer sessions at the Hm12 pre-course this afternoon. “You find out whether it’s pass or fail. But when you go through this process of getting to look at the questions, look at all the answers, ask questions, discuss it as a group for the controversies - that’s an entirely different process."

Dr. Cumbler also tells pre-course attendees that the MOC is more than an evaluation.

“What this is is a learning process," he says, "and I think the people who come want to be part of that."

Recertification is a fact of life for physicians. But at today’s ABIM Maintenance of Certification pre-course, the conversation is about more than just answers. It’s about the questions.

“When you take the actual recertification exam, it’s an exam,” Ethan Cumbler, MD, FACP, of University of Colorado Denver, says between leading question-and-answer sessions at the Hm12 pre-course this afternoon. “You find out whether it’s pass or fail. But when you go through this process of getting to look at the questions, look at all the answers, ask questions, discuss it as a group for the controversies - that’s an entirely different process."

Dr. Cumbler also tells pre-course attendees that the MOC is more than an evaluation.

“What this is is a learning process," he says, "and I think the people who come want to be part of that."

We’re going to celebrate in San Diego with everybody, but once the [annual] meeting is over, we’re going to roll up our sleeves. There’s a heck of a lot more work to get done.

—Joseph Ming-Wah Li, MD, SFHM, SHM president

Hospitalist Jordan Messler, MD, SFHM, has experienced SHM’s mentored-implementation program as both mentee and mentor. So when he heard that the mentored-implementation model was named the winner of the 2011 John M. Eisenberg Innovation in Patient Safety and Quality at the National Level Award, he knew it was well-earned.

“The biggest aspect of these programs has been the collegiality and the learning from others,” says Dr. Messler, medical director at Morton Plant Hospital in Clearwater, Fla. “That’s really the core of this. We’ve all felt that we’re out on an island and we’re all building these projects from the ground up. We all probably at one point in a meeting say, ‘Someone else must have solved this.’ ... These mentored-implementation programs say, ‘Yes, of course other folks have solved this.’”

SHM is the first professional society to earn the award, bestowed by the National Quality Forum (NQF) and The Joint Commission. The model has helped propel SHM’s Glycemic Control Mentored Implementation (GCMI) Program, Project BOOST (Better Outcomes for Older Adults through Safe Transitions), and the VTE Prevention Collaborative. Mentors have been put in place in more than 300 hospitals in the U.S. and Canada, according to an announcement.

“There are significant congratulations [due] to the profession and all the people at the society who have done all the work on this,” says SHM president Joseph Ming-Wah Li, MD, SFHM. “Part of what we’ve been saying all along is that quality is important. In terms of teaching quality—it’s a real team effort.”

NQF president and chief executive Janet Corrigan, PhD, MBA, says that one of the hallmarks of SHM’s program is its ability to be applied to different quality initiatives. Corrigan adds that while a professional society had never previously won the national award, SHM’s execution in creating, implementing, and providing follow-up resources helped differentiate the construct.

“We want to shed light on the kinds of things that are working and encourage others to emulate them, to build on them, and to reinvent them in new and even better ways,” Corrigan says. “It is a whole process of quality improvement.”

Dr. Li says the honor is a milestone for SHM, but the society must not rest on its laurels because it “hit a home run.” Instead, the society should use the momentum of the award to push for and apply for more QI programs. The more successful programs the society and its members launch and successfully implement, the more HM as a field will be considered a leader in quality improvement, he adds.

“We’re an absolute infant compared to many other medical organizations and other medical societies,” Dr. Li says. “Hospitalists and SHM should be very proud that NQF and The Joint Commission chose to bestow this award onto SHM. But at the end of the day, we at SHM also recognize that this is an award. We’re going to celebrate in San Diego with everybody, but once the [annual] meeting is over, we’re going to roll up our sleeves. There’s a heck of a lot more work to get done.”

Richard Quinn is a freelance writer based in New Jersey.

We’re going to celebrate in San Diego with everybody, but once the [annual] meeting is over, we’re going to roll up our sleeves. There’s a heck of a lot more work to get done.

—Joseph Ming-Wah Li, MD, SFHM, SHM president

Hospitalist Jordan Messler, MD, SFHM, has experienced SHM’s mentored-implementation program as both mentee and mentor. So when he heard that the mentored-implementation model was named the winner of the 2011 John M. Eisenberg Innovation in Patient Safety and Quality at the National Level Award, he knew it was well-earned.

“The biggest aspect of these programs has been the collegiality and the learning from others,” says Dr. Messler, medical director at Morton Plant Hospital in Clearwater, Fla. “That’s really the core of this. We’ve all felt that we’re out on an island and we’re all building these projects from the ground up. We all probably at one point in a meeting say, ‘Someone else must have solved this.’ ... These mentored-implementation programs say, ‘Yes, of course other folks have solved this.’”

SHM is the first professional society to earn the award, bestowed by the National Quality Forum (NQF) and The Joint Commission. The model has helped propel SHM’s Glycemic Control Mentored Implementation (GCMI) Program, Project BOOST (Better Outcomes for Older Adults through Safe Transitions), and the VTE Prevention Collaborative. Mentors have been put in place in more than 300 hospitals in the U.S. and Canada, according to an announcement.

“There are significant congratulations [due] to the profession and all the people at the society who have done all the work on this,” says SHM president Joseph Ming-Wah Li, MD, SFHM. “Part of what we’ve been saying all along is that quality is important. In terms of teaching quality—it’s a real team effort.”

NQF president and chief executive Janet Corrigan, PhD, MBA, says that one of the hallmarks of SHM’s program is its ability to be applied to different quality initiatives. Corrigan adds that while a professional society had never previously won the national award, SHM’s execution in creating, implementing, and providing follow-up resources helped differentiate the construct.

“We want to shed light on the kinds of things that are working and encourage others to emulate them, to build on them, and to reinvent them in new and even better ways,” Corrigan says. “It is a whole process of quality improvement.”

Dr. Li says the honor is a milestone for SHM, but the society must not rest on its laurels because it “hit a home run.” Instead, the society should use the momentum of the award to push for and apply for more QI programs. The more successful programs the society and its members launch and successfully implement, the more HM as a field will be considered a leader in quality improvement, he adds.

“We’re an absolute infant compared to many other medical organizations and other medical societies,” Dr. Li says. “Hospitalists and SHM should be very proud that NQF and The Joint Commission chose to bestow this award onto SHM. But at the end of the day, we at SHM also recognize that this is an award. We’re going to celebrate in San Diego with everybody, but once the [annual] meeting is over, we’re going to roll up our sleeves. There’s a heck of a lot more work to get done.”

Richard Quinn is a freelance writer based in New Jersey.

We’re going to celebrate in San Diego with everybody, but once the [annual] meeting is over, we’re going to roll up our sleeves. There’s a heck of a lot more work to get done.

—Joseph Ming-Wah Li, MD, SFHM, SHM president

Hospitalist Jordan Messler, MD, SFHM, has experienced SHM’s mentored-implementation program as both mentee and mentor. So when he heard that the mentored-implementation model was named the winner of the 2011 John M. Eisenberg Innovation in Patient Safety and Quality at the National Level Award, he knew it was well-earned.

“The biggest aspect of these programs has been the collegiality and the learning from others,” says Dr. Messler, medical director at Morton Plant Hospital in Clearwater, Fla. “That’s really the core of this. We’ve all felt that we’re out on an island and we’re all building these projects from the ground up. We all probably at one point in a meeting say, ‘Someone else must have solved this.’ ... These mentored-implementation programs say, ‘Yes, of course other folks have solved this.’”

SHM is the first professional society to earn the award, bestowed by the National Quality Forum (NQF) and The Joint Commission. The model has helped propel SHM’s Glycemic Control Mentored Implementation (GCMI) Program, Project BOOST (Better Outcomes for Older Adults through Safe Transitions), and the VTE Prevention Collaborative. Mentors have been put in place in more than 300 hospitals in the U.S. and Canada, according to an announcement.

“There are significant congratulations [due] to the profession and all the people at the society who have done all the work on this,” says SHM president Joseph Ming-Wah Li, MD, SFHM. “Part of what we’ve been saying all along is that quality is important. In terms of teaching quality—it’s a real team effort.”

NQF president and chief executive Janet Corrigan, PhD, MBA, says that one of the hallmarks of SHM’s program is its ability to be applied to different quality initiatives. Corrigan adds that while a professional society had never previously won the national award, SHM’s execution in creating, implementing, and providing follow-up resources helped differentiate the construct.

“We want to shed light on the kinds of things that are working and encourage others to emulate them, to build on them, and to reinvent them in new and even better ways,” Corrigan says. “It is a whole process of quality improvement.”

Dr. Li says the honor is a milestone for SHM, but the society must not rest on its laurels because it “hit a home run.” Instead, the society should use the momentum of the award to push for and apply for more QI programs. The more successful programs the society and its members launch and successfully implement, the more HM as a field will be considered a leader in quality improvement, he adds.

“We’re an absolute infant compared to many other medical organizations and other medical societies,” Dr. Li says. “Hospitalists and SHM should be very proud that NQF and The Joint Commission chose to bestow this award onto SHM. But at the end of the day, we at SHM also recognize that this is an award. We’re going to celebrate in San Diego with everybody, but once the [annual] meeting is over, we’re going to roll up our sleeves. There’s a heck of a lot more work to get done.”

Richard Quinn is a freelance writer based in New Jersey.

U.S. hospitalists could learn a lesson from a new report that shows patients treated at higher-spending hospitals in Ontario, Canada, had associated drops in death rates and readmissions, says one of the study's authors.

Theresa Stukel, PhD, of the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences in Toronto says that while direct comparisons between Canadian and U.S. healthcare delivery systems can be misleading because the U.S. spends more on healthcare, and this study deals with the universal healthcare system in Canada, "one of the important policy lessons is that it's very important to manage one's resources—to think about the fact that more resources may not lead to better care and to think about where to put the next healthcare dollar."

The report, "Association of Hospital Spending Intensity With Mortality and Readmission Rates in Ontario Hospitals," found that in the highest- versus lowest-spending hospitals, respectively, the age- and sex-adjusted relative 30-day mortality rate was 12.7% vs. 12.8% for acute myocardial infarction patients; 10.2% vs. 12.4% for congestive heart failure patients; 7.7% vs. 9.7% for hip fracture cases; and 3.3% vs. 3.9% for colon cancer patients.

And while higher-spending hospitals showed better outcomes, Dr. Stukel says, more money does not correlate directly to better care. She suggests U.S. physicians look for guidance from domestic health systems, such as Kaiser Permanente, Geisenger Health System, and Intermountain Healthcare, which she says outperform the U.S. averages for quality while spending less than the average costs.

The lesson to hospitalists: be careful what you ask for, Dr. Stukel explains. Physicians always want the latest "testing equipment and therapies," she says. "I think there's a point where having access to these resources means you have to use them; otherwise, you can't amortize them. There's a point where physicians think that if they are not doing a service to the patients, they’re not providing better care."

U.S. hospitalists could learn a lesson from a new report that shows patients treated at higher-spending hospitals in Ontario, Canada, had associated drops in death rates and readmissions, says one of the study's authors.

Theresa Stukel, PhD, of the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences in Toronto says that while direct comparisons between Canadian and U.S. healthcare delivery systems can be misleading because the U.S. spends more on healthcare, and this study deals with the universal healthcare system in Canada, "one of the important policy lessons is that it's very important to manage one's resources—to think about the fact that more resources may not lead to better care and to think about where to put the next healthcare dollar."

The report, "Association of Hospital Spending Intensity With Mortality and Readmission Rates in Ontario Hospitals," found that in the highest- versus lowest-spending hospitals, respectively, the age- and sex-adjusted relative 30-day mortality rate was 12.7% vs. 12.8% for acute myocardial infarction patients; 10.2% vs. 12.4% for congestive heart failure patients; 7.7% vs. 9.7% for hip fracture cases; and 3.3% vs. 3.9% for colon cancer patients.

And while higher-spending hospitals showed better outcomes, Dr. Stukel says, more money does not correlate directly to better care. She suggests U.S. physicians look for guidance from domestic health systems, such as Kaiser Permanente, Geisenger Health System, and Intermountain Healthcare, which she says outperform the U.S. averages for quality while spending less than the average costs.

The lesson to hospitalists: be careful what you ask for, Dr. Stukel explains. Physicians always want the latest "testing equipment and therapies," she says. "I think there's a point where having access to these resources means you have to use them; otherwise, you can't amortize them. There's a point where physicians think that if they are not doing a service to the patients, they’re not providing better care."

U.S. hospitalists could learn a lesson from a new report that shows patients treated at higher-spending hospitals in Ontario, Canada, had associated drops in death rates and readmissions, says one of the study's authors.

Theresa Stukel, PhD, of the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences in Toronto says that while direct comparisons between Canadian and U.S. healthcare delivery systems can be misleading because the U.S. spends more on healthcare, and this study deals with the universal healthcare system in Canada, "one of the important policy lessons is that it's very important to manage one's resources—to think about the fact that more resources may not lead to better care and to think about where to put the next healthcare dollar."

The report, "Association of Hospital Spending Intensity With Mortality and Readmission Rates in Ontario Hospitals," found that in the highest- versus lowest-spending hospitals, respectively, the age- and sex-adjusted relative 30-day mortality rate was 12.7% vs. 12.8% for acute myocardial infarction patients; 10.2% vs. 12.4% for congestive heart failure patients; 7.7% vs. 9.7% for hip fracture cases; and 3.3% vs. 3.9% for colon cancer patients.

And while higher-spending hospitals showed better outcomes, Dr. Stukel says, more money does not correlate directly to better care. She suggests U.S. physicians look for guidance from domestic health systems, such as Kaiser Permanente, Geisenger Health System, and Intermountain Healthcare, which she says outperform the U.S. averages for quality while spending less than the average costs.

The lesson to hospitalists: be careful what you ask for, Dr. Stukel explains. Physicians always want the latest "testing equipment and therapies," she says. "I think there's a point where having access to these resources means you have to use them; otherwise, you can't amortize them. There's a point where physicians think that if they are not doing a service to the patients, they’re not providing better care."

A new report shows that not all physicians agree on how forthcoming they should be with patients, but this should not be viewed by the public as evidence that most doctors lie, according to a senior clinical ethicist.

Evan DeRenzo, PhD, of the Center for Ethics at Washington Hospital Center in Washington, D.C., says the report, "Survey Shows that at Least Some Physicians are not Always Open or Honest With Patients," published last month in Health Affairs, is useful for sparking discussion of professional ethics, but adds that medicine is an art, and communication with patients is a subjective topic.

Physicians should ask themselves, "How much information is the right amount of information for this particular patient to grasp the most important parts of the panoply of information?" she says.

Dr. DeRenzo says that fraud or abuse is both illegal and unethical but, in most situations, what and how to communicate with patients or colleagues is "not black and white." The Health Affairs report surveyed 1,891 physicians nationwide and found that about one-third of doctors don’t “completely agree” that they should “disclose all significant medical errors to affected patients.” More than 35% of respondents did not completely agree they should disclose to patients financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies or medical device firms, and 11% reported that they had told patients something false.

Dr. DeRenzo believes that a stronger focus on training physicians to communicate with patients and colleagues would help instill a sense of how best to ethically handle discussions. She adds that the construct on how to best communicate is not dependent on specialties, but on common sense.

"I don't see any difference whether [the communication is] hospital to community, surgery to medicine," she says. "I don't see any difference at all because you're talking about how do we communicate with patients, what are the optimal ways to convey and exchange information, and how ought physicians—hospitalist, surgeon, community doctor, it doesn’t matter—act in the best interest of their patient."

A new report shows that not all physicians agree on how forthcoming they should be with patients, but this should not be viewed by the public as evidence that most doctors lie, according to a senior clinical ethicist.

Evan DeRenzo, PhD, of the Center for Ethics at Washington Hospital Center in Washington, D.C., says the report, "Survey Shows that at Least Some Physicians are not Always Open or Honest With Patients," published last month in Health Affairs, is useful for sparking discussion of professional ethics, but adds that medicine is an art, and communication with patients is a subjective topic.

Physicians should ask themselves, "How much information is the right amount of information for this particular patient to grasp the most important parts of the panoply of information?" she says.

Dr. DeRenzo says that fraud or abuse is both illegal and unethical but, in most situations, what and how to communicate with patients or colleagues is "not black and white." The Health Affairs report surveyed 1,891 physicians nationwide and found that about one-third of doctors don’t “completely agree” that they should “disclose all significant medical errors to affected patients.” More than 35% of respondents did not completely agree they should disclose to patients financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies or medical device firms, and 11% reported that they had told patients something false.

Dr. DeRenzo believes that a stronger focus on training physicians to communicate with patients and colleagues would help instill a sense of how best to ethically handle discussions. She adds that the construct on how to best communicate is not dependent on specialties, but on common sense.

"I don't see any difference whether [the communication is] hospital to community, surgery to medicine," she says. "I don't see any difference at all because you're talking about how do we communicate with patients, what are the optimal ways to convey and exchange information, and how ought physicians—hospitalist, surgeon, community doctor, it doesn’t matter—act in the best interest of their patient."

A new report shows that not all physicians agree on how forthcoming they should be with patients, but this should not be viewed by the public as evidence that most doctors lie, according to a senior clinical ethicist.

Evan DeRenzo, PhD, of the Center for Ethics at Washington Hospital Center in Washington, D.C., says the report, "Survey Shows that at Least Some Physicians are not Always Open or Honest With Patients," published last month in Health Affairs, is useful for sparking discussion of professional ethics, but adds that medicine is an art, and communication with patients is a subjective topic.

Physicians should ask themselves, "How much information is the right amount of information for this particular patient to grasp the most important parts of the panoply of information?" she says.

Dr. DeRenzo says that fraud or abuse is both illegal and unethical but, in most situations, what and how to communicate with patients or colleagues is "not black and white." The Health Affairs report surveyed 1,891 physicians nationwide and found that about one-third of doctors don’t “completely agree” that they should “disclose all significant medical errors to affected patients.” More than 35% of respondents did not completely agree they should disclose to patients financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies or medical device firms, and 11% reported that they had told patients something false.

Dr. DeRenzo believes that a stronger focus on training physicians to communicate with patients and colleagues would help instill a sense of how best to ethically handle discussions. She adds that the construct on how to best communicate is not dependent on specialties, but on common sense.

"I don't see any difference whether [the communication is] hospital to community, surgery to medicine," she says. "I don't see any difference at all because you're talking about how do we communicate with patients, what are the optimal ways to convey and exchange information, and how ought physicians—hospitalist, surgeon, community doctor, it doesn’t matter—act in the best interest of their patient."

Hospitalist Jordan Messler, MD, SFHM, has experienced SHM’s mentored-implementation program as both mentee and mentor. So when he heard that the mentored-implementation model was named the winner of the 2011 John M. Eisenberg Innovation in Patient Safety and Quality at the National Level Award, he knew it was well-earned.

Hospitalists and SHM should be very proud that NQF and The Joint Commission chose to bestow this award onto SHM. But at the end of the day, we at SHM also recognize that this is an award. We’re going to celebrate in San Diego with everybody, but once the [annual] meeting is over, we’re going to roll up our sleeves. There’s a heck of a lot more work to get done.

—Joseph Ming-Wah Li, MD, SFHM, SHM president

“The biggest aspect of these programs has been the collegiality and the learning from others,” says Dr. Messler, medical director at Morton Plant Hospital in Clearwater, Fla. “That’s really the core of this. We’ve all felt that we’re out on an island and we’re all building these projects from the ground up. We all probably at one point in a meeting say, ‘Someone else must have solved this.’ ... These mentored-implementation programs say, ‘Yes, of course other folks have solved this.’” 

SHM is the first professional society to earn the award, bestowed by the National Quality Forum (NQF) and The Joint Commission. The model has helped propel SHM’s Glycemic Control Mentored Implementation (GCMI) Program, Project BOOST (Better Outcomes for Older Adults through Safe Transitions), and the VTE Prevention Collaborative.

Mentors have been put in place in more than 300 hospitals in the U.S. and Canada, according to an announcement.

“There are significant congratulations [due] to the profession and all the people at the society who have done all the work on this,” says SHM president Joseph Ming-Wah Li, MD, SFHM. “Part of what we’ve been saying all along is that quality is important. In terms of teaching quality—it’s a real team effort.”

NQF president and chief executive Janet Corrigan, PhD, MBA, says that one of the hallmarks of SHM’s program is its ability to be applied to different quality initiatives. Corrigan adds that while a professional society had never previously won the national award, SHM’s execution in creating, implementing, and providing follow-up resources helped differentiate the construct.

“We want to shed light on the kinds of things that are working and encourage others to emulate them, to build on them, and to reinvent them in new and even better ways,” Corrigan says. “It is a whole process of quality improvement.”

Dr. Li says the honor is a milestone for SHM, but the society must not rest on its laurels because it “hit a home run.” Instead, the society should use the momentum of the award to push for and apply for more QI programs. The more successful programs the society and its members launch and successfully implement, the more HM as a field will be considered a leader in quality improvement, he adds.

“We’re an absolute infant compared to many other medical organizations and other medical societies,” Dr. Li says. “Hospitalists and SHM should be very proud that NQF and The Joint Commission chose to bestow this award onto SHM. But at the end of the day, we at SHM also recognize that this is an award.

"We’re going to celebrate in San Diego with everybody, but once the [annual] meeting is over, we’re going to roll up our sleeves. There’s a heck of a lot more work to get done.”

 Richard Quinn is a freelance writer based in New Jersey. 

Hospitalist Jordan Messler, MD, SFHM, has experienced SHM’s mentored-implementation program as both mentee and mentor. So when he heard that the mentored-implementation model was named the winner of the 2011 John M. Eisenberg Innovation in Patient Safety and Quality at the National Level Award, he knew it was well-earned.

Hospitalists and SHM should be very proud that NQF and The Joint Commission chose to bestow this award onto SHM. But at the end of the day, we at SHM also recognize that this is an award. We’re going to celebrate in San Diego with everybody, but once the [annual] meeting is over, we’re going to roll up our sleeves. There’s a heck of a lot more work to get done.

—Joseph Ming-Wah Li, MD, SFHM, SHM president

“The biggest aspect of these programs has been the collegiality and the learning from others,” says Dr. Messler, medical director at Morton Plant Hospital in Clearwater, Fla. “That’s really the core of this. We’ve all felt that we’re out on an island and we’re all building these projects from the ground up. We all probably at one point in a meeting say, ‘Someone else must have solved this.’ ... These mentored-implementation programs say, ‘Yes, of course other folks have solved this.’” 

SHM is the first professional society to earn the award, bestowed by the National Quality Forum (NQF) and The Joint Commission. The model has helped propel SHM’s Glycemic Control Mentored Implementation (GCMI) Program, Project BOOST (Better Outcomes for Older Adults through Safe Transitions), and the VTE Prevention Collaborative.

Mentors have been put in place in more than 300 hospitals in the U.S. and Canada, according to an announcement.

“There are significant congratulations [due] to the profession and all the people at the society who have done all the work on this,” says SHM president Joseph Ming-Wah Li, MD, SFHM. “Part of what we’ve been saying all along is that quality is important. In terms of teaching quality—it’s a real team effort.”

NQF president and chief executive Janet Corrigan, PhD, MBA, says that one of the hallmarks of SHM’s program is its ability to be applied to different quality initiatives. Corrigan adds that while a professional society had never previously won the national award, SHM’s execution in creating, implementing, and providing follow-up resources helped differentiate the construct.

“We want to shed light on the kinds of things that are working and encourage others to emulate them, to build on them, and to reinvent them in new and even better ways,” Corrigan says. “It is a whole process of quality improvement.”

Dr. Li says the honor is a milestone for SHM, but the society must not rest on its laurels because it “hit a home run.” Instead, the society should use the momentum of the award to push for and apply for more QI programs. The more successful programs the society and its members launch and successfully implement, the more HM as a field will be considered a leader in quality improvement, he adds.

“We’re an absolute infant compared to many other medical organizations and other medical societies,” Dr. Li says. “Hospitalists and SHM should be very proud that NQF and The Joint Commission chose to bestow this award onto SHM. But at the end of the day, we at SHM also recognize that this is an award.

"We’re going to celebrate in San Diego with everybody, but once the [annual] meeting is over, we’re going to roll up our sleeves. There’s a heck of a lot more work to get done.”

 Richard Quinn is a freelance writer based in New Jersey. 

Hospitalist Jordan Messler, MD, SFHM, has experienced SHM’s mentored-implementation program as both mentee and mentor. So when he heard that the mentored-implementation model was named the winner of the 2011 John M. Eisenberg Innovation in Patient Safety and Quality at the National Level Award, he knew it was well-earned.

Hospitalists and SHM should be very proud that NQF and The Joint Commission chose to bestow this award onto SHM. But at the end of the day, we at SHM also recognize that this is an award. We’re going to celebrate in San Diego with everybody, but once the [annual] meeting is over, we’re going to roll up our sleeves. There’s a heck of a lot more work to get done.

—Joseph Ming-Wah Li, MD, SFHM, SHM president

“The biggest aspect of these programs has been the collegiality and the learning from others,” says Dr. Messler, medical director at Morton Plant Hospital in Clearwater, Fla. “That’s really the core of this. We’ve all felt that we’re out on an island and we’re all building these projects from the ground up. We all probably at one point in a meeting say, ‘Someone else must have solved this.’ ... These mentored-implementation programs say, ‘Yes, of course other folks have solved this.’” 

SHM is the first professional society to earn the award, bestowed by the National Quality Forum (NQF) and The Joint Commission. The model has helped propel SHM’s Glycemic Control Mentored Implementation (GCMI) Program, Project BOOST (Better Outcomes for Older Adults through Safe Transitions), and the VTE Prevention Collaborative.

Mentors have been put in place in more than 300 hospitals in the U.S. and Canada, according to an announcement.

“There are significant congratulations [due] to the profession and all the people at the society who have done all the work on this,” says SHM president Joseph Ming-Wah Li, MD, SFHM. “Part of what we’ve been saying all along is that quality is important. In terms of teaching quality—it’s a real team effort.”

NQF president and chief executive Janet Corrigan, PhD, MBA, says that one of the hallmarks of SHM’s program is its ability to be applied to different quality initiatives. Corrigan adds that while a professional society had never previously won the national award, SHM’s execution in creating, implementing, and providing follow-up resources helped differentiate the construct.

“We want to shed light on the kinds of things that are working and encourage others to emulate them, to build on them, and to reinvent them in new and even better ways,” Corrigan says. “It is a whole process of quality improvement.”

Dr. Li says the honor is a milestone for SHM, but the society must not rest on its laurels because it “hit a home run.” Instead, the society should use the momentum of the award to push for and apply for more QI programs. The more successful programs the society and its members launch and successfully implement, the more HM as a field will be considered a leader in quality improvement, he adds.

“We’re an absolute infant compared to many other medical organizations and other medical societies,” Dr. Li says. “Hospitalists and SHM should be very proud that NQF and The Joint Commission chose to bestow this award onto SHM. But at the end of the day, we at SHM also recognize that this is an award.

"We’re going to celebrate in San Diego with everybody, but once the [annual] meeting is over, we’re going to roll up our sleeves. There’s a heck of a lot more work to get done.”

 Richard Quinn is a freelance writer based in New Jersey. 

SHM has been tapped for the 2011 John M. Eisenberg Innovation in Patient Safety and Quality at the National Level award for its mentored-implementation model.

The award, given by the National Quality Forum and the Joint Commission marks the first time a professional society has been given the honor, according to an NQF spokeswoman.

The model links mentors with constituent hospitals to help push quality improvement models tied to transitional care, glycemic control, and VTE prevention. Mentors have been put in place in more than 300 hospitals in the U.S. and Canada, according to the award announcement.

“There are significant congratulations [due] to the profession and all the people at the society who have done all the work on this,” says SHM President Joseph Ming-Wah Li, MD, SFHM. “Part of what we’ve been saying all along is that quality is important. In terms of teaching quality—it’s a real team effort."

SHM has been tapped for the 2011 John M. Eisenberg Innovation in Patient Safety and Quality at the National Level award for its mentored-implementation model.

The award, given by the National Quality Forum and the Joint Commission marks the first time a professional society has been given the honor, according to an NQF spokeswoman.

The model links mentors with constituent hospitals to help push quality improvement models tied to transitional care, glycemic control, and VTE prevention. Mentors have been put in place in more than 300 hospitals in the U.S. and Canada, according to the award announcement.

“There are significant congratulations [due] to the profession and all the people at the society who have done all the work on this,” says SHM President Joseph Ming-Wah Li, MD, SFHM. “Part of what we’ve been saying all along is that quality is important. In terms of teaching quality—it’s a real team effort."

SHM has been tapped for the 2011 John M. Eisenberg Innovation in Patient Safety and Quality at the National Level award for its mentored-implementation model.

The award, given by the National Quality Forum and the Joint Commission marks the first time a professional society has been given the honor, according to an NQF spokeswoman.

The model links mentors with constituent hospitals to help push quality improvement models tied to transitional care, glycemic control, and VTE prevention. Mentors have been put in place in more than 300 hospitals in the U.S. and Canada, according to the award announcement.

“There are significant congratulations [due] to the profession and all the people at the society who have done all the work on this,” says SHM President Joseph Ming-Wah Li, MD, SFHM. “Part of what we’ve been saying all along is that quality is important. In terms of teaching quality—it’s a real team effort."

Hospitalists should view a new American College of Physicians (ACP) list of three dozen commonly overused clinical tests that offer lower value as an opportunity to review their use of screening and diagnostic tools, according to one of the list's authors.

Jeff Wiese, MD, SFHM, professor of medicine and residency program director at Tulane University Health Sciences Center in New Orleans, coauthored research published in January in the Annals of Internal Medicine that he says represents clinical situations in which tests have historically been administered but, upon further review, do not reflect "high-value care."

"Nobody is trying to waste money," says Dr. Wiese, a former president of SHM who adds that physicians over time might learn that tests that once offered higher value may no longer do so. "Only by critically reviewing our habits are we able to make the necessary adjustments to ensure we are delivering high-value, cost-conscious care."

ACP convened an ad hoc workgroup of internal-medicine specialists to review lower-value tests; the list that the team came up with includes:

• Repeat screening ultrasonography for abdominal aortic aneurysm following a negative study; 
• Screening for prostate cancer in men older than 75 or with a life expectancy of less than 10 years; and
• Performing serologic testing for suspected early Lyme disease.

Dr. Wiese emphasizes that decisions regarding "cost-conscious care" must be interpreted in the context of the specific patient in front of them.

"There is no decision rule that applies to all patients," he says. "The tests addressed in the article are examples of tests that do not routinely offer high value, but this is not to say that there are not specific circumstances when they might be useful."

Hospitalists should view a new American College of Physicians (ACP) list of three dozen commonly overused clinical tests that offer lower value as an opportunity to review their use of screening and diagnostic tools, according to one of the list's authors.

Jeff Wiese, MD, SFHM, professor of medicine and residency program director at Tulane University Health Sciences Center in New Orleans, coauthored research published in January in the Annals of Internal Medicine that he says represents clinical situations in which tests have historically been administered but, upon further review, do not reflect "high-value care."

"Nobody is trying to waste money," says Dr. Wiese, a former president of SHM who adds that physicians over time might learn that tests that once offered higher value may no longer do so. "Only by critically reviewing our habits are we able to make the necessary adjustments to ensure we are delivering high-value, cost-conscious care."

ACP convened an ad hoc workgroup of internal-medicine specialists to review lower-value tests; the list that the team came up with includes:

• Repeat screening ultrasonography for abdominal aortic aneurysm following a negative study; 
• Screening for prostate cancer in men older than 75 or with a life expectancy of less than 10 years; and
• Performing serologic testing for suspected early Lyme disease.

Dr. Wiese emphasizes that decisions regarding "cost-conscious care" must be interpreted in the context of the specific patient in front of them.

"There is no decision rule that applies to all patients," he says. "The tests addressed in the article are examples of tests that do not routinely offer high value, but this is not to say that there are not specific circumstances when they might be useful."

Hospitalists should view a new American College of Physicians (ACP) list of three dozen commonly overused clinical tests that offer lower value as an opportunity to review their use of screening and diagnostic tools, according to one of the list's authors.

Jeff Wiese, MD, SFHM, professor of medicine and residency program director at Tulane University Health Sciences Center in New Orleans, coauthored research published in January in the Annals of Internal Medicine that he says represents clinical situations in which tests have historically been administered but, upon further review, do not reflect "high-value care."

"Nobody is trying to waste money," says Dr. Wiese, a former president of SHM who adds that physicians over time might learn that tests that once offered higher value may no longer do so. "Only by critically reviewing our habits are we able to make the necessary adjustments to ensure we are delivering high-value, cost-conscious care."

ACP convened an ad hoc workgroup of internal-medicine specialists to review lower-value tests; the list that the team came up with includes:

• Repeat screening ultrasonography for abdominal aortic aneurysm following a negative study; 
• Screening for prostate cancer in men older than 75 or with a life expectancy of less than 10 years; and
• Performing serologic testing for suspected early Lyme disease.

Dr. Wiese emphasizes that decisions regarding "cost-conscious care" must be interpreted in the context of the specific patient in front of them.

"There is no decision rule that applies to all patients," he says. "The tests addressed in the article are examples of tests that do not routinely offer high value, but this is not to say that there are not specific circumstances when they might be useful."

A study released in the past week shows that Hospital Compare, Medicare's online system for patients to compare the efficacy of hospitals, had little or no impact on 30-day mortality rates for three common inpatient conditions. But a leading hospitalist says the findings should not detract from the value of transparency in medical performance.

"It's version 1.0 of public reporting," says Win Whitcomb, MD, MHM, medical director of healthcare quality at Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, Mass. "To expect that it's going to lower mortality rates in the first iteration, it's not a realistic expectation. ... It's the beginning of a very long journey. We have to take the long view."

The Health Affairs report, “Medicare's Public Reporting Initiatives on Hospital Quality Had Modest Or No Impact on Morality From Three Key Conditions," found that public reporting had no impact on the mortality rates for heart attacks and pneumonia and "minimal impact" on heart-failure cases. The authors, who analyzed Medicare claims data from 2000 to 2008, also suggested that Hospital Compare "did not result in patients being directed toward higher-quality hospitals."

Dr. Whitcomb says he's not surprised by the results, given other literature that has shown limited impacts from public reporting. But he sees an opportunity to build better reporting systems, via in-person, electronic, or mobile portals that are more focused on user interface. For example, he says, it takes about 22 minutes to review a single patient's file for reported measurements in a heart-failure case. Automating that process would give hospitalists and other physicians additional time to deal directly with patients.

"What the quality initiative movement has to figure out is how to spend more time on making care better and less time on measurement and reporting," Dr. Whitcomb says. "Often, the important work of changing care to make it more evidence-based ... doesn’t get the focus."

A study released in the past week shows that Hospital Compare, Medicare's online system for patients to compare the efficacy of hospitals, had little or no impact on 30-day mortality rates for three common inpatient conditions. But a leading hospitalist says the findings should not detract from the value of transparency in medical performance.

"It's version 1.0 of public reporting," says Win Whitcomb, MD, MHM, medical director of healthcare quality at Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, Mass. "To expect that it's going to lower mortality rates in the first iteration, it's not a realistic expectation. ... It's the beginning of a very long journey. We have to take the long view."

The Health Affairs report, “Medicare's Public Reporting Initiatives on Hospital Quality Had Modest Or No Impact on Morality From Three Key Conditions," found that public reporting had no impact on the mortality rates for heart attacks and pneumonia and "minimal impact" on heart-failure cases. The authors, who analyzed Medicare claims data from 2000 to 2008, also suggested that Hospital Compare "did not result in patients being directed toward higher-quality hospitals."

Dr. Whitcomb says he's not surprised by the results, given other literature that has shown limited impacts from public reporting. But he sees an opportunity to build better reporting systems, via in-person, electronic, or mobile portals that are more focused on user interface. For example, he says, it takes about 22 minutes to review a single patient's file for reported measurements in a heart-failure case. Automating that process would give hospitalists and other physicians additional time to deal directly with patients.

"What the quality initiative movement has to figure out is how to spend more time on making care better and less time on measurement and reporting," Dr. Whitcomb says. "Often, the important work of changing care to make it more evidence-based ... doesn’t get the focus."

A study released in the past week shows that Hospital Compare, Medicare's online system for patients to compare the efficacy of hospitals, had little or no impact on 30-day mortality rates for three common inpatient conditions. But a leading hospitalist says the findings should not detract from the value of transparency in medical performance.

"It's version 1.0 of public reporting," says Win Whitcomb, MD, MHM, medical director of healthcare quality at Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, Mass. "To expect that it's going to lower mortality rates in the first iteration, it's not a realistic expectation. ... It's the beginning of a very long journey. We have to take the long view."

The Health Affairs report, “Medicare's Public Reporting Initiatives on Hospital Quality Had Modest Or No Impact on Morality From Three Key Conditions," found that public reporting had no impact on the mortality rates for heart attacks and pneumonia and "minimal impact" on heart-failure cases. The authors, who analyzed Medicare claims data from 2000 to 2008, also suggested that Hospital Compare "did not result in patients being directed toward higher-quality hospitals."

Dr. Whitcomb says he's not surprised by the results, given other literature that has shown limited impacts from public reporting. But he sees an opportunity to build better reporting systems, via in-person, electronic, or mobile portals that are more focused on user interface. For example, he says, it takes about 22 minutes to review a single patient's file for reported measurements in a heart-failure case. Automating that process would give hospitalists and other physicians additional time to deal directly with patients.

"What the quality initiative movement has to figure out is how to spend more time on making care better and less time on measurement and reporting," Dr. Whitcomb says. "Often, the important work of changing care to make it more evidence-based ... doesn’t get the focus."

Click here to listen to Dr. Wachter

Click here to listen to Dr. Pistoria

Click here to listen to Norm Orenstein

Click here to listen to Dr. Wachter

Click here to listen to Dr. Pistoria

Click here to listen to Norm Orenstein

Click here to listen to Dr. Wachter

Click here to listen to Dr. Pistoria

Click here to listen to Norm Orenstein

Less than 15% of healthcare professionals believe hospitals have closed the cultural and racial diversity gap in their leadership positions over the past five years, according to the results of a new survey (PDF).

Hospitalist leaders need to recognize the value of "cultural competence," particularly in an age when patients often tie their satisfaction to such questions as, "Does my doctor look like me?" and "Can I relate to my doctor?" according to James Gauss, senior vice president at executive search firm Witt/Kieffer, which penned the report.

Racial and ethnic disparity also will be important to address under provisions in the Affordable Care Act, which tie an economic impact to an organization's ability to deal with diverse populations of patients, says Gauss.

"We are now finally getting to a point where people might get paid correctly for dealing with these diversity issues because quality outcomes are going to be rewarded," he says.

Gauss says techniques that can help hospitals better balance the ethnic and racial makeup of their leadership include:

• implementing formal mentoring programs;

• understanding the patient and physician diversity of the geographic areas they serve; and

• establishing diversity recruiting goals.

For some groups, those goals might be as simple as recognizing that an organization is not doing enough. For others, the goals can be formal quotas.

"Some organizations set targets and they're very adamant about it," Gauss says. "But for some places, that may be two or three years down the road. … It depends on your starting point."

Less than 15% of healthcare professionals believe hospitals have closed the cultural and racial diversity gap in their leadership positions over the past five years, according to the results of a new survey (PDF).

Hospitalist leaders need to recognize the value of "cultural competence," particularly in an age when patients often tie their satisfaction to such questions as, "Does my doctor look like me?" and "Can I relate to my doctor?" according to James Gauss, senior vice president at executive search firm Witt/Kieffer, which penned the report.

Racial and ethnic disparity also will be important to address under provisions in the Affordable Care Act, which tie an economic impact to an organization's ability to deal with diverse populations of patients, says Gauss.

"We are now finally getting to a point where people might get paid correctly for dealing with these diversity issues because quality outcomes are going to be rewarded," he says.

Gauss says techniques that can help hospitals better balance the ethnic and racial makeup of their leadership include:

• implementing formal mentoring programs;

• understanding the patient and physician diversity of the geographic areas they serve; and

• establishing diversity recruiting goals.

For some groups, those goals might be as simple as recognizing that an organization is not doing enough. For others, the goals can be formal quotas.

"Some organizations set targets and they're very adamant about it," Gauss says. "But for some places, that may be two or three years down the road. … It depends on your starting point."

Less than 15% of healthcare professionals believe hospitals have closed the cultural and racial diversity gap in their leadership positions over the past five years, according to the results of a new survey (PDF).

Hospitalist leaders need to recognize the value of "cultural competence," particularly in an age when patients often tie their satisfaction to such questions as, "Does my doctor look like me?" and "Can I relate to my doctor?" according to James Gauss, senior vice president at executive search firm Witt/Kieffer, which penned the report.

Racial and ethnic disparity also will be important to address under provisions in the Affordable Care Act, which tie an economic impact to an organization's ability to deal with diverse populations of patients, says Gauss.

"We are now finally getting to a point where people might get paid correctly for dealing with these diversity issues because quality outcomes are going to be rewarded," he says.

Gauss says techniques that can help hospitals better balance the ethnic and racial makeup of their leadership include:

• implementing formal mentoring programs;

• understanding the patient and physician diversity of the geographic areas they serve; and

• establishing diversity recruiting goals.

For some groups, those goals might be as simple as recognizing that an organization is not doing enough. For others, the goals can be formal quotas.

"Some organizations set targets and they're very adamant about it," Gauss says. "But for some places, that may be two or three years down the road. … It depends on your starting point."