Suzanne Bopp

Delirium may be preventable among the elderly population, according to an abstract presented at the 2016 SHM annual meeting.1

The development of delirium involves an interrelationship between predisposing factors and precipitating factors in vulnerable patients. In 2015, a pilot project was conducted at Guthrie Robert Packer Hospital in Sayre, Penn., that included post-orthopedic surgery patients 60 years of age and older and patients with dementia at baseline cognitive function on admission.

The focus was on managing five risk factors: cognitive impairment, sleep deprivation, immobility, visual/hearing impairment, and medications. The nurses and residents caring for the patients were educated about methods that were proven to decrease the incidence of delirium. These include:

• Using clocks and blinds to help restore circadian balance
• Encouraging cognitive stimulation and regular visits from family and friends
• Facilitating physiologic sleep with avoidance of interruption during sleeping hours
• Initiating early mobilization and minimizing use of physical restraints

The result? In the pre-intervention group, 48% of the patients were found to have delirium with different precipitating factors. In the post-intervention group, the incidence decreased to 26.9%.

“This project was undertaken to increase the awareness of a non-costly, easy, and available intervention to prevent delirium,” says lead author Marcelle Meseeha, MD, a hospitalist at Guthrie Robert Packer Hospital. “Post-intervention study showed that the incidence of delirium has significantly decreased applying simple interventions. These familiar practices should be a mandatory process or a reminder in electronic health records. Also, education of providers and nursing staff must be an ongoing process. This will help reduce the incidence of delirium with its deleterious sequelae.” TH

Reference

1. Meseeha M, Attia M. Ways to reduce incidence of hospital ward-acquired delirium; a quality improvement project [abstract]. J Hosp Med. 2016;11(suppl 1). Accessed July 18, 2016.

Delirium may be preventable among the elderly population, according to an abstract presented at the 2016 SHM annual meeting.1

The development of delirium involves an interrelationship between predisposing factors and precipitating factors in vulnerable patients. In 2015, a pilot project was conducted at Guthrie Robert Packer Hospital in Sayre, Penn., that included post-orthopedic surgery patients 60 years of age and older and patients with dementia at baseline cognitive function on admission.

The focus was on managing five risk factors: cognitive impairment, sleep deprivation, immobility, visual/hearing impairment, and medications. The nurses and residents caring for the patients were educated about methods that were proven to decrease the incidence of delirium. These include:

• Using clocks and blinds to help restore circadian balance
• Encouraging cognitive stimulation and regular visits from family and friends
• Facilitating physiologic sleep with avoidance of interruption during sleeping hours
• Initiating early mobilization and minimizing use of physical restraints

The result? In the pre-intervention group, 48% of the patients were found to have delirium with different precipitating factors. In the post-intervention group, the incidence decreased to 26.9%.

“This project was undertaken to increase the awareness of a non-costly, easy, and available intervention to prevent delirium,” says lead author Marcelle Meseeha, MD, a hospitalist at Guthrie Robert Packer Hospital. “Post-intervention study showed that the incidence of delirium has significantly decreased applying simple interventions. These familiar practices should be a mandatory process or a reminder in electronic health records. Also, education of providers and nursing staff must be an ongoing process. This will help reduce the incidence of delirium with its deleterious sequelae.” TH

Reference

1. Meseeha M, Attia M. Ways to reduce incidence of hospital ward-acquired delirium; a quality improvement project [abstract]. J Hosp Med. 2016;11(suppl 1). Accessed July 18, 2016.

Delirium may be preventable among the elderly population, according to an abstract presented at the 2016 SHM annual meeting.1

The development of delirium involves an interrelationship between predisposing factors and precipitating factors in vulnerable patients. In 2015, a pilot project was conducted at Guthrie Robert Packer Hospital in Sayre, Penn., that included post-orthopedic surgery patients 60 years of age and older and patients with dementia at baseline cognitive function on admission.

The focus was on managing five risk factors: cognitive impairment, sleep deprivation, immobility, visual/hearing impairment, and medications. The nurses and residents caring for the patients were educated about methods that were proven to decrease the incidence of delirium. These include:

• Using clocks and blinds to help restore circadian balance
• Encouraging cognitive stimulation and regular visits from family and friends
• Facilitating physiologic sleep with avoidance of interruption during sleeping hours
• Initiating early mobilization and minimizing use of physical restraints

The result? In the pre-intervention group, 48% of the patients were found to have delirium with different precipitating factors. In the post-intervention group, the incidence decreased to 26.9%.

“This project was undertaken to increase the awareness of a non-costly, easy, and available intervention to prevent delirium,” says lead author Marcelle Meseeha, MD, a hospitalist at Guthrie Robert Packer Hospital. “Post-intervention study showed that the incidence of delirium has significantly decreased applying simple interventions. These familiar practices should be a mandatory process or a reminder in electronic health records. Also, education of providers and nursing staff must be an ongoing process. This will help reduce the incidence of delirium with its deleterious sequelae.” TH

Reference

1. Meseeha M, Attia M. Ways to reduce incidence of hospital ward-acquired delirium; a quality improvement project [abstract]. J Hosp Med. 2016;11(suppl 1). Accessed July 18, 2016.

Compared to other healthcare-associated infections, catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs) cause relatively low rates of mortality and morbidity, but their prevalence nevertheless leads to a considerable cumulative burden.

Hospitalists can impact CAUTI rates by using a simple bundle of interventions. This idea was recently demonstrated by a quality improvement project addressing high CAUTI rates in the hospital setting. The project was summarized in a paper published in The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety.

The project identified a bundle of primary interventions to reduce CAUTI, which consisted of six elements: the “6 Cs” of CAUTI reduction. These include “consider alternatives,” “culture urine only when indication is clear,” and “connect with a securement device.” The interventions were implemented on one ICU with excellent results and subsequently diffused throughout the healthcare facility using multimedia tools. CAUTI rates decreased by 70%.

“The first steps in CAUTI prevention are to ensure that catheters are placed only when necessary, aseptic technique used for placement, and that they are removed when no longer essential,” says lead author Priya Sampathkumar, MD, Mayo Clinic associate professor of medicine. “Once this has been achieved, if CAUTI rates are still high, a secondary bundle of CAUTI prevention can help to reduce CAUTI further.”

About one in four hospitalized patients have a urinary catheter in place.2 “Hospitalists, therefore, can have a significant impact on CAUTI by being mindful about catheter use and catheter management.” Dr. Sampathkumar says.

References

1. Sampathkumar P, Barth JW, Johnson M, et al. Mayo Clinic reduces catheter-associated urinary tract infections. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2016;42(6):254-265.
2. Catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTI). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. Accessed August 8, 2016.

Compared to other healthcare-associated infections, catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs) cause relatively low rates of mortality and morbidity, but their prevalence nevertheless leads to a considerable cumulative burden.

Hospitalists can impact CAUTI rates by using a simple bundle of interventions. This idea was recently demonstrated by a quality improvement project addressing high CAUTI rates in the hospital setting. The project was summarized in a paper published in The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety.

The project identified a bundle of primary interventions to reduce CAUTI, which consisted of six elements: the “6 Cs” of CAUTI reduction. These include “consider alternatives,” “culture urine only when indication is clear,” and “connect with a securement device.” The interventions were implemented on one ICU with excellent results and subsequently diffused throughout the healthcare facility using multimedia tools. CAUTI rates decreased by 70%.

“The first steps in CAUTI prevention are to ensure that catheters are placed only when necessary, aseptic technique used for placement, and that they are removed when no longer essential,” says lead author Priya Sampathkumar, MD, Mayo Clinic associate professor of medicine. “Once this has been achieved, if CAUTI rates are still high, a secondary bundle of CAUTI prevention can help to reduce CAUTI further.”

About one in four hospitalized patients have a urinary catheter in place.2 “Hospitalists, therefore, can have a significant impact on CAUTI by being mindful about catheter use and catheter management.” Dr. Sampathkumar says.

References

1. Sampathkumar P, Barth JW, Johnson M, et al. Mayo Clinic reduces catheter-associated urinary tract infections. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2016;42(6):254-265.
2. Catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTI). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. Accessed August 8, 2016.

Compared to other healthcare-associated infections, catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs) cause relatively low rates of mortality and morbidity, but their prevalence nevertheless leads to a considerable cumulative burden.

Hospitalists can impact CAUTI rates by using a simple bundle of interventions. This idea was recently demonstrated by a quality improvement project addressing high CAUTI rates in the hospital setting. The project was summarized in a paper published in The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety.

The project identified a bundle of primary interventions to reduce CAUTI, which consisted of six elements: the “6 Cs” of CAUTI reduction. These include “consider alternatives,” “culture urine only when indication is clear,” and “connect with a securement device.” The interventions were implemented on one ICU with excellent results and subsequently diffused throughout the healthcare facility using multimedia tools. CAUTI rates decreased by 70%.

“The first steps in CAUTI prevention are to ensure that catheters are placed only when necessary, aseptic technique used for placement, and that they are removed when no longer essential,” says lead author Priya Sampathkumar, MD, Mayo Clinic associate professor of medicine. “Once this has been achieved, if CAUTI rates are still high, a secondary bundle of CAUTI prevention can help to reduce CAUTI further.”

About one in four hospitalized patients have a urinary catheter in place.2 “Hospitalists, therefore, can have a significant impact on CAUTI by being mindful about catheter use and catheter management.” Dr. Sampathkumar says.

References

1. Sampathkumar P, Barth JW, Johnson M, et al. Mayo Clinic reduces catheter-associated urinary tract infections. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2016;42(6):254-265.
2. Catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTI). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. Accessed August 8, 2016.

Hospitalists face ever-increasing pressure to reduce drug expenditures without compromising the quality of care provided to patients, and as a consequence, are creating new ways to approach the issue. A recent study published in the American Journal of Medical Quality assessed the effectiveness of computerized provider order entry alerts as one method. The alerts displayed the cost of a high-cost medication alongside a lower-cost alternative.

“We regularly scrutinize our drug budgets and look for medications that display changing costs/utilization,” says Gregory K. Gipson, PharmD, cardiothoracic surgery and cardiology pharmacist at the University of Washington and lead author of “Optimizing Prescribing Practices of High-Cost Medications with Computerized Alerts in the Inpatient Setting.”

“We were able to identify a few medications that were both high in cost and utilization but had lower-cost alternatives that could be substituted in certain situations,” Dr. Gipson says. “These higher-cost medications also had formulary restrictions for use; however, it was felt that very few people knew about these restrictions or had any idea how much any of these medications cost. In an attempt to reduce unnecessary use of these high-cost medications, we created alerts that informed providers of the cost of both high- and low-cost medications and restrictions for use, and we gave them the ability to convert the order to the lower-cost alternative.”

The study looked specifically at three high-cost medications and their utilization during the year prior to the intervention and compared it to usage in the year after implementation, and it found reduced utilization of high-cost medications.

“Ipratropium hydrofluoroalkane and fluticasone hydrofluoroalkane metered dose inhaler utilization were reduced by 29% and 62%, respectively (P

Overall, they saw this as a success. “This type of interruptive electronic order entry alert containing cost information and therapeutic alternatives is an effective educational tool that reduces medication costs,” Dr. Gipson says. “… This suggests that new computerized alerts can be implemented in thoughtful ways to minimize the interference with hospital workflow and alert fatigue yet still achieve their desired outcome.”

Reference

1. Gipson G, Kelly JL, McKinney CM, White AA. Optimizing prescribing practices of high-cost medications with computerized alerts in the inpatient setting. Am J Med Qual. doi:10.1177/1062860616649660.

Quick Byte

Telehealth Expansion

In 2014, reimbursements for telehealth accounted for less than $14 million out of the more than $600 billion spent through the Medicare program, according to “Integrating Health Care and Housing to Promote Healthy Aging,” a recent Health Affairs blog. But, the authors suggest, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and state Medicaid programs should encourage greater reimbursement of telehealth and other technologies that have the potential to improve health outcomes and reduce costs, especially for seniors who could remain at home. “The shift away from fee-for-service payment toward value-based delivery and payment models represents a key opportunity for broader integration of telehealth,” according to the post.

Reference

1. Schwartz A, Parekh A. Integrating health care and housing to promote healthy aging. Health Aff. Available at: http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2016/05/23/integrating-health-care-and-housing-to-promote-healthy-aging/. Accessed May 31, 2016.

Hospitalists face ever-increasing pressure to reduce drug expenditures without compromising the quality of care provided to patients, and as a consequence, are creating new ways to approach the issue. A recent study published in the American Journal of Medical Quality assessed the effectiveness of computerized provider order entry alerts as one method. The alerts displayed the cost of a high-cost medication alongside a lower-cost alternative.

“We regularly scrutinize our drug budgets and look for medications that display changing costs/utilization,” says Gregory K. Gipson, PharmD, cardiothoracic surgery and cardiology pharmacist at the University of Washington and lead author of “Optimizing Prescribing Practices of High-Cost Medications with Computerized Alerts in the Inpatient Setting.”

“We were able to identify a few medications that were both high in cost and utilization but had lower-cost alternatives that could be substituted in certain situations,” Dr. Gipson says. “These higher-cost medications also had formulary restrictions for use; however, it was felt that very few people knew about these restrictions or had any idea how much any of these medications cost. In an attempt to reduce unnecessary use of these high-cost medications, we created alerts that informed providers of the cost of both high- and low-cost medications and restrictions for use, and we gave them the ability to convert the order to the lower-cost alternative.”

The study looked specifically at three high-cost medications and their utilization during the year prior to the intervention and compared it to usage in the year after implementation, and it found reduced utilization of high-cost medications.

“Ipratropium hydrofluoroalkane and fluticasone hydrofluoroalkane metered dose inhaler utilization were reduced by 29% and 62%, respectively (P

Overall, they saw this as a success. “This type of interruptive electronic order entry alert containing cost information and therapeutic alternatives is an effective educational tool that reduces medication costs,” Dr. Gipson says. “… This suggests that new computerized alerts can be implemented in thoughtful ways to minimize the interference with hospital workflow and alert fatigue yet still achieve their desired outcome.”

Reference

1. Gipson G, Kelly JL, McKinney CM, White AA. Optimizing prescribing practices of high-cost medications with computerized alerts in the inpatient setting. Am J Med Qual. doi:10.1177/1062860616649660.

Quick Byte

Telehealth Expansion

In 2014, reimbursements for telehealth accounted for less than $14 million out of the more than $600 billion spent through the Medicare program, according to “Integrating Health Care and Housing to Promote Healthy Aging,” a recent Health Affairs blog. But, the authors suggest, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and state Medicaid programs should encourage greater reimbursement of telehealth and other technologies that have the potential to improve health outcomes and reduce costs, especially for seniors who could remain at home. “The shift away from fee-for-service payment toward value-based delivery and payment models represents a key opportunity for broader integration of telehealth,” according to the post.

Reference

1. Schwartz A, Parekh A. Integrating health care and housing to promote healthy aging. Health Aff. Available at: http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2016/05/23/integrating-health-care-and-housing-to-promote-healthy-aging/. Accessed May 31, 2016.

Hospitalists face ever-increasing pressure to reduce drug expenditures without compromising the quality of care provided to patients, and as a consequence, are creating new ways to approach the issue. A recent study published in the American Journal of Medical Quality assessed the effectiveness of computerized provider order entry alerts as one method. The alerts displayed the cost of a high-cost medication alongside a lower-cost alternative.

“We regularly scrutinize our drug budgets and look for medications that display changing costs/utilization,” says Gregory K. Gipson, PharmD, cardiothoracic surgery and cardiology pharmacist at the University of Washington and lead author of “Optimizing Prescribing Practices of High-Cost Medications with Computerized Alerts in the Inpatient Setting.”

“We were able to identify a few medications that were both high in cost and utilization but had lower-cost alternatives that could be substituted in certain situations,” Dr. Gipson says. “These higher-cost medications also had formulary restrictions for use; however, it was felt that very few people knew about these restrictions or had any idea how much any of these medications cost. In an attempt to reduce unnecessary use of these high-cost medications, we created alerts that informed providers of the cost of both high- and low-cost medications and restrictions for use, and we gave them the ability to convert the order to the lower-cost alternative.”

The study looked specifically at three high-cost medications and their utilization during the year prior to the intervention and compared it to usage in the year after implementation, and it found reduced utilization of high-cost medications.

“Ipratropium hydrofluoroalkane and fluticasone hydrofluoroalkane metered dose inhaler utilization were reduced by 29% and 62%, respectively (P

Overall, they saw this as a success. “This type of interruptive electronic order entry alert containing cost information and therapeutic alternatives is an effective educational tool that reduces medication costs,” Dr. Gipson says. “… This suggests that new computerized alerts can be implemented in thoughtful ways to minimize the interference with hospital workflow and alert fatigue yet still achieve their desired outcome.”

Reference

1. Gipson G, Kelly JL, McKinney CM, White AA. Optimizing prescribing practices of high-cost medications with computerized alerts in the inpatient setting. Am J Med Qual. doi:10.1177/1062860616649660.

Quick Byte

Telehealth Expansion

In 2014, reimbursements for telehealth accounted for less than $14 million out of the more than $600 billion spent through the Medicare program, according to “Integrating Health Care and Housing to Promote Healthy Aging,” a recent Health Affairs blog. But, the authors suggest, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and state Medicaid programs should encourage greater reimbursement of telehealth and other technologies that have the potential to improve health outcomes and reduce costs, especially for seniors who could remain at home. “The shift away from fee-for-service payment toward value-based delivery and payment models represents a key opportunity for broader integration of telehealth,” according to the post.

Reference

1. Schwartz A, Parekh A. Integrating health care and housing to promote healthy aging. Health Aff. Available at: http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2016/05/23/integrating-health-care-and-housing-to-promote-healthy-aging/. Accessed May 31, 2016.

“I recently discharged a complex patient from the hospital, and I was shocked to see the poor quality of his clinical summary,” says Erin Sarzynski, MD, MS, of Michigan State University’s Department of Family Medicine. This observation drove the research underlying the paper she co-wrote titled “Opportunities to Improve Clinical Summaries for Patients at Hospital Discharge,” published in BMJ Quality & Safety.

The problem, the paper lays out, is that, “presently, it is unclear whether clinical summaries include relevant content or whether healthcare organizations configure their EHRs to generate content in a way that promotes patient self-management after hospital discharge.”

As a first step toward improving these documents, Dr. Sarzynski worked with a team to evaluate 100 clinical summaries generated at two Michigan hospitals based on content, organization, and understandability. They became aware of systemic problems.

“Clinical summaries are produced from templates, but physicians’ workflows do not prompt them to preview the document before the nurse prints it to review with the patient,” Dr. Sarzynski says. “Clinical summaries are lengthy yet omit key discharge information. They are poorly organized, written at the 8th- to 12th-grade reading level, and score poorly on assessments of understandability and actionability.

“Medication lists illustrate a key safety issue resulting from poor-quality clinical summaries; for example, we routinely send patients home without parameters for sliding-scale insulin.”

The study highlights opportunities to improve clinical summaries for guiding patients’ post-discharge care.

“We developed an audit tool based on the Meaningful Use view-download-transmit objective and the SHM Discharge Checklist (content); the Institute of Medicine recommendations for distributing easy-to-understand print material (organization); and five readability formulas and the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool,” the authors write.

“If possible, hospitalists should preview their patients’ clinical summaries before printing—it’s an opportunity to ensure key discharge information is correct and appropriately emphasized,” Dr. Sarzynski says.

Reference

1. Sarzynski E, Hashmi H, Subramanian J, et al. Opportunities to improve clinical summaries for patients at hospital discharge. BMJ Qual Saf. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2015-005201.

“I recently discharged a complex patient from the hospital, and I was shocked to see the poor quality of his clinical summary,” says Erin Sarzynski, MD, MS, of Michigan State University’s Department of Family Medicine. This observation drove the research underlying the paper she co-wrote titled “Opportunities to Improve Clinical Summaries for Patients at Hospital Discharge,” published in BMJ Quality & Safety.

The problem, the paper lays out, is that, “presently, it is unclear whether clinical summaries include relevant content or whether healthcare organizations configure their EHRs to generate content in a way that promotes patient self-management after hospital discharge.”

As a first step toward improving these documents, Dr. Sarzynski worked with a team to evaluate 100 clinical summaries generated at two Michigan hospitals based on content, organization, and understandability. They became aware of systemic problems.

“Clinical summaries are produced from templates, but physicians’ workflows do not prompt them to preview the document before the nurse prints it to review with the patient,” Dr. Sarzynski says. “Clinical summaries are lengthy yet omit key discharge information. They are poorly organized, written at the 8th- to 12th-grade reading level, and score poorly on assessments of understandability and actionability.

“Medication lists illustrate a key safety issue resulting from poor-quality clinical summaries; for example, we routinely send patients home without parameters for sliding-scale insulin.”

The study highlights opportunities to improve clinical summaries for guiding patients’ post-discharge care.

“We developed an audit tool based on the Meaningful Use view-download-transmit objective and the SHM Discharge Checklist (content); the Institute of Medicine recommendations for distributing easy-to-understand print material (organization); and five readability formulas and the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool,” the authors write.

“If possible, hospitalists should preview their patients’ clinical summaries before printing—it’s an opportunity to ensure key discharge information is correct and appropriately emphasized,” Dr. Sarzynski says.

Reference

1. Sarzynski E, Hashmi H, Subramanian J, et al. Opportunities to improve clinical summaries for patients at hospital discharge. BMJ Qual Saf. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2015-005201.

“I recently discharged a complex patient from the hospital, and I was shocked to see the poor quality of his clinical summary,” says Erin Sarzynski, MD, MS, of Michigan State University’s Department of Family Medicine. This observation drove the research underlying the paper she co-wrote titled “Opportunities to Improve Clinical Summaries for Patients at Hospital Discharge,” published in BMJ Quality & Safety.

The problem, the paper lays out, is that, “presently, it is unclear whether clinical summaries include relevant content or whether healthcare organizations configure their EHRs to generate content in a way that promotes patient self-management after hospital discharge.”

As a first step toward improving these documents, Dr. Sarzynski worked with a team to evaluate 100 clinical summaries generated at two Michigan hospitals based on content, organization, and understandability. They became aware of systemic problems.

“Clinical summaries are produced from templates, but physicians’ workflows do not prompt them to preview the document before the nurse prints it to review with the patient,” Dr. Sarzynski says. “Clinical summaries are lengthy yet omit key discharge information. They are poorly organized, written at the 8th- to 12th-grade reading level, and score poorly on assessments of understandability and actionability.

“Medication lists illustrate a key safety issue resulting from poor-quality clinical summaries; for example, we routinely send patients home without parameters for sliding-scale insulin.”

The study highlights opportunities to improve clinical summaries for guiding patients’ post-discharge care.

“We developed an audit tool based on the Meaningful Use view-download-transmit objective and the SHM Discharge Checklist (content); the Institute of Medicine recommendations for distributing easy-to-understand print material (organization); and five readability formulas and the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool,” the authors write.

“If possible, hospitalists should preview their patients’ clinical summaries before printing—it’s an opportunity to ensure key discharge information is correct and appropriately emphasized,” Dr. Sarzynski says.

Reference

1. Sarzynski E, Hashmi H, Subramanian J, et al. Opportunities to improve clinical summaries for patients at hospital discharge. BMJ Qual Saf. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2015-005201.

Improving healthcare means taking an efficacious intervention from one setting and effectively implementing it somewhere else.

“It is this key element of adapting what works to new settings that sets improvement in contrast to clinical research. The study of these complex systems will therefore require different methods of inquiry,” according to a recently published paper in the International Journal for Quality in Health Care titled “How Do We Learn about Improving Health Care: A Call for a New Epistemological Paradigm.”

“In biomedical sciences, we’re used to a golden standard that is the randomized controlled trial,” says lead author M. Rashad Massoud, MD, MPH, senior vice president, Quality & Performance Institute, University Research Co., LLC. “Of course, the nature of what we’re trying to do does not lend itself to that type of evaluation. It means that we can’t have an either/or situation where we either continue as we are or we go to flip side—which then inhibits the very nature of improvement from taking place, which is very contextual, very much adaptive in nature. There has to be a happy medium in between, where we can continue to do the improvements without inhibiting them and, at the same time, improve the rigor of the work.”

A new framework for how we learn about improvement could help in the design, implementation, and evaluation of QI by strengthening attribution and better understanding variations in effectiveness in different contexts, the authors assert.

“This will in turn allow us to understand which activities, under which conditions, are most effective at achieving sustained results in health outcomes,” the authors write.

In seeking a new framework for learning about QI, the authors suggest that the following questions must be considered:

• Did the improvements work?
• Why did they work?
• How do we know that the results can be attributed to the changes made?
• How can we replicate them?

“I think hospitalists would probably welcome the idea that not only can they measure improvements in the work that they’re doing but can actually do that in a more rigorous way and actually attribute the results they’re getting to the work that they’re doing,” Dr. Massoud says.

Reference

1. Massoud MR, Barry D, Murphy A, Albrecht Y, Sax S, Parchman M. How do we learn about improving health care: a call for a new epistemological paradigm. Intl J Quality Health Care. doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzw039.

Improving healthcare means taking an efficacious intervention from one setting and effectively implementing it somewhere else.

“It is this key element of adapting what works to new settings that sets improvement in contrast to clinical research. The study of these complex systems will therefore require different methods of inquiry,” according to a recently published paper in the International Journal for Quality in Health Care titled “How Do We Learn about Improving Health Care: A Call for a New Epistemological Paradigm.”

“In biomedical sciences, we’re used to a golden standard that is the randomized controlled trial,” says lead author M. Rashad Massoud, MD, MPH, senior vice president, Quality & Performance Institute, University Research Co., LLC. “Of course, the nature of what we’re trying to do does not lend itself to that type of evaluation. It means that we can’t have an either/or situation where we either continue as we are or we go to flip side—which then inhibits the very nature of improvement from taking place, which is very contextual, very much adaptive in nature. There has to be a happy medium in between, where we can continue to do the improvements without inhibiting them and, at the same time, improve the rigor of the work.”

A new framework for how we learn about improvement could help in the design, implementation, and evaluation of QI by strengthening attribution and better understanding variations in effectiveness in different contexts, the authors assert.

“This will in turn allow us to understand which activities, under which conditions, are most effective at achieving sustained results in health outcomes,” the authors write.

In seeking a new framework for learning about QI, the authors suggest that the following questions must be considered:

• Did the improvements work?
• Why did they work?
• How do we know that the results can be attributed to the changes made?
• How can we replicate them?

“I think hospitalists would probably welcome the idea that not only can they measure improvements in the work that they’re doing but can actually do that in a more rigorous way and actually attribute the results they’re getting to the work that they’re doing,” Dr. Massoud says.

Reference

1. Massoud MR, Barry D, Murphy A, Albrecht Y, Sax S, Parchman M. How do we learn about improving health care: a call for a new epistemological paradigm. Intl J Quality Health Care. doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzw039.

Improving healthcare means taking an efficacious intervention from one setting and effectively implementing it somewhere else.

“It is this key element of adapting what works to new settings that sets improvement in contrast to clinical research. The study of these complex systems will therefore require different methods of inquiry,” according to a recently published paper in the International Journal for Quality in Health Care titled “How Do We Learn about Improving Health Care: A Call for a New Epistemological Paradigm.”

“In biomedical sciences, we’re used to a golden standard that is the randomized controlled trial,” says lead author M. Rashad Massoud, MD, MPH, senior vice president, Quality & Performance Institute, University Research Co., LLC. “Of course, the nature of what we’re trying to do does not lend itself to that type of evaluation. It means that we can’t have an either/or situation where we either continue as we are or we go to flip side—which then inhibits the very nature of improvement from taking place, which is very contextual, very much adaptive in nature. There has to be a happy medium in between, where we can continue to do the improvements without inhibiting them and, at the same time, improve the rigor of the work.”

A new framework for how we learn about improvement could help in the design, implementation, and evaluation of QI by strengthening attribution and better understanding variations in effectiveness in different contexts, the authors assert.

“This will in turn allow us to understand which activities, under which conditions, are most effective at achieving sustained results in health outcomes,” the authors write.

In seeking a new framework for learning about QI, the authors suggest that the following questions must be considered:

• Did the improvements work?
• Why did they work?
• How do we know that the results can be attributed to the changes made?
• How can we replicate them?

“I think hospitalists would probably welcome the idea that not only can they measure improvements in the work that they’re doing but can actually do that in a more rigorous way and actually attribute the results they’re getting to the work that they’re doing,” Dr. Massoud says.

Reference

1. Massoud MR, Barry D, Murphy A, Albrecht Y, Sax S, Parchman M. How do we learn about improving health care: a call for a new epistemological paradigm. Intl J Quality Health Care. doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzw039.

Hospitalists are more than doctors—they are also leaders in their organizations, which is why a new book by retired Army Lieutenant General Mark Hertling is relevant to what they do every day. Hertling, whose numerous military awards include the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star, and the Purple Heart, is the author of Growing Physician Leaders: Empowering Doctors to Improve Our Healthcare, which applies his four decades of military leadership to the world of healthcare.

He wrote the book not long after designing the first physician leader course at Florida Hospital in Orlando.

“Many of the administrators and other doctors saw the changes in the doctors, nurses, and administrators who graduated from the course, and they asked me to write down what we had done,” he says. “The book is partially a description of the course, but it’s also a primer on the basics of leadership.”

The book tells readers how to understand what kind of leader they can be as well as how to better understand the motivations of others; it also outlines a variety of influence techniques they can employ to get things done.

“One of the things we drive home is that all physicians are leaders, whether they are in a leadership role or not,” Hertling says.

One of the concepts he outlines is “leading up”—how to influence your bosses to do the things you want them to do. “What we do during this lesson is show readers how they are other people’s bosses, too,” he says, “and that they need to listen to their own people, too, and allow their folks to contribute to the organizational goals.”

Hospitalists are more than doctors—they are also leaders in their organizations, which is why a new book by retired Army Lieutenant General Mark Hertling is relevant to what they do every day. Hertling, whose numerous military awards include the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star, and the Purple Heart, is the author of Growing Physician Leaders: Empowering Doctors to Improve Our Healthcare, which applies his four decades of military leadership to the world of healthcare.

He wrote the book not long after designing the first physician leader course at Florida Hospital in Orlando.

“Many of the administrators and other doctors saw the changes in the doctors, nurses, and administrators who graduated from the course, and they asked me to write down what we had done,” he says. “The book is partially a description of the course, but it’s also a primer on the basics of leadership.”

The book tells readers how to understand what kind of leader they can be as well as how to better understand the motivations of others; it also outlines a variety of influence techniques they can employ to get things done.

“One of the things we drive home is that all physicians are leaders, whether they are in a leadership role or not,” Hertling says.

One of the concepts he outlines is “leading up”—how to influence your bosses to do the things you want them to do. “What we do during this lesson is show readers how they are other people’s bosses, too,” he says, “and that they need to listen to their own people, too, and allow their folks to contribute to the organizational goals.”

Hospitalists are more than doctors—they are also leaders in their organizations, which is why a new book by retired Army Lieutenant General Mark Hertling is relevant to what they do every day. Hertling, whose numerous military awards include the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star, and the Purple Heart, is the author of Growing Physician Leaders: Empowering Doctors to Improve Our Healthcare, which applies his four decades of military leadership to the world of healthcare.

He wrote the book not long after designing the first physician leader course at Florida Hospital in Orlando.

“Many of the administrators and other doctors saw the changes in the doctors, nurses, and administrators who graduated from the course, and they asked me to write down what we had done,” he says. “The book is partially a description of the course, but it’s also a primer on the basics of leadership.”

The book tells readers how to understand what kind of leader they can be as well as how to better understand the motivations of others; it also outlines a variety of influence techniques they can employ to get things done.

“One of the things we drive home is that all physicians are leaders, whether they are in a leadership role or not,” Hertling says.

One of the concepts he outlines is “leading up”—how to influence your bosses to do the things you want them to do. “What we do during this lesson is show readers how they are other people’s bosses, too,” he says, “and that they need to listen to their own people, too, and allow their folks to contribute to the organizational goals.”

The conceptual models being used in healthcare’s efforts to achieve high reliability may have weaknesses, according to Marc T. Edwards, MD, MBA, author of “An Organizational Learning Framework for Patient Safety,” published in the American Journal of Medical Quality. Those weaknesses could explain why controversy over basic issues around the subject remain.

His paper analyzes those barriers to achieving high reliability in healthcare and points to a way forward—specifically, a different framework for identifying leverage points for improvement based on organizational learning theory.

“Organizations learn from others, from defects, from measurement, and from mindfulness,” he writes. “These learning modes correspond with contemporary themes of collaboration, no blame for human error, accountability for performance, and managing the unexpected. The collaborative model has dominated improvement efforts. Greater attention to the underdeveloped modes of organizational learning may foster more rapid progress in patient safety by increasing organizational capabilities, strengthening a culture of safety, and fixing more of the process problems that contribute to patient harm.”

To help bring this about, hospitalists can contribute by “embracing accountability for clinical performance, developing appropriate measures, and engaging in safety improvement activities — the most salient and important of which is reporting adverse events, near misses, and hazardous conditions affecting their own patients,” Dr. Edwards says. “This means taking responsibility for ending the culture of blame in healthcare, which currently blocks physicians from such self-reporting.”

He adds that hospitalists can do this by changing the model by which they conduct clinical peer review: Instead of focusing on whether individual physicians practiced according to standards, they could look broadly at learning opportunities for improvement in the system of care.

Reference

1. Edwards MT. An organizational learning framework for patient safety [published online ahead of print February 25, 2016]. Am J Med Qual. pii:1062860616632295.

The conceptual models being used in healthcare’s efforts to achieve high reliability may have weaknesses, according to Marc T. Edwards, MD, MBA, author of “An Organizational Learning Framework for Patient Safety,” published in the American Journal of Medical Quality. Those weaknesses could explain why controversy over basic issues around the subject remain.

His paper analyzes those barriers to achieving high reliability in healthcare and points to a way forward—specifically, a different framework for identifying leverage points for improvement based on organizational learning theory.

“Organizations learn from others, from defects, from measurement, and from mindfulness,” he writes. “These learning modes correspond with contemporary themes of collaboration, no blame for human error, accountability for performance, and managing the unexpected. The collaborative model has dominated improvement efforts. Greater attention to the underdeveloped modes of organizational learning may foster more rapid progress in patient safety by increasing organizational capabilities, strengthening a culture of safety, and fixing more of the process problems that contribute to patient harm.”

To help bring this about, hospitalists can contribute by “embracing accountability for clinical performance, developing appropriate measures, and engaging in safety improvement activities — the most salient and important of which is reporting adverse events, near misses, and hazardous conditions affecting their own patients,” Dr. Edwards says. “This means taking responsibility for ending the culture of blame in healthcare, which currently blocks physicians from such self-reporting.”

He adds that hospitalists can do this by changing the model by which they conduct clinical peer review: Instead of focusing on whether individual physicians practiced according to standards, they could look broadly at learning opportunities for improvement in the system of care.

Reference

1. Edwards MT. An organizational learning framework for patient safety [published online ahead of print February 25, 2016]. Am J Med Qual. pii:1062860616632295.

The conceptual models being used in healthcare’s efforts to achieve high reliability may have weaknesses, according to Marc T. Edwards, MD, MBA, author of “An Organizational Learning Framework for Patient Safety,” published in the American Journal of Medical Quality. Those weaknesses could explain why controversy over basic issues around the subject remain.

His paper analyzes those barriers to achieving high reliability in healthcare and points to a way forward—specifically, a different framework for identifying leverage points for improvement based on organizational learning theory.

“Organizations learn from others, from defects, from measurement, and from mindfulness,” he writes. “These learning modes correspond with contemporary themes of collaboration, no blame for human error, accountability for performance, and managing the unexpected. The collaborative model has dominated improvement efforts. Greater attention to the underdeveloped modes of organizational learning may foster more rapid progress in patient safety by increasing organizational capabilities, strengthening a culture of safety, and fixing more of the process problems that contribute to patient harm.”

To help bring this about, hospitalists can contribute by “embracing accountability for clinical performance, developing appropriate measures, and engaging in safety improvement activities — the most salient and important of which is reporting adverse events, near misses, and hazardous conditions affecting their own patients,” Dr. Edwards says. “This means taking responsibility for ending the culture of blame in healthcare, which currently blocks physicians from such self-reporting.”

He adds that hospitalists can do this by changing the model by which they conduct clinical peer review: Instead of focusing on whether individual physicians practiced according to standards, they could look broadly at learning opportunities for improvement in the system of care.

Reference

1. Edwards MT. An organizational learning framework for patient safety [published online ahead of print February 25, 2016]. Am J Med Qual. pii:1062860616632295.

Death is a subject everyone cares about—but we could talk about it more, especially in hospitals, where a lot of people die. “Out of everybody that dies in the entire country, in Canada at least, two-thirds are dying in hospital,” says Daniel Kobewka, MD, of The Ottawa Hospital and lead author of “Quality Gaps Identified through Mortality Review.”

Most divisions within a hospital will have a morbidity or mortality round where they review deaths that occurred in that department, but doing that on an institution-wide level is unusual and important. “It gives a totally different viewpoint,” he says. “When it’s a couple highly selected patients whose cases you examine, you really don’t have an idea at the end if the problems you identified are systemwide issues in your institution.”

The major issue the study identified was an inadequate discussion of goals of care. “This was often a patient who was dying, and in retrospect, it was clear that they were at high risk for death, but there had been no discussion with the patient about prognosis or about symptom management,” Dr. Kobewka says. “It seemed that care was directed at prolonging life. When we looked back at the case, that wasn’t realistic. That accounted for 25% of the quality issues that we identified: The discussion of prognosis and goals of care was inadequate or even absent all together. I think every hospital needs to think about those discussions and how and where and when we have them.”

Another revelation from the study: Errors in care are common but also underdiscussed. “When a physician is aware that maybe there was an error in care, it’s easy for there to be guilt and secrecy,” Dr. Kobewka says. “This is just a reminder that it’s common, and we need an open discussion about it. We need high-level, institution-wide systems to help us with this, but even at the individual provider level, this discussion needs to happen. Any quality improvement process needs engagement of frontline staff.”

Reference

1. Kobewka DM, van Walraven C, Turnbull J, Worthington J, Calder L, Forster A. Quality gaps identified through mortality review [published online ahead of print February 8, 2016]. BMJ Qual Saf. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004735.

Death is a subject everyone cares about—but we could talk about it more, especially in hospitals, where a lot of people die. “Out of everybody that dies in the entire country, in Canada at least, two-thirds are dying in hospital,” says Daniel Kobewka, MD, of The Ottawa Hospital and lead author of “Quality Gaps Identified through Mortality Review.”

Most divisions within a hospital will have a morbidity or mortality round where they review deaths that occurred in that department, but doing that on an institution-wide level is unusual and important. “It gives a totally different viewpoint,” he says. “When it’s a couple highly selected patients whose cases you examine, you really don’t have an idea at the end if the problems you identified are systemwide issues in your institution.”

The major issue the study identified was an inadequate discussion of goals of care. “This was often a patient who was dying, and in retrospect, it was clear that they were at high risk for death, but there had been no discussion with the patient about prognosis or about symptom management,” Dr. Kobewka says. “It seemed that care was directed at prolonging life. When we looked back at the case, that wasn’t realistic. That accounted for 25% of the quality issues that we identified: The discussion of prognosis and goals of care was inadequate or even absent all together. I think every hospital needs to think about those discussions and how and where and when we have them.”

Another revelation from the study: Errors in care are common but also underdiscussed. “When a physician is aware that maybe there was an error in care, it’s easy for there to be guilt and secrecy,” Dr. Kobewka says. “This is just a reminder that it’s common, and we need an open discussion about it. We need high-level, institution-wide systems to help us with this, but even at the individual provider level, this discussion needs to happen. Any quality improvement process needs engagement of frontline staff.”

Reference

1. Kobewka DM, van Walraven C, Turnbull J, Worthington J, Calder L, Forster A. Quality gaps identified through mortality review [published online ahead of print February 8, 2016]. BMJ Qual Saf. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004735.

Death is a subject everyone cares about—but we could talk about it more, especially in hospitals, where a lot of people die. “Out of everybody that dies in the entire country, in Canada at least, two-thirds are dying in hospital,” says Daniel Kobewka, MD, of The Ottawa Hospital and lead author of “Quality Gaps Identified through Mortality Review.”

Most divisions within a hospital will have a morbidity or mortality round where they review deaths that occurred in that department, but doing that on an institution-wide level is unusual and important. “It gives a totally different viewpoint,” he says. “When it’s a couple highly selected patients whose cases you examine, you really don’t have an idea at the end if the problems you identified are systemwide issues in your institution.”

The major issue the study identified was an inadequate discussion of goals of care. “This was often a patient who was dying, and in retrospect, it was clear that they were at high risk for death, but there had been no discussion with the patient about prognosis or about symptom management,” Dr. Kobewka says. “It seemed that care was directed at prolonging life. When we looked back at the case, that wasn’t realistic. That accounted for 25% of the quality issues that we identified: The discussion of prognosis and goals of care was inadequate or even absent all together. I think every hospital needs to think about those discussions and how and where and when we have them.”

Another revelation from the study: Errors in care are common but also underdiscussed. “When a physician is aware that maybe there was an error in care, it’s easy for there to be guilt and secrecy,” Dr. Kobewka says. “This is just a reminder that it’s common, and we need an open discussion about it. We need high-level, institution-wide systems to help us with this, but even at the individual provider level, this discussion needs to happen. Any quality improvement process needs engagement of frontline staff.”

Reference

1. Kobewka DM, van Walraven C, Turnbull J, Worthington J, Calder L, Forster A. Quality gaps identified through mortality review [published online ahead of print February 8, 2016]. BMJ Qual Saf. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004735.

Virtually every hospital system in the country deals with the challenge of readmissions, especially 30-day readmissions, and it’s only getting worse. “With the changes in healthcare and length of stay becoming shorter, patients are being discharged sicker than they used to be,” says Kevin Tolliver, MD, FACP, of Sidney & Lois Eskenazi Hospital Outpatient Care Center. “At our large public hospital system in Indianapolis, we designed an Internal Medicine Transitional Care Practice with the goal of decreasing readmission rates.”

Since October 2015, patients without a primary care doctor and those with a high LACE score have been referred to the new Transitional Care clinic. The first step: While still hospitalized, they meet briefly with Dr. Tolliver, who tells them, “‘You’re a candidate for this hospital follow-up clinic; this is why we think you would benefit.’ Patients, universally, are very thankful and eager to come.” The patients have their follow-up appointment scheduled before they are discharged.

At that appointment, the goal is to head off anything that would put them at risk for readmission. “We have a pharmacy, social workers, substance abuse counselors, diabetes educators—it’s one-stop shopping to address their needs,” Dr. Tolliver says. “Once we ensure that they’re not at risk for readmission, we help them get back to their primary care doctor or help them get one.”

Data for the clinic’s first four months show those patients who met with Dr. Tolliver before leaving the hospital were 50% more likely to keep their hospital follow-up visit. “That’s significant, particularly for us, because we take care of an indigent population; the no-show rate is usually our biggest challenge,” he says. Patients who were seen had a 30-day readmission rate of about 13.9%, while those who qualified but weren’t seen had a readmission rate of 21.8%.

“That has all kinds of positive consequences: less frustration for providers and patients and huge financial implications for the hospital system as well,” Dr. Tolliver says. “That there are these new models of post-discharge clinics out there and that there’s data suggesting that they work, particularly for a high-risk group of people, I think is worth knowing.”

Virtually every hospital system in the country deals with the challenge of readmissions, especially 30-day readmissions, and it’s only getting worse. “With the changes in healthcare and length of stay becoming shorter, patients are being discharged sicker than they used to be,” says Kevin Tolliver, MD, FACP, of Sidney & Lois Eskenazi Hospital Outpatient Care Center. “At our large public hospital system in Indianapolis, we designed an Internal Medicine Transitional Care Practice with the goal of decreasing readmission rates.”

Since October 2015, patients without a primary care doctor and those with a high LACE score have been referred to the new Transitional Care clinic. The first step: While still hospitalized, they meet briefly with Dr. Tolliver, who tells them, “‘You’re a candidate for this hospital follow-up clinic; this is why we think you would benefit.’ Patients, universally, are very thankful and eager to come.” The patients have their follow-up appointment scheduled before they are discharged.

At that appointment, the goal is to head off anything that would put them at risk for readmission. “We have a pharmacy, social workers, substance abuse counselors, diabetes educators—it’s one-stop shopping to address their needs,” Dr. Tolliver says. “Once we ensure that they’re not at risk for readmission, we help them get back to their primary care doctor or help them get one.”

Data for the clinic’s first four months show those patients who met with Dr. Tolliver before leaving the hospital were 50% more likely to keep their hospital follow-up visit. “That’s significant, particularly for us, because we take care of an indigent population; the no-show rate is usually our biggest challenge,” he says. Patients who were seen had a 30-day readmission rate of about 13.9%, while those who qualified but weren’t seen had a readmission rate of 21.8%.

“That has all kinds of positive consequences: less frustration for providers and patients and huge financial implications for the hospital system as well,” Dr. Tolliver says. “That there are these new models of post-discharge clinics out there and that there’s data suggesting that they work, particularly for a high-risk group of people, I think is worth knowing.”

Virtually every hospital system in the country deals with the challenge of readmissions, especially 30-day readmissions, and it’s only getting worse. “With the changes in healthcare and length of stay becoming shorter, patients are being discharged sicker than they used to be,” says Kevin Tolliver, MD, FACP, of Sidney & Lois Eskenazi Hospital Outpatient Care Center. “At our large public hospital system in Indianapolis, we designed an Internal Medicine Transitional Care Practice with the goal of decreasing readmission rates.”

Since October 2015, patients without a primary care doctor and those with a high LACE score have been referred to the new Transitional Care clinic. The first step: While still hospitalized, they meet briefly with Dr. Tolliver, who tells them, “‘You’re a candidate for this hospital follow-up clinic; this is why we think you would benefit.’ Patients, universally, are very thankful and eager to come.” The patients have their follow-up appointment scheduled before they are discharged.

At that appointment, the goal is to head off anything that would put them at risk for readmission. “We have a pharmacy, social workers, substance abuse counselors, diabetes educators—it’s one-stop shopping to address their needs,” Dr. Tolliver says. “Once we ensure that they’re not at risk for readmission, we help them get back to their primary care doctor or help them get one.”

Data for the clinic’s first four months show those patients who met with Dr. Tolliver before leaving the hospital were 50% more likely to keep their hospital follow-up visit. “That’s significant, particularly for us, because we take care of an indigent population; the no-show rate is usually our biggest challenge,” he says. Patients who were seen had a 30-day readmission rate of about 13.9%, while those who qualified but weren’t seen had a readmission rate of 21.8%.

“That has all kinds of positive consequences: less frustration for providers and patients and huge financial implications for the hospital system as well,” Dr. Tolliver says. “That there are these new models of post-discharge clinics out there and that there’s data suggesting that they work, particularly for a high-risk group of people, I think is worth knowing.”

Offering palliative care early to hospitalized patients with multiple serious conditions could improve care and help reduce healthcare spending, according to “Palliative Care Teams’ Cost-Saving Effect Is Larger for Cancer Patients with Higher Numbers of Comorbidities,” published in Health Affairs. When adults with advanced cancer (excluding those with dementia) received a palliative care consultation within two days of admission, costs were 22% lower for patients with a comorbidity score of 2 to 3 and 32% lower for those with a score of 4 or higher.

Reference

1. May P, Garrido MM, Cassel JB, et al. Palliative care teams’ cost-saving effect is larger for cancer patients with higher numbers of comorbidities. Health Aff. 2016;35(1):44-53.

Quick Byte

Efforts to shift provider payment from fee-for-service to more risk-based alternatives are proceeding slowly: Nearly 95% of all 2013 physician office visits were reimbursed as fee-for-service.

Reference

1. Zuvekas SH, Cohen JW. Fee-for-service, while much maligned, remains the dominant payment method for physician visits. Health Aff. 2016;35(3):411-414. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2015.1291.

Offering palliative care early to hospitalized patients with multiple serious conditions could improve care and help reduce healthcare spending, according to “Palliative Care Teams’ Cost-Saving Effect Is Larger for Cancer Patients with Higher Numbers of Comorbidities,” published in Health Affairs. When adults with advanced cancer (excluding those with dementia) received a palliative care consultation within two days of admission, costs were 22% lower for patients with a comorbidity score of 2 to 3 and 32% lower for those with a score of 4 or higher.

Reference

1. May P, Garrido MM, Cassel JB, et al. Palliative care teams’ cost-saving effect is larger for cancer patients with higher numbers of comorbidities. Health Aff. 2016;35(1):44-53.

Quick Byte

Efforts to shift provider payment from fee-for-service to more risk-based alternatives are proceeding slowly: Nearly 95% of all 2013 physician office visits were reimbursed as fee-for-service.

Reference

1. Zuvekas SH, Cohen JW. Fee-for-service, while much maligned, remains the dominant payment method for physician visits. Health Aff. 2016;35(3):411-414. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2015.1291.

Offering palliative care early to hospitalized patients with multiple serious conditions could improve care and help reduce healthcare spending, according to “Palliative Care Teams’ Cost-Saving Effect Is Larger for Cancer Patients with Higher Numbers of Comorbidities,” published in Health Affairs. When adults with advanced cancer (excluding those with dementia) received a palliative care consultation within two days of admission, costs were 22% lower for patients with a comorbidity score of 2 to 3 and 32% lower for those with a score of 4 or higher.

Reference

1. May P, Garrido MM, Cassel JB, et al. Palliative care teams’ cost-saving effect is larger for cancer patients with higher numbers of comorbidities. Health Aff. 2016;35(1):44-53.

Quick Byte

Efforts to shift provider payment from fee-for-service to more risk-based alternatives are proceeding slowly: Nearly 95% of all 2013 physician office visits were reimbursed as fee-for-service.

Reference

1. Zuvekas SH, Cohen JW. Fee-for-service, while much maligned, remains the dominant payment method for physician visits. Health Aff. 2016;35(3):411-414. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2015.1291.