Vineet Arora, MD, MA

Hospitalization may offer a natural opportunity to screen and advise patients on the advantages of quitting smoking due to a variety of reasons, such as the smoke‐free environment, availability of medical personnel, suitability of tailoring information, and the potential to catch a teachable moment.1, 2 Additionally, a recent meta‐analysis suggested that hospital‐based cessation programs and referrals to cardiac rehabilitation result in significantly higher rates of cessation among discharged smokers.3 In 2008, the U.S. Public Health Service Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines for Treating Tobacco Use and Dependence in hospitalized smokers recommended listing smoking status on problem lists, evaluating a smoker's preparedness to quit, providing counseling and medications to treat in‐hospital withdrawal symptoms, and arranging discharge follow‐up to help smokers remain abstinent.4 To promote these practices, the Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) has made smoking cessation counseling a quality of care indicator for patients hospitalized with congestive heart failure (CHF), acute myocardial infarction (AMI), or pneumonia. This indicator is a critical step in recognizing the importance of smoking cessation counseling in improving mortality and morbidity for these patients.

Despite the importance of promoting smoking cessation among hospitalized patients, few studies have looked at whether or not hospitalized patients are prepared to quit smoking. Ascertaining patients' preparedness to quit smoking is an important first step in understanding a patient's readiness to change their health behaviors because smoking cessation is the culmination of a lengthy process of behavior change.5 Studies of healthy factory workers suggest that smokers who were more prepared to quit smoking had a higher number of previous quit attempts and perceived coworker encouragement.6

Understanding patient preparedness to quit smoking is especially important among African American smokers, who face a disproportionate health burden due to smoking‐related illness. Studies show that African Americans are less likely than other racial groups to engage in formal tobacco cessation interventions and have lower long‐term quit rates, despite a higher desire to quit smoking.5, 79 Understanding preparedness to quit among this particular group of hospitalized patients may be an important first step in identifying those most likely to quit and benefit from tailored, intensive interventions, such as using medications to assist in combination with postdischarge tobacco cessation counseling.

The aim of this study was to characterize the preparedness to quit smoking and to assess quit attempts made, methods used for quitting, and the success of such quit attempts at 1‐month follow‐up in a group comprised of a high proportion of underserved African American hospitalized smokers. In addition, the relationship of hospitalized patients' preparedness to quit and the effect of inpatient advice on the likelihood of subsequent tobacco cessation were examined.

Patients and Methods

The data used for this study were collected for the Cardiology Quality of Care Study, an ongoing prospective study of patients hospitalized on the inpatient cardiology service at the University of Chicago Medical Center. Newly admitted patients were approached by research assistants and consented to the study using a previously described protocol for enrolling hospitalized patients.10 Patients that lacked decisional capacity (score of <17 on the telephone version of the Mini‐Mental Status Exam)11 were excluded. Patients did not receive any scripted intervention during this admission to assist with cessation. The study left cessation counseling and advice to quit up to the discretion of the individual physician caring for the patient in the hospital. The Institutional Review Board at the University of Chicago approved this study.

Results

From February 2006 through July 2007, 86% (2906/3364) of all cardiology inpatients approached were interviewed. Fifteen percent (436/2906) of patients enrolled in the study indicated that they were current smokers. Contemplation Ladder scores were obtained on 95% (415/436) of the current smokers, and 1‐month postdischarge follow‐up telephone surveys were completed in 67% (276/415) of the current smokers. Three attempts were made to contact patients who were lost to follow‐up (Figure 1). The major reasons for inability to contact patients included wrong telephone numbers, disconnected phone lines, or no method to leave a message for the patient (ie, no answering machine). Given that we were only able to complete follow‐up interviews on 276 patients, we conducted our analyses on only this group of patients.

Figure 1

The average age of current smokers in the sample was 55 years (95% confidence interval [CI], 54‐58). Most current smokers were of the African American race (83%; 224/276). More than 65% of smokers had completed high school or higher, and nearly one‐half (46%) had an average household income of $25,000 or less before taxes. The most common admitting diagnoses per chart audit among current inpatient smokers were AMI (31%) and CHF (27%). The vast majority (95%) of hospitalized smokers in this sample were first‐time admissions to the University of Chicago. Table 1 shows the demographic data for current smokers compared to former smokers (those who have quit smoking prior to admission). Current smokers were more likely to be African American, had lower income levels, and were less likely to have completed high school. Additionally, current smokers were more likely to carry a potential diagnosis of AMI or CHF and to be a first‐time admission (Table 1).

Approximately three‐quarters (76%; 210/276) of current smokers were identified as prepared to quit, with a Ladder score 6. There was a wide distribution of Ladder scores, with one‐third (31%; 86/276) of smokers reporting a Ladder score of 8, indicating that they still smoke, but are ready to set a quit date and another 34% (95/276 patients) with Ladder scores of either 6 or 7 also indicating they were planning to quit smoking (Figure 2). A significant portion of smokers (71%; 195/276) reported making a quit attempt after discharge, and 38% of smokers (106/276) self‐reported that their quit attempt was successful (ie, no longer smoking at 1 month post discharge). Note that the quit rate is reduced to 26% (106/415) at 1 month if one conservatively assumes that those who did not take part in follow‐up were relapsers. Among those who did participate in follow‐up, as shown in Figure 3, the most frequently reported (53%; 145/276) method used to quit smoking was cold turkey. Thirteen percent (37/276) of patients reported making a quit attempt using pharmacological therapy (ie, NRT or bupropion) and only 4% (12/276) of patients reported making a quit attempt using the help of a smoking cessation program (Figure 3).

Figure 2

Figure 3

Preparedness was an important predictor of making a quit attempt. Prepared patients (ie, Ladder score 6) were significantly more likely than patients who were less prepared to report making a quit attempt after discharge (163/212 [77%] vs. 32/64 [50%], respectively; P < 0.001). This result remained significant after adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics with a similar effect size (adjusted estimates 76% [95% CI, 75.7‐76.7] prepared vs. 49% [95% CI, 48.5‐49.8]; P < 0.001). These results also remained significant with a similar effect size in analyses using multivariate logistic regression (Table 2). Of those patients who made quit attempts, prepared patients were slightly more likely to report a successful quit attempt (90/163; 55%) than were less‐prepared patients (16/32; 50%), though this was not significant (P = 0.205).

In the follow‐up sample, 17% could not remember if they received advice to quit smoking. Among those who were able to recall receiving advice, the majority (78%; 180/230) reported that they received advice from a nurse or physician during hospitalization, compared to 22% who did not recall ever being advised to quit by any healthcare provider during the admission. Patients who reported receiving advice to quit were more likely to report making a quit attempt postdischarge as compared to those that did not recall receiving advice (70% vs. 46%, respectively; P = 0.002). In a multivariate logistic regression, controlling for demographic factors and admitting diagnosis, both preparedness and receipt of in‐hospital advice were independent predictors of making a future quit attempt (odds ratio [OR] = 4.05; 95% CI, 1.91‐8.60; P < 0.001 for preparedness; OR = 3.96; 95% CI, 1.84‐8.54; P < 0.001 for advice). Additionally, there was no significant interaction or synergistic effect between being prepared to quit smoking and receiving in‐hospital advice to quit (OR = 1.24; 95% CI, 0.17‐9.21; P = 0.836) (Figure 4). When analyzing the effects of preparedness and advice on quit attempts, only preparedness to quit remained a significant predictor of a successful quit attempt (OR = 2.93; 95% CI, 1.13‐7.60; P = 0.027 for preparedness; OR = 2.16; 95% CI, 0.85‐5.49; P = 0.10 for advice to quit). As demonstrated in Table 2, a higher percentage of prepared patients made a quit attempt after discharge (76.9% vs. 50%) and had a successful quit attempt and short‐term abstinence (55% prepared patients vs. 50% less prepared patients).

Figure 4

Discussion

This study demonstrated that in a group of hospitalized underserved, and predominantly African American smokers, the majority of patients reported being prepared to quit smoking at the time of hospitalization. Prepared patients were more likely to report making a quit attempt after discharge and more likely to report being successful in their quit attempt than patients who reported being less prepared to quit during their hospitalization. Nevertheless, approximately one‐half of unprepared patients did make a quit attempt 1 month after discharge, demonstrating a desire to quit smoking after hospitalization among this population. However, short‐term success rates in this group were lower than in patients prepared to quit. In addition, preparedness to quit and receipt of in‐hospital advice to quit smoking were both found to be independent predictors of making a quit attempt, with nearly identical ORs; however, only preparedness remained significant after controlling for advice to quit. Last, although the majority of hospitalized cardiac patients were making quit attempts after discharge, most patients reported using the least effective quit methods (ie, cold turkey) rather than more effective and intensive interventions such as counseling in combination with pharmacotherapy.

These findings have important implications for current quality initiatives targeted at promoting smoking cessation among cardiac patients. First, these results highlight the need for evidence‐based methods to be made available to hospitalized smokers who are prepared to quit. Our results are consistent with other studies reporting rare use (5.2%) of NRT in the hospital setting, despite the proven benefit in treating nicotine withdrawal symptoms.17 This is also consistent with data reporting that among nonhospitalized smokers, quitting cold turkey was the most commonly used and least effective cessation method.18 Second, the rate of recall of in‐hospital advice among patients (78%) was generally consistent with those reported to CMS (most recent quarter 95% for AMI and 88% for CHF).19

In addition to receiving advice, preparedness to quit was associated with higher quit attempts, therefore highlighting the importance of assessing level of preparedness in addition to giving advice. The fact that most quit attempts were made using cold turkey and resulted in low short‐term success rates underscores the need to reevaluate the current CMS quality indicator of advice alone for hospitalized smokers. Furthermore, the recently updated 2008 U.S. Public Health guidelines recently recommend, in addition to advice, that all hospitalized smokers be assessed for readiness to change, be assisted in quitting with pharmacotherapy, and be arranged follow‐up for tobacco cessation postdischarge, highlighting the inadequacy of advice alone.4 While it is important to continue to advise all hospitalized smokers to quit, the study findings demonstrate that assessing preparedness may result in targeting more prepared patients with more intensive interventions. Further policy implications include that less prepared patients may need motivational techniques to increase their level of preparedness to quit during hospitalization.

Several limitations are worth mentioning. First, the study included a relatively small sample size drawn from a single urban medical center. The prevalence of current smokers in our sample was 15%, which is lower than many studies looking at cardiology inpatient smokers.3, 20 This limitation of our study may be attributed to the advanced age of the majority of our patients, as compared with other studies, as well as the possibility of socially desirable response bias that many low‐income African American smokers may experience, leaving them less likely to admit to smoking at the time of hospitalization. Second, there was a low follow‐up rate, with 66% of patients undergoing follow‐up postdischarge. While this may raise the concerns of differences between ladder scores in those patients that participated in follow‐up and those that did not, analyses show no significant difference between level of preparedness in these 2 groups (68% prepared in patients who received follow‐up vs. 63% prepared patients in those who did not participate in follow‐up; P = 0.36). Third, follow‐up of quit attempts and receipt of advice were all assessed using self‐report, and, therefore, were limited by lack of verification and lack of assessment for potential recall bias. Fourth, in this pilot study, the follow‐up period was relatively short at 1 month postdischarge. It is likely that rates of successful quit attempts would be lower with longer‐term follow‐up periods, given previous literature demonstrating the difficulty with long‐term abstinence.21 Last, the study was not able to account for potential effects that hospitalization itself may have on preparedness, as patients may be more likely to report being prepared to quit when in the face of a health shock,22 as well as the fact that some patients may demonstrate a socially desirable response bias influenced by hospitalization.

In conclusion, the majority of underserved smokers with cardiac disease reported being prepared to quit smoking and were more likely to self‐report making a quit attempt after discharge. However, the majority of these quit attempts were made via cold turkey, without the support of available evidence‐based methods to quit. It is possible that by directly providing education, access to pharmacotherapy, and counseling options, the utilization rates for more efficacious treatments would increase in cardiac patients who are prepared to quit. While recall of in‐hospital advice was associated with future quit attempts, prepared patients who recalled receiving advice were more likely to make a quit attempt than prepared patients who did not recall receiving advice, as well as unprepared patients. Together, these findings highlight the need to consider a patient's level of preparedness to quit in understanding the success of in‐hospital advice and the importance of making evidence‐based cessation methods available to hospitalized smokers who are prepared to quit. Additionally, identifying patients not prepared to quit may help in providing them with appropriate motivational therapy, to move them along the stages of change, as well as educational information on how to quit once they have decided to do so.

Hospitalization may offer a natural opportunity to screen and advise patients on the advantages of quitting smoking due to a variety of reasons, such as the smoke‐free environment, availability of medical personnel, suitability of tailoring information, and the potential to catch a teachable moment.1, 2 Additionally, a recent meta‐analysis suggested that hospital‐based cessation programs and referrals to cardiac rehabilitation result in significantly higher rates of cessation among discharged smokers.3 In 2008, the U.S. Public Health Service Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines for Treating Tobacco Use and Dependence in hospitalized smokers recommended listing smoking status on problem lists, evaluating a smoker's preparedness to quit, providing counseling and medications to treat in‐hospital withdrawal symptoms, and arranging discharge follow‐up to help smokers remain abstinent.4 To promote these practices, the Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) has made smoking cessation counseling a quality of care indicator for patients hospitalized with congestive heart failure (CHF), acute myocardial infarction (AMI), or pneumonia. This indicator is a critical step in recognizing the importance of smoking cessation counseling in improving mortality and morbidity for these patients.

Despite the importance of promoting smoking cessation among hospitalized patients, few studies have looked at whether or not hospitalized patients are prepared to quit smoking. Ascertaining patients' preparedness to quit smoking is an important first step in understanding a patient's readiness to change their health behaviors because smoking cessation is the culmination of a lengthy process of behavior change.5 Studies of healthy factory workers suggest that smokers who were more prepared to quit smoking had a higher number of previous quit attempts and perceived coworker encouragement.6

Understanding patient preparedness to quit smoking is especially important among African American smokers, who face a disproportionate health burden due to smoking‐related illness. Studies show that African Americans are less likely than other racial groups to engage in formal tobacco cessation interventions and have lower long‐term quit rates, despite a higher desire to quit smoking.5, 79 Understanding preparedness to quit among this particular group of hospitalized patients may be an important first step in identifying those most likely to quit and benefit from tailored, intensive interventions, such as using medications to assist in combination with postdischarge tobacco cessation counseling.

The aim of this study was to characterize the preparedness to quit smoking and to assess quit attempts made, methods used for quitting, and the success of such quit attempts at 1‐month follow‐up in a group comprised of a high proportion of underserved African American hospitalized smokers. In addition, the relationship of hospitalized patients' preparedness to quit and the effect of inpatient advice on the likelihood of subsequent tobacco cessation were examined.

Patients and Methods

The data used for this study were collected for the Cardiology Quality of Care Study, an ongoing prospective study of patients hospitalized on the inpatient cardiology service at the University of Chicago Medical Center. Newly admitted patients were approached by research assistants and consented to the study using a previously described protocol for enrolling hospitalized patients.10 Patients that lacked decisional capacity (score of <17 on the telephone version of the Mini‐Mental Status Exam)11 were excluded. Patients did not receive any scripted intervention during this admission to assist with cessation. The study left cessation counseling and advice to quit up to the discretion of the individual physician caring for the patient in the hospital. The Institutional Review Board at the University of Chicago approved this study.

Results

From February 2006 through July 2007, 86% (2906/3364) of all cardiology inpatients approached were interviewed. Fifteen percent (436/2906) of patients enrolled in the study indicated that they were current smokers. Contemplation Ladder scores were obtained on 95% (415/436) of the current smokers, and 1‐month postdischarge follow‐up telephone surveys were completed in 67% (276/415) of the current smokers. Three attempts were made to contact patients who were lost to follow‐up (Figure 1). The major reasons for inability to contact patients included wrong telephone numbers, disconnected phone lines, or no method to leave a message for the patient (ie, no answering machine). Given that we were only able to complete follow‐up interviews on 276 patients, we conducted our analyses on only this group of patients.

Figure 1

The average age of current smokers in the sample was 55 years (95% confidence interval [CI], 54‐58). Most current smokers were of the African American race (83%; 224/276). More than 65% of smokers had completed high school or higher, and nearly one‐half (46%) had an average household income of $25,000 or less before taxes. The most common admitting diagnoses per chart audit among current inpatient smokers were AMI (31%) and CHF (27%). The vast majority (95%) of hospitalized smokers in this sample were first‐time admissions to the University of Chicago. Table 1 shows the demographic data for current smokers compared to former smokers (those who have quit smoking prior to admission). Current smokers were more likely to be African American, had lower income levels, and were less likely to have completed high school. Additionally, current smokers were more likely to carry a potential diagnosis of AMI or CHF and to be a first‐time admission (Table 1).

Approximately three‐quarters (76%; 210/276) of current smokers were identified as prepared to quit, with a Ladder score 6. There was a wide distribution of Ladder scores, with one‐third (31%; 86/276) of smokers reporting a Ladder score of 8, indicating that they still smoke, but are ready to set a quit date and another 34% (95/276 patients) with Ladder scores of either 6 or 7 also indicating they were planning to quit smoking (Figure 2). A significant portion of smokers (71%; 195/276) reported making a quit attempt after discharge, and 38% of smokers (106/276) self‐reported that their quit attempt was successful (ie, no longer smoking at 1 month post discharge). Note that the quit rate is reduced to 26% (106/415) at 1 month if one conservatively assumes that those who did not take part in follow‐up were relapsers. Among those who did participate in follow‐up, as shown in Figure 3, the most frequently reported (53%; 145/276) method used to quit smoking was cold turkey. Thirteen percent (37/276) of patients reported making a quit attempt using pharmacological therapy (ie, NRT or bupropion) and only 4% (12/276) of patients reported making a quit attempt using the help of a smoking cessation program (Figure 3).

Figure 2

Figure 3

Preparedness was an important predictor of making a quit attempt. Prepared patients (ie, Ladder score 6) were significantly more likely than patients who were less prepared to report making a quit attempt after discharge (163/212 [77%] vs. 32/64 [50%], respectively; P < 0.001). This result remained significant after adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics with a similar effect size (adjusted estimates 76% [95% CI, 75.7‐76.7] prepared vs. 49% [95% CI, 48.5‐49.8]; P < 0.001). These results also remained significant with a similar effect size in analyses using multivariate logistic regression (Table 2). Of those patients who made quit attempts, prepared patients were slightly more likely to report a successful quit attempt (90/163; 55%) than were less‐prepared patients (16/32; 50%), though this was not significant (P = 0.205).

In the follow‐up sample, 17% could not remember if they received advice to quit smoking. Among those who were able to recall receiving advice, the majority (78%; 180/230) reported that they received advice from a nurse or physician during hospitalization, compared to 22% who did not recall ever being advised to quit by any healthcare provider during the admission. Patients who reported receiving advice to quit were more likely to report making a quit attempt postdischarge as compared to those that did not recall receiving advice (70% vs. 46%, respectively; P = 0.002). In a multivariate logistic regression, controlling for demographic factors and admitting diagnosis, both preparedness and receipt of in‐hospital advice were independent predictors of making a future quit attempt (odds ratio [OR] = 4.05; 95% CI, 1.91‐8.60; P < 0.001 for preparedness; OR = 3.96; 95% CI, 1.84‐8.54; P < 0.001 for advice). Additionally, there was no significant interaction or synergistic effect between being prepared to quit smoking and receiving in‐hospital advice to quit (OR = 1.24; 95% CI, 0.17‐9.21; P = 0.836) (Figure 4). When analyzing the effects of preparedness and advice on quit attempts, only preparedness to quit remained a significant predictor of a successful quit attempt (OR = 2.93; 95% CI, 1.13‐7.60; P = 0.027 for preparedness; OR = 2.16; 95% CI, 0.85‐5.49; P = 0.10 for advice to quit). As demonstrated in Table 2, a higher percentage of prepared patients made a quit attempt after discharge (76.9% vs. 50%) and had a successful quit attempt and short‐term abstinence (55% prepared patients vs. 50% less prepared patients).

Figure 4

Discussion

This study demonstrated that in a group of hospitalized underserved, and predominantly African American smokers, the majority of patients reported being prepared to quit smoking at the time of hospitalization. Prepared patients were more likely to report making a quit attempt after discharge and more likely to report being successful in their quit attempt than patients who reported being less prepared to quit during their hospitalization. Nevertheless, approximately one‐half of unprepared patients did make a quit attempt 1 month after discharge, demonstrating a desire to quit smoking after hospitalization among this population. However, short‐term success rates in this group were lower than in patients prepared to quit. In addition, preparedness to quit and receipt of in‐hospital advice to quit smoking were both found to be independent predictors of making a quit attempt, with nearly identical ORs; however, only preparedness remained significant after controlling for advice to quit. Last, although the majority of hospitalized cardiac patients were making quit attempts after discharge, most patients reported using the least effective quit methods (ie, cold turkey) rather than more effective and intensive interventions such as counseling in combination with pharmacotherapy.

These findings have important implications for current quality initiatives targeted at promoting smoking cessation among cardiac patients. First, these results highlight the need for evidence‐based methods to be made available to hospitalized smokers who are prepared to quit. Our results are consistent with other studies reporting rare use (5.2%) of NRT in the hospital setting, despite the proven benefit in treating nicotine withdrawal symptoms.17 This is also consistent with data reporting that among nonhospitalized smokers, quitting cold turkey was the most commonly used and least effective cessation method.18 Second, the rate of recall of in‐hospital advice among patients (78%) was generally consistent with those reported to CMS (most recent quarter 95% for AMI and 88% for CHF).19

In addition to receiving advice, preparedness to quit was associated with higher quit attempts, therefore highlighting the importance of assessing level of preparedness in addition to giving advice. The fact that most quit attempts were made using cold turkey and resulted in low short‐term success rates underscores the need to reevaluate the current CMS quality indicator of advice alone for hospitalized smokers. Furthermore, the recently updated 2008 U.S. Public Health guidelines recently recommend, in addition to advice, that all hospitalized smokers be assessed for readiness to change, be assisted in quitting with pharmacotherapy, and be arranged follow‐up for tobacco cessation postdischarge, highlighting the inadequacy of advice alone.4 While it is important to continue to advise all hospitalized smokers to quit, the study findings demonstrate that assessing preparedness may result in targeting more prepared patients with more intensive interventions. Further policy implications include that less prepared patients may need motivational techniques to increase their level of preparedness to quit during hospitalization.

Several limitations are worth mentioning. First, the study included a relatively small sample size drawn from a single urban medical center. The prevalence of current smokers in our sample was 15%, which is lower than many studies looking at cardiology inpatient smokers.3, 20 This limitation of our study may be attributed to the advanced age of the majority of our patients, as compared with other studies, as well as the possibility of socially desirable response bias that many low‐income African American smokers may experience, leaving them less likely to admit to smoking at the time of hospitalization. Second, there was a low follow‐up rate, with 66% of patients undergoing follow‐up postdischarge. While this may raise the concerns of differences between ladder scores in those patients that participated in follow‐up and those that did not, analyses show no significant difference between level of preparedness in these 2 groups (68% prepared in patients who received follow‐up vs. 63% prepared patients in those who did not participate in follow‐up; P = 0.36). Third, follow‐up of quit attempts and receipt of advice were all assessed using self‐report, and, therefore, were limited by lack of verification and lack of assessment for potential recall bias. Fourth, in this pilot study, the follow‐up period was relatively short at 1 month postdischarge. It is likely that rates of successful quit attempts would be lower with longer‐term follow‐up periods, given previous literature demonstrating the difficulty with long‐term abstinence.21 Last, the study was not able to account for potential effects that hospitalization itself may have on preparedness, as patients may be more likely to report being prepared to quit when in the face of a health shock,22 as well as the fact that some patients may demonstrate a socially desirable response bias influenced by hospitalization.

In conclusion, the majority of underserved smokers with cardiac disease reported being prepared to quit smoking and were more likely to self‐report making a quit attempt after discharge. However, the majority of these quit attempts were made via cold turkey, without the support of available evidence‐based methods to quit. It is possible that by directly providing education, access to pharmacotherapy, and counseling options, the utilization rates for more efficacious treatments would increase in cardiac patients who are prepared to quit. While recall of in‐hospital advice was associated with future quit attempts, prepared patients who recalled receiving advice were more likely to make a quit attempt than prepared patients who did not recall receiving advice, as well as unprepared patients. Together, these findings highlight the need to consider a patient's level of preparedness to quit in understanding the success of in‐hospital advice and the importance of making evidence‐based cessation methods available to hospitalized smokers who are prepared to quit. Additionally, identifying patients not prepared to quit may help in providing them with appropriate motivational therapy, to move them along the stages of change, as well as educational information on how to quit once they have decided to do so.

Hospitalization may offer a natural opportunity to screen and advise patients on the advantages of quitting smoking due to a variety of reasons, such as the smoke‐free environment, availability of medical personnel, suitability of tailoring information, and the potential to catch a teachable moment.1, 2 Additionally, a recent meta‐analysis suggested that hospital‐based cessation programs and referrals to cardiac rehabilitation result in significantly higher rates of cessation among discharged smokers.3 In 2008, the U.S. Public Health Service Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines for Treating Tobacco Use and Dependence in hospitalized smokers recommended listing smoking status on problem lists, evaluating a smoker's preparedness to quit, providing counseling and medications to treat in‐hospital withdrawal symptoms, and arranging discharge follow‐up to help smokers remain abstinent.4 To promote these practices, the Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) has made smoking cessation counseling a quality of care indicator for patients hospitalized with congestive heart failure (CHF), acute myocardial infarction (AMI), or pneumonia. This indicator is a critical step in recognizing the importance of smoking cessation counseling in improving mortality and morbidity for these patients.

Despite the importance of promoting smoking cessation among hospitalized patients, few studies have looked at whether or not hospitalized patients are prepared to quit smoking. Ascertaining patients' preparedness to quit smoking is an important first step in understanding a patient's readiness to change their health behaviors because smoking cessation is the culmination of a lengthy process of behavior change.5 Studies of healthy factory workers suggest that smokers who were more prepared to quit smoking had a higher number of previous quit attempts and perceived coworker encouragement.6

Understanding patient preparedness to quit smoking is especially important among African American smokers, who face a disproportionate health burden due to smoking‐related illness. Studies show that African Americans are less likely than other racial groups to engage in formal tobacco cessation interventions and have lower long‐term quit rates, despite a higher desire to quit smoking.5, 79 Understanding preparedness to quit among this particular group of hospitalized patients may be an important first step in identifying those most likely to quit and benefit from tailored, intensive interventions, such as using medications to assist in combination with postdischarge tobacco cessation counseling.

The aim of this study was to characterize the preparedness to quit smoking and to assess quit attempts made, methods used for quitting, and the success of such quit attempts at 1‐month follow‐up in a group comprised of a high proportion of underserved African American hospitalized smokers. In addition, the relationship of hospitalized patients' preparedness to quit and the effect of inpatient advice on the likelihood of subsequent tobacco cessation were examined.

Patients and Methods

The data used for this study were collected for the Cardiology Quality of Care Study, an ongoing prospective study of patients hospitalized on the inpatient cardiology service at the University of Chicago Medical Center. Newly admitted patients were approached by research assistants and consented to the study using a previously described protocol for enrolling hospitalized patients.10 Patients that lacked decisional capacity (score of <17 on the telephone version of the Mini‐Mental Status Exam)11 were excluded. Patients did not receive any scripted intervention during this admission to assist with cessation. The study left cessation counseling and advice to quit up to the discretion of the individual physician caring for the patient in the hospital. The Institutional Review Board at the University of Chicago approved this study.

Results

From February 2006 through July 2007, 86% (2906/3364) of all cardiology inpatients approached were interviewed. Fifteen percent (436/2906) of patients enrolled in the study indicated that they were current smokers. Contemplation Ladder scores were obtained on 95% (415/436) of the current smokers, and 1‐month postdischarge follow‐up telephone surveys were completed in 67% (276/415) of the current smokers. Three attempts were made to contact patients who were lost to follow‐up (Figure 1). The major reasons for inability to contact patients included wrong telephone numbers, disconnected phone lines, or no method to leave a message for the patient (ie, no answering machine). Given that we were only able to complete follow‐up interviews on 276 patients, we conducted our analyses on only this group of patients.

Figure 1

The average age of current smokers in the sample was 55 years (95% confidence interval [CI], 54‐58). Most current smokers were of the African American race (83%; 224/276). More than 65% of smokers had completed high school or higher, and nearly one‐half (46%) had an average household income of $25,000 or less before taxes. The most common admitting diagnoses per chart audit among current inpatient smokers were AMI (31%) and CHF (27%). The vast majority (95%) of hospitalized smokers in this sample were first‐time admissions to the University of Chicago. Table 1 shows the demographic data for current smokers compared to former smokers (those who have quit smoking prior to admission). Current smokers were more likely to be African American, had lower income levels, and were less likely to have completed high school. Additionally, current smokers were more likely to carry a potential diagnosis of AMI or CHF and to be a first‐time admission (Table 1).

Approximately three‐quarters (76%; 210/276) of current smokers were identified as prepared to quit, with a Ladder score 6. There was a wide distribution of Ladder scores, with one‐third (31%; 86/276) of smokers reporting a Ladder score of 8, indicating that they still smoke, but are ready to set a quit date and another 34% (95/276 patients) with Ladder scores of either 6 or 7 also indicating they were planning to quit smoking (Figure 2). A significant portion of smokers (71%; 195/276) reported making a quit attempt after discharge, and 38% of smokers (106/276) self‐reported that their quit attempt was successful (ie, no longer smoking at 1 month post discharge). Note that the quit rate is reduced to 26% (106/415) at 1 month if one conservatively assumes that those who did not take part in follow‐up were relapsers. Among those who did participate in follow‐up, as shown in Figure 3, the most frequently reported (53%; 145/276) method used to quit smoking was cold turkey. Thirteen percent (37/276) of patients reported making a quit attempt using pharmacological therapy (ie, NRT or bupropion) and only 4% (12/276) of patients reported making a quit attempt using the help of a smoking cessation program (Figure 3).

Figure 2

Figure 3

Preparedness was an important predictor of making a quit attempt. Prepared patients (ie, Ladder score 6) were significantly more likely than patients who were less prepared to report making a quit attempt after discharge (163/212 [77%] vs. 32/64 [50%], respectively; P < 0.001). This result remained significant after adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics with a similar effect size (adjusted estimates 76% [95% CI, 75.7‐76.7] prepared vs. 49% [95% CI, 48.5‐49.8]; P < 0.001). These results also remained significant with a similar effect size in analyses using multivariate logistic regression (Table 2). Of those patients who made quit attempts, prepared patients were slightly more likely to report a successful quit attempt (90/163; 55%) than were less‐prepared patients (16/32; 50%), though this was not significant (P = 0.205).

In the follow‐up sample, 17% could not remember if they received advice to quit smoking. Among those who were able to recall receiving advice, the majority (78%; 180/230) reported that they received advice from a nurse or physician during hospitalization, compared to 22% who did not recall ever being advised to quit by any healthcare provider during the admission. Patients who reported receiving advice to quit were more likely to report making a quit attempt postdischarge as compared to those that did not recall receiving advice (70% vs. 46%, respectively; P = 0.002). In a multivariate logistic regression, controlling for demographic factors and admitting diagnosis, both preparedness and receipt of in‐hospital advice were independent predictors of making a future quit attempt (odds ratio [OR] = 4.05; 95% CI, 1.91‐8.60; P < 0.001 for preparedness; OR = 3.96; 95% CI, 1.84‐8.54; P < 0.001 for advice). Additionally, there was no significant interaction or synergistic effect between being prepared to quit smoking and receiving in‐hospital advice to quit (OR = 1.24; 95% CI, 0.17‐9.21; P = 0.836) (Figure 4). When analyzing the effects of preparedness and advice on quit attempts, only preparedness to quit remained a significant predictor of a successful quit attempt (OR = 2.93; 95% CI, 1.13‐7.60; P = 0.027 for preparedness; OR = 2.16; 95% CI, 0.85‐5.49; P = 0.10 for advice to quit). As demonstrated in Table 2, a higher percentage of prepared patients made a quit attempt after discharge (76.9% vs. 50%) and had a successful quit attempt and short‐term abstinence (55% prepared patients vs. 50% less prepared patients).

Figure 4

Discussion

This study demonstrated that in a group of hospitalized underserved, and predominantly African American smokers, the majority of patients reported being prepared to quit smoking at the time of hospitalization. Prepared patients were more likely to report making a quit attempt after discharge and more likely to report being successful in their quit attempt than patients who reported being less prepared to quit during their hospitalization. Nevertheless, approximately one‐half of unprepared patients did make a quit attempt 1 month after discharge, demonstrating a desire to quit smoking after hospitalization among this population. However, short‐term success rates in this group were lower than in patients prepared to quit. In addition, preparedness to quit and receipt of in‐hospital advice to quit smoking were both found to be independent predictors of making a quit attempt, with nearly identical ORs; however, only preparedness remained significant after controlling for advice to quit. Last, although the majority of hospitalized cardiac patients were making quit attempts after discharge, most patients reported using the least effective quit methods (ie, cold turkey) rather than more effective and intensive interventions such as counseling in combination with pharmacotherapy.

These findings have important implications for current quality initiatives targeted at promoting smoking cessation among cardiac patients. First, these results highlight the need for evidence‐based methods to be made available to hospitalized smokers who are prepared to quit. Our results are consistent with other studies reporting rare use (5.2%) of NRT in the hospital setting, despite the proven benefit in treating nicotine withdrawal symptoms.17 This is also consistent with data reporting that among nonhospitalized smokers, quitting cold turkey was the most commonly used and least effective cessation method.18 Second, the rate of recall of in‐hospital advice among patients (78%) was generally consistent with those reported to CMS (most recent quarter 95% for AMI and 88% for CHF).19

In addition to receiving advice, preparedness to quit was associated with higher quit attempts, therefore highlighting the importance of assessing level of preparedness in addition to giving advice. The fact that most quit attempts were made using cold turkey and resulted in low short‐term success rates underscores the need to reevaluate the current CMS quality indicator of advice alone for hospitalized smokers. Furthermore, the recently updated 2008 U.S. Public Health guidelines recently recommend, in addition to advice, that all hospitalized smokers be assessed for readiness to change, be assisted in quitting with pharmacotherapy, and be arranged follow‐up for tobacco cessation postdischarge, highlighting the inadequacy of advice alone.4 While it is important to continue to advise all hospitalized smokers to quit, the study findings demonstrate that assessing preparedness may result in targeting more prepared patients with more intensive interventions. Further policy implications include that less prepared patients may need motivational techniques to increase their level of preparedness to quit during hospitalization.

Several limitations are worth mentioning. First, the study included a relatively small sample size drawn from a single urban medical center. The prevalence of current smokers in our sample was 15%, which is lower than many studies looking at cardiology inpatient smokers.3, 20 This limitation of our study may be attributed to the advanced age of the majority of our patients, as compared with other studies, as well as the possibility of socially desirable response bias that many low‐income African American smokers may experience, leaving them less likely to admit to smoking at the time of hospitalization. Second, there was a low follow‐up rate, with 66% of patients undergoing follow‐up postdischarge. While this may raise the concerns of differences between ladder scores in those patients that participated in follow‐up and those that did not, analyses show no significant difference between level of preparedness in these 2 groups (68% prepared in patients who received follow‐up vs. 63% prepared patients in those who did not participate in follow‐up; P = 0.36). Third, follow‐up of quit attempts and receipt of advice were all assessed using self‐report, and, therefore, were limited by lack of verification and lack of assessment for potential recall bias. Fourth, in this pilot study, the follow‐up period was relatively short at 1 month postdischarge. It is likely that rates of successful quit attempts would be lower with longer‐term follow‐up periods, given previous literature demonstrating the difficulty with long‐term abstinence.21 Last, the study was not able to account for potential effects that hospitalization itself may have on preparedness, as patients may be more likely to report being prepared to quit when in the face of a health shock,22 as well as the fact that some patients may demonstrate a socially desirable response bias influenced by hospitalization.

In conclusion, the majority of underserved smokers with cardiac disease reported being prepared to quit smoking and were more likely to self‐report making a quit attempt after discharge. However, the majority of these quit attempts were made via cold turkey, without the support of available evidence‐based methods to quit. It is possible that by directly providing education, access to pharmacotherapy, and counseling options, the utilization rates for more efficacious treatments would increase in cardiac patients who are prepared to quit. While recall of in‐hospital advice was associated with future quit attempts, prepared patients who recalled receiving advice were more likely to make a quit attempt than prepared patients who did not recall receiving advice, as well as unprepared patients. Together, these findings highlight the need to consider a patient's level of preparedness to quit in understanding the success of in‐hospital advice and the importance of making evidence‐based cessation methods available to hospitalized smokers who are prepared to quit. Additionally, identifying patients not prepared to quit may help in providing them with appropriate motivational therapy, to move them along the stages of change, as well as educational information on how to quit once they have decided to do so.

A crucial arena of innovative educational programs for the care of the elderly must include the hospital setting, a place of great cost, morbidity, and mortality for a population currently occupying approximately half of US hospital beds.1 With a marked acceleration in the number of persons living to an advanced age, there is a clear imperative to address the health‐care needs of the elderly, particularly the complex and frail.24 An educational grounding that steps beyond the traditional organ‐based models of disease to a much broader patient‐centered framework of care is necessary to aid physicians in advanced clinical decision‐making in the care of older patients. Organizing the medical care of the older patient within existing systems of care and a team care management network must also be improved.

Curricular materials and methods are widely available for teaching geriatric medicine,57 but most are geared toward outpatient care and management, with few addressing the care of the hospitalized, older medical patient.810 There is even less published on curricular materials, methods, and tools for such teaching outside of specialized hospital‐based geriatric units by nongeriatrics‐trained faculty.1113 Furthermore, the evaluation of geriatrics educational programs in the hospital setting has not been done with the ultimate assessment, the linking of educational programs to demonstrated changes in clinical practice and patient care outcomes.

To address these needs, we designed and implemented the Curriculum for the Hospitalized Aging Medical Patient (CHAMP) Faculty Development Program (FDP). CHAMP was funded by a grant from the Donald W. Reynolds Foundation Aging and Quality of Life Program with a matching commitment from the University of Chicago Department of Medicine. At the core of CHAMP are principles of care for the older patient in the hospital setting, with an emphasis on identifying and providing care for the complex and frail elderly with nongeriatrician inpatient medicine faculty as the primary teachers of these materials. The overall educational goals of the CHAMP FDP are the following: (1) to train hospitalists and general internists to recognize opportunities to teach geriatric medicine topics specific to the care of the hospitalized older patient; (2) to create teaching materials, tools, and methods that can be used in the busy medical inpatient setting at the bedside; (3) to create materials and tools that facilitate teaching the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) core competencies14 during ward rounds; and (4) to increase the frequency and effectiveness with which this geriatrics content is taught in the hospital setting. This article describes the development and refinement of the CHAMP FDP and evaluation results to date.

METHODS

The CHAMP FDP was developed by a core group of geriatricians, hospitalists, general medicine faculty, and PhD educators from the Office of the Dean at the University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine. The core group piloted the FDP for themselves in spring 2004, and the FDP was offered to target learners annually from 2004 to 2006.

RESULTS

We pilot‐tested the format, materials, methods, and evaluation components of the CHAMP FDP with the CHAMP core faculty in the spring of 2004. The revised CHAMP FDP was given in the fall of 2004 to the first group of 8 faculty learners. Similar annual CHAMP FDPs have occurred since 2004, with a total of 29 Faculty Scholars by 2006. This includes approximately half of the University of Chicago general medicine faculty and the majority of the hospitalist faculty. Geriatrics fellows, a medicine chief resident, and other internal medicine subspecialists have also taken the CHAMP FDP. The average evaluations of all CHAMP sessions by all participants are shown in Table 3.

Faculty Scholars rated the FDP highly regarding preparation for teaching and incorporation of the material into their teaching and practice. Likewise, qualitative comments by the Faculty Scholars were strongly supportive of CHAMP:

• Significantly more aware and confident in teaching around typical geriatric issues present in our patients.

• Provided concrete, structured ideas about curriculum, learning goals, content materials and how to implement them.

• The online teaching resources were something I used on an almost daily basis.

• Wish we had this for outpatient.

CHAMP had a favorable impact on the Faculty Scholars across the domains of knowledge, attitudes, and perceived behavior change (Table 4). Significant differences on paired‐sample t tests found significant improvement on all but one measure (importance of teaching). After the CHAMP program, Faculty Scholars were more knowledgeable about geriatrics content (P = 0.023), had more positive attitudes to older patients (P = 0.049), and had greater confidence in their ability to care for older patients (P < 0.001) and teach geriatric medicine skills (P < 0.001) and Teaching on Today's Wards content (P < 0.001). There was a significant increase in the perceived importance of practicing the learned skills (P = 0.008) and Teaching on Today's Wards (P = 0.001). The increased importance of teaching geriatrics skills was marginally significant (P = 0.064).

DISCUSSION

Central to CHAMP's design are (1) the creation of teaching materials and teaching resources that specifically address the challenges of teaching the care of the hospitalized older patient in busy hospital settings, (2) the provision of methods to reinforce the newly learned geriatrics teaching skills, and (3) a multidimensional evaluation scheme. The enthusiastic response to the CHAMP FDP and the evaluation results to date support the relevance and importance of CHAMP's focus, materials, and educational methods. The ideal outcome for our CHAMP FDP graduates is more informed, confident, and frequent teaching of geriatrics topics keyed to quality improvement and systems of care through a more streamlined but personalized bedside teaching process.13, 46 The CHAMP Faculty Scholar graduates' self‐report surveys of their performance and teaching of CHAMP course geriatrics skills did reveal a significant shift in clinical behavior, teaching, and confidence. Although the strongest indicator of perceived behavior change was in the enhanced self‐confidence in practicing and teaching, the significant changes in knowledge and attitude reinforce our observations of a shift in the mindset about teaching and caring for hospitalized elderly patients. This provides strong evidence for the efficacy of the CHAMP course in positively influencing participants.

Our biggest challenge with the CHAMP FDP was providing enough ongoing support to reinforce learning with an eye on the greater goal of changing teaching behaviors and clinical outcomes. After pilot testing, we added multiple types of support and follow‐up to the FDP: observed structured teaching exercises to practice CHAMP geriatrics content and teaching skills; modification of Teaching on Today's Wards through the addition of practice‐oriented exercises, games, and tutorials; frequent contact with our Faculty Scholar graduates post‐CHAMP FDP through CTC contracts; annual Faculty Scholars reunions; and continued access for the scholars to CHAMP materials on our Web site. Maintaining face‐to‐face contact between CHAMP core faculty and Faculty Scholars once the latter have finished the FDP has been challenging, largely because of clinical and teaching obligations over geographically separate sites. To overcome this, we are working to integrate CHAMP core faculty into hospitalist and general medicine section lecture series, increasing the frequency of CHAMP reunions, renewing CTC contracts with the Faculty Scholar graduates annually, and considering the concept of CHAMP core faculty guests attending during Faculty Scholars inpatient ward rounds.47

The CHAMP FDP and our evaluations to date have several limitations. First, FDP Scholars were volunteer participants who may have been more motivated to improve their geriatric care and teaching than nonparticipants. However, FDP Scholars had only moderate levels of geriatrics knowledge, attitudes, and confidence in their teaching on baseline testing and showed marked improvements in these domains after the FDP. In addition, Scholars' FDP participation was made possible by a reduction of other clinical obligations through direct reimbursement to their sections with CHAMP funds. Other incentives for CHAMP participation could include its focus on generalizable bedside teaching skills and provision of specific techniques for teaching the ACGME core competencies and quality improvement while using geriatrics content. Although the CHAMP FDP in its 48‐hour format is not sustainable or generalizable, the FDP modules and CHAMP materials were specifically designed to be usable in small pieces that could be incorporated into existing teaching structures, grand rounds, section meetings, teacher conferences, and continuing medical education workshops. CHAMP core group members have already presented and taught CHAMP components in many venues (see Dissemination on the CHAMP Web site). The excitement generated by CHAMP at national and specialty meetings, including multiple requests for materials, speaks to widespread interest in our CHAMP model. We are pursuing the creation of a mini‐CHAMP, an abbreviated FDP with an online component. These activities as well as feedback from users of CHAMP materials from the CHAMP Web site and the Portal of Geriatric Online Education will provide important opportunities for examining the use and acceptance of CHAMP outside our institution.

Another limitation of the CHAMP FDP is reliance on FDP Scholar self‐assessment in several of the evaluation components. Some studies have shown poor concordance between physicians' self‐assessment and external assessment over a range of domains.48 However, others have noted that despite these limitations, self‐assessment remains an essential tool for enabling physicians to discover the motivational discomfort of a performance gap, which may lead to changing concepts and mental models or changing work‐flow processes.49 Teaching on Today's Wards sessions in CHAMP emphasize self‐audit processes (such as process mapping and census audits) that can augment self‐assessment. We used such self‐audit processes in 1 small pilot study to date, providing summative and qualitative feedback to a group of FDP Scholars on their use of census audits.

However, the evaluation of the CHAMP FDP is enhanced by a yearly survey of all medical residents and medical students and by the linking of the teaching reported by residents and medical students to specific attendings. We have begun the analysis of resident perceptions of being taught CHAMP geriatrics topics by CHAMP faculty versus non‐CHAMP faculty. In addition, we are gathering data on patient‐level process of care and outcomes tied to the CHAMP FDP course session objectives by linking to the ongoing University of Chicago Hospitalist Project, a large clinical research project that enrolls general medicine inpatients in a study examining the quality of care and resource allocation for these patients.50 Because the ultimate goal of CHAMP is to improve the quality of care and outcomes for elderly hospitalized patients, the University of Chicago Hospitalist Project infrastructure was modified by the incorporation of the Vulnerable Elder Survey‐1351 and a process‐of‐care chart audit specifically based on the Assessing Care of the Vulnerable Elders Hospital Quality Indicators.52 Preliminary work included testing and validating these measures.53 Further evaluation of these clinical outcomes and CHAMP's efficacy and durability at the University of Chicago is ongoing and will be presented in future reports.

CONCLUSIONS

Through a collaboration of geriatricians, hospitalists, and general internists, the CHAMP FDP provides educational materials and methods keyed to bedside teaching in the fast‐paced world of the hospital. CHAMP improves faculty knowledge and attitudes and the frequency of teaching geriatrics topics and skills necessary to deliver quality care to the elderly hospitalized medical patient. Although the CHAMP FDP was developed and refined for use at a specific institution, the multitiered CHAMP FDP materials and methods have the potential for widespread use by multiple types of inpatient attendings for teaching the care of the older hospitalized medicine patient. Hospitalists in particular will require this expertise as both clinicians and teachers as their role, leadership, and influence continue to expand nationally.

A crucial arena of innovative educational programs for the care of the elderly must include the hospital setting, a place of great cost, morbidity, and mortality for a population currently occupying approximately half of US hospital beds.1 With a marked acceleration in the number of persons living to an advanced age, there is a clear imperative to address the health‐care needs of the elderly, particularly the complex and frail.24 An educational grounding that steps beyond the traditional organ‐based models of disease to a much broader patient‐centered framework of care is necessary to aid physicians in advanced clinical decision‐making in the care of older patients. Organizing the medical care of the older patient within existing systems of care and a team care management network must also be improved.

Curricular materials and methods are widely available for teaching geriatric medicine,57 but most are geared toward outpatient care and management, with few addressing the care of the hospitalized, older medical patient.810 There is even less published on curricular materials, methods, and tools for such teaching outside of specialized hospital‐based geriatric units by nongeriatrics‐trained faculty.1113 Furthermore, the evaluation of geriatrics educational programs in the hospital setting has not been done with the ultimate assessment, the linking of educational programs to demonstrated changes in clinical practice and patient care outcomes.

To address these needs, we designed and implemented the Curriculum for the Hospitalized Aging Medical Patient (CHAMP) Faculty Development Program (FDP). CHAMP was funded by a grant from the Donald W. Reynolds Foundation Aging and Quality of Life Program with a matching commitment from the University of Chicago Department of Medicine. At the core of CHAMP are principles of care for the older patient in the hospital setting, with an emphasis on identifying and providing care for the complex and frail elderly with nongeriatrician inpatient medicine faculty as the primary teachers of these materials. The overall educational goals of the CHAMP FDP are the following: (1) to train hospitalists and general internists to recognize opportunities to teach geriatric medicine topics specific to the care of the hospitalized older patient; (2) to create teaching materials, tools, and methods that can be used in the busy medical inpatient setting at the bedside; (3) to create materials and tools that facilitate teaching the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) core competencies14 during ward rounds; and (4) to increase the frequency and effectiveness with which this geriatrics content is taught in the hospital setting. This article describes the development and refinement of the CHAMP FDP and evaluation results to date.

METHODS

The CHAMP FDP was developed by a core group of geriatricians, hospitalists, general medicine faculty, and PhD educators from the Office of the Dean at the University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine. The core group piloted the FDP for themselves in spring 2004, and the FDP was offered to target learners annually from 2004 to 2006.

RESULTS

We pilot‐tested the format, materials, methods, and evaluation components of the CHAMP FDP with the CHAMP core faculty in the spring of 2004. The revised CHAMP FDP was given in the fall of 2004 to the first group of 8 faculty learners. Similar annual CHAMP FDPs have occurred since 2004, with a total of 29 Faculty Scholars by 2006. This includes approximately half of the University of Chicago general medicine faculty and the majority of the hospitalist faculty. Geriatrics fellows, a medicine chief resident, and other internal medicine subspecialists have also taken the CHAMP FDP. The average evaluations of all CHAMP sessions by all participants are shown in Table 3.

Faculty Scholars rated the FDP highly regarding preparation for teaching and incorporation of the material into their teaching and practice. Likewise, qualitative comments by the Faculty Scholars were strongly supportive of CHAMP:

• Significantly more aware and confident in teaching around typical geriatric issues present in our patients.

• Provided concrete, structured ideas about curriculum, learning goals, content materials and how to implement them.

• The online teaching resources were something I used on an almost daily basis.

• Wish we had this for outpatient.

CHAMP had a favorable impact on the Faculty Scholars across the domains of knowledge, attitudes, and perceived behavior change (Table 4). Significant differences on paired‐sample t tests found significant improvement on all but one measure (importance of teaching). After the CHAMP program, Faculty Scholars were more knowledgeable about geriatrics content (P = 0.023), had more positive attitudes to older patients (P = 0.049), and had greater confidence in their ability to care for older patients (P < 0.001) and teach geriatric medicine skills (P < 0.001) and Teaching on Today's Wards content (P < 0.001). There was a significant increase in the perceived importance of practicing the learned skills (P = 0.008) and Teaching on Today's Wards (P = 0.001). The increased importance of teaching geriatrics skills was marginally significant (P = 0.064).

DISCUSSION

Central to CHAMP's design are (1) the creation of teaching materials and teaching resources that specifically address the challenges of teaching the care of the hospitalized older patient in busy hospital settings, (2) the provision of methods to reinforce the newly learned geriatrics teaching skills, and (3) a multidimensional evaluation scheme. The enthusiastic response to the CHAMP FDP and the evaluation results to date support the relevance and importance of CHAMP's focus, materials, and educational methods. The ideal outcome for our CHAMP FDP graduates is more informed, confident, and frequent teaching of geriatrics topics keyed to quality improvement and systems of care through a more streamlined but personalized bedside teaching process.13, 46 The CHAMP Faculty Scholar graduates' self‐report surveys of their performance and teaching of CHAMP course geriatrics skills did reveal a significant shift in clinical behavior, teaching, and confidence. Although the strongest indicator of perceived behavior change was in the enhanced self‐confidence in practicing and teaching, the significant changes in knowledge and attitude reinforce our observations of a shift in the mindset about teaching and caring for hospitalized elderly patients. This provides strong evidence for the efficacy of the CHAMP course in positively influencing participants.

Our biggest challenge with the CHAMP FDP was providing enough ongoing support to reinforce learning with an eye on the greater goal of changing teaching behaviors and clinical outcomes. After pilot testing, we added multiple types of support and follow‐up to the FDP: observed structured teaching exercises to practice CHAMP geriatrics content and teaching skills; modification of Teaching on Today's Wards through the addition of practice‐oriented exercises, games, and tutorials; frequent contact with our Faculty Scholar graduates post‐CHAMP FDP through CTC contracts; annual Faculty Scholars reunions; and continued access for the scholars to CHAMP materials on our Web site. Maintaining face‐to‐face contact between CHAMP core faculty and Faculty Scholars once the latter have finished the FDP has been challenging, largely because of clinical and teaching obligations over geographically separate sites. To overcome this, we are working to integrate CHAMP core faculty into hospitalist and general medicine section lecture series, increasing the frequency of CHAMP reunions, renewing CTC contracts with the Faculty Scholar graduates annually, and considering the concept of CHAMP core faculty guests attending during Faculty Scholars inpatient ward rounds.47

The CHAMP FDP and our evaluations to date have several limitations. First, FDP Scholars were volunteer participants who may have been more motivated to improve their geriatric care and teaching than nonparticipants. However, FDP Scholars had only moderate levels of geriatrics knowledge, attitudes, and confidence in their teaching on baseline testing and showed marked improvements in these domains after the FDP. In addition, Scholars' FDP participation was made possible by a reduction of other clinical obligations through direct reimbursement to their sections with CHAMP funds. Other incentives for CHAMP participation could include its focus on generalizable bedside teaching skills and provision of specific techniques for teaching the ACGME core competencies and quality improvement while using geriatrics content. Although the CHAMP FDP in its 48‐hour format is not sustainable or generalizable, the FDP modules and CHAMP materials were specifically designed to be usable in small pieces that could be incorporated into existing teaching structures, grand rounds, section meetings, teacher conferences, and continuing medical education workshops. CHAMP core group members have already presented and taught CHAMP components in many venues (see Dissemination on the CHAMP Web site). The excitement generated by CHAMP at national and specialty meetings, including multiple requests for materials, speaks to widespread interest in our CHAMP model. We are pursuing the creation of a mini‐CHAMP, an abbreviated FDP with an online component. These activities as well as feedback from users of CHAMP materials from the CHAMP Web site and the Portal of Geriatric Online Education will provide important opportunities for examining the use and acceptance of CHAMP outside our institution.

Another limitation of the CHAMP FDP is reliance on FDP Scholar self‐assessment in several of the evaluation components. Some studies have shown poor concordance between physicians' self‐assessment and external assessment over a range of domains.48 However, others have noted that despite these limitations, self‐assessment remains an essential tool for enabling physicians to discover the motivational discomfort of a performance gap, which may lead to changing concepts and mental models or changing work‐flow processes.49 Teaching on Today's Wards sessions in CHAMP emphasize self‐audit processes (such as process mapping and census audits) that can augment self‐assessment. We used such self‐audit processes in 1 small pilot study to date, providing summative and qualitative feedback to a group of FDP Scholars on their use of census audits.

However, the evaluation of the CHAMP FDP is enhanced by a yearly survey of all medical residents and medical students and by the linking of the teaching reported by residents and medical students to specific attendings. We have begun the analysis of resident perceptions of being taught CHAMP geriatrics topics by CHAMP faculty versus non‐CHAMP faculty. In addition, we are gathering data on patient‐level process of care and outcomes tied to the CHAMP FDP course session objectives by linking to the ongoing University of Chicago Hospitalist Project, a large clinical research project that enrolls general medicine inpatients in a study examining the quality of care and resource allocation for these patients.50 Because the ultimate goal of CHAMP is to improve the quality of care and outcomes for elderly hospitalized patients, the University of Chicago Hospitalist Project infrastructure was modified by the incorporation of the Vulnerable Elder Survey‐1351 and a process‐of‐care chart audit specifically based on the Assessing Care of the Vulnerable Elders Hospital Quality Indicators.52 Preliminary work included testing and validating these measures.53 Further evaluation of these clinical outcomes and CHAMP's efficacy and durability at the University of Chicago is ongoing and will be presented in future reports.

CONCLUSIONS

Through a collaboration of geriatricians, hospitalists, and general internists, the CHAMP FDP provides educational materials and methods keyed to bedside teaching in the fast‐paced world of the hospital. CHAMP improves faculty knowledge and attitudes and the frequency of teaching geriatrics topics and skills necessary to deliver quality care to the elderly hospitalized medical patient. Although the CHAMP FDP was developed and refined for use at a specific institution, the multitiered CHAMP FDP materials and methods have the potential for widespread use by multiple types of inpatient attendings for teaching the care of the older hospitalized medicine patient. Hospitalists in particular will require this expertise as both clinicians and teachers as their role, leadership, and influence continue to expand nationally.

A crucial arena of innovative educational programs for the care of the elderly must include the hospital setting, a place of great cost, morbidity, and mortality for a population currently occupying approximately half of US hospital beds.1 With a marked acceleration in the number of persons living to an advanced age, there is a clear imperative to address the health‐care needs of the elderly, particularly the complex and frail.24 An educational grounding that steps beyond the traditional organ‐based models of disease to a much broader patient‐centered framework of care is necessary to aid physicians in advanced clinical decision‐making in the care of older patients. Organizing the medical care of the older patient within existing systems of care and a team care management network must also be improved.

Curricular materials and methods are widely available for teaching geriatric medicine,57 but most are geared toward outpatient care and management, with few addressing the care of the hospitalized, older medical patient.810 There is even less published on curricular materials, methods, and tools for such teaching outside of specialized hospital‐based geriatric units by nongeriatrics‐trained faculty.1113 Furthermore, the evaluation of geriatrics educational programs in the hospital setting has not been done with the ultimate assessment, the linking of educational programs to demonstrated changes in clinical practice and patient care outcomes.

To address these needs, we designed and implemented the Curriculum for the Hospitalized Aging Medical Patient (CHAMP) Faculty Development Program (FDP). CHAMP was funded by a grant from the Donald W. Reynolds Foundation Aging and Quality of Life Program with a matching commitment from the University of Chicago Department of Medicine. At the core of CHAMP are principles of care for the older patient in the hospital setting, with an emphasis on identifying and providing care for the complex and frail elderly with nongeriatrician inpatient medicine faculty as the primary teachers of these materials. The overall educational goals of the CHAMP FDP are the following: (1) to train hospitalists and general internists to recognize opportunities to teach geriatric medicine topics specific to the care of the hospitalized older patient; (2) to create teaching materials, tools, and methods that can be used in the busy medical inpatient setting at the bedside; (3) to create materials and tools that facilitate teaching the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) core competencies14 during ward rounds; and (4) to increase the frequency and effectiveness with which this geriatrics content is taught in the hospital setting. This article describes the development and refinement of the CHAMP FDP and evaluation results to date.

METHODS

The CHAMP FDP was developed by a core group of geriatricians, hospitalists, general medicine faculty, and PhD educators from the Office of the Dean at the University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine. The core group piloted the FDP for themselves in spring 2004, and the FDP was offered to target learners annually from 2004 to 2006.

RESULTS

We pilot‐tested the format, materials, methods, and evaluation components of the CHAMP FDP with the CHAMP core faculty in the spring of 2004. The revised CHAMP FDP was given in the fall of 2004 to the first group of 8 faculty learners. Similar annual CHAMP FDPs have occurred since 2004, with a total of 29 Faculty Scholars by 2006. This includes approximately half of the University of Chicago general medicine faculty and the majority of the hospitalist faculty. Geriatrics fellows, a medicine chief resident, and other internal medicine subspecialists have also taken the CHAMP FDP. The average evaluations of all CHAMP sessions by all participants are shown in Table 3.

Faculty Scholars rated the FDP highly regarding preparation for teaching and incorporation of the material into their teaching and practice. Likewise, qualitative comments by the Faculty Scholars were strongly supportive of CHAMP:

• Significantly more aware and confident in teaching around typical geriatric issues present in our patients.

• Provided concrete, structured ideas about curriculum, learning goals, content materials and how to implement them.

• The online teaching resources were something I used on an almost daily basis.

• Wish we had this for outpatient.

CHAMP had a favorable impact on the Faculty Scholars across the domains of knowledge, attitudes, and perceived behavior change (Table 4). Significant differences on paired‐sample t tests found significant improvement on all but one measure (importance of teaching). After the CHAMP program, Faculty Scholars were more knowledgeable about geriatrics content (P = 0.023), had more positive attitudes to older patients (P = 0.049), and had greater confidence in their ability to care for older patients (P < 0.001) and teach geriatric medicine skills (P < 0.001) and Teaching on Today's Wards content (P < 0.001). There was a significant increase in the perceived importance of practicing the learned skills (P = 0.008) and Teaching on Today's Wards (P = 0.001). The increased importance of teaching geriatrics skills was marginally significant (P = 0.064).

DISCUSSION

Central to CHAMP's design are (1) the creation of teaching materials and teaching resources that specifically address the challenges of teaching the care of the hospitalized older patient in busy hospital settings, (2) the provision of methods to reinforce the newly learned geriatrics teaching skills, and (3) a multidimensional evaluation scheme. The enthusiastic response to the CHAMP FDP and the evaluation results to date support the relevance and importance of CHAMP's focus, materials, and educational methods. The ideal outcome for our CHAMP FDP graduates is more informed, confident, and frequent teaching of geriatrics topics keyed to quality improvement and systems of care through a more streamlined but personalized bedside teaching process.13, 46 The CHAMP Faculty Scholar graduates' self‐report surveys of their performance and teaching of CHAMP course geriatrics skills did reveal a significant shift in clinical behavior, teaching, and confidence. Although the strongest indicator of perceived behavior change was in the enhanced self‐confidence in practicing and teaching, the significant changes in knowledge and attitude reinforce our observations of a shift in the mindset about teaching and caring for hospitalized elderly patients. This provides strong evidence for the efficacy of the CHAMP course in positively influencing participants.

Our biggest challenge with the CHAMP FDP was providing enough ongoing support to reinforce learning with an eye on the greater goal of changing teaching behaviors and clinical outcomes. After pilot testing, we added multiple types of support and follow‐up to the FDP: observed structured teaching exercises to practice CHAMP geriatrics content and teaching skills; modification of Teaching on Today's Wards through the addition of practice‐oriented exercises, games, and tutorials; frequent contact with our Faculty Scholar graduates post‐CHAMP FDP through CTC contracts; annual Faculty Scholars reunions; and continued access for the scholars to CHAMP materials on our Web site. Maintaining face‐to‐face contact between CHAMP core faculty and Faculty Scholars once the latter have finished the FDP has been challenging, largely because of clinical and teaching obligations over geographically separate sites. To overcome this, we are working to integrate CHAMP core faculty into hospitalist and general medicine section lecture series, increasing the frequency of CHAMP reunions, renewing CTC contracts with the Faculty Scholar graduates annually, and considering the concept of CHAMP core faculty guests attending during Faculty Scholars inpatient ward rounds.47

The CHAMP FDP and our evaluations to date have several limitations. First, FDP Scholars were volunteer participants who may have been more motivated to improve their geriatric care and teaching than nonparticipants. However, FDP Scholars had only moderate levels of geriatrics knowledge, attitudes, and confidence in their teaching on baseline testing and showed marked improvements in these domains after the FDP. In addition, Scholars' FDP participation was made possible by a reduction of other clinical obligations through direct reimbursement to their sections with CHAMP funds. Other incentives for CHAMP participation could include its focus on generalizable bedside teaching skills and provision of specific techniques for teaching the ACGME core competencies and quality improvement while using geriatrics content. Although the CHAMP FDP in its 48‐hour format is not sustainable or generalizable, the FDP modules and CHAMP materials were specifically designed to be usable in small pieces that could be incorporated into existing teaching structures, grand rounds, section meetings, teacher conferences, and continuing medical education workshops. CHAMP core group members have already presented and taught CHAMP components in many venues (see Dissemination on the CHAMP Web site). The excitement generated by CHAMP at national and specialty meetings, including multiple requests for materials, speaks to widespread interest in our CHAMP model. We are pursuing the creation of a mini‐CHAMP, an abbreviated FDP with an online component. These activities as well as feedback from users of CHAMP materials from the CHAMP Web site and the Portal of Geriatric Online Education will provide important opportunities for examining the use and acceptance of CHAMP outside our institution.

Another limitation of the CHAMP FDP is reliance on FDP Scholar self‐assessment in several of the evaluation components. Some studies have shown poor concordance between physicians' self‐assessment and external assessment over a range of domains.48 However, others have noted that despite these limitations, self‐assessment remains an essential tool for enabling physicians to discover the motivational discomfort of a performance gap, which may lead to changing concepts and mental models or changing work‐flow processes.49 Teaching on Today's Wards sessions in CHAMP emphasize self‐audit processes (such as process mapping and census audits) that can augment self‐assessment. We used such self‐audit processes in 1 small pilot study to date, providing summative and qualitative feedback to a group of FDP Scholars on their use of census audits.

However, the evaluation of the CHAMP FDP is enhanced by a yearly survey of all medical residents and medical students and by the linking of the teaching reported by residents and medical students to specific attendings. We have begun the analysis of resident perceptions of being taught CHAMP geriatrics topics by CHAMP faculty versus non‐CHAMP faculty. In addition, we are gathering data on patient‐level process of care and outcomes tied to the CHAMP FDP course session objectives by linking to the ongoing University of Chicago Hospitalist Project, a large clinical research project that enrolls general medicine inpatients in a study examining the quality of care and resource allocation for these patients.50 Because the ultimate goal of CHAMP is to improve the quality of care and outcomes for elderly hospitalized patients, the University of Chicago Hospitalist Project infrastructure was modified by the incorporation of the Vulnerable Elder Survey‐1351 and a process‐of‐care chart audit specifically based on the Assessing Care of the Vulnerable Elders Hospital Quality Indicators.52 Preliminary work included testing and validating these measures.53 Further evaluation of these clinical outcomes and CHAMP's efficacy and durability at the University of Chicago is ongoing and will be presented in future reports.

CONCLUSIONS

Through a collaboration of geriatricians, hospitalists, and general internists, the CHAMP FDP provides educational materials and methods keyed to bedside teaching in the fast‐paced world of the hospital. CHAMP improves faculty knowledge and attitudes and the frequency of teaching geriatrics topics and skills necessary to deliver quality care to the elderly hospitalized medical patient. Although the CHAMP FDP was developed and refined for use at a specific institution, the multitiered CHAMP FDP materials and methods have the potential for widespread use by multiple types of inpatient attendings for teaching the care of the older hospitalized medicine patient. Hospitalists in particular will require this expertise as both clinicians and teachers as their role, leadership, and influence continue to expand nationally.

There is a growing demand for hospitalists in the United States. In academic settings, hospitalists are called on to perform a variety of duties, from leading quality improvement initiatives to serving on hospital committees to helping to offset restrictions on work hours of the house staff.1 Although hospitalists may be well positioned to take on these roles, obtaining adequate protected time and recognition for such contributions remains a challenge. The existing promotion and tenure processes at academic institutions may not give adequate consideration to such responsibilities. Hospitalists who do not meet the traditional benchmarks of teaching and research may suffer in their career advancement and, ultimately, in their desire to remain in academics. Developing a sustainable and long‐term career in hospital medicine is important not only from a professional developmental standpoint, but also because it may lead to better patient care; evidence from a large multicenter hospitalist study suggests that physician experience is linked to improved patient care and outcomes.2 Thus, it behooves academic medical centers that employ hospitalists to create rewarding hospitalist career paths.

Goldman described academic hospital medicine as comprising periods of systole, during which hospitalists provide clinical care, and periods of diastole, the portion of a hospitalist's time spent in nonclinical activities.3 Far from being a period of relaxation, diastole is an active component of a hospitalist's work, the time devoted to the pursuit of complementary interests, career advancement, and job diversity. A well‐thought‐out plan for the diastolic phase of a hospitalist job description can lead to significant improvement in quality, education, research, and outcomes for an academic medical center.4 A good balance of systole and diastole allows for focus on career development and advancement and has the potential to be very helpful in preventing burnout. This is of particular concern to academic hospitalists, who report working longer hours, feeling more stress, and worrying more about burnout than their nonhospitalist colleagues.5 This suggests the diastolic phase is an important part of creating a sustainable hospitalist job and should be funded as part of an academic hospitalist position.

Although the optimal balance of systole and diastole to prevent burnout is not known, outlining clear expectations is an important strategy for preparing physicians for a sustainable academic hospitalist career. This is an important issue, given the increasing number of residency graduates who are choosing careers in hospital medicine.6 Based on the reported career plans of residents taking internal medicine in‐training exams from 2002 through 2006, the number of residents going into hospital medicine has more than doubled, from 3% (in 2002) to 6.5% (in 2006). The goal of this article is to compare and contrast several career paths that balance systole and diastole in academic hospital medicine. Specifically, we review training opportunities for becoming a successful hospitalist‐educator, hospitalistquality expert, hospitalist‐investigator, and hospitalist‐administrator.

EDUCATION (THE HOSPITALIST‐EDUCATOR)

Hospitalists in academic centers often play central roles as teachers and leaders in medical education. This is not surprising given that most teaching of medical trainees occurs in the inpatient setting.7 Furthermore, several studies have consistently demonstrated that trainee satisfaction with teaching by hospitalists is high, and hospitalists are rated as more effective teachers than traditional subspecialist ward attendings.810

A typical hospitalist‐educator position is 80%‐90% clinical time, with 10%‐20% set aside for teaching. However, academic hospitalists are often expected to teach medical trainees concurrently with their clinical care activities, rather than during a separate, protected time.11 Thus, most hospitalist‐educator responsibilities do not occur during diastole, as may be conceived, but instead are add to the systole. Small amounts of protected diastolic time for a hospitalist‐educator can be used for related administrative activities, such as writing letters of recommendation, mentoring students and residents, doing creative thinking and curriculum development, and conducting educational research, such as evaluating a new educational program or curriculum. Some hospitalist‐educator positions, such as director of the residency program or internal medicine clerkship, are exceptions in that they generally include a greater amount of protected time, which may be earmarked for administrative activities and hands‐on teaching.

CLINICAL QUALITY AND OPERATIONS IMPROVEMENT (THE HOSPITALISTQUALITY EXPERT)

Hospitalists are increasingly being called on to lead clinical quality and operations improvement at academic teaching hospitals. Benefits to the institution include the consistent presence of a committed physician who is able to plan and execute change in the context of clinical care. This is in contrast to the transient nature of residents and nonhospitalist attending physicians, whose ability to participate in such initiatives is impaired by the scheduling of their rotations. Hospitalists, however, are often able to cultivate long‐standing relationships with nurses, case managers, and hospital administrators, thereby building the institutional clout to lead such initiatives while considering views from all the necessary stakeholders.22 Thus, they are in a good position to serve as physician champions and expedite the adoption of new innovations within hospitalist groups and among other physician groups and clinical staff.23, 24

RESEARCH (THE HOSPITALIST‐INVESTIGATOR)

Few hospitalists devote most of their time to clinical research. Having a strong research base is essential for the field of hospital medicine to gain credibility as a distinct specialty.4 Although the initial research in hospital medicine sought to prove the value of the field itself, hospitalists have now begun to focus on quality improvement and outcomes research.3032 Because of their unique position in clinical care, hospitalists are well situated to oversee inpatient data collection and perform research on a variety of conditions ranging from acute coronary syndromes to venous thromboembolism. Another potential area of research for hospitalists is participation in clinical trials focused on the inpatient setting. Although the proportion of time spent in research can vary widely, to become an independently successful clinical researcher typically requires a substantial amount of time be devoted to research. In general, at least 50% protected time, greater if possible, is recommended.

ADMINISTRATION (THE HOSPITALIST‐ADMINISTRATOR)

Physician leaders in hospital administration are not new. Many hospitals already include physicians in senior management positions, such as chief medical officer.44 Naturally, a career in hospital administration is another potential path for diastole in academic medical centers.

CONCLUSIONS

As hospital medicine continues to grow and evolve, designing sustainable and rewarding academic careers will be crucial to the success of the field. Being able to balance clinical systole time with obtaining the skills to support nonclinical diastole time is important to ensuring a successful career as an academic hospitalist. We have described several possible career paths in teaching, research, quality improvement, and administration. By preparing future hospitalists with the knowledge and skills required to assume a variety of roles during their diastolic time, we hope to encourage the growth of hospitalist leaders with well‐developed skill sets. If hospitalists adequately prepare themselves, academic hospital medicine will likely remain sustainable and rewarding, and future generations of trainees will be inspired and prepared to enter the field.

There is a growing demand for hospitalists in the United States. In academic settings, hospitalists are called on to perform a variety of duties, from leading quality improvement initiatives to serving on hospital committees to helping to offset restrictions on work hours of the house staff.1 Although hospitalists may be well positioned to take on these roles, obtaining adequate protected time and recognition for such contributions remains a challenge. The existing promotion and tenure processes at academic institutions may not give adequate consideration to such responsibilities. Hospitalists who do not meet the traditional benchmarks of teaching and research may suffer in their career advancement and, ultimately, in their desire to remain in academics. Developing a sustainable and long‐term career in hospital medicine is important not only from a professional developmental standpoint, but also because it may lead to better patient care; evidence from a large multicenter hospitalist study suggests that physician experience is linked to improved patient care and outcomes.2 Thus, it behooves academic medical centers that employ hospitalists to create rewarding hospitalist career paths.

Goldman described academic hospital medicine as comprising periods of systole, during which hospitalists provide clinical care, and periods of diastole, the portion of a hospitalist's time spent in nonclinical activities.3 Far from being a period of relaxation, diastole is an active component of a hospitalist's work, the time devoted to the pursuit of complementary interests, career advancement, and job diversity. A well‐thought‐out plan for the diastolic phase of a hospitalist job description can lead to significant improvement in quality, education, research, and outcomes for an academic medical center.4 A good balance of systole and diastole allows for focus on career development and advancement and has the potential to be very helpful in preventing burnout. This is of particular concern to academic hospitalists, who report working longer hours, feeling more stress, and worrying more about burnout than their nonhospitalist colleagues.5 This suggests the diastolic phase is an important part of creating a sustainable hospitalist job and should be funded as part of an academic hospitalist position.

Although the optimal balance of systole and diastole to prevent burnout is not known, outlining clear expectations is an important strategy for preparing physicians for a sustainable academic hospitalist career. This is an important issue, given the increasing number of residency graduates who are choosing careers in hospital medicine.6 Based on the reported career plans of residents taking internal medicine in‐training exams from 2002 through 2006, the number of residents going into hospital medicine has more than doubled, from 3% (in 2002) to 6.5% (in 2006). The goal of this article is to compare and contrast several career paths that balance systole and diastole in academic hospital medicine. Specifically, we review training opportunities for becoming a successful hospitalist‐educator, hospitalistquality expert, hospitalist‐investigator, and hospitalist‐administrator.

EDUCATION (THE HOSPITALIST‐EDUCATOR)

Hospitalists in academic centers often play central roles as teachers and leaders in medical education. This is not surprising given that most teaching of medical trainees occurs in the inpatient setting.7 Furthermore, several studies have consistently demonstrated that trainee satisfaction with teaching by hospitalists is high, and hospitalists are rated as more effective teachers than traditional subspecialist ward attendings.810

A typical hospitalist‐educator position is 80%‐90% clinical time, with 10%‐20% set aside for teaching. However, academic hospitalists are often expected to teach medical trainees concurrently with their clinical care activities, rather than during a separate, protected time.11 Thus, most hospitalist‐educator responsibilities do not occur during diastole, as may be conceived, but instead are add to the systole. Small amounts of protected diastolic time for a hospitalist‐educator can be used for related administrative activities, such as writing letters of recommendation, mentoring students and residents, doing creative thinking and curriculum development, and conducting educational research, such as evaluating a new educational program or curriculum. Some hospitalist‐educator positions, such as director of the residency program or internal medicine clerkship, are exceptions in that they generally include a greater amount of protected time, which may be earmarked for administrative activities and hands‐on teaching.

CLINICAL QUALITY AND OPERATIONS IMPROVEMENT (THE HOSPITALISTQUALITY EXPERT)

Hospitalists are increasingly being called on to lead clinical quality and operations improvement at academic teaching hospitals. Benefits to the institution include the consistent presence of a committed physician who is able to plan and execute change in the context of clinical care. This is in contrast to the transient nature of residents and nonhospitalist attending physicians, whose ability to participate in such initiatives is impaired by the scheduling of their rotations. Hospitalists, however, are often able to cultivate long‐standing relationships with nurses, case managers, and hospital administrators, thereby building the institutional clout to lead such initiatives while considering views from all the necessary stakeholders.22 Thus, they are in a good position to serve as physician champions and expedite the adoption of new innovations within hospitalist groups and among other physician groups and clinical staff.23, 24

RESEARCH (THE HOSPITALIST‐INVESTIGATOR)

Few hospitalists devote most of their time to clinical research. Having a strong research base is essential for the field of hospital medicine to gain credibility as a distinct specialty.4 Although the initial research in hospital medicine sought to prove the value of the field itself, hospitalists have now begun to focus on quality improvement and outcomes research.3032 Because of their unique position in clinical care, hospitalists are well situated to oversee inpatient data collection and perform research on a variety of conditions ranging from acute coronary syndromes to venous thromboembolism. Another potential area of research for hospitalists is participation in clinical trials focused on the inpatient setting. Although the proportion of time spent in research can vary widely, to become an independently successful clinical researcher typically requires a substantial amount of time be devoted to research. In general, at least 50% protected time, greater if possible, is recommended.

ADMINISTRATION (THE HOSPITALIST‐ADMINISTRATOR)

Physician leaders in hospital administration are not new. Many hospitals already include physicians in senior management positions, such as chief medical officer.44 Naturally, a career in hospital administration is another potential path for diastole in academic medical centers.

CONCLUSIONS

As hospital medicine continues to grow and evolve, designing sustainable and rewarding academic careers will be crucial to the success of the field. Being able to balance clinical systole time with obtaining the skills to support nonclinical diastole time is important to ensuring a successful career as an academic hospitalist. We have described several possible career paths in teaching, research, quality improvement, and administration. By preparing future hospitalists with the knowledge and skills required to assume a variety of roles during their diastolic time, we hope to encourage the growth of hospitalist leaders with well‐developed skill sets. If hospitalists adequately prepare themselves, academic hospital medicine will likely remain sustainable and rewarding, and future generations of trainees will be inspired and prepared to enter the field.

There is a growing demand for hospitalists in the United States. In academic settings, hospitalists are called on to perform a variety of duties, from leading quality improvement initiatives to serving on hospital committees to helping to offset restrictions on work hours of the house staff.1 Although hospitalists may be well positioned to take on these roles, obtaining adequate protected time and recognition for such contributions remains a challenge. The existing promotion and tenure processes at academic institutions may not give adequate consideration to such responsibilities. Hospitalists who do not meet the traditional benchmarks of teaching and research may suffer in their career advancement and, ultimately, in their desire to remain in academics. Developing a sustainable and long‐term career in hospital medicine is important not only from a professional developmental standpoint, but also because it may lead to better patient care; evidence from a large multicenter hospitalist study suggests that physician experience is linked to improved patient care and outcomes.2 Thus, it behooves academic medical centers that employ hospitalists to create rewarding hospitalist career paths.

Goldman described academic hospital medicine as comprising periods of systole, during which hospitalists provide clinical care, and periods of diastole, the portion of a hospitalist's time spent in nonclinical activities.3 Far from being a period of relaxation, diastole is an active component of a hospitalist's work, the time devoted to the pursuit of complementary interests, career advancement, and job diversity. A well‐thought‐out plan for the diastolic phase of a hospitalist job description can lead to significant improvement in quality, education, research, and outcomes for an academic medical center.4 A good balance of systole and diastole allows for focus on career development and advancement and has the potential to be very helpful in preventing burnout. This is of particular concern to academic hospitalists, who report working longer hours, feeling more stress, and worrying more about burnout than their nonhospitalist colleagues.5 This suggests the diastolic phase is an important part of creating a sustainable hospitalist job and should be funded as part of an academic hospitalist position.

Although the optimal balance of systole and diastole to prevent burnout is not known, outlining clear expectations is an important strategy for preparing physicians for a sustainable academic hospitalist career. This is an important issue, given the increasing number of residency graduates who are choosing careers in hospital medicine.6 Based on the reported career plans of residents taking internal medicine in‐training exams from 2002 through 2006, the number of residents going into hospital medicine has more than doubled, from 3% (in 2002) to 6.5% (in 2006). The goal of this article is to compare and contrast several career paths that balance systole and diastole in academic hospital medicine. Specifically, we review training opportunities for becoming a successful hospitalist‐educator, hospitalistquality expert, hospitalist‐investigator, and hospitalist‐administrator.

EDUCATION (THE HOSPITALIST‐EDUCATOR)

Hospitalists in academic centers often play central roles as teachers and leaders in medical education. This is not surprising given that most teaching of medical trainees occurs in the inpatient setting.7 Furthermore, several studies have consistently demonstrated that trainee satisfaction with teaching by hospitalists is high, and hospitalists are rated as more effective teachers than traditional subspecialist ward attendings.810

A typical hospitalist‐educator position is 80%‐90% clinical time, with 10%‐20% set aside for teaching. However, academic hospitalists are often expected to teach medical trainees concurrently with their clinical care activities, rather than during a separate, protected time.11 Thus, most hospitalist‐educator responsibilities do not occur during diastole, as may be conceived, but instead are add to the systole. Small amounts of protected diastolic time for a hospitalist‐educator can be used for related administrative activities, such as writing letters of recommendation, mentoring students and residents, doing creative thinking and curriculum development, and conducting educational research, such as evaluating a new educational program or curriculum. Some hospitalist‐educator positions, such as director of the residency program or internal medicine clerkship, are exceptions in that they generally include a greater amount of protected time, which may be earmarked for administrative activities and hands‐on teaching.

CLINICAL QUALITY AND OPERATIONS IMPROVEMENT (THE HOSPITALISTQUALITY EXPERT)

Hospitalists are increasingly being called on to lead clinical quality and operations improvement at academic teaching hospitals. Benefits to the institution include the consistent presence of a committed physician who is able to plan and execute change in the context of clinical care. This is in contrast to the transient nature of residents and nonhospitalist attending physicians, whose ability to participate in such initiatives is impaired by the scheduling of their rotations. Hospitalists, however, are often able to cultivate long‐standing relationships with nurses, case managers, and hospital administrators, thereby building the institutional clout to lead such initiatives while considering views from all the necessary stakeholders.22 Thus, they are in a good position to serve as physician champions and expedite the adoption of new innovations within hospitalist groups and among other physician groups and clinical staff.23, 24

RESEARCH (THE HOSPITALIST‐INVESTIGATOR)

Few hospitalists devote most of their time to clinical research. Having a strong research base is essential for the field of hospital medicine to gain credibility as a distinct specialty.4 Although the initial research in hospital medicine sought to prove the value of the field itself, hospitalists have now begun to focus on quality improvement and outcomes research.3032 Because of their unique position in clinical care, hospitalists are well situated to oversee inpatient data collection and perform research on a variety of conditions ranging from acute coronary syndromes to venous thromboembolism. Another potential area of research for hospitalists is participation in clinical trials focused on the inpatient setting. Although the proportion of time spent in research can vary widely, to become an independently successful clinical researcher typically requires a substantial amount of time be devoted to research. In general, at least 50% protected time, greater if possible, is recommended.

ADMINISTRATION (THE HOSPITALIST‐ADMINISTRATOR)

Physician leaders in hospital administration are not new. Many hospitals already include physicians in senior management positions, such as chief medical officer.44 Naturally, a career in hospital administration is another potential path for diastole in academic medical centers.

CONCLUSIONS

As hospital medicine continues to grow and evolve, designing sustainable and rewarding academic careers will be crucial to the success of the field. Being able to balance clinical systole time with obtaining the skills to support nonclinical diastole time is important to ensuring a successful career as an academic hospitalist. We have described several possible career paths in teaching, research, quality improvement, and administration. By preparing future hospitalists with the knowledge and skills required to assume a variety of roles during their diastolic time, we hope to encourage the growth of hospitalist leaders with well‐developed skill sets. If hospitalists adequately prepare themselves, academic hospital medicine will likely remain sustainable and rewarding, and future generations of trainees will be inspired and prepared to enter the field.