Quality

A pilot project that transferred “boarded” patients from one hospital’s ED to an inpatient bed at another nearby hospital in the same health system suggests that the concept could save hospitals millions.

“Improvement in Emergency Department Treatment Capacity: A Health System Integration Approach” was the subject of an oral presentation at HM11 in Dallas. Lead researcher Diego Martinez-Vasquez, MD, MPH, FACP, CPE, medical director for clinical resource utilization at Franklin Square Hospital Center in Baltimore, conducted the research in the University of Maryland medical system.

In the project, 265 patients who consented were transferred 1.3 miles to a sister hospital. Without “boarders”—admitted patients held in the ED—Dr. Martinez-Vasquez’s team found that the referring hospital could have regained enough capacity for an additional 2.9 patients per day. The project also showed median net revenue of $520,000 for the referring hospital and $1.9 million for the accepting hospital.

“The hospitalist group at the receiving hospital was the instrument that facilitated this program,” Dr. Martinez-Vasquez says. “But really what kept my attention was that healthcare systems sometimes don’t use resources effectively. So when I looked at the problem that this particular hospital was having regarding increased boarding time and decreased treatment capacity, I said, ‘Well, one way to resolve this issue is to develop a process that connects two system hospitals and their bed resources.’ ”

A pilot project that transferred “boarded” patients from one hospital’s ED to an inpatient bed at another nearby hospital in the same health system suggests that the concept could save hospitals millions.

“Improvement in Emergency Department Treatment Capacity: A Health System Integration Approach” was the subject of an oral presentation at HM11 in Dallas. Lead researcher Diego Martinez-Vasquez, MD, MPH, FACP, CPE, medical director for clinical resource utilization at Franklin Square Hospital Center in Baltimore, conducted the research in the University of Maryland medical system.

In the project, 265 patients who consented were transferred 1.3 miles to a sister hospital. Without “boarders”—admitted patients held in the ED—Dr. Martinez-Vasquez’s team found that the referring hospital could have regained enough capacity for an additional 2.9 patients per day. The project also showed median net revenue of $520,000 for the referring hospital and $1.9 million for the accepting hospital.

“The hospitalist group at the receiving hospital was the instrument that facilitated this program,” Dr. Martinez-Vasquez says. “But really what kept my attention was that healthcare systems sometimes don’t use resources effectively. So when I looked at the problem that this particular hospital was having regarding increased boarding time and decreased treatment capacity, I said, ‘Well, one way to resolve this issue is to develop a process that connects two system hospitals and their bed resources.’ ”

A pilot project that transferred “boarded” patients from one hospital’s ED to an inpatient bed at another nearby hospital in the same health system suggests that the concept could save hospitals millions.

“Improvement in Emergency Department Treatment Capacity: A Health System Integration Approach” was the subject of an oral presentation at HM11 in Dallas. Lead researcher Diego Martinez-Vasquez, MD, MPH, FACP, CPE, medical director for clinical resource utilization at Franklin Square Hospital Center in Baltimore, conducted the research in the University of Maryland medical system.

In the project, 265 patients who consented were transferred 1.3 miles to a sister hospital. Without “boarders”—admitted patients held in the ED—Dr. Martinez-Vasquez’s team found that the referring hospital could have regained enough capacity for an additional 2.9 patients per day. The project also showed median net revenue of $520,000 for the referring hospital and $1.9 million for the accepting hospital.

“The hospitalist group at the receiving hospital was the instrument that facilitated this program,” Dr. Martinez-Vasquez says. “But really what kept my attention was that healthcare systems sometimes don’t use resources effectively. So when I looked at the problem that this particular hospital was having regarding increased boarding time and decreased treatment capacity, I said, ‘Well, one way to resolve this issue is to develop a process that connects two system hospitals and their bed resources.’ ”

A new study evaluating outcomes for hospitals participating in the American Heart Association’s Get with the Guidelines program found no correlation between high performance on adhering to measures and care standards for acute myocardial infarction and for heart failure despite overlap between the sets of care processes (J Am Coll Cardio. 2011;58:637-644).

A total of 400,000 heart patients were studied, and 283 participating hospitals were stratified into thirds based on their adherence to core quality measures for each disease, with the upper third labeled superior in performance. Lead author Tracy Wang, MD, MHS, MSc, of the Duke Clinical Research Institute in Durham, N.C., and colleagues found that superior performance for only one of the two diseases led to such end-result outcomes as in-hospital mortality that were no better than for hospitals that were not high performers for either condition. But hospitals with superior performance for both conditions had lower in-hospital mortality rates.

“Perhaps quality is more than just following checklists,” Dr. Wang says. “There’s something special about these high-performing hospitals across the board, with better QI, perhaps a little more investment in infrastructure for quality.”

This result, Dr. Wang says, should give ammunition for hospitalists and other physicians to go to their hospital administrators to request more investment in quality improvement overall, not just for specific conditions.

A new study evaluating outcomes for hospitals participating in the American Heart Association’s Get with the Guidelines program found no correlation between high performance on adhering to measures and care standards for acute myocardial infarction and for heart failure despite overlap between the sets of care processes (J Am Coll Cardio. 2011;58:637-644).

A total of 400,000 heart patients were studied, and 283 participating hospitals were stratified into thirds based on their adherence to core quality measures for each disease, with the upper third labeled superior in performance. Lead author Tracy Wang, MD, MHS, MSc, of the Duke Clinical Research Institute in Durham, N.C., and colleagues found that superior performance for only one of the two diseases led to such end-result outcomes as in-hospital mortality that were no better than for hospitals that were not high performers for either condition. But hospitals with superior performance for both conditions had lower in-hospital mortality rates.

“Perhaps quality is more than just following checklists,” Dr. Wang says. “There’s something special about these high-performing hospitals across the board, with better QI, perhaps a little more investment in infrastructure for quality.”

This result, Dr. Wang says, should give ammunition for hospitalists and other physicians to go to their hospital administrators to request more investment in quality improvement overall, not just for specific conditions.

A new study evaluating outcomes for hospitals participating in the American Heart Association’s Get with the Guidelines program found no correlation between high performance on adhering to measures and care standards for acute myocardial infarction and for heart failure despite overlap between the sets of care processes (J Am Coll Cardio. 2011;58:637-644).

A total of 400,000 heart patients were studied, and 283 participating hospitals were stratified into thirds based on their adherence to core quality measures for each disease, with the upper third labeled superior in performance. Lead author Tracy Wang, MD, MHS, MSc, of the Duke Clinical Research Institute in Durham, N.C., and colleagues found that superior performance for only one of the two diseases led to such end-result outcomes as in-hospital mortality that were no better than for hospitals that were not high performers for either condition. But hospitals with superior performance for both conditions had lower in-hospital mortality rates.

“Perhaps quality is more than just following checklists,” Dr. Wang says. “There’s something special about these high-performing hospitals across the board, with better QI, perhaps a little more investment in infrastructure for quality.”

This result, Dr. Wang says, should give ammunition for hospitalists and other physicians to go to their hospital administrators to request more investment in quality improvement overall, not just for specific conditions.

A new Joint Commission program offering advanced certification for hospital-based palliative-care services is accepting applications and conducting daylong surveys through the end of this month. As with the Joint Commission’s reviews of other specialty services (e.g. primary stroke centers), certification is narrower in scope, with service-specific evaluation of care and outcomes, than a full accreditation survey—which is an organizationwide evaluation of core processes and functions.

Advanced certification in palliative care is voluntary for the steadily growing number of acute-care hospitals offering palliative-care services (1,568, according to the latest count by the American Hospital Association), but the hospital seeking it must be accredited by the Joint Commission.1 Certification is intended for formal, defined, inpatient palliative care, whether dedicated units or consultation services, with the ability to direct clinical management of patients.

The core palliative-care team includes “licensed independent practitioners” (typically physicians), registered nurses, chaplains, and social workers.2 The service should follow palliative-care guidelines and evidence-based practice, and it must collect quality data on four performance measures—two of them clinical—and use these data to improve performance.

According to Michelle Sacco, the Joint Commission’s executive director for palliative care, evidence-based practice includes ensuring appropriate transitions to other community resources, such as hospices. She thinks the program is perfect for hospitalists, as HM increasingly is participating in palliative care in their hospitals. “This is also an opportunity to change the mindset that palliative care is for the end-stage only,” Sacco says.

Two-year certification costs $9,655, including the onsite review. For more information, visit the Joint Commission website (www.jointcommission.org/certification) or the Center to Advance Palliative Care’s site (www.capc.org).

References

1. Palliative care in hospitals continues rapid growth for 10th straight year, according to latest analysis. Center to Advance Palliative Care website. Available at: www.capc.org/news-and-events/releases/07-14-11. Accessed Aug. 30, 2011.
2. The National Consensus Project’s Clinical Practice Guidelines for Quality Palliative Care. The National Consensus Project website. Available at: www.nationalconsensusproject.org/. Accessed Aug. 31, 2011.

A new Joint Commission program offering advanced certification for hospital-based palliative-care services is accepting applications and conducting daylong surveys through the end of this month. As with the Joint Commission’s reviews of other specialty services (e.g. primary stroke centers), certification is narrower in scope, with service-specific evaluation of care and outcomes, than a full accreditation survey—which is an organizationwide evaluation of core processes and functions.

Advanced certification in palliative care is voluntary for the steadily growing number of acute-care hospitals offering palliative-care services (1,568, according to the latest count by the American Hospital Association), but the hospital seeking it must be accredited by the Joint Commission.1 Certification is intended for formal, defined, inpatient palliative care, whether dedicated units or consultation services, with the ability to direct clinical management of patients.

The core palliative-care team includes “licensed independent practitioners” (typically physicians), registered nurses, chaplains, and social workers.2 The service should follow palliative-care guidelines and evidence-based practice, and it must collect quality data on four performance measures—two of them clinical—and use these data to improve performance.

According to Michelle Sacco, the Joint Commission’s executive director for palliative care, evidence-based practice includes ensuring appropriate transitions to other community resources, such as hospices. She thinks the program is perfect for hospitalists, as HM increasingly is participating in palliative care in their hospitals. “This is also an opportunity to change the mindset that palliative care is for the end-stage only,” Sacco says.

Two-year certification costs $9,655, including the onsite review. For more information, visit the Joint Commission website (www.jointcommission.org/certification) or the Center to Advance Palliative Care’s site (www.capc.org).

References

1. Palliative care in hospitals continues rapid growth for 10th straight year, according to latest analysis. Center to Advance Palliative Care website. Available at: www.capc.org/news-and-events/releases/07-14-11. Accessed Aug. 30, 2011.
2. The National Consensus Project’s Clinical Practice Guidelines for Quality Palliative Care. The National Consensus Project website. Available at: www.nationalconsensusproject.org/. Accessed Aug. 31, 2011.

A new Joint Commission program offering advanced certification for hospital-based palliative-care services is accepting applications and conducting daylong surveys through the end of this month. As with the Joint Commission’s reviews of other specialty services (e.g. primary stroke centers), certification is narrower in scope, with service-specific evaluation of care and outcomes, than a full accreditation survey—which is an organizationwide evaluation of core processes and functions.

Advanced certification in palliative care is voluntary for the steadily growing number of acute-care hospitals offering palliative-care services (1,568, according to the latest count by the American Hospital Association), but the hospital seeking it must be accredited by the Joint Commission.1 Certification is intended for formal, defined, inpatient palliative care, whether dedicated units or consultation services, with the ability to direct clinical management of patients.

The core palliative-care team includes “licensed independent practitioners” (typically physicians), registered nurses, chaplains, and social workers.2 The service should follow palliative-care guidelines and evidence-based practice, and it must collect quality data on four performance measures—two of them clinical—and use these data to improve performance.

According to Michelle Sacco, the Joint Commission’s executive director for palliative care, evidence-based practice includes ensuring appropriate transitions to other community resources, such as hospices. She thinks the program is perfect for hospitalists, as HM increasingly is participating in palliative care in their hospitals. “This is also an opportunity to change the mindset that palliative care is for the end-stage only,” Sacco says.

Two-year certification costs $9,655, including the onsite review. For more information, visit the Joint Commission website (www.jointcommission.org/certification) or the Center to Advance Palliative Care’s site (www.capc.org).

References

1. Palliative care in hospitals continues rapid growth for 10th straight year, according to latest analysis. Center to Advance Palliative Care website. Available at: www.capc.org/news-and-events/releases/07-14-11. Accessed Aug. 30, 2011.
2. The National Consensus Project’s Clinical Practice Guidelines for Quality Palliative Care. The National Consensus Project website. Available at: www.nationalconsensusproject.org/. Accessed Aug. 31, 2011.

At first glance, the deck might seem hopelessly stacked against hospitalists with regard to patient satisfaction. HM practitioners lack the long-term relationship with patients that many primary-care physicians (PCPs) have established. Unlike surgeons and other specialists, they tend to care for those patients—more complicated, lacking a regular doctor, or admitted through the ED, for example—who are more inclined to rate their hospital stay unfavorably.¹ They may not even be accurately remembered by patients who encounter multiple doctors during the course of their hospitalization.² And hospital information systems can misidentify the treating physician, while the actual surveys used to gauge hospitalists have been imperfect at best.³

And yet, the hospitalist model has evolved substantially on the question of how it can impact patient perceptions of care.

Initially, hospitalist champions adopted a largely defensive posture: The model would not negatively impact patient satisfaction as it delivered on efficiency—and later on quality. The healthcare system, however, is beginning to recognize the hospitalist as part of a care “team” whose patient-centered approach might pay big dividends in the inpatient experience and, eventually, on satisfaction scores.

“I think the next phase, which is a focus on the hospitalist as a team member and team builder, is going to be key,” says William Southern, MD, MPH, SFHM, chief of the division of hospital medicine at Montefiore Medical Center in Bronx, N.Y.

Recent studies suggest that hospitalists are helping to design and test new tools that will not only improve satisfaction, but also more fairly assess the impact of individual doctors. As the maturation process continues, experts say, hospitalists have an opportunity to influence both provider-based interventions and more programmatic decision-making that can have far-reaching effects. Certainly, the hand dealt to hospitalists is looking more favorable even as the ante has been raised with Medicare programs like value-based purchasing, and its pot of money tied to patient perceptions of care.

So how have hospitalists played their cards so far?

A Look at the Evidence

In its early years, the HM model faced a persistent criticism: Replacing traditional caregivers with these new inpatient providers in the name of efficiency would increase handoffs and, therefore, discontinuities of care delivered by a succession of unfamiliar faces. If patients didn’t see their PCP in the hospital, the thinking went, they might be more disgruntled at being tended to by hospitalists, leading to lower satisfaction scores.⁴

A particularly heated exchange played out in 1999 in the New England Journal of Medicine. Farris A. Manian, MD, MPH, of Infectious Disease Consultants in St. Louis wrote in one letter, “I am particularly concerned about what impressionable house-staff members will learn from hospitalists who place an inordinate emphasis on cost rather than the quality of patient care or teaching.”⁵

A few subsequent studies, however, hinted that such concerns might be overstated. A 2000 analysis in the American Journal of Medicine that examined North Mississippi Health Services in Tupelo, for instance, found that care administered by hospitalists led to a shorter length of stay and lower costs than care delivered by internists. Importantly, the study found that patient satisfaction was similar for both models, while quality metrics were likewise equal or even tilted slightly toward hospitalists.⁶

In their influential 2002 review of a profession that was only a half-decade old, Robert Wachter, MD, MHM, and Lee Goldman, MD, MPH, FACP from the University of California at San Francisco reinforced the message that HM wouldn’t lead to unhappy patients. “Empirical research supports the premise that hospitalists improve inpatient efficiency without harmful effects on quality or patient satisfaction,” they asserted.⁷

Among pediatric patients, a 2005 review found that “none of the four studies that evaluated patient satisfaction found statistically significant differences in satisfaction with inpatient care. However, two of the three evaluations that did assess parents’ satisfaction with care provided to their children found that parents were more satisfied with some aspects of care provided by hospitalists.”⁸

I think it’s really important to say, “I know you don’t know me, but here’s the upside.” And my experience is that patients easily understand that tradeoff and are very positive.

—William Southern, MD, chief, division of hospital medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, N.Y.

Similar findings were popping up around the country: Replacing an internal medicine residency program with a physician assistant/hospitalist model at Brooklyn, N.Y.’s Coney Island Hospital did not adversely impact patient satisfaction, while it significantly improved mortality.⁹ Brigham & Women’s Hospital in Boston likewise reported no change in patient satisfaction in a study comparing a physician assistant/hospitalist service with traditional house staff services.¹⁰

The shift toward a more proactive position on patient satisfaction is exemplified within a 2008 white paper, “Hospitalists Meeting the Challenge of Patient Satisfaction,” written by a group of 19 private-practice HM experts known as The Phoenix Group.3 The paper acknowledged the flaws and limitations of existing survey methodologies, including Medicare’s Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) scores. Even so, the authors urged practice groups to adopt a team-oriented approach to communicate to hospital administrations “the belief that hospitalists are in the best position to improve survey scores overall for the facility.”

Listen to Diane Sliwka

Carle Foundation Hospital in Urbana, Ill., is now publicly advertising its HM service’s contribution to high patient satisfaction scores on its website, and underscoring the hospitalists’ consistency, accessibility, and communication skills. “The hospital is never without a hospitalist, and our nurses know that they can rely on them,” says Lynn Barnes, vice president of hospital operations. “They’re available, they’re within a few minutes away, and patients’ needs get met very efficiently and rapidly.”

As a result, she says, their presence can lead to higher scores in patients’ perceptions of communication.

Hospitalists also have been central to several safety initiatives at Carle. Napoleon Knight, MD, medical director of hospital medicine and associate vice president for quality, says the HM team has helped address undiagnosed sleep apnea and implement rapid responses, such as “Code Speed.” Caregivers or family members can use the code to immediately call for help if they detect a downturn in a patient’s condition.

The ongoing initiatives, Dr. Knight and Barnes say, are helping the hospital improve how patients and their loved ones perceive care as Carle adapts to a rapidly shifting healthcare landscape. “With all of the changes that seem to be coming from the external environment weekly, we want to work collaboratively to make sure we’re connected and aligned and communicating in an ongoing fashion so we can react to all of these changes,” Dr. Knight says.

Continued below...

A Hopeful Trend

So far, evidence that the HM model is more broadly raising patient satisfaction scores is largely anecdotal. But a few analyses suggest the trend is moving in the right direction. A recent study in the American Journal of Medical Quality, for instance, concludes that facilities with hospitalists might have an advantage in patient satisfaction with nursing and such personal issues as privacy, emotional needs, and response to complaints.¹¹ The study also posits that teaching facilities employing hospitalists could see benefits in overall satisfaction, while large facilities with hospitalists might see gains in satisfaction with admissions, nursing, and tests and treatments.

Brad Fulton, PhD, a researcher at South Bend, Ind.-based healthcare consulting firm Press Ganey and the study’s lead author, says the 30,000-foot view of patient satisfaction at the facility level can get foggy in a hurry due to differences in the kind and size of hospitalist programs. “And despite all of that fog, we’re still able to see through that and find something,” he says.

One limitation is that the study findings could also reflect differences in the culture of facilities that choose to add hospitalists. That caveat means it might not be possible to completely untangle the effect of an HM group on inpatient care from the larger, hospitalwide values that have allowed the group to set up shop. The wrinkle brings its own fascinating questions, according to Fulton. For example, is that kind of culture necessary for hospitalists to function as well as they do?

The hospital is never without a hospitalist, and our nurses know that they can rely on them. They’re available, they’re within a few minutes away, and patients’ needs get met very efficiently and rapidly.

—Lynn Barnes, vice president of hospital operations, Carle Foundation Hospital, Urbana, Ill.

Such considerations will become more important as the healthcare system places additional emphasis on patient satisfaction, as Medicare’s value-based purchasing program is doing through its HCAHPS scores. With all the changes, success or failure on the patient experience front is going to carry “not just a reputational import, but also a financial impact,” says Ethan Cumbler, MD, FACP, director of Acute Care for the Elderly (ACE) Service at the University of Colorado Denver.

So how can HM fairly and accurately assess its own practitioners? “I think one starts by trying to apply some of the rigor that we have learned from our experience as hospitalists in quality improvement to the more warm and fuzzy field of patient experience,” Dr. Cumbler says. Many hospitals employ surveys supplied by consultants like Press Ganey to track the global patient satisfaction for their institution, he says.

“But for an individual hospitalist or hospitalist group, that kind of tool often lacks both the specificity and the timeliness necessary to make good decisions about impact of interventions on patient satisfaction,” he says.

Mark Williams, MD, FACP, FHM, professor and chief of the division of hospital medicine at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, agrees that such imprecision could lead to unfair assessments. “You can imagine a scenario where a patient actually liked their hospitalist very much,” he says, “but when they got the survey, they said [their stay] was terrible and the reasons being because maybe the nurse call button was not answered and the food was terrible and medications were given to them incorrectly, or it was noisy at night so they couldn’t sleep.”

A recent study by Dr. Williams and his colleagues, in which they employed a new assessment method called the Communication Assessment Tool (CAT), confirmed the group’s suspicions: “that the results from the Press Ganey didn’t match up with the CAT, which was a direct assessment of the patient’s perception of the hospitalist’s communication skills,” he says.¹²

The validated tool, he adds, provides directed feedback to the physician based on the percentage of patients rating that provider as excellent, instead of on the average total score. Hospitalists have felt vindicated by the results. “They were very nervous because the hospital talked about basing an incentive off of the Press Ganey scores, and we said, ‘You can’t do that,’ because we didn’t feel they were accurate, and this study proved that,” Dr. Williams explains.

Fortunately, the message has reached researchers and consultants alike, and better tools are starting to reach hospitals around the country. At HM11 in May, Press Ganey unveiled a new survey designed to help patients assess the care delivered by two hospitalists, the average for inpatient stays. The item set is specific to HM functions, and includes the photo and name of each hospitalist, which Fulton says should improve the validity and accuracy of the data.

“The early response looks really good,” Fulton says, though it’s too early to say whether the tool, called Hospitalist Insight, will live up to its billing. If it proves its mettle, Fulton says, the survey could be used to reward top-performing hospitalists, and the growing dataset could allow hospitals to compare themselves with appropriate peer groups for fairer comparisons.

Meanwhile, researchers are testing out checklists to score hospitalist etiquette, and tracking and paging systems to help ensure continuity of care. They have found increased patient satisfaction when doctors engage in verbal communication during a discharge, in interdisciplinary team rounding, and in efforts to address religious and spiritual concerns.

Since 2000, when Montefiore’s hospitalist program began, Dr. Southern says the hospital has explained to patients the tradeoff accompanying the HM model. “I say something like this to every patient: ‘I know I’m not the doctor that you know, and you’re just meeting me. The downside is that you haven’t met me before and I’m a new face, but the upside is that if you need me during the day, I’m here all the time, I’m not someplace else. And so if you need something, I can be here quickly.’ ”

Being very explicit about that tradeoff, he says, has made patients very comfortable with the model of care, especially during a crisis moment in their lives. “I think it’s really important to say, ‘I know you don’t know me, but here’s the upside.’ And my experience is that patients easily understand that tradeoff and are very positive,” Dr. Southern says.

The Verdict

Available evidence suggests that practitioners of the HM model have pivoted from defending against early criticism that they may harm patient satisfaction to pitching themselves as team leaders who can boost facilitywide perceptions of care. So far, too little research has been conducted to suggest whether that optimism is fully warranted, but early signs look promising.

At facilities like Chicago’s Northwestern Memorial Hospital, medical floors staffed by hospitalists are beginning to beat out surgical floors for the traveling patient satisfaction award. And experts like Dr. Cumbler are pondering how ongoing initiatives to boost scores can follow in the footsteps of efficiency and quality-raising efforts by making the transition from focusing on individual doctors to adopting a more programmatic approach. “What’s happening to that patient during the 23 hours and 45 minutes of their hospital day that you are not sitting by the bedside? And what influence should a hospitalist have in affecting that other 23 hours and 45 minutes?” he says.

Handoffs, discharges, communication with PCPs, and other potential weak points in maintaining high levels of patient satisfaction, Dr. Cumbler says, all are amenable to systems-based improvement. “As hospitalists, we are in a unique position to influence not only our one-one-one interaction with the patient, but also to influence that system of care in a way that patients will notice in a real and tangible way,” he says. “I think we’ve recognized for some time that a healthy heart but a miserable patient is not a healthy person.”

Teaching Hospitals Gain Ground in Patient Satisfaction

Listen to Diane Sliwka

One widely accepted truism about teaching facilities is that they’re known to have lower patient satisfaction scores than nonteaching hospitals. Brad Fulton, researcher for South Bend, Ind.-based consultant firm Press Ganey, attributes the difference in part to the fact that many doctors at teaching facilities must divide their time among patient care, education, and research. Such hospitals also tend to have some of the more medically difficult patients, he says, some of who may be more apt to feel like they’re on display with the abundance of students and residents.

In one of his recent studies, however, teaching facilities with hospitalists scored higher on patient satisfaction than nonteaching facilities or teaching facilities that lacked hospitalists. One potential follow-up question could have broad implications: “What is it about having hospitalists in teaching facilities that works so well in terms of patient satisfaction?” Can that be replicated elsewhere, he wonders? And is there an essential element that could be applied to nonteaching facilities?

A separate study also defied expectations by finding that teaching bedside procedures to inexperienced residents can be reassuring to patients, if done correctly. In a teaching model instituted at the University of California San Francisco, an experienced hospitalist with extra training supervises a novice during bedside procedures such as lumbar punctures and paracentesis. Study coauthor Diane Sliwka, MD, associate clinical professor of medicine and a hospitalist, says the feedback so far suggests that the model can improve safety, boost education, and deliver a positive patient experience.

Patients may be hesitant about having trainees do procedures, she says, but surveys suggest those patients are reassured when they know an expert is in the room and watching. They also want to hear what will happen next to counteract the anxiety of feeling pain or encountering something unexpected.

As the study suggested, what patients may find to be the most difficult or nerve-wracking can be quite different from what doctors expect. “You would think it was actually the procedure that was most painful part, but actually that was after we had given lidocaine,” Dr. Sliwka says. Patients repeatedly reacted to the doctors using a plastic pen cap to imprint the site where they would insert a needle. “Over and over we would hear people say, ‘That is actually the most painful part and you didn’t warn me about that,’ ” she recalls. “And we didn’t warn people about that because we didn’t think it was a big deal.”

Procedures can take longer with trainees, another tradeoff that can leading to lower satisfaction scores. But what the study also showed is that in academic settings, involving residents doesn’t harm the overall patient experience and can in fact improve it. “Anecdotally, what we hear from patients a lot is, ‘Oh, I had this procedure done before and it went horribly.’ They would tell stories of previous bad experiences, and then really be thankful for the experience that they had in our setting,” Dr. Sliwka says.

The extended face-to-face time can yield another positive effect. Dr. Sliwka found that hospitalists and residents often learned medical and historical information about the patient that the primary care team hadn’t yet had an opportunity to glean. “Patients just start to tell you about their families, their lives, their medical problems, their experiences,” she says, a product of building more rapport with them. “We would often find ourselves telling the primary medical team, ‘By the way, we found this out and you should probably know it: the patient is very concerned about this that’s been going on,’ and the patient hasn’t had a chance to tell the team because there isn’t that kind of time.”

Even without the specific model, Dr. Sliwka says, several principles can be applied to daily interactions. Framing things appropriately, she says, helps patients gain confidence in the doctors and allows them to safely conduct bedside teaching and openly discuss procedures. Even correcting mistakes can be a positive experience. “That actually makes the patient feel more confident in you than less confident,” Dr. Sliwka says.

Ultimately, the teaching experience can help residents broaden their thinking about patient satisfaction. “I think when trainees are starting, their real focus is, ‘How do I deal with this correctly?’ ” Dr. Sliwka says. “It takes a level of comfort with the basic skills to then go beyond that and start thinking about, ‘How is the patient perceiving this?’”

Bryn Nelson is a freelance medical journalist based in Seattle.

References

1. Williams M, Flanders SA, Whitcomb WF. Comprehensive hospital medicine: an evidence based approach. Elsevier;2007:971-976.
2. Arora V, Gangireddy S, Mehrotra A, Ginde R, Tormey M, Meltzer D. Ability of hospitalized patients to identify their in-hospital physicians. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(2):199-201.
3. Singer AS, et al. Hospitalists meeting the challenge of patient satisfaction. The Phoenix Group. 2008;1-5.
4. Manian FA. Whither continuity of care? N Engl J Med. 1999;340:1362-1363.
5. Correspondence. Whither continuity of care? N Engl J Med. 1999;341:850-852.
6. Davis KM, Koch KE, Harvey JK, et al. Effects of hospitalists on cost, outcomes, and patient satisfaction in a rural health system. Amer J Med. 2000;108(8):621-626.
7. Wachter RM, Goldman L. The hospitalist movement 5 years later. JAMA. 2002;287(4):487-494.
8. Coffman J, Rundall TG. The impact of hospitalists on the cost and quality of inpatient care in the United States (a research synthesis). Med Care Res Rev. 2005;62:379–406.
9. Dhuper S, Choksi S. Replacing an academic internal medicine residency program with a physician assistant-hospitalist model: a comparative analysis study. Am J Med Qual. 2009;24(2):132-139.
10. Roy CL, Liang CL, Lund M, et al. Implementation of a physician assistant/hospitalist service in an academic medical center: impact on efficiency and patient outcomes. J Hosp Med. 2008;3(5):361-368.
11. Fulton BR, Drevs KE, Ayala LJ, Malott DL Jr. Patient satisfaction with hospitalists: facility-level analyses. Am J Med Qual. 2011;26(2):95-102.
12. Ferranti DE, Makoul G, Forth VE, Rauworth J, Lee J, Williams MV. Assessing patient perceptions of hospitalist communication skills using the Communication Assessment Tool (CAT). J Hosp Med. 2010;5(9):522-527.

At first glance, the deck might seem hopelessly stacked against hospitalists with regard to patient satisfaction. HM practitioners lack the long-term relationship with patients that many primary-care physicians (PCPs) have established. Unlike surgeons and other specialists, they tend to care for those patients—more complicated, lacking a regular doctor, or admitted through the ED, for example—who are more inclined to rate their hospital stay unfavorably.¹ They may not even be accurately remembered by patients who encounter multiple doctors during the course of their hospitalization.² And hospital information systems can misidentify the treating physician, while the actual surveys used to gauge hospitalists have been imperfect at best.³

And yet, the hospitalist model has evolved substantially on the question of how it can impact patient perceptions of care.

Initially, hospitalist champions adopted a largely defensive posture: The model would not negatively impact patient satisfaction as it delivered on efficiency—and later on quality. The healthcare system, however, is beginning to recognize the hospitalist as part of a care “team” whose patient-centered approach might pay big dividends in the inpatient experience and, eventually, on satisfaction scores.

“I think the next phase, which is a focus on the hospitalist as a team member and team builder, is going to be key,” says William Southern, MD, MPH, SFHM, chief of the division of hospital medicine at Montefiore Medical Center in Bronx, N.Y.

Recent studies suggest that hospitalists are helping to design and test new tools that will not only improve satisfaction, but also more fairly assess the impact of individual doctors. As the maturation process continues, experts say, hospitalists have an opportunity to influence both provider-based interventions and more programmatic decision-making that can have far-reaching effects. Certainly, the hand dealt to hospitalists is looking more favorable even as the ante has been raised with Medicare programs like value-based purchasing, and its pot of money tied to patient perceptions of care.

So how have hospitalists played their cards so far?

A Look at the Evidence

In its early years, the HM model faced a persistent criticism: Replacing traditional caregivers with these new inpatient providers in the name of efficiency would increase handoffs and, therefore, discontinuities of care delivered by a succession of unfamiliar faces. If patients didn’t see their PCP in the hospital, the thinking went, they might be more disgruntled at being tended to by hospitalists, leading to lower satisfaction scores.⁴

A particularly heated exchange played out in 1999 in the New England Journal of Medicine. Farris A. Manian, MD, MPH, of Infectious Disease Consultants in St. Louis wrote in one letter, “I am particularly concerned about what impressionable house-staff members will learn from hospitalists who place an inordinate emphasis on cost rather than the quality of patient care or teaching.”⁵

A few subsequent studies, however, hinted that such concerns might be overstated. A 2000 analysis in the American Journal of Medicine that examined North Mississippi Health Services in Tupelo, for instance, found that care administered by hospitalists led to a shorter length of stay and lower costs than care delivered by internists. Importantly, the study found that patient satisfaction was similar for both models, while quality metrics were likewise equal or even tilted slightly toward hospitalists.⁶

In their influential 2002 review of a profession that was only a half-decade old, Robert Wachter, MD, MHM, and Lee Goldman, MD, MPH, FACP from the University of California at San Francisco reinforced the message that HM wouldn’t lead to unhappy patients. “Empirical research supports the premise that hospitalists improve inpatient efficiency without harmful effects on quality or patient satisfaction,” they asserted.⁷

Among pediatric patients, a 2005 review found that “none of the four studies that evaluated patient satisfaction found statistically significant differences in satisfaction with inpatient care. However, two of the three evaluations that did assess parents’ satisfaction with care provided to their children found that parents were more satisfied with some aspects of care provided by hospitalists.”⁸

I think it’s really important to say, “I know you don’t know me, but here’s the upside.” And my experience is that patients easily understand that tradeoff and are very positive.

—William Southern, MD, chief, division of hospital medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, N.Y.

Similar findings were popping up around the country: Replacing an internal medicine residency program with a physician assistant/hospitalist model at Brooklyn, N.Y.’s Coney Island Hospital did not adversely impact patient satisfaction, while it significantly improved mortality.⁹ Brigham & Women’s Hospital in Boston likewise reported no change in patient satisfaction in a study comparing a physician assistant/hospitalist service with traditional house staff services.¹⁰

The shift toward a more proactive position on patient satisfaction is exemplified within a 2008 white paper, “Hospitalists Meeting the Challenge of Patient Satisfaction,” written by a group of 19 private-practice HM experts known as The Phoenix Group.3 The paper acknowledged the flaws and limitations of existing survey methodologies, including Medicare’s Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) scores. Even so, the authors urged practice groups to adopt a team-oriented approach to communicate to hospital administrations “the belief that hospitalists are in the best position to improve survey scores overall for the facility.”

Listen to Diane Sliwka

Carle Foundation Hospital in Urbana, Ill., is now publicly advertising its HM service’s contribution to high patient satisfaction scores on its website, and underscoring the hospitalists’ consistency, accessibility, and communication skills. “The hospital is never without a hospitalist, and our nurses know that they can rely on them,” says Lynn Barnes, vice president of hospital operations. “They’re available, they’re within a few minutes away, and patients’ needs get met very efficiently and rapidly.”

As a result, she says, their presence can lead to higher scores in patients’ perceptions of communication.

Hospitalists also have been central to several safety initiatives at Carle. Napoleon Knight, MD, medical director of hospital medicine and associate vice president for quality, says the HM team has helped address undiagnosed sleep apnea and implement rapid responses, such as “Code Speed.” Caregivers or family members can use the code to immediately call for help if they detect a downturn in a patient’s condition.

The ongoing initiatives, Dr. Knight and Barnes say, are helping the hospital improve how patients and their loved ones perceive care as Carle adapts to a rapidly shifting healthcare landscape. “With all of the changes that seem to be coming from the external environment weekly, we want to work collaboratively to make sure we’re connected and aligned and communicating in an ongoing fashion so we can react to all of these changes,” Dr. Knight says.

Continued below...

A Hopeful Trend

So far, evidence that the HM model is more broadly raising patient satisfaction scores is largely anecdotal. But a few analyses suggest the trend is moving in the right direction. A recent study in the American Journal of Medical Quality, for instance, concludes that facilities with hospitalists might have an advantage in patient satisfaction with nursing and such personal issues as privacy, emotional needs, and response to complaints.¹¹ The study also posits that teaching facilities employing hospitalists could see benefits in overall satisfaction, while large facilities with hospitalists might see gains in satisfaction with admissions, nursing, and tests and treatments.

Brad Fulton, PhD, a researcher at South Bend, Ind.-based healthcare consulting firm Press Ganey and the study’s lead author, says the 30,000-foot view of patient satisfaction at the facility level can get foggy in a hurry due to differences in the kind and size of hospitalist programs. “And despite all of that fog, we’re still able to see through that and find something,” he says.

One limitation is that the study findings could also reflect differences in the culture of facilities that choose to add hospitalists. That caveat means it might not be possible to completely untangle the effect of an HM group on inpatient care from the larger, hospitalwide values that have allowed the group to set up shop. The wrinkle brings its own fascinating questions, according to Fulton. For example, is that kind of culture necessary for hospitalists to function as well as they do?

The hospital is never without a hospitalist, and our nurses know that they can rely on them. They’re available, they’re within a few minutes away, and patients’ needs get met very efficiently and rapidly.

—Lynn Barnes, vice president of hospital operations, Carle Foundation Hospital, Urbana, Ill.

Such considerations will become more important as the healthcare system places additional emphasis on patient satisfaction, as Medicare’s value-based purchasing program is doing through its HCAHPS scores. With all the changes, success or failure on the patient experience front is going to carry “not just a reputational import, but also a financial impact,” says Ethan Cumbler, MD, FACP, director of Acute Care for the Elderly (ACE) Service at the University of Colorado Denver.

So how can HM fairly and accurately assess its own practitioners? “I think one starts by trying to apply some of the rigor that we have learned from our experience as hospitalists in quality improvement to the more warm and fuzzy field of patient experience,” Dr. Cumbler says. Many hospitals employ surveys supplied by consultants like Press Ganey to track the global patient satisfaction for their institution, he says.

“But for an individual hospitalist or hospitalist group, that kind of tool often lacks both the specificity and the timeliness necessary to make good decisions about impact of interventions on patient satisfaction,” he says.

Mark Williams, MD, FACP, FHM, professor and chief of the division of hospital medicine at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, agrees that such imprecision could lead to unfair assessments. “You can imagine a scenario where a patient actually liked their hospitalist very much,” he says, “but when they got the survey, they said [their stay] was terrible and the reasons being because maybe the nurse call button was not answered and the food was terrible and medications were given to them incorrectly, or it was noisy at night so they couldn’t sleep.”

A recent study by Dr. Williams and his colleagues, in which they employed a new assessment method called the Communication Assessment Tool (CAT), confirmed the group’s suspicions: “that the results from the Press Ganey didn’t match up with the CAT, which was a direct assessment of the patient’s perception of the hospitalist’s communication skills,” he says.¹²

The validated tool, he adds, provides directed feedback to the physician based on the percentage of patients rating that provider as excellent, instead of on the average total score. Hospitalists have felt vindicated by the results. “They were very nervous because the hospital talked about basing an incentive off of the Press Ganey scores, and we said, ‘You can’t do that,’ because we didn’t feel they were accurate, and this study proved that,” Dr. Williams explains.

Fortunately, the message has reached researchers and consultants alike, and better tools are starting to reach hospitals around the country. At HM11 in May, Press Ganey unveiled a new survey designed to help patients assess the care delivered by two hospitalists, the average for inpatient stays. The item set is specific to HM functions, and includes the photo and name of each hospitalist, which Fulton says should improve the validity and accuracy of the data.

“The early response looks really good,” Fulton says, though it’s too early to say whether the tool, called Hospitalist Insight, will live up to its billing. If it proves its mettle, Fulton says, the survey could be used to reward top-performing hospitalists, and the growing dataset could allow hospitals to compare themselves with appropriate peer groups for fairer comparisons.

Meanwhile, researchers are testing out checklists to score hospitalist etiquette, and tracking and paging systems to help ensure continuity of care. They have found increased patient satisfaction when doctors engage in verbal communication during a discharge, in interdisciplinary team rounding, and in efforts to address religious and spiritual concerns.

Since 2000, when Montefiore’s hospitalist program began, Dr. Southern says the hospital has explained to patients the tradeoff accompanying the HM model. “I say something like this to every patient: ‘I know I’m not the doctor that you know, and you’re just meeting me. The downside is that you haven’t met me before and I’m a new face, but the upside is that if you need me during the day, I’m here all the time, I’m not someplace else. And so if you need something, I can be here quickly.’ ”

Being very explicit about that tradeoff, he says, has made patients very comfortable with the model of care, especially during a crisis moment in their lives. “I think it’s really important to say, ‘I know you don’t know me, but here’s the upside.’ And my experience is that patients easily understand that tradeoff and are very positive,” Dr. Southern says.

The Verdict

Available evidence suggests that practitioners of the HM model have pivoted from defending against early criticism that they may harm patient satisfaction to pitching themselves as team leaders who can boost facilitywide perceptions of care. So far, too little research has been conducted to suggest whether that optimism is fully warranted, but early signs look promising.

At facilities like Chicago’s Northwestern Memorial Hospital, medical floors staffed by hospitalists are beginning to beat out surgical floors for the traveling patient satisfaction award. And experts like Dr. Cumbler are pondering how ongoing initiatives to boost scores can follow in the footsteps of efficiency and quality-raising efforts by making the transition from focusing on individual doctors to adopting a more programmatic approach. “What’s happening to that patient during the 23 hours and 45 minutes of their hospital day that you are not sitting by the bedside? And what influence should a hospitalist have in affecting that other 23 hours and 45 minutes?” he says.

Handoffs, discharges, communication with PCPs, and other potential weak points in maintaining high levels of patient satisfaction, Dr. Cumbler says, all are amenable to systems-based improvement. “As hospitalists, we are in a unique position to influence not only our one-one-one interaction with the patient, but also to influence that system of care in a way that patients will notice in a real and tangible way,” he says. “I think we’ve recognized for some time that a healthy heart but a miserable patient is not a healthy person.”

Teaching Hospitals Gain Ground in Patient Satisfaction

Listen to Diane Sliwka

One widely accepted truism about teaching facilities is that they’re known to have lower patient satisfaction scores than nonteaching hospitals. Brad Fulton, researcher for South Bend, Ind.-based consultant firm Press Ganey, attributes the difference in part to the fact that many doctors at teaching facilities must divide their time among patient care, education, and research. Such hospitals also tend to have some of the more medically difficult patients, he says, some of who may be more apt to feel like they’re on display with the abundance of students and residents.

In one of his recent studies, however, teaching facilities with hospitalists scored higher on patient satisfaction than nonteaching facilities or teaching facilities that lacked hospitalists. One potential follow-up question could have broad implications: “What is it about having hospitalists in teaching facilities that works so well in terms of patient satisfaction?” Can that be replicated elsewhere, he wonders? And is there an essential element that could be applied to nonteaching facilities?

A separate study also defied expectations by finding that teaching bedside procedures to inexperienced residents can be reassuring to patients, if done correctly. In a teaching model instituted at the University of California San Francisco, an experienced hospitalist with extra training supervises a novice during bedside procedures such as lumbar punctures and paracentesis. Study coauthor Diane Sliwka, MD, associate clinical professor of medicine and a hospitalist, says the feedback so far suggests that the model can improve safety, boost education, and deliver a positive patient experience.

Patients may be hesitant about having trainees do procedures, she says, but surveys suggest those patients are reassured when they know an expert is in the room and watching. They also want to hear what will happen next to counteract the anxiety of feeling pain or encountering something unexpected.

As the study suggested, what patients may find to be the most difficult or nerve-wracking can be quite different from what doctors expect. “You would think it was actually the procedure that was most painful part, but actually that was after we had given lidocaine,” Dr. Sliwka says. Patients repeatedly reacted to the doctors using a plastic pen cap to imprint the site where they would insert a needle. “Over and over we would hear people say, ‘That is actually the most painful part and you didn’t warn me about that,’ ” she recalls. “And we didn’t warn people about that because we didn’t think it was a big deal.”

Procedures can take longer with trainees, another tradeoff that can leading to lower satisfaction scores. But what the study also showed is that in academic settings, involving residents doesn’t harm the overall patient experience and can in fact improve it. “Anecdotally, what we hear from patients a lot is, ‘Oh, I had this procedure done before and it went horribly.’ They would tell stories of previous bad experiences, and then really be thankful for the experience that they had in our setting,” Dr. Sliwka says.

The extended face-to-face time can yield another positive effect. Dr. Sliwka found that hospitalists and residents often learned medical and historical information about the patient that the primary care team hadn’t yet had an opportunity to glean. “Patients just start to tell you about their families, their lives, their medical problems, their experiences,” she says, a product of building more rapport with them. “We would often find ourselves telling the primary medical team, ‘By the way, we found this out and you should probably know it: the patient is very concerned about this that’s been going on,’ and the patient hasn’t had a chance to tell the team because there isn’t that kind of time.”

Even without the specific model, Dr. Sliwka says, several principles can be applied to daily interactions. Framing things appropriately, she says, helps patients gain confidence in the doctors and allows them to safely conduct bedside teaching and openly discuss procedures. Even correcting mistakes can be a positive experience. “That actually makes the patient feel more confident in you than less confident,” Dr. Sliwka says.

Ultimately, the teaching experience can help residents broaden their thinking about patient satisfaction. “I think when trainees are starting, their real focus is, ‘How do I deal with this correctly?’ ” Dr. Sliwka says. “It takes a level of comfort with the basic skills to then go beyond that and start thinking about, ‘How is the patient perceiving this?’”

Bryn Nelson is a freelance medical journalist based in Seattle.

References

1. Williams M, Flanders SA, Whitcomb WF. Comprehensive hospital medicine: an evidence based approach. Elsevier;2007:971-976.
2. Arora V, Gangireddy S, Mehrotra A, Ginde R, Tormey M, Meltzer D. Ability of hospitalized patients to identify their in-hospital physicians. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(2):199-201.
3. Singer AS, et al. Hospitalists meeting the challenge of patient satisfaction. The Phoenix Group. 2008;1-5.
4. Manian FA. Whither continuity of care? N Engl J Med. 1999;340:1362-1363.
5. Correspondence. Whither continuity of care? N Engl J Med. 1999;341:850-852.
6. Davis KM, Koch KE, Harvey JK, et al. Effects of hospitalists on cost, outcomes, and patient satisfaction in a rural health system. Amer J Med. 2000;108(8):621-626.
7. Wachter RM, Goldman L. The hospitalist movement 5 years later. JAMA. 2002;287(4):487-494.
8. Coffman J, Rundall TG. The impact of hospitalists on the cost and quality of inpatient care in the United States (a research synthesis). Med Care Res Rev. 2005;62:379–406.
9. Dhuper S, Choksi S. Replacing an academic internal medicine residency program with a physician assistant-hospitalist model: a comparative analysis study. Am J Med Qual. 2009;24(2):132-139.
10. Roy CL, Liang CL, Lund M, et al. Implementation of a physician assistant/hospitalist service in an academic medical center: impact on efficiency and patient outcomes. J Hosp Med. 2008;3(5):361-368.
11. Fulton BR, Drevs KE, Ayala LJ, Malott DL Jr. Patient satisfaction with hospitalists: facility-level analyses. Am J Med Qual. 2011;26(2):95-102.
12. Ferranti DE, Makoul G, Forth VE, Rauworth J, Lee J, Williams MV. Assessing patient perceptions of hospitalist communication skills using the Communication Assessment Tool (CAT). J Hosp Med. 2010;5(9):522-527.

At first glance, the deck might seem hopelessly stacked against hospitalists with regard to patient satisfaction. HM practitioners lack the long-term relationship with patients that many primary-care physicians (PCPs) have established. Unlike surgeons and other specialists, they tend to care for those patients—more complicated, lacking a regular doctor, or admitted through the ED, for example—who are more inclined to rate their hospital stay unfavorably.¹ They may not even be accurately remembered by patients who encounter multiple doctors during the course of their hospitalization.² And hospital information systems can misidentify the treating physician, while the actual surveys used to gauge hospitalists have been imperfect at best.³

And yet, the hospitalist model has evolved substantially on the question of how it can impact patient perceptions of care.

Initially, hospitalist champions adopted a largely defensive posture: The model would not negatively impact patient satisfaction as it delivered on efficiency—and later on quality. The healthcare system, however, is beginning to recognize the hospitalist as part of a care “team” whose patient-centered approach might pay big dividends in the inpatient experience and, eventually, on satisfaction scores.

“I think the next phase, which is a focus on the hospitalist as a team member and team builder, is going to be key,” says William Southern, MD, MPH, SFHM, chief of the division of hospital medicine at Montefiore Medical Center in Bronx, N.Y.

Recent studies suggest that hospitalists are helping to design and test new tools that will not only improve satisfaction, but also more fairly assess the impact of individual doctors. As the maturation process continues, experts say, hospitalists have an opportunity to influence both provider-based interventions and more programmatic decision-making that can have far-reaching effects. Certainly, the hand dealt to hospitalists is looking more favorable even as the ante has been raised with Medicare programs like value-based purchasing, and its pot of money tied to patient perceptions of care.

So how have hospitalists played their cards so far?

A Look at the Evidence

In its early years, the HM model faced a persistent criticism: Replacing traditional caregivers with these new inpatient providers in the name of efficiency would increase handoffs and, therefore, discontinuities of care delivered by a succession of unfamiliar faces. If patients didn’t see their PCP in the hospital, the thinking went, they might be more disgruntled at being tended to by hospitalists, leading to lower satisfaction scores.⁴

A particularly heated exchange played out in 1999 in the New England Journal of Medicine. Farris A. Manian, MD, MPH, of Infectious Disease Consultants in St. Louis wrote in one letter, “I am particularly concerned about what impressionable house-staff members will learn from hospitalists who place an inordinate emphasis on cost rather than the quality of patient care or teaching.”⁵

A few subsequent studies, however, hinted that such concerns might be overstated. A 2000 analysis in the American Journal of Medicine that examined North Mississippi Health Services in Tupelo, for instance, found that care administered by hospitalists led to a shorter length of stay and lower costs than care delivered by internists. Importantly, the study found that patient satisfaction was similar for both models, while quality metrics were likewise equal or even tilted slightly toward hospitalists.⁶

In their influential 2002 review of a profession that was only a half-decade old, Robert Wachter, MD, MHM, and Lee Goldman, MD, MPH, FACP from the University of California at San Francisco reinforced the message that HM wouldn’t lead to unhappy patients. “Empirical research supports the premise that hospitalists improve inpatient efficiency without harmful effects on quality or patient satisfaction,” they asserted.⁷

Among pediatric patients, a 2005 review found that “none of the four studies that evaluated patient satisfaction found statistically significant differences in satisfaction with inpatient care. However, two of the three evaluations that did assess parents’ satisfaction with care provided to their children found that parents were more satisfied with some aspects of care provided by hospitalists.”⁸

I think it’s really important to say, “I know you don’t know me, but here’s the upside.” And my experience is that patients easily understand that tradeoff and are very positive.

—William Southern, MD, chief, division of hospital medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, N.Y.

Similar findings were popping up around the country: Replacing an internal medicine residency program with a physician assistant/hospitalist model at Brooklyn, N.Y.’s Coney Island Hospital did not adversely impact patient satisfaction, while it significantly improved mortality.⁹ Brigham & Women’s Hospital in Boston likewise reported no change in patient satisfaction in a study comparing a physician assistant/hospitalist service with traditional house staff services.¹⁰

The shift toward a more proactive position on patient satisfaction is exemplified within a 2008 white paper, “Hospitalists Meeting the Challenge of Patient Satisfaction,” written by a group of 19 private-practice HM experts known as The Phoenix Group.3 The paper acknowledged the flaws and limitations of existing survey methodologies, including Medicare’s Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) scores. Even so, the authors urged practice groups to adopt a team-oriented approach to communicate to hospital administrations “the belief that hospitalists are in the best position to improve survey scores overall for the facility.”

Listen to Diane Sliwka

Carle Foundation Hospital in Urbana, Ill., is now publicly advertising its HM service’s contribution to high patient satisfaction scores on its website, and underscoring the hospitalists’ consistency, accessibility, and communication skills. “The hospital is never without a hospitalist, and our nurses know that they can rely on them,” says Lynn Barnes, vice president of hospital operations. “They’re available, they’re within a few minutes away, and patients’ needs get met very efficiently and rapidly.”

As a result, she says, their presence can lead to higher scores in patients’ perceptions of communication.

Hospitalists also have been central to several safety initiatives at Carle. Napoleon Knight, MD, medical director of hospital medicine and associate vice president for quality, says the HM team has helped address undiagnosed sleep apnea and implement rapid responses, such as “Code Speed.” Caregivers or family members can use the code to immediately call for help if they detect a downturn in a patient’s condition.

The ongoing initiatives, Dr. Knight and Barnes say, are helping the hospital improve how patients and their loved ones perceive care as Carle adapts to a rapidly shifting healthcare landscape. “With all of the changes that seem to be coming from the external environment weekly, we want to work collaboratively to make sure we’re connected and aligned and communicating in an ongoing fashion so we can react to all of these changes,” Dr. Knight says.

Continued below...

A Hopeful Trend

So far, evidence that the HM model is more broadly raising patient satisfaction scores is largely anecdotal. But a few analyses suggest the trend is moving in the right direction. A recent study in the American Journal of Medical Quality, for instance, concludes that facilities with hospitalists might have an advantage in patient satisfaction with nursing and such personal issues as privacy, emotional needs, and response to complaints.¹¹ The study also posits that teaching facilities employing hospitalists could see benefits in overall satisfaction, while large facilities with hospitalists might see gains in satisfaction with admissions, nursing, and tests and treatments.

Brad Fulton, PhD, a researcher at South Bend, Ind.-based healthcare consulting firm Press Ganey and the study’s lead author, says the 30,000-foot view of patient satisfaction at the facility level can get foggy in a hurry due to differences in the kind and size of hospitalist programs. “And despite all of that fog, we’re still able to see through that and find something,” he says.

One limitation is that the study findings could also reflect differences in the culture of facilities that choose to add hospitalists. That caveat means it might not be possible to completely untangle the effect of an HM group on inpatient care from the larger, hospitalwide values that have allowed the group to set up shop. The wrinkle brings its own fascinating questions, according to Fulton. For example, is that kind of culture necessary for hospitalists to function as well as they do?

The hospital is never without a hospitalist, and our nurses know that they can rely on them. They’re available, they’re within a few minutes away, and patients’ needs get met very efficiently and rapidly.

—Lynn Barnes, vice president of hospital operations, Carle Foundation Hospital, Urbana, Ill.

Such considerations will become more important as the healthcare system places additional emphasis on patient satisfaction, as Medicare’s value-based purchasing program is doing through its HCAHPS scores. With all the changes, success or failure on the patient experience front is going to carry “not just a reputational import, but also a financial impact,” says Ethan Cumbler, MD, FACP, director of Acute Care for the Elderly (ACE) Service at the University of Colorado Denver.

So how can HM fairly and accurately assess its own practitioners? “I think one starts by trying to apply some of the rigor that we have learned from our experience as hospitalists in quality improvement to the more warm and fuzzy field of patient experience,” Dr. Cumbler says. Many hospitals employ surveys supplied by consultants like Press Ganey to track the global patient satisfaction for their institution, he says.

“But for an individual hospitalist or hospitalist group, that kind of tool often lacks both the specificity and the timeliness necessary to make good decisions about impact of interventions on patient satisfaction,” he says.

Mark Williams, MD, FACP, FHM, professor and chief of the division of hospital medicine at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, agrees that such imprecision could lead to unfair assessments. “You can imagine a scenario where a patient actually liked their hospitalist very much,” he says, “but when they got the survey, they said [their stay] was terrible and the reasons being because maybe the nurse call button was not answered and the food was terrible and medications were given to them incorrectly, or it was noisy at night so they couldn’t sleep.”

A recent study by Dr. Williams and his colleagues, in which they employed a new assessment method called the Communication Assessment Tool (CAT), confirmed the group’s suspicions: “that the results from the Press Ganey didn’t match up with the CAT, which was a direct assessment of the patient’s perception of the hospitalist’s communication skills,” he says.¹²

The validated tool, he adds, provides directed feedback to the physician based on the percentage of patients rating that provider as excellent, instead of on the average total score. Hospitalists have felt vindicated by the results. “They were very nervous because the hospital talked about basing an incentive off of the Press Ganey scores, and we said, ‘You can’t do that,’ because we didn’t feel they were accurate, and this study proved that,” Dr. Williams explains.

Fortunately, the message has reached researchers and consultants alike, and better tools are starting to reach hospitals around the country. At HM11 in May, Press Ganey unveiled a new survey designed to help patients assess the care delivered by two hospitalists, the average for inpatient stays. The item set is specific to HM functions, and includes the photo and name of each hospitalist, which Fulton says should improve the validity and accuracy of the data.

“The early response looks really good,” Fulton says, though it’s too early to say whether the tool, called Hospitalist Insight, will live up to its billing. If it proves its mettle, Fulton says, the survey could be used to reward top-performing hospitalists, and the growing dataset could allow hospitals to compare themselves with appropriate peer groups for fairer comparisons.

Meanwhile, researchers are testing out checklists to score hospitalist etiquette, and tracking and paging systems to help ensure continuity of care. They have found increased patient satisfaction when doctors engage in verbal communication during a discharge, in interdisciplinary team rounding, and in efforts to address religious and spiritual concerns.

Since 2000, when Montefiore’s hospitalist program began, Dr. Southern says the hospital has explained to patients the tradeoff accompanying the HM model. “I say something like this to every patient: ‘I know I’m not the doctor that you know, and you’re just meeting me. The downside is that you haven’t met me before and I’m a new face, but the upside is that if you need me during the day, I’m here all the time, I’m not someplace else. And so if you need something, I can be here quickly.’ ”

Being very explicit about that tradeoff, he says, has made patients very comfortable with the model of care, especially during a crisis moment in their lives. “I think it’s really important to say, ‘I know you don’t know me, but here’s the upside.’ And my experience is that patients easily understand that tradeoff and are very positive,” Dr. Southern says.

The Verdict

Available evidence suggests that practitioners of the HM model have pivoted from defending against early criticism that they may harm patient satisfaction to pitching themselves as team leaders who can boost facilitywide perceptions of care. So far, too little research has been conducted to suggest whether that optimism is fully warranted, but early signs look promising.

At facilities like Chicago’s Northwestern Memorial Hospital, medical floors staffed by hospitalists are beginning to beat out surgical floors for the traveling patient satisfaction award. And experts like Dr. Cumbler are pondering how ongoing initiatives to boost scores can follow in the footsteps of efficiency and quality-raising efforts by making the transition from focusing on individual doctors to adopting a more programmatic approach. “What’s happening to that patient during the 23 hours and 45 minutes of their hospital day that you are not sitting by the bedside? And what influence should a hospitalist have in affecting that other 23 hours and 45 minutes?” he says.

Handoffs, discharges, communication with PCPs, and other potential weak points in maintaining high levels of patient satisfaction, Dr. Cumbler says, all are amenable to systems-based improvement. “As hospitalists, we are in a unique position to influence not only our one-one-one interaction with the patient, but also to influence that system of care in a way that patients will notice in a real and tangible way,” he says. “I think we’ve recognized for some time that a healthy heart but a miserable patient is not a healthy person.”

Teaching Hospitals Gain Ground in Patient Satisfaction

Listen to Diane Sliwka

One widely accepted truism about teaching facilities is that they’re known to have lower patient satisfaction scores than nonteaching hospitals. Brad Fulton, researcher for South Bend, Ind.-based consultant firm Press Ganey, attributes the difference in part to the fact that many doctors at teaching facilities must divide their time among patient care, education, and research. Such hospitals also tend to have some of the more medically difficult patients, he says, some of who may be more apt to feel like they’re on display with the abundance of students and residents.

In one of his recent studies, however, teaching facilities with hospitalists scored higher on patient satisfaction than nonteaching facilities or teaching facilities that lacked hospitalists. One potential follow-up question could have broad implications: “What is it about having hospitalists in teaching facilities that works so well in terms of patient satisfaction?” Can that be replicated elsewhere, he wonders? And is there an essential element that could be applied to nonteaching facilities?

A separate study also defied expectations by finding that teaching bedside procedures to inexperienced residents can be reassuring to patients, if done correctly. In a teaching model instituted at the University of California San Francisco, an experienced hospitalist with extra training supervises a novice during bedside procedures such as lumbar punctures and paracentesis. Study coauthor Diane Sliwka, MD, associate clinical professor of medicine and a hospitalist, says the feedback so far suggests that the model can improve safety, boost education, and deliver a positive patient experience.

Patients may be hesitant about having trainees do procedures, she says, but surveys suggest those patients are reassured when they know an expert is in the room and watching. They also want to hear what will happen next to counteract the anxiety of feeling pain or encountering something unexpected.

As the study suggested, what patients may find to be the most difficult or nerve-wracking can be quite different from what doctors expect. “You would think it was actually the procedure that was most painful part, but actually that was after we had given lidocaine,” Dr. Sliwka says. Patients repeatedly reacted to the doctors using a plastic pen cap to imprint the site where they would insert a needle. “Over and over we would hear people say, ‘That is actually the most painful part and you didn’t warn me about that,’ ” she recalls. “And we didn’t warn people about that because we didn’t think it was a big deal.”

Procedures can take longer with trainees, another tradeoff that can leading to lower satisfaction scores. But what the study also showed is that in academic settings, involving residents doesn’t harm the overall patient experience and can in fact improve it. “Anecdotally, what we hear from patients a lot is, ‘Oh, I had this procedure done before and it went horribly.’ They would tell stories of previous bad experiences, and then really be thankful for the experience that they had in our setting,” Dr. Sliwka says.

The extended face-to-face time can yield another positive effect. Dr. Sliwka found that hospitalists and residents often learned medical and historical information about the patient that the primary care team hadn’t yet had an opportunity to glean. “Patients just start to tell you about their families, their lives, their medical problems, their experiences,” she says, a product of building more rapport with them. “We would often find ourselves telling the primary medical team, ‘By the way, we found this out and you should probably know it: the patient is very concerned about this that’s been going on,’ and the patient hasn’t had a chance to tell the team because there isn’t that kind of time.”

Even without the specific model, Dr. Sliwka says, several principles can be applied to daily interactions. Framing things appropriately, she says, helps patients gain confidence in the doctors and allows them to safely conduct bedside teaching and openly discuss procedures. Even correcting mistakes can be a positive experience. “That actually makes the patient feel more confident in you than less confident,” Dr. Sliwka says.

Ultimately, the teaching experience can help residents broaden their thinking about patient satisfaction. “I think when trainees are starting, their real focus is, ‘How do I deal with this correctly?’ ” Dr. Sliwka says. “It takes a level of comfort with the basic skills to then go beyond that and start thinking about, ‘How is the patient perceiving this?’”

Bryn Nelson is a freelance medical journalist based in Seattle.

References

1. Williams M, Flanders SA, Whitcomb WF. Comprehensive hospital medicine: an evidence based approach. Elsevier;2007:971-976.
2. Arora V, Gangireddy S, Mehrotra A, Ginde R, Tormey M, Meltzer D. Ability of hospitalized patients to identify their in-hospital physicians. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(2):199-201.
3. Singer AS, et al. Hospitalists meeting the challenge of patient satisfaction. The Phoenix Group. 2008;1-5.
4. Manian FA. Whither continuity of care? N Engl J Med. 1999;340:1362-1363.
5. Correspondence. Whither continuity of care? N Engl J Med. 1999;341:850-852.
6. Davis KM, Koch KE, Harvey JK, et al. Effects of hospitalists on cost, outcomes, and patient satisfaction in a rural health system. Amer J Med. 2000;108(8):621-626.
7. Wachter RM, Goldman L. The hospitalist movement 5 years later. JAMA. 2002;287(4):487-494.
8. Coffman J, Rundall TG. The impact of hospitalists on the cost and quality of inpatient care in the United States (a research synthesis). Med Care Res Rev. 2005;62:379–406.
9. Dhuper S, Choksi S. Replacing an academic internal medicine residency program with a physician assistant-hospitalist model: a comparative analysis study. Am J Med Qual. 2009;24(2):132-139.
10. Roy CL, Liang CL, Lund M, et al. Implementation of a physician assistant/hospitalist service in an academic medical center: impact on efficiency and patient outcomes. J Hosp Med. 2008;3(5):361-368.
11. Fulton BR, Drevs KE, Ayala LJ, Malott DL Jr. Patient satisfaction with hospitalists: facility-level analyses. Am J Med Qual. 2011;26(2):95-102.
12. Ferranti DE, Makoul G, Forth VE, Rauworth J, Lee J, Williams MV. Assessing patient perceptions of hospitalist communication skills using the Communication Assessment Tool (CAT). J Hosp Med. 2010;5(9):522-527.

Only a sliver of rural hospitals would meet the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS) criteria to qualify for “meaningful use” of health information technology (HIT), according to a new study, but that could be a window for HM group leaders to take the reins of technology projects.

“[Hospitalists] could be very useful as a champion,” says Brock Slabach, MPH, FACHE, senior vice president for member services at the National Rural Health Association.

The new report showed that 5% of rural hospitals could demonstrate meaningful use of an electronic health record (EHR) system, as opposed to 9% of urban hospitals (J Rural Health. 2011;27(3):329-337). The number dips to 3% for critical-access hospitals. EHR usage often is used as a benchmark for HIT implementation.

CMS has allotted $20 billion for physicians and hospitals to adopt new technologies, but entities must prove they have met “meaningful use” requirements.

Slabach, who spent 20 years as an administrator at Field Memorial Community Hospital in Centreville, Miss., says the major hurdle for HIT implementation at rural hospitals is a lack of knowledge. But if hospitalists can show other physicians the value of HIT, others will follow, he adds.

“Somebody who may not have any informatics background, but is willing to grab a hold of the system, learn its applications, develop methods to spread the knowledge to the rest of the medical staff, is critical,” Slabach says. “It just takes that one or two [people] to get the momentum starting, in terms of a transition to what for a lot of middle-aged and older physicians is a completely new world.”

Only a sliver of rural hospitals would meet the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS) criteria to qualify for “meaningful use” of health information technology (HIT), according to a new study, but that could be a window for HM group leaders to take the reins of technology projects.

“[Hospitalists] could be very useful as a champion,” says Brock Slabach, MPH, FACHE, senior vice president for member services at the National Rural Health Association.

The new report showed that 5% of rural hospitals could demonstrate meaningful use of an electronic health record (EHR) system, as opposed to 9% of urban hospitals (J Rural Health. 2011;27(3):329-337). The number dips to 3% for critical-access hospitals. EHR usage often is used as a benchmark for HIT implementation.

CMS has allotted $20 billion for physicians and hospitals to adopt new technologies, but entities must prove they have met “meaningful use” requirements.

Slabach, who spent 20 years as an administrator at Field Memorial Community Hospital in Centreville, Miss., says the major hurdle for HIT implementation at rural hospitals is a lack of knowledge. But if hospitalists can show other physicians the value of HIT, others will follow, he adds.

“Somebody who may not have any informatics background, but is willing to grab a hold of the system, learn its applications, develop methods to spread the knowledge to the rest of the medical staff, is critical,” Slabach says. “It just takes that one or two [people] to get the momentum starting, in terms of a transition to what for a lot of middle-aged and older physicians is a completely new world.”

Only a sliver of rural hospitals would meet the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS) criteria to qualify for “meaningful use” of health information technology (HIT), according to a new study, but that could be a window for HM group leaders to take the reins of technology projects.

“[Hospitalists] could be very useful as a champion,” says Brock Slabach, MPH, FACHE, senior vice president for member services at the National Rural Health Association.

The new report showed that 5% of rural hospitals could demonstrate meaningful use of an electronic health record (EHR) system, as opposed to 9% of urban hospitals (J Rural Health. 2011;27(3):329-337). The number dips to 3% for critical-access hospitals. EHR usage often is used as a benchmark for HIT implementation.

CMS has allotted $20 billion for physicians and hospitals to adopt new technologies, but entities must prove they have met “meaningful use” requirements.

Slabach, who spent 20 years as an administrator at Field Memorial Community Hospital in Centreville, Miss., says the major hurdle for HIT implementation at rural hospitals is a lack of knowledge. But if hospitalists can show other physicians the value of HIT, others will follow, he adds.

“Somebody who may not have any informatics background, but is willing to grab a hold of the system, learn its applications, develop methods to spread the knowledge to the rest of the medical staff, is critical,” Slabach says. “It just takes that one or two [people] to get the momentum starting, in terms of a transition to what for a lot of middle-aged and older physicians is a completely new world.”

For those who say they would pay $50 more per patient if the quality is better, here’s the problem: Show me the data that say hospitalist care is higher-quality.

I suspect most of you have reviewed the study or at least heard about it. Bob Wachter, MD, MHM, blogged about the study. An article about the study appeared in American Medical Association News. Even National Public Radio ran a piece about the study on their show “Morning Edition.”

I am, of course, referring to the study by Kuo and Goodwin, which was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in early August.¹

In this study, the authors looked at a sample of patients (5%) with primary-care physicians (PCPs) enrolled in Medicare who were cared for by their PCP or a hospitalist during a period from 2001 to 2006. The authors stated their underlying hypotheses as:

• Hospitalist care would be associated with costs shifting from the hospital to the post-hospital setting;
• Hospitalist care would be associated with a decrease in discharges directly to home; and
• Discontinuities of care associated with hospitalist care would lead to a greater rate of visits to the emergency room and readmissions to the hospital, resulting in increased Medicare costs.

Did the authors say hospitalist care cost more? They can’t possibly be correct, can they? Don’t all the hospitalist studies show that hospitalists provide the same quality of care as primary-care doctors, except the costs are lower and the hospital length of stay (LOS) is shorter when hospitalists care for patients?

The point here is that these investigators look at the care not only during a patient’s hospital stay, but also for 30 days after discharge. This is something that had not been done previously—at least not on this scale.

Focus on Facts

And what did the authors find? Patients cared for by hospitalists, as compared to their PCPs, had a shorter LOS and lower in-hospital costs, but these patients also were less likely to be discharged directly to home, less likely to see their PCPs post-discharge, and had more hospital readmissions, ED visits, and nursing home visits after discharge.

Since its release two months ago, I have heard a lot of discussion about the study. Here are a few of the comments I’ve heard:

• “This was an observational study. You can’t possibly remove all confounders in an observational study.”
• “The authors looked at a time period early in the hospitalist movement. If they did the study today, the results would be different.”
• “The additional costs hospitalists incurred were only $50 per patient. Wouldn’t you pay $50 more if the care was better?”
• “This is why hospitals hired hospitalists. They save money for the hospitals. What did they expect to find?”

I agree that observational studies have limitations (even the authors acknowledged this), but this doesn’t mean results from observational studies are invalid. Some of us don’t want to hear this, but this actually was a pretty well-done study with a robust statistical analysis. We should recognize the study has limitations and think about the results.

Kuo and Goodwin looked at data during a period of time early in the hospitalist movement; the results could be different if the study were to be repeated today. But we don’t know what the data would be today. I suppose the data could be better, worse, or about the same. The fact of the matter is that HM leaders—and most of the rest of us—knew that transitions of care, under the hospitalist model, were a potential weakness. How many times have you heard Win Whitcomb, MD, MHM, and John Nelson, MD, MHM, talk about the potential “voltage drop” with handoffs?

The good news is that leaders in our field have done something about this. Project BOOST (Better Outcomes for Older Adults through Safer Transitions) is a program SHM has helped implement at dozens of hospitals across the country to address the issue of unnecessary hospital readmissions (www.hospitalmedicine. org/boost). Improving transitions of care and preventing unnecessary readmissions should be on the minds of all hospitalists. If your program and your hospital have not yet taken steps to address this issue, please let this be your wake-up call.

Show Me the Money

For those who say they would pay $50 more per patient if the quality is better, here’s the problem: Show me the data that say hospitalist care is higher-quality. I agree with you that it is hard to look at costs without looking at quality. Therein lies the basis for our nation’s move toward value-based purchasing of healthcare (see “Value-Based Purchasing Raises the Stakes,” May 2011).

When I hear hospitalists explain why the role of hospitalists was developed, the explanation often involves some discussion of cost and LOS reduction. Don’t get me wrong; it’s not that I believe HM has focused too much attention on cost reduction. I believe we have not focused enough on improving quality. This should not be surprising. Moving the bar on cost reduction is a lot easier than moving the bar on quality and patient safety. The first step toward improvement is an understanding of what you are doing currently. If your hospitalist group has not implemented a program to help its hospitalists measure the quality of care being provided, again, this is your wake-up call.

Last, but not least, for those of you who are not “surprised” by the results because of the belief that hospitalists were created to help the hospital save money and nothing more, I could not disagree with you more. I look at the roles that hospitalists have taken on in our nation’s hospitals, and I am incredibly proud to call myself a hospitalist.

Hospitalists are providing timely care when patients need it. Hospitalists are caring for patients without PCPs. Not only do hospitalists allow PCPs to provide more care in their outpatient clinics, but hospitalists also are caring for patients in ICUs in many places where there are not enough doctors sufficiently trained in critical care.

Rather than acting as an indictment on HM, I believe the Annals article makes a comment on the misalignment of incentives in our healthcare system.

It is 2011, not 1996; HM is here to stay. Most acute-care hospitals in America could not function without hospitalists. I applaud Kuo and Goodwin for doing the research and publishing their results. Let this be an opportunity for hospitalists around the country to think about how to implement systems to improve transitions of care and the quality of care we provide.

Dr. Li is president of SHM.

Reference

1. Kuo YF, Goodwin JS. Association of hospitalist care with medical utilization after discharge: evidence of cost shift from a cohort study. Ann Int Med. 2011: 155:152-159.

For those who say they would pay $50 more per patient if the quality is better, here’s the problem: Show me the data that say hospitalist care is higher-quality.

I suspect most of you have reviewed the study or at least heard about it. Bob Wachter, MD, MHM, blogged about the study. An article about the study appeared in American Medical Association News. Even National Public Radio ran a piece about the study on their show “Morning Edition.”

I am, of course, referring to the study by Kuo and Goodwin, which was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in early August.¹

In this study, the authors looked at a sample of patients (5%) with primary-care physicians (PCPs) enrolled in Medicare who were cared for by their PCP or a hospitalist during a period from 2001 to 2006. The authors stated their underlying hypotheses as:

• Hospitalist care would be associated with costs shifting from the hospital to the post-hospital setting;
• Hospitalist care would be associated with a decrease in discharges directly to home; and
• Discontinuities of care associated with hospitalist care would lead to a greater rate of visits to the emergency room and readmissions to the hospital, resulting in increased Medicare costs.

Did the authors say hospitalist care cost more? They can’t possibly be correct, can they? Don’t all the hospitalist studies show that hospitalists provide the same quality of care as primary-care doctors, except the costs are lower and the hospital length of stay (LOS) is shorter when hospitalists care for patients?

The point here is that these investigators look at the care not only during a patient’s hospital stay, but also for 30 days after discharge. This is something that had not been done previously—at least not on this scale.

Focus on Facts

And what did the authors find? Patients cared for by hospitalists, as compared to their PCPs, had a shorter LOS and lower in-hospital costs, but these patients also were less likely to be discharged directly to home, less likely to see their PCPs post-discharge, and had more hospital readmissions, ED visits, and nursing home visits after discharge.

Since its release two months ago, I have heard a lot of discussion about the study. Here are a few of the comments I’ve heard:

• “This was an observational study. You can’t possibly remove all confounders in an observational study.”
• “The authors looked at a time period early in the hospitalist movement. If they did the study today, the results would be different.”
• “The additional costs hospitalists incurred were only $50 per patient. Wouldn’t you pay $50 more if the care was better?”
• “This is why hospitals hired hospitalists. They save money for the hospitals. What did they expect to find?”

I agree that observational studies have limitations (even the authors acknowledged this), but this doesn’t mean results from observational studies are invalid. Some of us don’t want to hear this, but this actually was a pretty well-done study with a robust statistical analysis. We should recognize the study has limitations and think about the results.

Kuo and Goodwin looked at data during a period of time early in the hospitalist movement; the results could be different if the study were to be repeated today. But we don’t know what the data would be today. I suppose the data could be better, worse, or about the same. The fact of the matter is that HM leaders—and most of the rest of us—knew that transitions of care, under the hospitalist model, were a potential weakness. How many times have you heard Win Whitcomb, MD, MHM, and John Nelson, MD, MHM, talk about the potential “voltage drop” with handoffs?

The good news is that leaders in our field have done something about this. Project BOOST (Better Outcomes for Older Adults through Safer Transitions) is a program SHM has helped implement at dozens of hospitals across the country to address the issue of unnecessary hospital readmissions (www.hospitalmedicine. org/boost). Improving transitions of care and preventing unnecessary readmissions should be on the minds of all hospitalists. If your program and your hospital have not yet taken steps to address this issue, please let this be your wake-up call.

Show Me the Money

For those who say they would pay $50 more per patient if the quality is better, here’s the problem: Show me the data that say hospitalist care is higher-quality. I agree with you that it is hard to look at costs without looking at quality. Therein lies the basis for our nation’s move toward value-based purchasing of healthcare (see “Value-Based Purchasing Raises the Stakes,” May 2011).

When I hear hospitalists explain why the role of hospitalists was developed, the explanation often involves some discussion of cost and LOS reduction. Don’t get me wrong; it’s not that I believe HM has focused too much attention on cost reduction. I believe we have not focused enough on improving quality. This should not be surprising. Moving the bar on cost reduction is a lot easier than moving the bar on quality and patient safety. The first step toward improvement is an understanding of what you are doing currently. If your hospitalist group has not implemented a program to help its hospitalists measure the quality of care being provided, again, this is your wake-up call.

Last, but not least, for those of you who are not “surprised” by the results because of the belief that hospitalists were created to help the hospital save money and nothing more, I could not disagree with you more. I look at the roles that hospitalists have taken on in our nation’s hospitals, and I am incredibly proud to call myself a hospitalist.

Hospitalists are providing timely care when patients need it. Hospitalists are caring for patients without PCPs. Not only do hospitalists allow PCPs to provide more care in their outpatient clinics, but hospitalists also are caring for patients in ICUs in many places where there are not enough doctors sufficiently trained in critical care.

Rather than acting as an indictment on HM, I believe the Annals article makes a comment on the misalignment of incentives in our healthcare system.

It is 2011, not 1996; HM is here to stay. Most acute-care hospitals in America could not function without hospitalists. I applaud Kuo and Goodwin for doing the research and publishing their results. Let this be an opportunity for hospitalists around the country to think about how to implement systems to improve transitions of care and the quality of care we provide.

Dr. Li is president of SHM.

Reference

1. Kuo YF, Goodwin JS. Association of hospitalist care with medical utilization after discharge: evidence of cost shift from a cohort study. Ann Int Med. 2011: 155:152-159.

For those who say they would pay $50 more per patient if the quality is better, here’s the problem: Show me the data that say hospitalist care is higher-quality.

I suspect most of you have reviewed the study or at least heard about it. Bob Wachter, MD, MHM, blogged about the study. An article about the study appeared in American Medical Association News. Even National Public Radio ran a piece about the study on their show “Morning Edition.”

I am, of course, referring to the study by Kuo and Goodwin, which was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in early August.¹

In this study, the authors looked at a sample of patients (5%) with primary-care physicians (PCPs) enrolled in Medicare who were cared for by their PCP or a hospitalist during a period from 2001 to 2006. The authors stated their underlying hypotheses as:

• Hospitalist care would be associated with costs shifting from the hospital to the post-hospital setting;
• Hospitalist care would be associated with a decrease in discharges directly to home; and
• Discontinuities of care associated with hospitalist care would lead to a greater rate of visits to the emergency room and readmissions to the hospital, resulting in increased Medicare costs.

Did the authors say hospitalist care cost more? They can’t possibly be correct, can they? Don’t all the hospitalist studies show that hospitalists provide the same quality of care as primary-care doctors, except the costs are lower and the hospital length of stay (LOS) is shorter when hospitalists care for patients?

The point here is that these investigators look at the care not only during a patient’s hospital stay, but also for 30 days after discharge. This is something that had not been done previously—at least not on this scale.

Focus on Facts

And what did the authors find? Patients cared for by hospitalists, as compared to their PCPs, had a shorter LOS and lower in-hospital costs, but these patients also were less likely to be discharged directly to home, less likely to see their PCPs post-discharge, and had more hospital readmissions, ED visits, and nursing home visits after discharge.

Since its release two months ago, I have heard a lot of discussion about the study. Here are a few of the comments I’ve heard:

• “This was an observational study. You can’t possibly remove all confounders in an observational study.”
• “The authors looked at a time period early in the hospitalist movement. If they did the study today, the results would be different.”
• “The additional costs hospitalists incurred were only $50 per patient. Wouldn’t you pay $50 more if the care was better?”
• “This is why hospitals hired hospitalists. They save money for the hospitals. What did they expect to find?”

I agree that observational studies have limitations (even the authors acknowledged this), but this doesn’t mean results from observational studies are invalid. Some of us don’t want to hear this, but this actually was a pretty well-done study with a robust statistical analysis. We should recognize the study has limitations and think about the results.

Kuo and Goodwin looked at data during a period of time early in the hospitalist movement; the results could be different if the study were to be repeated today. But we don’t know what the data would be today. I suppose the data could be better, worse, or about the same. The fact of the matter is that HM leaders—and most of the rest of us—knew that transitions of care, under the hospitalist model, were a potential weakness. How many times have you heard Win Whitcomb, MD, MHM, and John Nelson, MD, MHM, talk about the potential “voltage drop” with handoffs?

The good news is that leaders in our field have done something about this. Project BOOST (Better Outcomes for Older Adults through Safer Transitions) is a program SHM has helped implement at dozens of hospitals across the country to address the issue of unnecessary hospital readmissions (www.hospitalmedicine. org/boost). Improving transitions of care and preventing unnecessary readmissions should be on the minds of all hospitalists. If your program and your hospital have not yet taken steps to address this issue, please let this be your wake-up call.

Show Me the Money

For those who say they would pay $50 more per patient if the quality is better, here’s the problem: Show me the data that say hospitalist care is higher-quality. I agree with you that it is hard to look at costs without looking at quality. Therein lies the basis for our nation’s move toward value-based purchasing of healthcare (see “Value-Based Purchasing Raises the Stakes,” May 2011).

When I hear hospitalists explain why the role of hospitalists was developed, the explanation often involves some discussion of cost and LOS reduction. Don’t get me wrong; it’s not that I believe HM has focused too much attention on cost reduction. I believe we have not focused enough on improving quality. This should not be surprising. Moving the bar on cost reduction is a lot easier than moving the bar on quality and patient safety. The first step toward improvement is an understanding of what you are doing currently. If your hospitalist group has not implemented a program to help its hospitalists measure the quality of care being provided, again, this is your wake-up call.

Last, but not least, for those of you who are not “surprised” by the results because of the belief that hospitalists were created to help the hospital save money and nothing more, I could not disagree with you more. I look at the roles that hospitalists have taken on in our nation’s hospitals, and I am incredibly proud to call myself a hospitalist.

Hospitalists are providing timely care when patients need it. Hospitalists are caring for patients without PCPs. Not only do hospitalists allow PCPs to provide more care in their outpatient clinics, but hospitalists also are caring for patients in ICUs in many places where there are not enough doctors sufficiently trained in critical care.

Rather than acting as an indictment on HM, I believe the Annals article makes a comment on the misalignment of incentives in our healthcare system.

It is 2011, not 1996; HM is here to stay. Most acute-care hospitals in America could not function without hospitalists. I applaud Kuo and Goodwin for doing the research and publishing their results. Let this be an opportunity for hospitalists around the country to think about how to implement systems to improve transitions of care and the quality of care we provide.

Dr. Li is president of SHM.

Reference

1. Kuo YF, Goodwin JS. Association of hospitalist care with medical utilization after discharge: evidence of cost shift from a cohort study. Ann Int Med. 2011: 155:152-159.

In a bit of counterintuition, an empty discharge lounge might be the most successful kind.

Christine Collins, executive director of patient access services at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, says that the lounge should be a service for discharged patients who have completed medical treatment, but who for some reason remain unable to leave the institution. Such cases can include waiting on a prescription from the pharmacy, or simply waiting on a relative or friend to arrive with transportation.

She does not view Brigham’s discharge lounge, a room with lounge chairs and light meals that is staffed by a registered nurse, as the answer to the throughput conundrum hospitals across the country face each and every day. So when the lounge is empty, it means patients have been discharged without any hang-ups.

“It’s not a patient-care area,” Collins says. “They’re people that should be home.”

Some view discharge lounges as a potential aid in smoothing out the discharge process. In theory, patients ready to be medically discharged but unable to leave the hospital have a place to go. But keeping the patients in the building, and under the eye of a nurse, could create liability issues, says Ken Simone, DO, SFHM, president of Hospitalist and Practice Solutions in Veazie, Maine, and a member of Team Hospitalist. Dr. Simone also wonders how the lounge concept impacts patient satisfaction, as some could view it negatively if they’re told they have to sit in what could be construed as a back-end waiting room.

“People need to assess what they’re doing it for and is it really accomplishing what they want it to accomplish,” Collins says.

Discharge lounges “can’t be another nursing unit because a patient is supposed to be discharged. ... Whether you have a discharge lounge or not, you need to improve your systems so that the patients leave when they leave.”

Richard Quinn is a freelance writer based in New Jersey.

In a bit of counterintuition, an empty discharge lounge might be the most successful kind.

Christine Collins, executive director of patient access services at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, says that the lounge should be a service for discharged patients who have completed medical treatment, but who for some reason remain unable to leave the institution. Such cases can include waiting on a prescription from the pharmacy, or simply waiting on a relative or friend to arrive with transportation.

She does not view Brigham’s discharge lounge, a room with lounge chairs and light meals that is staffed by a registered nurse, as the answer to the throughput conundrum hospitals across the country face each and every day. So when the lounge is empty, it means patients have been discharged without any hang-ups.

“It’s not a patient-care area,” Collins says. “They’re people that should be home.”

Some view discharge lounges as a potential aid in smoothing out the discharge process. In theory, patients ready to be medically discharged but unable to leave the hospital have a place to go. But keeping the patients in the building, and under the eye of a nurse, could create liability issues, says Ken Simone, DO, SFHM, president of Hospitalist and Practice Solutions in Veazie, Maine, and a member of Team Hospitalist. Dr. Simone also wonders how the lounge concept impacts patient satisfaction, as some could view it negatively if they’re told they have to sit in what could be construed as a back-end waiting room.

“People need to assess what they’re doing it for and is it really accomplishing what they want it to accomplish,” Collins says.

Discharge lounges “can’t be another nursing unit because a patient is supposed to be discharged. ... Whether you have a discharge lounge or not, you need to improve your systems so that the patients leave when they leave.”

Richard Quinn is a freelance writer based in New Jersey.

In a bit of counterintuition, an empty discharge lounge might be the most successful kind.

Christine Collins, executive director of patient access services at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, says that the lounge should be a service for discharged patients who have completed medical treatment, but who for some reason remain unable to leave the institution. Such cases can include waiting on a prescription from the pharmacy, or simply waiting on a relative or friend to arrive with transportation.

She does not view Brigham’s discharge lounge, a room with lounge chairs and light meals that is staffed by a registered nurse, as the answer to the throughput conundrum hospitals across the country face each and every day. So when the lounge is empty, it means patients have been discharged without any hang-ups.

“It’s not a patient-care area,” Collins says. “They’re people that should be home.”

Some view discharge lounges as a potential aid in smoothing out the discharge process. In theory, patients ready to be medically discharged but unable to leave the hospital have a place to go. But keeping the patients in the building, and under the eye of a nurse, could create liability issues, says Ken Simone, DO, SFHM, president of Hospitalist and Practice Solutions in Veazie, Maine, and a member of Team Hospitalist. Dr. Simone also wonders how the lounge concept impacts patient satisfaction, as some could view it negatively if they’re told they have to sit in what could be construed as a back-end waiting room.

“People need to assess what they’re doing it for and is it really accomplishing what they want it to accomplish,” Collins says.

Discharge lounges “can’t be another nursing unit because a patient is supposed to be discharged. ... Whether you have a discharge lounge or not, you need to improve your systems so that the patients leave when they leave.”

Richard Quinn is a freelance writer based in New Jersey.

Click here to listen to ENA President AnnMarie Papa.

Click here to listen to Dr. Simone.

Click here to listen to ENA President AnnMarie Papa.

Click here to listen to Dr. Simone.

Click here to listen to ENA President AnnMarie Papa.

Click here to listen to Dr. Simone.

In 2002, a summary article in the Journal of the American Medical Association helped put the relatively small but rapidly growing HM profession on the map. Reviewing the available data, Robert Wachter, MD, MHM, and Lee Goldman, MD, MPH, of the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF) concluded that implementing a hospitalist program yielded an average savings of 13.4% in hospital costs and a 16.6% reduction in the length of stay (LOS).¹

A decade later, the idea of efficiency has become so intertwined with hospitalists that SHM has included the concept in its definition of a profession that now comprises more than 30,000 doctors, nurses, and other care providers. HM practitioners work to enhance hospital and healthcare performance, in part, through “efficient use of hospital and healthcare resources,” according to SHM.

The growth of any profession can create exceptions and outliers, and observers point out that HM programs have become as varied as the hospitals in which they reside, complicating any attempt at broad generalizations. As a core part of the job description, though, efficiency and its implied benefit on costs have been widely promoted as arguments for expanding HM’s reach.

So are hospitalists meeting the lofty expectations?

A Look at the Evidence

A large retrospective study that examined outcomes of care for nearly 77,000 patients in 45 hospitals found that those cared for by hospitalists had a “modestly shorter” stay (by 0.4 days) in the hospital than those cared for by either general internists or family physicians.² Hospitalists saved about $270 per hospitalization compared with general internists but only about $125 per stay compared with family physicians, the latter of which was not deemed statistically significant.

A more recent review of 33 studies found general agreement that hospitalist care led to reduced costs and length of stay but revealed less uniformity in the impacts on quality and patient outcomes.³

A more dramatic—albeit smaller—affirmation of HM as an efficient force has come from a study of patients admitted to 200-bed Olive View-UCLA Medical Center in Sylmar, Calif. The study, led by assistant medical director Scott Lundberg, MD, concluded that the arrival of an academic hospitalist program led to a one-year increase of $2.3 million in reimbursements from Medi-Cal, California’s Medicaid program.⁴

“Most other places that have demonstrated the cost-effectiveness of hospitalists generally point to reducing length of stay, which therefore reduces the costs,” Dr. Lundberg says. Under Medicare’s diagnosis-based reimbursement (DRG) system, hospitals could get paid the same amount whether the patient stays one day or five.

Medi-Cal, however, uses a straight-up per diem reimbursement system. “So reducing someone’s length of stay is not necessarily desirable if Medi-Cal would have paid you for all of those days,” Dr. Lundberg says. The state’s Medicare program also can deny coverage for days deemed medically unnecessary after a review of patient charts.

Hospitalists, he says, helped boost revenue in two ways. First, the program helped the hospital avoid denied coverage days by ensuring that patients stayed only as long as necessary. Average LOS, in fact, dropped to 1.92 days from 2.48 days, decreasing the Medi-Cal denial rate to 31.8% (from 43.8%) and bumping up the average reimbursement per inpatient day to $955 from $787.

Hospitalists also helped alleviate the work-hour limits for residents imposed by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), which had effectively capped the number of inpatients the center could admit. Because Olive View-UCLA receives per diem payments from Medi-Cal, making room to accept more patients into the hospital has meant increased revenues. Among the other benefits, the program has improved patient satisfaction and relieved some of the pressure on teaching teams.

With $310,000 for salary outlay in the hospitalist program’s first year, the study found a net cost benefit of $2 million. “One of the real challenges in getting this hospitalist thing going was getting our administrators to shell out the money for the salaries,” Dr. Lundberg says. The study demonstrated that a hospitalist program not only pays for itself, but also can substantially ramp up revenue. “I’m guessing that others, especially at public hospitals, face the same challenges,” he says. “I’m hoping they can point to this analysis and say, ‘Look, here’s what L.A. County did. They were able to show a net increase in revenue from this hospitalist service.’ ”

On the opposite side of the country, hospitalists are pointing to a success story in pediatric care. At the 120-bed Children’s Hospital at Montefiore at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in the Bronx, N.Y., a recent study concluded that establishing a pediatric HM program led to a significant reduction in LOS for patients with asthma or bronchiolitis.⁵ Nora Esteban-Cruciani, MD, MS, assistant director of pediatric hospital medicine and lead author of the report, which was presented at HM11, says it’s the first study to demonstrate such an effect for asthma in an inner-city academic setting.

Compared to a traditional resident-attending team, care administered by a resident-physician’s assistant-hospitalist team reduced LOS for bronchiolitis by 15.5% and asthma by 11.8%. With the 378 hospital-bed days saved annually, Children’s Hospital at Montefiore achieved an estimated savings of about $944,000 before taking salaries into account. “We anticipate seeing similar benefits in other groups of patients, and the total savings will far exceed the hospitalist salaries,” Dr. Esteban-Cruciani says.

After the pediatric HM program launched, her study also documented a 17% to 25% decrease in rehospitalizations among asthmatic children at four, six, and 12 months after their initial hospital discharge. As a result of the demonstrated value, Dr. Esteban-Cruciani says, the children’s hospital is expanding its HM program and hiring another 4.5 full-time equivalents.

So how did hospitalists achieve the positive results?

“Knowing the most up-to-date and evidence-based treatment plans, understanding how to use the hospital systems in the most efficient manner, being on the ward for eight to 12 hours per day to respond to issues that arise, as well as 24-hour availability by phone for the residents,” she says. “The day-to-day continuity, as well as the ability to consistently improve systems of care, are distinctive advantages to hospital medicine.”

The case for HM as a model of efficiency comes with a major caveat, however. David Meltzer, MD, PhD, FHM, chief of the section of hospital medicine and an economist and public-policy expert at the University of Chicago, points out that healthcare costs don’t end with a patient’s hospital discharge. Could savings achieved during inpatient care be offset by greater costs afterward?

A new study in the Annals of Internal Medicine by researchers at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston has sharpened that question with the suggestion that, at least in some cases, hospitalist-procured savings might not last.⁶ When compared to care delivered by primary-care physicians (PCPs), the researchers found that hospitalist care yielded an average inpatient savings of $282 per Medicare beneficiary. But that reduction was wiped out by an extra $332 average cost in the month after discharge, due to higher readmissions, more emergency department visits, and more patients sent to nursing facilities instead of to their own homes. An accompanying editorial raises the uncomfortable question: “Are hospitalists discharging their patients more quickly but less appropriately, such that some of their patients bounce back?”⁷

A program that is structured in such a way as to hire or retain experienced hospitalists is likely to have a higher cost savings than one that doesn’t.

—David Meltzer, MD, PhD, FHM, chief, section of hospital medicine, economist, University of Chicago

The study itself has its own share of caveats: Data were collected only until 2006, before reducing 30-day readmissions became a widespread focal point. The editorial also highlights the possibility that hospitalists might care for patients whose weaker relationships with outpatient providers could be the true driver of increased readmissions. In a statement, SHM President Joe Li, MD, SFHM, adds that constructive talks about healthcare costs must include the notion of quality, something the organization has worked to improve with interventions like Project BOOST.

At the very least, the new research highlights the importance of context when considering HM impacts on cost and quality. Separate studies, meanwhile, suggest that the jury is still out on whether other hospitalist-led models can consistently improve outcomes and costs. At academic centers, for instance, work-hour limits for medical residents have provided a strong impetus for joint-care arrangements, such as comanagement systems. A 2004 study found that an orthopedics-hospitalist comanagement structure led to a modest reduction in complications after elective hip and knee surgery. But the report documented no difference in costs or actual length of stay.⁸

Listen to Dr. Meltzer discuss the need for experienced hospitalists.

More recently, a study of nearly 7,600 patients at UCSF Medical Center found that an HM-neurosurgery comanagement model had no significant impact on the center’s patient mortality, readmissions, LOS, or patient satisfaction. The comanagement system, however, yielded an average savings of $1,439 per hospitalization and boosted physicians’ perceptions of quality and safety.⁹

Andrew Auerbach, MD, MPH, SFHM, associate professor of medicine at UCSF Medical Center, says the savings, while not dramatic, nevertheless can add up when applied to the thousands of patients seen by the service every year. “That’s compelling because I think one of the things that you’re arguing when you’re doing these services is what the return on investment is going to be,” he says. “Traditionally, these have been implemented without any specific financial return on investment being applied, but the large expectation that clinical improvement is going to happen.”

His study at UCSF found just the opposite: no clinical improvement but a net cost benefit. “We were a little disappointed in some ways, but in other ways not surprised because there are very few data out in the community that suggest comanagement improves any outcomes,” Dr. Auerbach says. Among complicated neurosurgery patients, the strongest determinants of outcome might be beyond the scope of hospitalist-aided medical care.

With hospitals nervously eyeing their bottom lines, however, any financial improvement that does not adversely affect quality can still be seen as a positive development, and Dr. Auerbach says his study was the first to demonstrate that benefit. At UCSF Medical Center, at least, comanagement has proven compelling enough to spur plans for extending the service to orthopedic surgery patients.

Regardless of the care model, other studies suggest that specific interventions at key moments can yield substantial savings. A small, randomized controlled study led by hospitalists at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, for example, supports the idea that “simply showing providers the cost of some diagnostic tests at the time of order entry can affect behavior.”¹⁰ Although the study didn’t focus exclusively on hospitalists, experts say they’re in the best position to take the lead in curbing unnecessary costs.

“Hospitalists, I think, have a better understanding of the impact of resource utilization on the total cost of care and can be more prudent in the use of technologies,” says Kenneth Epstein, MD, MBA, FHM, FACP, chief medical officer for Traverse City, Mich.-based Hospitalist Consultants Inc. One reason is that hospitalists aren’t beholden to any specific technology, whether endoscopies or cardiac catheterization.

I’m hoping they can point to this analysis and say, “Look, here’s what L.A. County did. They were able to show a net increase in revenue from this hospitalist service.”

—Scott Lundberg, MD, assistant medical director, Olive View-UCLA Medical Center, Sylmar, Calif.

Mark Graban, author of the book “Lean Hospitals: Improving Quality, Patient Safety, and Employee Satisfaction,” says hospitalists can play another critical role in controlling costs by mapping out and simplifying the discharge processes. He recalls how hospitalists helped coordinate the effort by one of his hospital clients to prevent discharge delays that would have unnecessarily kept patients in the hospital for an additional night or two.

“That length-of-stay reduction, especially in a fixed-reimbursement setting, can have a huge financial impact,” Graban says. “And, inarguably, it’s the right thing to do for the patient, because it’s patients that are medically ready to be discharged. It gets them home and it reduces their increased risk of picking up infections or being involved in hospital errors.”

Focusing on patient safety could translate into big cost savings under the new Medicare system that penalizes providers for certain hospital-acquired conditions, such as skin ulcers and urinary tract infections, Dr. Epstein says. “There’s an emphasis by hospitalists in understanding the system and being willing to put energy into things like documenting ‘present on admission,’ which then has a huge impact on the hospital,” he says. Close monitoring of patients and developing standardization of care can likewise minimize the risk of conditions, such as catheter-associated infections, from cropping up in the hospital.

Dr. Meltzer says his own research suggests that experienced hospitalists are most effective at controlling costs. “So a program that is structured in such a way as to hire or retain experienced hospitalists is likely to have a higher cost savings than one that doesn’t,” he says.

In a broader sense, the maturation of the HM model and more widespread adoption of effective methods by practitioners might be boosting the overall impact of hospitalist care. A study that examined nearly 2 million Medicare admissions over six years found that the effects of the hospitalist care model on LOS became progressively more pronounced over time, from an average reduction of only 0.02 inpatient days in 2001-2002 to a decrease of 0.35 days by 2005-2006.¹¹

Interestingly, the study’s authors suggest that effects attributable to hospitalists were most pronounced among older, complicated, nonsurgical patients cared for at nonprofit community hospitals.

The Verdict

Despite the variable design and scope of individual programs, experts say, HM’s overall net positive on the efficiency of inpatient care is fairly well documented. Future considerations of hospitalists’ true effects on costs, however, will demand an accounting of healthcare across an entire system, where the HM impact is decidedly less certain. “The right comparison in some sense is, What are the total costs of care for a patient cared for in a system that uses hospitalists versus the totals costs of similar patients cared for in a system that doesn’t use hospitalists?” Dr. Meltzer says.

David Mitchell, MD, PhD, a hospitalist at Sibley Memorial Hospital in Washington, D.C., and a member of SHM’s Performance Standards Committee, is among those with an additional concern: Providers may not be taking full advantage of their position to control costs.

“The reason is primarily that the reimbursement structure is not set up to incentivize us to cut costs,” he says. Dr. Mitchell, who has worked in 12 hospitals in six states, argues that hospitalists still are too detached from the true price of ordered tests. “That’s what I fear in hospital medicine, that we just become robots: chest pain means CT scan without thinking,” he says. “This just doesn’t make sense.” Dr. Mitchell also contends that the focus of some HM programs on seeing as many patients as possible to maximize reimbursements is leading to less efficiency. At HM11 in May, he met another hospitalist who said he regularly saw 40 to 45 patients every day. “I know there’s absolutely no way you can see that many patients and do an efficient job,” Dr. Mitchell says.

If one of the clearest areas of success for hospitalists has been in reducing length of stay within a hospital, experts acknowledge that it may no longer be enough. “In the new payment model, success is going to be defined differently, and it will be in terms of reducing the total cost of care,” Dr. Meltzer says.

Over the next decade, hospitalists will need to respond to new set of incentives. “And I think one of the really interesting questions will be how hospitalists can best do that, and the extent to which it causes them to rethink the ways in which they organize their practice,” he says.

Bryn Nelson is a freelance medical writer based in Seattle.

References

1. Wachter RM, Goldman L. The hospitalist movement 5 years later. JAMA. 2002;287(4):487-494.
2. Lindenauer PK, Rothberg MB, Pekow PS, Kenwood C, Benjamin EM, Auerbach AD. Outcomes of care by hospitalists, general internists, and family physicians. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:2589-2600.
3. Peterson MC. A systematic review of outcomes and quality measures in adult patients cared for by hospitalists vs nonhospitalists. Mayo Clin Proc. 2009;84(3): 248-254.
4. Lundberg S, Balingit P, Wali S, Cope D. Cost-effectiveness of a hospitalist service in a public teaching hospital. Acad Med. 2010;85(8):1312-1315.
5. Esteban-Cruciani N, Montejo J, Azzarone G, Douglas L, et al. Impact of a pediatric hospital medicine program on resource utilization for children with respiratory disorders. J Hosp Med. 2011;6(4)Supp 2:S27.
6. Kuo Y-F, Goodwin JS. Association of hospitalist care with medical utilization after discharge: evidence of cost shift from a cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(3): 152-159.
7. Chen LM, Saint S. Moments in time. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(3):194-195.
8. Huddleston JM, Long KH, Naessens JM, et al. Medical and surgical comanagement after elective hip and knee arthroplasty: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141(1):28-38.
9. Auerbach AD, Wachter RM, Cheng HQ, et al. Comanagement of surgical patients between neurosurgeons and hospitalists. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(22): 2004-2010.
10. Feldman L, Thiemann D, Brotman D. Financial impact of presenting lab cost data to providers at the time of order entry: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Hosp Med. 2011;6(4)Supp 2:S93.
11. Kuo Y-F, Goodwin JS. Effect of hospitalists on length of stay in the Medicare population: variation according to hospital and patient characteristics. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2010;58:1649-1657.
12. Epstein K, Juarez E, Epstein A, Loya K, Singer A. The impact of fragmentation of hospitalist care on length of stay. J Hosp Med. 2010;5(6):335-8.
13. Chandra S, Howell E, Wright S. CICLE: Creating incentives and continuity leading to efficiency. J Hosp Med. 2011;6(4)Supp 2:S17

In 2002, a summary article in the Journal of the American Medical Association helped put the relatively small but rapidly growing HM profession on the map. Reviewing the available data, Robert Wachter, MD, MHM, and Lee Goldman, MD, MPH, of the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF) concluded that implementing a hospitalist program yielded an average savings of 13.4% in hospital costs and a 16.6% reduction in the length of stay (LOS).¹

A decade later, the idea of efficiency has become so intertwined with hospitalists that SHM has included the concept in its definition of a profession that now comprises more than 30,000 doctors, nurses, and other care providers. HM practitioners work to enhance hospital and healthcare performance, in part, through “efficient use of hospital and healthcare resources,” according to SHM.

The growth of any profession can create exceptions and outliers, and observers point out that HM programs have become as varied as the hospitals in which they reside, complicating any attempt at broad generalizations. As a core part of the job description, though, efficiency and its implied benefit on costs have been widely promoted as arguments for expanding HM’s reach.

So are hospitalists meeting the lofty expectations?

A Look at the Evidence

A large retrospective study that examined outcomes of care for nearly 77,000 patients in 45 hospitals found that those cared for by hospitalists had a “modestly shorter” stay (by 0.4 days) in the hospital than those cared for by either general internists or family physicians.² Hospitalists saved about $270 per hospitalization compared with general internists but only about $125 per stay compared with family physicians, the latter of which was not deemed statistically significant.

A more recent review of 33 studies found general agreement that hospitalist care led to reduced costs and length of stay but revealed less uniformity in the impacts on quality and patient outcomes.³

A more dramatic—albeit smaller—affirmation of HM as an efficient force has come from a study of patients admitted to 200-bed Olive View-UCLA Medical Center in Sylmar, Calif. The study, led by assistant medical director Scott Lundberg, MD, concluded that the arrival of an academic hospitalist program led to a one-year increase of $2.3 million in reimbursements from Medi-Cal, California’s Medicaid program.⁴

“Most other places that have demonstrated the cost-effectiveness of hospitalists generally point to reducing length of stay, which therefore reduces the costs,” Dr. Lundberg says. Under Medicare’s diagnosis-based reimbursement (DRG) system, hospitals could get paid the same amount whether the patient stays one day or five.

Medi-Cal, however, uses a straight-up per diem reimbursement system. “So reducing someone’s length of stay is not necessarily desirable if Medi-Cal would have paid you for all of those days,” Dr. Lundberg says. The state’s Medicare program also can deny coverage for days deemed medically unnecessary after a review of patient charts.

Hospitalists, he says, helped boost revenue in two ways. First, the program helped the hospital avoid denied coverage days by ensuring that patients stayed only as long as necessary. Average LOS, in fact, dropped to 1.92 days from 2.48 days, decreasing the Medi-Cal denial rate to 31.8% (from 43.8%) and bumping up the average reimbursement per inpatient day to $955 from $787.

Hospitalists also helped alleviate the work-hour limits for residents imposed by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), which had effectively capped the number of inpatients the center could admit. Because Olive View-UCLA receives per diem payments from Medi-Cal, making room to accept more patients into the hospital has meant increased revenues. Among the other benefits, the program has improved patient satisfaction and relieved some of the pressure on teaching teams.

With $310,000 for salary outlay in the hospitalist program’s first year, the study found a net cost benefit of $2 million. “One of the real challenges in getting this hospitalist thing going was getting our administrators to shell out the money for the salaries,” Dr. Lundberg says. The study demonstrated that a hospitalist program not only pays for itself, but also can substantially ramp up revenue. “I’m guessing that others, especially at public hospitals, face the same challenges,” he says. “I’m hoping they can point to this analysis and say, ‘Look, here’s what L.A. County did. They were able to show a net increase in revenue from this hospitalist service.’ ”

On the opposite side of the country, hospitalists are pointing to a success story in pediatric care. At the 120-bed Children’s Hospital at Montefiore at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in the Bronx, N.Y., a recent study concluded that establishing a pediatric HM program led to a significant reduction in LOS for patients with asthma or bronchiolitis.⁵ Nora Esteban-Cruciani, MD, MS, assistant director of pediatric hospital medicine and lead author of the report, which was presented at HM11, says it’s the first study to demonstrate such an effect for asthma in an inner-city academic setting.

Compared to a traditional resident-attending team, care administered by a resident-physician’s assistant-hospitalist team reduced LOS for bronchiolitis by 15.5% and asthma by 11.8%. With the 378 hospital-bed days saved annually, Children’s Hospital at Montefiore achieved an estimated savings of about $944,000 before taking salaries into account. “We anticipate seeing similar benefits in other groups of patients, and the total savings will far exceed the hospitalist salaries,” Dr. Esteban-Cruciani says.

After the pediatric HM program launched, her study also documented a 17% to 25% decrease in rehospitalizations among asthmatic children at four, six, and 12 months after their initial hospital discharge. As a result of the demonstrated value, Dr. Esteban-Cruciani says, the children’s hospital is expanding its HM program and hiring another 4.5 full-time equivalents.

So how did hospitalists achieve the positive results?

“Knowing the most up-to-date and evidence-based treatment plans, understanding how to use the hospital systems in the most efficient manner, being on the ward for eight to 12 hours per day to respond to issues that arise, as well as 24-hour availability by phone for the residents,” she says. “The day-to-day continuity, as well as the ability to consistently improve systems of care, are distinctive advantages to hospital medicine.”

The case for HM as a model of efficiency comes with a major caveat, however. David Meltzer, MD, PhD, FHM, chief of the section of hospital medicine and an economist and public-policy expert at the University of Chicago, points out that healthcare costs don’t end with a patient’s hospital discharge. Could savings achieved during inpatient care be offset by greater costs afterward?

A new study in the Annals of Internal Medicine by researchers at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston has sharpened that question with the suggestion that, at least in some cases, hospitalist-procured savings might not last.⁶ When compared to care delivered by primary-care physicians (PCPs), the researchers found that hospitalist care yielded an average inpatient savings of $282 per Medicare beneficiary. But that reduction was wiped out by an extra $332 average cost in the month after discharge, due to higher readmissions, more emergency department visits, and more patients sent to nursing facilities instead of to their own homes. An accompanying editorial raises the uncomfortable question: “Are hospitalists discharging their patients more quickly but less appropriately, such that some of their patients bounce back?”⁷

A program that is structured in such a way as to hire or retain experienced hospitalists is likely to have a higher cost savings than one that doesn’t.

—David Meltzer, MD, PhD, FHM, chief, section of hospital medicine, economist, University of Chicago

The study itself has its own share of caveats: Data were collected only until 2006, before reducing 30-day readmissions became a widespread focal point. The editorial also highlights the possibility that hospitalists might care for patients whose weaker relationships with outpatient providers could be the true driver of increased readmissions. In a statement, SHM President Joe Li, MD, SFHM, adds that constructive talks about healthcare costs must include the notion of quality, something the organization has worked to improve with interventions like Project BOOST.

At the very least, the new research highlights the importance of context when considering HM impacts on cost and quality. Separate studies, meanwhile, suggest that the jury is still out on whether other hospitalist-led models can consistently improve outcomes and costs. At academic centers, for instance, work-hour limits for medical residents have provided a strong impetus for joint-care arrangements, such as comanagement systems. A 2004 study found that an orthopedics-hospitalist comanagement structure led to a modest reduction in complications after elective hip and knee surgery. But the report documented no difference in costs or actual length of stay.⁸

Listen to Dr. Meltzer discuss the need for experienced hospitalists.

More recently, a study of nearly 7,600 patients at UCSF Medical Center found that an HM-neurosurgery comanagement model had no significant impact on the center’s patient mortality, readmissions, LOS, or patient satisfaction. The comanagement system, however, yielded an average savings of $1,439 per hospitalization and boosted physicians’ perceptions of quality and safety.⁹

Andrew Auerbach, MD, MPH, SFHM, associate professor of medicine at UCSF Medical Center, says the savings, while not dramatic, nevertheless can add up when applied to the thousands of patients seen by the service every year. “That’s compelling because I think one of the things that you’re arguing when you’re doing these services is what the return on investment is going to be,” he says. “Traditionally, these have been implemented without any specific financial return on investment being applied, but the large expectation that clinical improvement is going to happen.”

His study at UCSF found just the opposite: no clinical improvement but a net cost benefit. “We were a little disappointed in some ways, but in other ways not surprised because there are very few data out in the community that suggest comanagement improves any outcomes,” Dr. Auerbach says. Among complicated neurosurgery patients, the strongest determinants of outcome might be beyond the scope of hospitalist-aided medical care.

With hospitals nervously eyeing their bottom lines, however, any financial improvement that does not adversely affect quality can still be seen as a positive development, and Dr. Auerbach says his study was the first to demonstrate that benefit. At UCSF Medical Center, at least, comanagement has proven compelling enough to spur plans for extending the service to orthopedic surgery patients.

Regardless of the care model, other studies suggest that specific interventions at key moments can yield substantial savings. A small, randomized controlled study led by hospitalists at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, for example, supports the idea that “simply showing providers the cost of some diagnostic tests at the time of order entry can affect behavior.”¹⁰ Although the study didn’t focus exclusively on hospitalists, experts say they’re in the best position to take the lead in curbing unnecessary costs.

“Hospitalists, I think, have a better understanding of the impact of resource utilization on the total cost of care and can be more prudent in the use of technologies,” says Kenneth Epstein, MD, MBA, FHM, FACP, chief medical officer for Traverse City, Mich.-based Hospitalist Consultants Inc. One reason is that hospitalists aren’t beholden to any specific technology, whether endoscopies or cardiac catheterization.

I’m hoping they can point to this analysis and say, “Look, here’s what L.A. County did. They were able to show a net increase in revenue from this hospitalist service.”

—Scott Lundberg, MD, assistant medical director, Olive View-UCLA Medical Center, Sylmar, Calif.

Mark Graban, author of the book “Lean Hospitals: Improving Quality, Patient Safety, and Employee Satisfaction,” says hospitalists can play another critical role in controlling costs by mapping out and simplifying the discharge processes. He recalls how hospitalists helped coordinate the effort by one of his hospital clients to prevent discharge delays that would have unnecessarily kept patients in the hospital for an additional night or two.

“That length-of-stay reduction, especially in a fixed-reimbursement setting, can have a huge financial impact,” Graban says. “And, inarguably, it’s the right thing to do for the patient, because it’s patients that are medically ready to be discharged. It gets them home and it reduces their increased risk of picking up infections or being involved in hospital errors.”

Focusing on patient safety could translate into big cost savings under the new Medicare system that penalizes providers for certain hospital-acquired conditions, such as skin ulcers and urinary tract infections, Dr. Epstein says. “There’s an emphasis by hospitalists in understanding the system and being willing to put energy into things like documenting ‘present on admission,’ which then has a huge impact on the hospital,” he says. Close monitoring of patients and developing standardization of care can likewise minimize the risk of conditions, such as catheter-associated infections, from cropping up in the hospital.

Dr. Meltzer says his own research suggests that experienced hospitalists are most effective at controlling costs. “So a program that is structured in such a way as to hire or retain experienced hospitalists is likely to have a higher cost savings than one that doesn’t,” he says.

In a broader sense, the maturation of the HM model and more widespread adoption of effective methods by practitioners might be boosting the overall impact of hospitalist care. A study that examined nearly 2 million Medicare admissions over six years found that the effects of the hospitalist care model on LOS became progressively more pronounced over time, from an average reduction of only 0.02 inpatient days in 2001-2002 to a decrease of 0.35 days by 2005-2006.¹¹

Interestingly, the study’s authors suggest that effects attributable to hospitalists were most pronounced among older, complicated, nonsurgical patients cared for at nonprofit community hospitals.

The Verdict

Despite the variable design and scope of individual programs, experts say, HM’s overall net positive on the efficiency of inpatient care is fairly well documented. Future considerations of hospitalists’ true effects on costs, however, will demand an accounting of healthcare across an entire system, where the HM impact is decidedly less certain. “The right comparison in some sense is, What are the total costs of care for a patient cared for in a system that uses hospitalists versus the totals costs of similar patients cared for in a system that doesn’t use hospitalists?” Dr. Meltzer says.

David Mitchell, MD, PhD, a hospitalist at Sibley Memorial Hospital in Washington, D.C., and a member of SHM’s Performance Standards Committee, is among those with an additional concern: Providers may not be taking full advantage of their position to control costs.

“The reason is primarily that the reimbursement structure is not set up to incentivize us to cut costs,” he says. Dr. Mitchell, who has worked in 12 hospitals in six states, argues that hospitalists still are too detached from the true price of ordered tests. “That’s what I fear in hospital medicine, that we just become robots: chest pain means CT scan without thinking,” he says. “This just doesn’t make sense.” Dr. Mitchell also contends that the focus of some HM programs on seeing as many patients as possible to maximize reimbursements is leading to less efficiency. At HM11 in May, he met another hospitalist who said he regularly saw 40 to 45 patients every day. “I know there’s absolutely no way you can see that many patients and do an efficient job,” Dr. Mitchell says.

If one of the clearest areas of success for hospitalists has been in reducing length of stay within a hospital, experts acknowledge that it may no longer be enough. “In the new payment model, success is going to be defined differently, and it will be in terms of reducing the total cost of care,” Dr. Meltzer says.

Over the next decade, hospitalists will need to respond to new set of incentives. “And I think one of the really interesting questions will be how hospitalists can best do that, and the extent to which it causes them to rethink the ways in which they organize their practice,” he says.

Bryn Nelson is a freelance medical writer based in Seattle.

References

1. Wachter RM, Goldman L. The hospitalist movement 5 years later. JAMA. 2002;287(4):487-494.
2. Lindenauer PK, Rothberg MB, Pekow PS, Kenwood C, Benjamin EM, Auerbach AD. Outcomes of care by hospitalists, general internists, and family physicians. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:2589-2600.
3. Peterson MC. A systematic review of outcomes and quality measures in adult patients cared for by hospitalists vs nonhospitalists. Mayo Clin Proc. 2009;84(3): 248-254.
4. Lundberg S, Balingit P, Wali S, Cope D. Cost-effectiveness of a hospitalist service in a public teaching hospital. Acad Med. 2010;85(8):1312-1315.
5. Esteban-Cruciani N, Montejo J, Azzarone G, Douglas L, et al. Impact of a pediatric hospital medicine program on resource utilization for children with respiratory disorders. J Hosp Med. 2011;6(4)Supp 2:S27.
6. Kuo Y-F, Goodwin JS. Association of hospitalist care with medical utilization after discharge: evidence of cost shift from a cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(3): 152-159.
7. Chen LM, Saint S. Moments in time. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(3):194-195.
8. Huddleston JM, Long KH, Naessens JM, et al. Medical and surgical comanagement after elective hip and knee arthroplasty: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141(1):28-38.
9. Auerbach AD, Wachter RM, Cheng HQ, et al. Comanagement of surgical patients between neurosurgeons and hospitalists. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(22): 2004-2010.
10. Feldman L, Thiemann D, Brotman D. Financial impact of presenting lab cost data to providers at the time of order entry: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Hosp Med. 2011;6(4)Supp 2:S93.
11. Kuo Y-F, Goodwin JS. Effect of hospitalists on length of stay in the Medicare population: variation according to hospital and patient characteristics. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2010;58:1649-1657.
12. Epstein K, Juarez E, Epstein A, Loya K, Singer A. The impact of fragmentation of hospitalist care on length of stay. J Hosp Med. 2010;5(6):335-8.
13. Chandra S, Howell E, Wright S. CICLE: Creating incentives and continuity leading to efficiency. J Hosp Med. 2011;6(4)Supp 2:S17

In 2002, a summary article in the Journal of the American Medical Association helped put the relatively small but rapidly growing HM profession on the map. Reviewing the available data, Robert Wachter, MD, MHM, and Lee Goldman, MD, MPH, of the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF) concluded that implementing a hospitalist program yielded an average savings of 13.4% in hospital costs and a 16.6% reduction in the length of stay (LOS).¹

A decade later, the idea of efficiency has become so intertwined with hospitalists that SHM has included the concept in its definition of a profession that now comprises more than 30,000 doctors, nurses, and other care providers. HM practitioners work to enhance hospital and healthcare performance, in part, through “efficient use of hospital and healthcare resources,” according to SHM.

The growth of any profession can create exceptions and outliers, and observers point out that HM programs have become as varied as the hospitals in which they reside, complicating any attempt at broad generalizations. As a core part of the job description, though, efficiency and its implied benefit on costs have been widely promoted as arguments for expanding HM’s reach.

So are hospitalists meeting the lofty expectations?

A Look at the Evidence

A large retrospective study that examined outcomes of care for nearly 77,000 patients in 45 hospitals found that those cared for by hospitalists had a “modestly shorter” stay (by 0.4 days) in the hospital than those cared for by either general internists or family physicians.² Hospitalists saved about $270 per hospitalization compared with general internists but only about $125 per stay compared with family physicians, the latter of which was not deemed statistically significant.

A more recent review of 33 studies found general agreement that hospitalist care led to reduced costs and length of stay but revealed less uniformity in the impacts on quality and patient outcomes.³

A more dramatic—albeit smaller—affirmation of HM as an efficient force has come from a study of patients admitted to 200-bed Olive View-UCLA Medical Center in Sylmar, Calif. The study, led by assistant medical director Scott Lundberg, MD, concluded that the arrival of an academic hospitalist program led to a one-year increase of $2.3 million in reimbursements from Medi-Cal, California’s Medicaid program.⁴

“Most other places that have demonstrated the cost-effectiveness of hospitalists generally point to reducing length of stay, which therefore reduces the costs,” Dr. Lundberg says. Under Medicare’s diagnosis-based reimbursement (DRG) system, hospitals could get paid the same amount whether the patient stays one day or five.

Medi-Cal, however, uses a straight-up per diem reimbursement system. “So reducing someone’s length of stay is not necessarily desirable if Medi-Cal would have paid you for all of those days,” Dr. Lundberg says. The state’s Medicare program also can deny coverage for days deemed medically unnecessary after a review of patient charts.

Hospitalists, he says, helped boost revenue in two ways. First, the program helped the hospital avoid denied coverage days by ensuring that patients stayed only as long as necessary. Average LOS, in fact, dropped to 1.92 days from 2.48 days, decreasing the Medi-Cal denial rate to 31.8% (from 43.8%) and bumping up the average reimbursement per inpatient day to $955 from $787.

Hospitalists also helped alleviate the work-hour limits for residents imposed by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), which had effectively capped the number of inpatients the center could admit. Because Olive View-UCLA receives per diem payments from Medi-Cal, making room to accept more patients into the hospital has meant increased revenues. Among the other benefits, the program has improved patient satisfaction and relieved some of the pressure on teaching teams.

With $310,000 for salary outlay in the hospitalist program’s first year, the study found a net cost benefit of $2 million. “One of the real challenges in getting this hospitalist thing going was getting our administrators to shell out the money for the salaries,” Dr. Lundberg says. The study demonstrated that a hospitalist program not only pays for itself, but also can substantially ramp up revenue. “I’m guessing that others, especially at public hospitals, face the same challenges,” he says. “I’m hoping they can point to this analysis and say, ‘Look, here’s what L.A. County did. They were able to show a net increase in revenue from this hospitalist service.’ ”

On the opposite side of the country, hospitalists are pointing to a success story in pediatric care. At the 120-bed Children’s Hospital at Montefiore at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in the Bronx, N.Y., a recent study concluded that establishing a pediatric HM program led to a significant reduction in LOS for patients with asthma or bronchiolitis.⁵ Nora Esteban-Cruciani, MD, MS, assistant director of pediatric hospital medicine and lead author of the report, which was presented at HM11, says it’s the first study to demonstrate such an effect for asthma in an inner-city academic setting.

Compared to a traditional resident-attending team, care administered by a resident-physician’s assistant-hospitalist team reduced LOS for bronchiolitis by 15.5% and asthma by 11.8%. With the 378 hospital-bed days saved annually, Children’s Hospital at Montefiore achieved an estimated savings of about $944,000 before taking salaries into account. “We anticipate seeing similar benefits in other groups of patients, and the total savings will far exceed the hospitalist salaries,” Dr. Esteban-Cruciani says.

After the pediatric HM program launched, her study also documented a 17% to 25% decrease in rehospitalizations among asthmatic children at four, six, and 12 months after their initial hospital discharge. As a result of the demonstrated value, Dr. Esteban-Cruciani says, the children’s hospital is expanding its HM program and hiring another 4.5 full-time equivalents.

So how did hospitalists achieve the positive results?

“Knowing the most up-to-date and evidence-based treatment plans, understanding how to use the hospital systems in the most efficient manner, being on the ward for eight to 12 hours per day to respond to issues that arise, as well as 24-hour availability by phone for the residents,” she says. “The day-to-day continuity, as well as the ability to consistently improve systems of care, are distinctive advantages to hospital medicine.”

The case for HM as a model of efficiency comes with a major caveat, however. David Meltzer, MD, PhD, FHM, chief of the section of hospital medicine and an economist and public-policy expert at the University of Chicago, points out that healthcare costs don’t end with a patient’s hospital discharge. Could savings achieved during inpatient care be offset by greater costs afterward?

A new study in the Annals of Internal Medicine by researchers at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston has sharpened that question with the suggestion that, at least in some cases, hospitalist-procured savings might not last.⁶ When compared to care delivered by primary-care physicians (PCPs), the researchers found that hospitalist care yielded an average inpatient savings of $282 per Medicare beneficiary. But that reduction was wiped out by an extra $332 average cost in the month after discharge, due to higher readmissions, more emergency department visits, and more patients sent to nursing facilities instead of to their own homes. An accompanying editorial raises the uncomfortable question: “Are hospitalists discharging their patients more quickly but less appropriately, such that some of their patients bounce back?”⁷

A program that is structured in such a way as to hire or retain experienced hospitalists is likely to have a higher cost savings than one that doesn’t.

—David Meltzer, MD, PhD, FHM, chief, section of hospital medicine, economist, University of Chicago

The study itself has its own share of caveats: Data were collected only until 2006, before reducing 30-day readmissions became a widespread focal point. The editorial also highlights the possibility that hospitalists might care for patients whose weaker relationships with outpatient providers could be the true driver of increased readmissions. In a statement, SHM President Joe Li, MD, SFHM, adds that constructive talks about healthcare costs must include the notion of quality, something the organization has worked to improve with interventions like Project BOOST.

At the very least, the new research highlights the importance of context when considering HM impacts on cost and quality. Separate studies, meanwhile, suggest that the jury is still out on whether other hospitalist-led models can consistently improve outcomes and costs. At academic centers, for instance, work-hour limits for medical residents have provided a strong impetus for joint-care arrangements, such as comanagement systems. A 2004 study found that an orthopedics-hospitalist comanagement structure led to a modest reduction in complications after elective hip and knee surgery. But the report documented no difference in costs or actual length of stay.⁸

Listen to Dr. Meltzer discuss the need for experienced hospitalists.

More recently, a study of nearly 7,600 patients at UCSF Medical Center found that an HM-neurosurgery comanagement model had no significant impact on the center’s patient mortality, readmissions, LOS, or patient satisfaction. The comanagement system, however, yielded an average savings of $1,439 per hospitalization and boosted physicians’ perceptions of quality and safety.⁹

Andrew Auerbach, MD, MPH, SFHM, associate professor of medicine at UCSF Medical Center, says the savings, while not dramatic, nevertheless can add up when applied to the thousands of patients seen by the service every year. “That’s compelling because I think one of the things that you’re arguing when you’re doing these services is what the return on investment is going to be,” he says. “Traditionally, these have been implemented without any specific financial return on investment being applied, but the large expectation that clinical improvement is going to happen.”

His study at UCSF found just the opposite: no clinical improvement but a net cost benefit. “We were a little disappointed in some ways, but in other ways not surprised because there are very few data out in the community that suggest comanagement improves any outcomes,” Dr. Auerbach says. Among complicated neurosurgery patients, the strongest determinants of outcome might be beyond the scope of hospitalist-aided medical care.

With hospitals nervously eyeing their bottom lines, however, any financial improvement that does not adversely affect quality can still be seen as a positive development, and Dr. Auerbach says his study was the first to demonstrate that benefit. At UCSF Medical Center, at least, comanagement has proven compelling enough to spur plans for extending the service to orthopedic surgery patients.

Regardless of the care model, other studies suggest that specific interventions at key moments can yield substantial savings. A small, randomized controlled study led by hospitalists at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, for example, supports the idea that “simply showing providers the cost of some diagnostic tests at the time of order entry can affect behavior.”¹⁰ Although the study didn’t focus exclusively on hospitalists, experts say they’re in the best position to take the lead in curbing unnecessary costs.

“Hospitalists, I think, have a better understanding of the impact of resource utilization on the total cost of care and can be more prudent in the use of technologies,” says Kenneth Epstein, MD, MBA, FHM, FACP, chief medical officer for Traverse City, Mich.-based Hospitalist Consultants Inc. One reason is that hospitalists aren’t beholden to any specific technology, whether endoscopies or cardiac catheterization.

I’m hoping they can point to this analysis and say, “Look, here’s what L.A. County did. They were able to show a net increase in revenue from this hospitalist service.”

—Scott Lundberg, MD, assistant medical director, Olive View-UCLA Medical Center, Sylmar, Calif.

Mark Graban, author of the book “Lean Hospitals: Improving Quality, Patient Safety, and Employee Satisfaction,” says hospitalists can play another critical role in controlling costs by mapping out and simplifying the discharge processes. He recalls how hospitalists helped coordinate the effort by one of his hospital clients to prevent discharge delays that would have unnecessarily kept patients in the hospital for an additional night or two.

“That length-of-stay reduction, especially in a fixed-reimbursement setting, can have a huge financial impact,” Graban says. “And, inarguably, it’s the right thing to do for the patient, because it’s patients that are medically ready to be discharged. It gets them home and it reduces their increased risk of picking up infections or being involved in hospital errors.”

Focusing on patient safety could translate into big cost savings under the new Medicare system that penalizes providers for certain hospital-acquired conditions, such as skin ulcers and urinary tract infections, Dr. Epstein says. “There’s an emphasis by hospitalists in understanding the system and being willing to put energy into things like documenting ‘present on admission,’ which then has a huge impact on the hospital,” he says. Close monitoring of patients and developing standardization of care can likewise minimize the risk of conditions, such as catheter-associated infections, from cropping up in the hospital.

Dr. Meltzer says his own research suggests that experienced hospitalists are most effective at controlling costs. “So a program that is structured in such a way as to hire or retain experienced hospitalists is likely to have a higher cost savings than one that doesn’t,” he says.

In a broader sense, the maturation of the HM model and more widespread adoption of effective methods by practitioners might be boosting the overall impact of hospitalist care. A study that examined nearly 2 million Medicare admissions over six years found that the effects of the hospitalist care model on LOS became progressively more pronounced over time, from an average reduction of only 0.02 inpatient days in 2001-2002 to a decrease of 0.35 days by 2005-2006.¹¹

Interestingly, the study’s authors suggest that effects attributable to hospitalists were most pronounced among older, complicated, nonsurgical patients cared for at nonprofit community hospitals.

The Verdict

Despite the variable design and scope of individual programs, experts say, HM’s overall net positive on the efficiency of inpatient care is fairly well documented. Future considerations of hospitalists’ true effects on costs, however, will demand an accounting of healthcare across an entire system, where the HM impact is decidedly less certain. “The right comparison in some sense is, What are the total costs of care for a patient cared for in a system that uses hospitalists versus the totals costs of similar patients cared for in a system that doesn’t use hospitalists?” Dr. Meltzer says.

David Mitchell, MD, PhD, a hospitalist at Sibley Memorial Hospital in Washington, D.C., and a member of SHM’s Performance Standards Committee, is among those with an additional concern: Providers may not be taking full advantage of their position to control costs.

“The reason is primarily that the reimbursement structure is not set up to incentivize us to cut costs,” he says. Dr. Mitchell, who has worked in 12 hospitals in six states, argues that hospitalists still are too detached from the true price of ordered tests. “That’s what I fear in hospital medicine, that we just become robots: chest pain means CT scan without thinking,” he says. “This just doesn’t make sense.” Dr. Mitchell also contends that the focus of some HM programs on seeing as many patients as possible to maximize reimbursements is leading to less efficiency. At HM11 in May, he met another hospitalist who said he regularly saw 40 to 45 patients every day. “I know there’s absolutely no way you can see that many patients and do an efficient job,” Dr. Mitchell says.

If one of the clearest areas of success for hospitalists has been in reducing length of stay within a hospital, experts acknowledge that it may no longer be enough. “In the new payment model, success is going to be defined differently, and it will be in terms of reducing the total cost of care,” Dr. Meltzer says.

Over the next decade, hospitalists will need to respond to new set of incentives. “And I think one of the really interesting questions will be how hospitalists can best do that, and the extent to which it causes them to rethink the ways in which they organize their practice,” he says.

Bryn Nelson is a freelance medical writer based in Seattle.

References

1. Wachter RM, Goldman L. The hospitalist movement 5 years later. JAMA. 2002;287(4):487-494.
2. Lindenauer PK, Rothberg MB, Pekow PS, Kenwood C, Benjamin EM, Auerbach AD. Outcomes of care by hospitalists, general internists, and family physicians. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:2589-2600.
3. Peterson MC. A systematic review of outcomes and quality measures in adult patients cared for by hospitalists vs nonhospitalists. Mayo Clin Proc. 2009;84(3): 248-254.
4. Lundberg S, Balingit P, Wali S, Cope D. Cost-effectiveness of a hospitalist service in a public teaching hospital. Acad Med. 2010;85(8):1312-1315.
5. Esteban-Cruciani N, Montejo J, Azzarone G, Douglas L, et al. Impact of a pediatric hospital medicine program on resource utilization for children with respiratory disorders. J Hosp Med. 2011;6(4)Supp 2:S27.
6. Kuo Y-F, Goodwin JS. Association of hospitalist care with medical utilization after discharge: evidence of cost shift from a cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(3): 152-159.
7. Chen LM, Saint S. Moments in time. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(3):194-195.
8. Huddleston JM, Long KH, Naessens JM, et al. Medical and surgical comanagement after elective hip and knee arthroplasty: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141(1):28-38.
9. Auerbach AD, Wachter RM, Cheng HQ, et al. Comanagement of surgical patients between neurosurgeons and hospitalists. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(22): 2004-2010.
10. Feldman L, Thiemann D, Brotman D. Financial impact of presenting lab cost data to providers at the time of order entry: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Hosp Med. 2011;6(4)Supp 2:S93.
11. Kuo Y-F, Goodwin JS. Effect of hospitalists on length of stay in the Medicare population: variation according to hospital and patient characteristics. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2010;58:1649-1657.
12. Epstein K, Juarez E, Epstein A, Loya K, Singer A. The impact of fragmentation of hospitalist care on length of stay. J Hosp Med. 2010;5(6):335-8.
13. Chandra S, Howell E, Wright S. CICLE: Creating incentives and continuity leading to efficiency. J Hosp Med. 2011;6(4)Supp 2:S17

Dr. Feldman

Every SHM member signs up for different reasons. For some, it’s career development. For others, it’s discounts on industry-leading resources like SHM’s annual meeting or access to quality-improvement (QI) resources like SHM’s new SQUINT (see “SQUINT Is Looking Out for You,” July 2011, p. 6).

But a common theme emerges, even among a variety of hospitalists across the country: For hospitalists, SHM is home.

HM has grown and evolved at a breakneck pace over the past 15 years, going from a few hundred hospitalists in 1996 to an estimated 30,000-plus today. The growth of a previously undefined specialty, coupled with the very public tumult and change in healthcare delivery, has made thousands of hospitalists eager for a community to call their own.

“It’s important for hospitalists to know that there’s an organization that can help and support them,” says Gopal Sarker, MD, a Springfield, Mass. -based hospitalist and chief medical officer of Accountable Care Associates in Springfield. When Sarker first became an SHM member in 2003, he signed up for the added credibility that membership brought to his new career as a hospitalist.

His new membership, he says, implied increased recognition for his own career and the specialty. “At the time, there weren’t that many hospitalists around,” he says. “We knew we needed to get more organized and involved. That’s why I got involved.”

Not every member uses every product, service, and benefit SHM offers, but many hospitalists who integrate SHM’s offerings into their professional lives have forged new career paths, formed valuable relationships, and created their own sense of personal and professional reward.

“I joined because I was a newly minted hospitalist, having just joined the group at Hopkins,” says Lenny Feldman, MD, FACP, FAAP, SFHM, the Med-Peds Urban Health Residency program director at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore. “I heard that this was our society, and I wanted to be involved with the society for hospital medicine. It seemed like it was a perfect fit. I had been to other meetings, and it seemed that SHM was destined to be my home organization.”

SHM: Moving Hospitalist Careers Up

In the early days, individual hospitalists largely were responsible for making the case for the specialty and their own careers. Today, SHM membership programs help hospitalists make their case getting hired and promoted, in addition to their individual commitment and accomplishments.

Even in a hiring environment in which hospitalists are in high demand, SHM membership and involvement can help a hospitalist’s resume rise to the top of the stack.

“We’re a growing hospitalist program and I’m always impressed when I see someone that’s an SHM member,” says Erik DeLue, MD, MBA, SFHM, who, as medical director of the hospitalist program at Virtua Memorial in Mount Holly, N.J., makes hiring and promotion decisions. “That tells me that they’re serious about being a hospitalist. Especially if they’re a resident, it tells me that this is someone that is really looking at this as a career. It’s almost a deficit if they’ve been doing hospital medicine and they’re not a member.”

Dr. Feldman

To many hospitalists, career development doesn’t stop at the hospital door. SHM has provided a national platform for great ideas that improve the specialty and advance careers at the same time.

Dr. Feldman saw the need to provide more education to hospitalists involved in the comanagement of surgical patients and led the effort to create SHMConsults.com, a new online consultative and perioperative curriculum. The ability to collaborate with SHM on the project gave his concept additional reach and authority throughout the specialty.

“Clearly, having the backing of the society of our educational materials gives it that much more prominence and, hopefully, will entice more hospitalists to use it,” he says. “I’m very hopeful that it will continue to grow and be an important part of the society’s education.”

Though he joined seven years ago, Dr. Feldman still considers himself one of the new members.

“I see all the folks who have been involved with SHM much longer and am amazed by their involvement,” he adds. “It’s a testament to the agility of an organization like this that it’s not so large that newer members can still have an impact.”

Dr. DeLue, who has been a member for more than 10 years, tells the same thing to future SHM members.

“I hire hospitalists all the time and I say, ‘Look, this is the one society that reflects what you’re doing,’ ” he says, “ ‘and if you have any interest in being heard on things that you think are important, this is the place for you.’ I can’t imagine becoming a hospitalist and not becoming a member.”

Connections Improve the Specialty

As change leaders in hospitals, hospitalists thrive on information from other hospitals and the connections that transfer that information. For hospitalist Sabrena Tangri, MD, and HM executive Kim Dickinson, one of SHM’s greatest resources is the connection to other hospitalists.

Dr. Tangri, an academic hospitalist at Inova Fairfax Hospital in northern Virginia, is actively developing a new SHM chapter for the Washington, D.C., area. Even before completing residency in 2009, she had interest in the big-picture issues of patient satisfaction and providing efficient, effective care to inpatients.

In addition to building a support structure for hospitalists working near the nation’s capital, she uses SHM as a connection to relevant information in other hospitals—and to offer up her own experiences to other hospitalists throughout the country. “It’s a joint partnership between the physician and the organization,” she says.

Dickinson, chief operating officer of hospital medicine at Nashville, Tenn.-based HCA Physician Services, has been an SHM member for long enough that she doesn’t remember the year she joined. What she does remember is the feeling of excitement that permeated her first annual meeting more than a decade ago: “There were a couple hundred people there in a hotel basement and I remember thinking, ‘This is something,’ ” she says.

Back then, Dickinson’s membership in SHM was equal parts credibility and commitment to the specialty. “As the society was growing, it felt like an obligation to stand beside colleagues and say, ‘This is important.’ In the beginning, it felt important to stand up and be counted,” she says.

That commitment still resonates with her today. It’s something that she has communicated to others over the years.

“I always told people, ‘If you can’t wake up excited about being the future of medicine, then you shouldn’t work here.’ It’s an absolute privilege to work in hospital medicine,” Dickinson says. “We’re at a very privileged place in history.”

Today, she uses that passion and the connections she has developed through SHM to improve HCA Physician Services and the entire specialty.

“I’ve developed friendships with others outside my organization in the field, which is good for sharing information,” she says. “There are no secrets about providing the best care. Everybody has the same version of the special sauce; sharing it doesn’t dilute it, it makes the industry better.

“Being a part of SHM and being part of hospital medicine is an opportunity to create the direction of medicine. We do that every day. You can’t be cooler that.”

Brendon Shank is associate vice president of communications for SHM.

Dr. Feldman

Every SHM member signs up for different reasons. For some, it’s career development. For others, it’s discounts on industry-leading resources like SHM’s annual meeting or access to quality-improvement (QI) resources like SHM’s new SQUINT (see “SQUINT Is Looking Out for You,” July 2011, p. 6).

But a common theme emerges, even among a variety of hospitalists across the country: For hospitalists, SHM is home.

HM has grown and evolved at a breakneck pace over the past 15 years, going from a few hundred hospitalists in 1996 to an estimated 30,000-plus today. The growth of a previously undefined specialty, coupled with the very public tumult and change in healthcare delivery, has made thousands of hospitalists eager for a community to call their own.

“It’s important for hospitalists to know that there’s an organization that can help and support them,” says Gopal Sarker, MD, a Springfield, Mass. -based hospitalist and chief medical officer of Accountable Care Associates in Springfield. When Sarker first became an SHM member in 2003, he signed up for the added credibility that membership brought to his new career as a hospitalist.

His new membership, he says, implied increased recognition for his own career and the specialty. “At the time, there weren’t that many hospitalists around,” he says. “We knew we needed to get more organized and involved. That’s why I got involved.”

Not every member uses every product, service, and benefit SHM offers, but many hospitalists who integrate SHM’s offerings into their professional lives have forged new career paths, formed valuable relationships, and created their own sense of personal and professional reward.

“I joined because I was a newly minted hospitalist, having just joined the group at Hopkins,” says Lenny Feldman, MD, FACP, FAAP, SFHM, the Med-Peds Urban Health Residency program director at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore. “I heard that this was our society, and I wanted to be involved with the society for hospital medicine. It seemed like it was a perfect fit. I had been to other meetings, and it seemed that SHM was destined to be my home organization.”

SHM: Moving Hospitalist Careers Up

In the early days, individual hospitalists largely were responsible for making the case for the specialty and their own careers. Today, SHM membership programs help hospitalists make their case getting hired and promoted, in addition to their individual commitment and accomplishments.

Even in a hiring environment in which hospitalists are in high demand, SHM membership and involvement can help a hospitalist’s resume rise to the top of the stack.

“We’re a growing hospitalist program and I’m always impressed when I see someone that’s an SHM member,” says Erik DeLue, MD, MBA, SFHM, who, as medical director of the hospitalist program at Virtua Memorial in Mount Holly, N.J., makes hiring and promotion decisions. “That tells me that they’re serious about being a hospitalist. Especially if they’re a resident, it tells me that this is someone that is really looking at this as a career. It’s almost a deficit if they’ve been doing hospital medicine and they’re not a member.”

Dr. Feldman

To many hospitalists, career development doesn’t stop at the hospital door. SHM has provided a national platform for great ideas that improve the specialty and advance careers at the same time.

Dr. Feldman saw the need to provide more education to hospitalists involved in the comanagement of surgical patients and led the effort to create SHMConsults.com, a new online consultative and perioperative curriculum. The ability to collaborate with SHM on the project gave his concept additional reach and authority throughout the specialty.

“Clearly, having the backing of the society of our educational materials gives it that much more prominence and, hopefully, will entice more hospitalists to use it,” he says. “I’m very hopeful that it will continue to grow and be an important part of the society’s education.”

Though he joined seven years ago, Dr. Feldman still considers himself one of the new members.

“I see all the folks who have been involved with SHM much longer and am amazed by their involvement,” he adds. “It’s a testament to the agility of an organization like this that it’s not so large that newer members can still have an impact.”

Dr. DeLue, who has been a member for more than 10 years, tells the same thing to future SHM members.

“I hire hospitalists all the time and I say, ‘Look, this is the one society that reflects what you’re doing,’ ” he says, “ ‘and if you have any interest in being heard on things that you think are important, this is the place for you.’ I can’t imagine becoming a hospitalist and not becoming a member.”

Connections Improve the Specialty

As change leaders in hospitals, hospitalists thrive on information from other hospitals and the connections that transfer that information. For hospitalist Sabrena Tangri, MD, and HM executive Kim Dickinson, one of SHM’s greatest resources is the connection to other hospitalists.

Dr. Tangri, an academic hospitalist at Inova Fairfax Hospital in northern Virginia, is actively developing a new SHM chapter for the Washington, D.C., area. Even before completing residency in 2009, she had interest in the big-picture issues of patient satisfaction and providing efficient, effective care to inpatients.

In addition to building a support structure for hospitalists working near the nation’s capital, she uses SHM as a connection to relevant information in other hospitals—and to offer up her own experiences to other hospitalists throughout the country. “It’s a joint partnership between the physician and the organization,” she says.

Dickinson, chief operating officer of hospital medicine at Nashville, Tenn.-based HCA Physician Services, has been an SHM member for long enough that she doesn’t remember the year she joined. What she does remember is the feeling of excitement that permeated her first annual meeting more than a decade ago: “There were a couple hundred people there in a hotel basement and I remember thinking, ‘This is something,’ ” she says.

Back then, Dickinson’s membership in SHM was equal parts credibility and commitment to the specialty. “As the society was growing, it felt like an obligation to stand beside colleagues and say, ‘This is important.’ In the beginning, it felt important to stand up and be counted,” she says.

That commitment still resonates with her today. It’s something that she has communicated to others over the years.

“I always told people, ‘If you can’t wake up excited about being the future of medicine, then you shouldn’t work here.’ It’s an absolute privilege to work in hospital medicine,” Dickinson says. “We’re at a very privileged place in history.”

Today, she uses that passion and the connections she has developed through SHM to improve HCA Physician Services and the entire specialty.

“I’ve developed friendships with others outside my organization in the field, which is good for sharing information,” she says. “There are no secrets about providing the best care. Everybody has the same version of the special sauce; sharing it doesn’t dilute it, it makes the industry better.

“Being a part of SHM and being part of hospital medicine is an opportunity to create the direction of medicine. We do that every day. You can’t be cooler that.”

Brendon Shank is associate vice president of communications for SHM.

Dr. Feldman

Every SHM member signs up for different reasons. For some, it’s career development. For others, it’s discounts on industry-leading resources like SHM’s annual meeting or access to quality-improvement (QI) resources like SHM’s new SQUINT (see “SQUINT Is Looking Out for You,” July 2011, p. 6).

But a common theme emerges, even among a variety of hospitalists across the country: For hospitalists, SHM is home.

HM has grown and evolved at a breakneck pace over the past 15 years, going from a few hundred hospitalists in 1996 to an estimated 30,000-plus today. The growth of a previously undefined specialty, coupled with the very public tumult and change in healthcare delivery, has made thousands of hospitalists eager for a community to call their own.

“It’s important for hospitalists to know that there’s an organization that can help and support them,” says Gopal Sarker, MD, a Springfield, Mass. -based hospitalist and chief medical officer of Accountable Care Associates in Springfield. When Sarker first became an SHM member in 2003, he signed up for the added credibility that membership brought to his new career as a hospitalist.

His new membership, he says, implied increased recognition for his own career and the specialty. “At the time, there weren’t that many hospitalists around,” he says. “We knew we needed to get more organized and involved. That’s why I got involved.”

Not every member uses every product, service, and benefit SHM offers, but many hospitalists who integrate SHM’s offerings into their professional lives have forged new career paths, formed valuable relationships, and created their own sense of personal and professional reward.

“I joined because I was a newly minted hospitalist, having just joined the group at Hopkins,” says Lenny Feldman, MD, FACP, FAAP, SFHM, the Med-Peds Urban Health Residency program director at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore. “I heard that this was our society, and I wanted to be involved with the society for hospital medicine. It seemed like it was a perfect fit. I had been to other meetings, and it seemed that SHM was destined to be my home organization.”

SHM: Moving Hospitalist Careers Up

In the early days, individual hospitalists largely were responsible for making the case for the specialty and their own careers. Today, SHM membership programs help hospitalists make their case getting hired and promoted, in addition to their individual commitment and accomplishments.

Even in a hiring environment in which hospitalists are in high demand, SHM membership and involvement can help a hospitalist’s resume rise to the top of the stack.

“We’re a growing hospitalist program and I’m always impressed when I see someone that’s an SHM member,” says Erik DeLue, MD, MBA, SFHM, who, as medical director of the hospitalist program at Virtua Memorial in Mount Holly, N.J., makes hiring and promotion decisions. “That tells me that they’re serious about being a hospitalist. Especially if they’re a resident, it tells me that this is someone that is really looking at this as a career. It’s almost a deficit if they’ve been doing hospital medicine and they’re not a member.”

Dr. Feldman

To many hospitalists, career development doesn’t stop at the hospital door. SHM has provided a national platform for great ideas that improve the specialty and advance careers at the same time.

Dr. Feldman saw the need to provide more education to hospitalists involved in the comanagement of surgical patients and led the effort to create SHMConsults.com, a new online consultative and perioperative curriculum. The ability to collaborate with SHM on the project gave his concept additional reach and authority throughout the specialty.

“Clearly, having the backing of the society of our educational materials gives it that much more prominence and, hopefully, will entice more hospitalists to use it,” he says. “I’m very hopeful that it will continue to grow and be an important part of the society’s education.”

Though he joined seven years ago, Dr. Feldman still considers himself one of the new members.

“I see all the folks who have been involved with SHM much longer and am amazed by their involvement,” he adds. “It’s a testament to the agility of an organization like this that it’s not so large that newer members can still have an impact.”

Dr. DeLue, who has been a member for more than 10 years, tells the same thing to future SHM members.

“I hire hospitalists all the time and I say, ‘Look, this is the one society that reflects what you’re doing,’ ” he says, “ ‘and if you have any interest in being heard on things that you think are important, this is the place for you.’ I can’t imagine becoming a hospitalist and not becoming a member.”

Connections Improve the Specialty

As change leaders in hospitals, hospitalists thrive on information from other hospitals and the connections that transfer that information. For hospitalist Sabrena Tangri, MD, and HM executive Kim Dickinson, one of SHM’s greatest resources is the connection to other hospitalists.

Dr. Tangri, an academic hospitalist at Inova Fairfax Hospital in northern Virginia, is actively developing a new SHM chapter for the Washington, D.C., area. Even before completing residency in 2009, she had interest in the big-picture issues of patient satisfaction and providing efficient, effective care to inpatients.

In addition to building a support structure for hospitalists working near the nation’s capital, she uses SHM as a connection to relevant information in other hospitals—and to offer up her own experiences to other hospitalists throughout the country. “It’s a joint partnership between the physician and the organization,” she says.

Dickinson, chief operating officer of hospital medicine at Nashville, Tenn.-based HCA Physician Services, has been an SHM member for long enough that she doesn’t remember the year she joined. What she does remember is the feeling of excitement that permeated her first annual meeting more than a decade ago: “There were a couple hundred people there in a hotel basement and I remember thinking, ‘This is something,’ ” she says.

Back then, Dickinson’s membership in SHM was equal parts credibility and commitment to the specialty. “As the society was growing, it felt like an obligation to stand beside colleagues and say, ‘This is important.’ In the beginning, it felt important to stand up and be counted,” she says.

That commitment still resonates with her today. It’s something that she has communicated to others over the years.

“I always told people, ‘If you can’t wake up excited about being the future of medicine, then you shouldn’t work here.’ It’s an absolute privilege to work in hospital medicine,” Dickinson says. “We’re at a very privileged place in history.”

Today, she uses that passion and the connections she has developed through SHM to improve HCA Physician Services and the entire specialty.

“I’ve developed friendships with others outside my organization in the field, which is good for sharing information,” she says. “There are no secrets about providing the best care. Everybody has the same version of the special sauce; sharing it doesn’t dilute it, it makes the industry better.

“Being a part of SHM and being part of hospital medicine is an opportunity to create the direction of medicine. We do that every day. You can’t be cooler that.”

Brendon Shank is associate vice president of communications for SHM.