“Never worry alone” is a common mantra that most of us have heard throughout medical training. The premise is simple and well meaning. If a patient has an issue that concerns you, ask someone for help. As a student, this can be a resident; as a resident, this can be an attending. However, for hospitalists, the answer is often a subspecialty consultation. Asking for help never seems to be wrong, but what happens when our worry delays appropriate care with unnecessary consultations? In this month’s issue of the Journal of Hospital Medicine, authors Bellas et al. have investigated this issue through the lens of subspecialty preoperative consultation for patients admitted to a hospitalist comanagement service with a fragility hip fracture requiring surgery.¹

Morbidity and mortality for patients who experience hip fractures are high, and time to appropriate surgery is one of the few modifiable risk factors that may reduce morbidity and mortality.^2,3 Bellas et al. conducted a retrospective cohort study to test the association between preoperative subspecialty consultation and multiple clinically relevant outcomes in patients admitted with an acute hip fracture.¹ All patients were comanaged by a hospitalist and orthopedic surgery, and “consultation” was defined as any preoperative subspecialty consultation requested by the hospitalist. Outcome measures included time to surgery, length of stay, readmission rate, perioperative complications, and 30-day mortality. In total, 36% (177/491) of patients who underwent surgery received a subspecialty preoperative consultation. Unsurprisingly, these patients were older with higher rates of comorbidity. After controlling for age and Charlson Comorbidity Index, preoperative consultation was associated with dramatic delays and increased rates of time to surgery >24 hours (adjusted odds ratio, 4.2; 95% CI: 2.8-6.6). The authors classified 90% of consultations as appropriate, either because of an active condition (eg, acute coronary syndrome) or because admitting physicians documented a perception that patients were at increased risk. However, 73% of consultations had only minor recommendations, such as ordering an ECG or changing the dose of an existing medication, and only 37% of the time did consultations lead to an identifiable change in management as a result of the consultation.

Although striking, integrating these findings into clinical practice is complex. As a retrospective study, patients who received consultations were obviously different from those who did not. The authors attempted to adjust for this but used only age and Charlson Comorbidity Index. Other factors that are both associated with consultations and known to increase mortality—such as frailty and functional status—were not included in their adjustment. Such unmeasured confounders possibly explain at least some, if not all, of the findings that consultations were associated with a doubling of the likelihood of 30-day mortality. In addition, although the authors assessed the appropriateness of consultation and degree of recommendations, their methods for this deserve scrutiny. Two independent providers adjudicated the consultations with excellent agreement (kappa 0.96 for indication, 0.95 for degree of recommendation), but this reliability assessment was done on previously extracted chart data, probably inflating their agreement statistics. Finally, the adjudication of consultant recommendations into minor, moderate, and major categories may oversimplify the outcome of each consultation. For example, all medication recommendations, regardless of type, were considered as minor, and recommendations were considered as major only if they resulted in invasive testing or procedures. This approach may underrepresent the impact of consultations as in clinical practice not all high-impact recommendations result in invasive testing or procedures. Despite these important limitations, Bellas et al. present a compelling case for preoperative consultation being associated with delays in surgery.

How then should this study change practice? The authors’ findings tell two separate but intertwined stories. The first is that preoperative consultation leads to delays in surgery. As patients who received preoperative consultation were obviously sicker, and because delays caused by consultation may lead to increased morbidity and mortality, perhaps the solution is to simply fix the delays. However, this approach ignores the more compelling story the authors tell. More important than the delays was the surprising lack of impact of preoperative consultations. Bellas et al. found that the majority of consultations resulted in only minor recommendations, and more importantly, hospitalists rarely changed treatment as a result. Although patients who received consultations were more ill, consultation rarely changed their care or decreased the risk posed by surgery. Bellas et al. found that only patients with active medical conditions had consultations, which resulted in moderate or major recommendations. These findings highlight an opportunity to better identify patients for whom consultation might be helpful and to prevent delays by avoiding consultation for those unlikely to benefit. There have been several efforts in the orthopedic literature to use guidelines for preoperative cardiac testing to guide cardiology consultation.^4,5,6 One study using this approach reported findings that were extremely similar to those reported by Bellas et al. in that 71% of preoperative cardiology consultations in their institution did not meet the guideline criteria for invasive cardiac testing.⁷ The primary difference between the findings of Bellas et al. and the studies in the orthopedic literature is the presence of the comanaging hospitalist. As more and more patients receive hospitalist comanagement prior to inpatient surgery, it is well within the scope of the hospitalist to differentiate chronic risk factors from active or decompensated medical disease requiring a subspecialist. This is in fact much of the value that a hospitalist adds. Avoiding consultation for patients with only elevated chronic risk factors is an important first step in avoiding unnecessary delays to surgery and an opportunity for hospitalists to improve the care of the patients they comanage.

The goal of teaching trainees to “never worry alone” is to harness the feelings of uncertainty that all providers face to improve patient care. Knowing when to worry is a valuable lesson, but as with all skills, it should be applied thoughtfully and informed by evidence. Appreciating the risks that surgery poses is quintessential to safe perioperative care, but equally important is understanding that inappropriate consultations can create risks from needless delays and testing. Only in balancing these two concerns, and appreciating when it is appropriate to worry, can we provide the highest quality of care to our patients.

“Never worry alone” is a common mantra that most of us have heard throughout medical training. The premise is simple and well meaning. If a patient has an issue that concerns you, ask someone for help. As a student, this can be a resident; as a resident, this can be an attending. However, for hospitalists, the answer is often a subspecialty consultation. Asking for help never seems to be wrong, but what happens when our worry delays appropriate care with unnecessary consultations? In this month’s issue of the Journal of Hospital Medicine, authors Bellas et al. have investigated this issue through the lens of subspecialty preoperative consultation for patients admitted to a hospitalist comanagement service with a fragility hip fracture requiring surgery.¹

Morbidity and mortality for patients who experience hip fractures are high, and time to appropriate surgery is one of the few modifiable risk factors that may reduce morbidity and mortality.^2,3 Bellas et al. conducted a retrospective cohort study to test the association between preoperative subspecialty consultation and multiple clinically relevant outcomes in patients admitted with an acute hip fracture.¹ All patients were comanaged by a hospitalist and orthopedic surgery, and “consultation” was defined as any preoperative subspecialty consultation requested by the hospitalist. Outcome measures included time to surgery, length of stay, readmission rate, perioperative complications, and 30-day mortality. In total, 36% (177/491) of patients who underwent surgery received a subspecialty preoperative consultation. Unsurprisingly, these patients were older with higher rates of comorbidity. After controlling for age and Charlson Comorbidity Index, preoperative consultation was associated with dramatic delays and increased rates of time to surgery >24 hours (adjusted odds ratio, 4.2; 95% CI: 2.8-6.6). The authors classified 90% of consultations as appropriate, either because of an active condition (eg, acute coronary syndrome) or because admitting physicians documented a perception that patients were at increased risk. However, 73% of consultations had only minor recommendations, such as ordering an ECG or changing the dose of an existing medication, and only 37% of the time did consultations lead to an identifiable change in management as a result of the consultation.

Although striking, integrating these findings into clinical practice is complex. As a retrospective study, patients who received consultations were obviously different from those who did not. The authors attempted to adjust for this but used only age and Charlson Comorbidity Index. Other factors that are both associated with consultations and known to increase mortality—such as frailty and functional status—were not included in their adjustment. Such unmeasured confounders possibly explain at least some, if not all, of the findings that consultations were associated with a doubling of the likelihood of 30-day mortality. In addition, although the authors assessed the appropriateness of consultation and degree of recommendations, their methods for this deserve scrutiny. Two independent providers adjudicated the consultations with excellent agreement (kappa 0.96 for indication, 0.95 for degree of recommendation), but this reliability assessment was done on previously extracted chart data, probably inflating their agreement statistics. Finally, the adjudication of consultant recommendations into minor, moderate, and major categories may oversimplify the outcome of each consultation. For example, all medication recommendations, regardless of type, were considered as minor, and recommendations were considered as major only if they resulted in invasive testing or procedures. This approach may underrepresent the impact of consultations as in clinical practice not all high-impact recommendations result in invasive testing or procedures. Despite these important limitations, Bellas et al. present a compelling case for preoperative consultation being associated with delays in surgery.

How then should this study change practice? The authors’ findings tell two separate but intertwined stories. The first is that preoperative consultation leads to delays in surgery. As patients who received preoperative consultation were obviously sicker, and because delays caused by consultation may lead to increased morbidity and mortality, perhaps the solution is to simply fix the delays. However, this approach ignores the more compelling story the authors tell. More important than the delays was the surprising lack of impact of preoperative consultations. Bellas et al. found that the majority of consultations resulted in only minor recommendations, and more importantly, hospitalists rarely changed treatment as a result. Although patients who received consultations were more ill, consultation rarely changed their care or decreased the risk posed by surgery. Bellas et al. found that only patients with active medical conditions had consultations, which resulted in moderate or major recommendations. These findings highlight an opportunity to better identify patients for whom consultation might be helpful and to prevent delays by avoiding consultation for those unlikely to benefit. There have been several efforts in the orthopedic literature to use guidelines for preoperative cardiac testing to guide cardiology consultation.^4,5,6 One study using this approach reported findings that were extremely similar to those reported by Bellas et al. in that 71% of preoperative cardiology consultations in their institution did not meet the guideline criteria for invasive cardiac testing.⁷ The primary difference between the findings of Bellas et al. and the studies in the orthopedic literature is the presence of the comanaging hospitalist. As more and more patients receive hospitalist comanagement prior to inpatient surgery, it is well within the scope of the hospitalist to differentiate chronic risk factors from active or decompensated medical disease requiring a subspecialist. This is in fact much of the value that a hospitalist adds. Avoiding consultation for patients with only elevated chronic risk factors is an important first step in avoiding unnecessary delays to surgery and an opportunity for hospitalists to improve the care of the patients they comanage.

The goal of teaching trainees to “never worry alone” is to harness the feelings of uncertainty that all providers face to improve patient care. Knowing when to worry is a valuable lesson, but as with all skills, it should be applied thoughtfully and informed by evidence. Appreciating the risks that surgery poses is quintessential to safe perioperative care, but equally important is understanding that inappropriate consultations can create risks from needless delays and testing. Only in balancing these two concerns, and appreciating when it is appropriate to worry, can we provide the highest quality of care to our patients.

“Never worry alone” is a common mantra that most of us have heard throughout medical training. The premise is simple and well meaning. If a patient has an issue that concerns you, ask someone for help. As a student, this can be a resident; as a resident, this can be an attending. However, for hospitalists, the answer is often a subspecialty consultation. Asking for help never seems to be wrong, but what happens when our worry delays appropriate care with unnecessary consultations? In this month’s issue of the Journal of Hospital Medicine, authors Bellas et al. have investigated this issue through the lens of subspecialty preoperative consultation for patients admitted to a hospitalist comanagement service with a fragility hip fracture requiring surgery.¹

Morbidity and mortality for patients who experience hip fractures are high, and time to appropriate surgery is one of the few modifiable risk factors that may reduce morbidity and mortality.^2,3 Bellas et al. conducted a retrospective cohort study to test the association between preoperative subspecialty consultation and multiple clinically relevant outcomes in patients admitted with an acute hip fracture.¹ All patients were comanaged by a hospitalist and orthopedic surgery, and “consultation” was defined as any preoperative subspecialty consultation requested by the hospitalist. Outcome measures included time to surgery, length of stay, readmission rate, perioperative complications, and 30-day mortality. In total, 36% (177/491) of patients who underwent surgery received a subspecialty preoperative consultation. Unsurprisingly, these patients were older with higher rates of comorbidity. After controlling for age and Charlson Comorbidity Index, preoperative consultation was associated with dramatic delays and increased rates of time to surgery >24 hours (adjusted odds ratio, 4.2; 95% CI: 2.8-6.6). The authors classified 90% of consultations as appropriate, either because of an active condition (eg, acute coronary syndrome) or because admitting physicians documented a perception that patients were at increased risk. However, 73% of consultations had only minor recommendations, such as ordering an ECG or changing the dose of an existing medication, and only 37% of the time did consultations lead to an identifiable change in management as a result of the consultation.

Although striking, integrating these findings into clinical practice is complex. As a retrospective study, patients who received consultations were obviously different from those who did not. The authors attempted to adjust for this but used only age and Charlson Comorbidity Index. Other factors that are both associated with consultations and known to increase mortality—such as frailty and functional status—were not included in their adjustment. Such unmeasured confounders possibly explain at least some, if not all, of the findings that consultations were associated with a doubling of the likelihood of 30-day mortality. In addition, although the authors assessed the appropriateness of consultation and degree of recommendations, their methods for this deserve scrutiny. Two independent providers adjudicated the consultations with excellent agreement (kappa 0.96 for indication, 0.95 for degree of recommendation), but this reliability assessment was done on previously extracted chart data, probably inflating their agreement statistics. Finally, the adjudication of consultant recommendations into minor, moderate, and major categories may oversimplify the outcome of each consultation. For example, all medication recommendations, regardless of type, were considered as minor, and recommendations were considered as major only if they resulted in invasive testing or procedures. This approach may underrepresent the impact of consultations as in clinical practice not all high-impact recommendations result in invasive testing or procedures. Despite these important limitations, Bellas et al. present a compelling case for preoperative consultation being associated with delays in surgery.

How then should this study change practice? The authors’ findings tell two separate but intertwined stories. The first is that preoperative consultation leads to delays in surgery. As patients who received preoperative consultation were obviously sicker, and because delays caused by consultation may lead to increased morbidity and mortality, perhaps the solution is to simply fix the delays. However, this approach ignores the more compelling story the authors tell. More important than the delays was the surprising lack of impact of preoperative consultations. Bellas et al. found that the majority of consultations resulted in only minor recommendations, and more importantly, hospitalists rarely changed treatment as a result. Although patients who received consultations were more ill, consultation rarely changed their care or decreased the risk posed by surgery. Bellas et al. found that only patients with active medical conditions had consultations, which resulted in moderate or major recommendations. These findings highlight an opportunity to better identify patients for whom consultation might be helpful and to prevent delays by avoiding consultation for those unlikely to benefit. There have been several efforts in the orthopedic literature to use guidelines for preoperative cardiac testing to guide cardiology consultation.^4,5,6 One study using this approach reported findings that were extremely similar to those reported by Bellas et al. in that 71% of preoperative cardiology consultations in their institution did not meet the guideline criteria for invasive cardiac testing.⁷ The primary difference between the findings of Bellas et al. and the studies in the orthopedic literature is the presence of the comanaging hospitalist. As more and more patients receive hospitalist comanagement prior to inpatient surgery, it is well within the scope of the hospitalist to differentiate chronic risk factors from active or decompensated medical disease requiring a subspecialist. This is in fact much of the value that a hospitalist adds. Avoiding consultation for patients with only elevated chronic risk factors is an important first step in avoiding unnecessary delays to surgery and an opportunity for hospitalists to improve the care of the patients they comanage.

The goal of teaching trainees to “never worry alone” is to harness the feelings of uncertainty that all providers face to improve patient care. Knowing when to worry is a valuable lesson, but as with all skills, it should be applied thoughtfully and informed by evidence. Appreciating the risks that surgery poses is quintessential to safe perioperative care, but equally important is understanding that inappropriate consultations can create risks from needless delays and testing. Only in balancing these two concerns, and appreciating when it is appropriate to worry, can we provide the highest quality of care to our patients.

Even though I could not remember her name, I remembered her story, and I would bet that my colleagues did as well. She was someone that we had all cared for at one time or another. She frequently presented to the hospital with chest pain or shortness of breath attributable to a combination of longstanding congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and cocaine abuse. But most tragic of all, she was homeless, which meant that she was frequently hospitalized not only for medical complaints but also for a night’s shelter and a bite of food. Even though she often refused medical treatment and social workers’ efforts to stabilize her housing situation, the staff in the emergency room and observation unit all knew her by name and greeted her like an old friend. And then one day she stopped showing up to the hospital. Sitting in the emergency department (ED), I overheard that she was found outside of a storefront and had passed away. Saddened by her death, which was not unexpected given her medical issues, I still wondered if we had done right by her during the hundreds of times that she had come to our hospital. Clinicians at busy safety-net hospitals face these questions every day, and it would seem beyond doubt that our duty is to address both medical and nonmedical determinants of health of everyone that walks through our door. But is this in fact the right thing to do? Is it possible that we unwittingly expose these vulnerable patients to risks from hospitalization alone?

In this month’s Journal of Hospital Medicine, Sekijima et al. sought to quantify precisely the risks of hospitalization, particularly among the subset of patients whose “severity” of medical problems alone might not have warranted hospital admission, a scenario known colloquially as a “social” admission.¹ In real time, an inhouse triage physician classified patients as being admitted with or without “definite medical acuity.” Investigators retrospectively identified adverse events and illness acuity using standardized instruments, the Institute for Healthcare Improvement Global Trigger Tool and Emergency Severity Index, respectively. Despite the acknowledged differences in the patient population and the inherent subjectivity within the designation process, Sekijima et al. found no statistically significant difference in the percentage of admissions with an adverse event nor in the rate of adverse events per 1,000 patient days. Falls, oversedation/hypotension and code/arrest/rapid response activation were the most frequently encountered adverse events.

Delving deeper into the origin of admissions without definite medical acuity, the authors identified homelessness, lack of outpatient social support, substance use disorder, and lack of outpatient medical support as the most common reasons for “nonmedical” admissions. As healthcare providers, we recognize that these factors are generally long-term, chronic socioeconomic determinants of health. Despite our objective knowledge that we are limited in our ability to fix these problems on a short-term basis, the authors’ observations reflect our compulsion to try and help in any way possible. Patients admitted without definite medical acuity were more vulnerable and had higher rates of public insurance and housing insecurity. However, they were less acutely ill, as indicated by lower Emergency Severity Index scores. These factors were not associated with statistically significant differences in either 48-hour ED readmission or 30-day hospital readmission rates.

The process of appropriately triaging patients to an inpatient setting is challenging because of wide variability in both patients and ED providers. Hospitalists are increasingly recognized as an additional resource to assist in the triage process, as we are uniquely in a position to view the patient’s clinical presentation within the context of their anticipated clinical trajectory, promote effective utilization of inpatient bed availability, and anticipate potential barriers to discharge. Graduate medical education now identifies the triage process as a specific milestone within the transitions of care competency, as it requires mastery of interpersonal communication, professionalism, systems-based thinking, and patient-centered care.² However, many institutions lack a dedicated faculty member to perform the triage role. Our institution recently examined the feasibility of instituting a daily “huddle” between the admitting hospitalist and the ED to facilitate interdepartmental communication to create care plans in patient triage and to promote patient throughput. Available admission beds are valuable commodities, and one challenge is that the ED makes disposition decisions without knowledge of the number of available beds in the hospital. The goal of the huddle was to quickly discuss all patients potentially requiring admission prior to the final disposition decision and to address any modifiable factors to potentially prevent a “social” admission with social work early in the day. Further work is in progress to determine if introducing flexibility within existing provider roles can improve the triage process in a measurable and efficient manner.

Many challenges remain as we balance the medical needs of patients with any potential social drivers that necessitate admission to the inpatient hospital setting. From an ED perspective, social support and community follow-up were “universally considered powerful influences on admission,” and other factors such as time of day, clinical volume, and the four-hour waiting time target also played a significant role in the decision to admit.³ Hunter et al. found that admissions with moderate to low acuity may be shorter or less costly,⁴ which presents an interesting question of cost-effectiveness as an avenue for further study. As clinicians, we are intuitively aware of the subjective risk of hospitalization itself, and this work provides new objective evidence that hospitalization confers specific and quantifiable risks. Though we can undoubtedly use this knowledge to guide internal decisions about admissions and discharges, do we also have an obligation to inform our patients about these risks in real time? Ultimately, hospitalization itself might be viewed as a “procedure” or intervention that has inherent risks for all who receive it, regardless of the individual patient or hospital characteristics. As hospitalists, we should continue to strive to reduce these risks, but we should also initiate a conversation about the risks and benefits of hospitalization similarly to how we discuss other procedures with patients and their families.

Even though I could not remember her name, I remembered her story, and I would bet that my colleagues did as well. She was someone that we had all cared for at one time or another. She frequently presented to the hospital with chest pain or shortness of breath attributable to a combination of longstanding congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and cocaine abuse. But most tragic of all, she was homeless, which meant that she was frequently hospitalized not only for medical complaints but also for a night’s shelter and a bite of food. Even though she often refused medical treatment and social workers’ efforts to stabilize her housing situation, the staff in the emergency room and observation unit all knew her by name and greeted her like an old friend. And then one day she stopped showing up to the hospital. Sitting in the emergency department (ED), I overheard that she was found outside of a storefront and had passed away. Saddened by her death, which was not unexpected given her medical issues, I still wondered if we had done right by her during the hundreds of times that she had come to our hospital. Clinicians at busy safety-net hospitals face these questions every day, and it would seem beyond doubt that our duty is to address both medical and nonmedical determinants of health of everyone that walks through our door. But is this in fact the right thing to do? Is it possible that we unwittingly expose these vulnerable patients to risks from hospitalization alone?

In this month’s Journal of Hospital Medicine, Sekijima et al. sought to quantify precisely the risks of hospitalization, particularly among the subset of patients whose “severity” of medical problems alone might not have warranted hospital admission, a scenario known colloquially as a “social” admission.¹ In real time, an inhouse triage physician classified patients as being admitted with or without “definite medical acuity.” Investigators retrospectively identified adverse events and illness acuity using standardized instruments, the Institute for Healthcare Improvement Global Trigger Tool and Emergency Severity Index, respectively. Despite the acknowledged differences in the patient population and the inherent subjectivity within the designation process, Sekijima et al. found no statistically significant difference in the percentage of admissions with an adverse event nor in the rate of adverse events per 1,000 patient days. Falls, oversedation/hypotension and code/arrest/rapid response activation were the most frequently encountered adverse events.

Delving deeper into the origin of admissions without definite medical acuity, the authors identified homelessness, lack of outpatient social support, substance use disorder, and lack of outpatient medical support as the most common reasons for “nonmedical” admissions. As healthcare providers, we recognize that these factors are generally long-term, chronic socioeconomic determinants of health. Despite our objective knowledge that we are limited in our ability to fix these problems on a short-term basis, the authors’ observations reflect our compulsion to try and help in any way possible. Patients admitted without definite medical acuity were more vulnerable and had higher rates of public insurance and housing insecurity. However, they were less acutely ill, as indicated by lower Emergency Severity Index scores. These factors were not associated with statistically significant differences in either 48-hour ED readmission or 30-day hospital readmission rates.

The process of appropriately triaging patients to an inpatient setting is challenging because of wide variability in both patients and ED providers. Hospitalists are increasingly recognized as an additional resource to assist in the triage process, as we are uniquely in a position to view the patient’s clinical presentation within the context of their anticipated clinical trajectory, promote effective utilization of inpatient bed availability, and anticipate potential barriers to discharge. Graduate medical education now identifies the triage process as a specific milestone within the transitions of care competency, as it requires mastery of interpersonal communication, professionalism, systems-based thinking, and patient-centered care.² However, many institutions lack a dedicated faculty member to perform the triage role. Our institution recently examined the feasibility of instituting a daily “huddle” between the admitting hospitalist and the ED to facilitate interdepartmental communication to create care plans in patient triage and to promote patient throughput. Available admission beds are valuable commodities, and one challenge is that the ED makes disposition decisions without knowledge of the number of available beds in the hospital. The goal of the huddle was to quickly discuss all patients potentially requiring admission prior to the final disposition decision and to address any modifiable factors to potentially prevent a “social” admission with social work early in the day. Further work is in progress to determine if introducing flexibility within existing provider roles can improve the triage process in a measurable and efficient manner.

Many challenges remain as we balance the medical needs of patients with any potential social drivers that necessitate admission to the inpatient hospital setting. From an ED perspective, social support and community follow-up were “universally considered powerful influences on admission,” and other factors such as time of day, clinical volume, and the four-hour waiting time target also played a significant role in the decision to admit.³ Hunter et al. found that admissions with moderate to low acuity may be shorter or less costly,⁴ which presents an interesting question of cost-effectiveness as an avenue for further study. As clinicians, we are intuitively aware of the subjective risk of hospitalization itself, and this work provides new objective evidence that hospitalization confers specific and quantifiable risks. Though we can undoubtedly use this knowledge to guide internal decisions about admissions and discharges, do we also have an obligation to inform our patients about these risks in real time? Ultimately, hospitalization itself might be viewed as a “procedure” or intervention that has inherent risks for all who receive it, regardless of the individual patient or hospital characteristics. As hospitalists, we should continue to strive to reduce these risks, but we should also initiate a conversation about the risks and benefits of hospitalization similarly to how we discuss other procedures with patients and their families.

Even though I could not remember her name, I remembered her story, and I would bet that my colleagues did as well. She was someone that we had all cared for at one time or another. She frequently presented to the hospital with chest pain or shortness of breath attributable to a combination of longstanding congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and cocaine abuse. But most tragic of all, she was homeless, which meant that she was frequently hospitalized not only for medical complaints but also for a night’s shelter and a bite of food. Even though she often refused medical treatment and social workers’ efforts to stabilize her housing situation, the staff in the emergency room and observation unit all knew her by name and greeted her like an old friend. And then one day she stopped showing up to the hospital. Sitting in the emergency department (ED), I overheard that she was found outside of a storefront and had passed away. Saddened by her death, which was not unexpected given her medical issues, I still wondered if we had done right by her during the hundreds of times that she had come to our hospital. Clinicians at busy safety-net hospitals face these questions every day, and it would seem beyond doubt that our duty is to address both medical and nonmedical determinants of health of everyone that walks through our door. But is this in fact the right thing to do? Is it possible that we unwittingly expose these vulnerable patients to risks from hospitalization alone?

In this month’s Journal of Hospital Medicine, Sekijima et al. sought to quantify precisely the risks of hospitalization, particularly among the subset of patients whose “severity” of medical problems alone might not have warranted hospital admission, a scenario known colloquially as a “social” admission.¹ In real time, an inhouse triage physician classified patients as being admitted with or without “definite medical acuity.” Investigators retrospectively identified adverse events and illness acuity using standardized instruments, the Institute for Healthcare Improvement Global Trigger Tool and Emergency Severity Index, respectively. Despite the acknowledged differences in the patient population and the inherent subjectivity within the designation process, Sekijima et al. found no statistically significant difference in the percentage of admissions with an adverse event nor in the rate of adverse events per 1,000 patient days. Falls, oversedation/hypotension and code/arrest/rapid response activation were the most frequently encountered adverse events.

Delving deeper into the origin of admissions without definite medical acuity, the authors identified homelessness, lack of outpatient social support, substance use disorder, and lack of outpatient medical support as the most common reasons for “nonmedical” admissions. As healthcare providers, we recognize that these factors are generally long-term, chronic socioeconomic determinants of health. Despite our objective knowledge that we are limited in our ability to fix these problems on a short-term basis, the authors’ observations reflect our compulsion to try and help in any way possible. Patients admitted without definite medical acuity were more vulnerable and had higher rates of public insurance and housing insecurity. However, they were less acutely ill, as indicated by lower Emergency Severity Index scores. These factors were not associated with statistically significant differences in either 48-hour ED readmission or 30-day hospital readmission rates.

The process of appropriately triaging patients to an inpatient setting is challenging because of wide variability in both patients and ED providers. Hospitalists are increasingly recognized as an additional resource to assist in the triage process, as we are uniquely in a position to view the patient’s clinical presentation within the context of their anticipated clinical trajectory, promote effective utilization of inpatient bed availability, and anticipate potential barriers to discharge. Graduate medical education now identifies the triage process as a specific milestone within the transitions of care competency, as it requires mastery of interpersonal communication, professionalism, systems-based thinking, and patient-centered care.² However, many institutions lack a dedicated faculty member to perform the triage role. Our institution recently examined the feasibility of instituting a daily “huddle” between the admitting hospitalist and the ED to facilitate interdepartmental communication to create care plans in patient triage and to promote patient throughput. Available admission beds are valuable commodities, and one challenge is that the ED makes disposition decisions without knowledge of the number of available beds in the hospital. The goal of the huddle was to quickly discuss all patients potentially requiring admission prior to the final disposition decision and to address any modifiable factors to potentially prevent a “social” admission with social work early in the day. Further work is in progress to determine if introducing flexibility within existing provider roles can improve the triage process in a measurable and efficient manner.

Many challenges remain as we balance the medical needs of patients with any potential social drivers that necessitate admission to the inpatient hospital setting. From an ED perspective, social support and community follow-up were “universally considered powerful influences on admission,” and other factors such as time of day, clinical volume, and the four-hour waiting time target also played a significant role in the decision to admit.³ Hunter et al. found that admissions with moderate to low acuity may be shorter or less costly,⁴ which presents an interesting question of cost-effectiveness as an avenue for further study. As clinicians, we are intuitively aware of the subjective risk of hospitalization itself, and this work provides new objective evidence that hospitalization confers specific and quantifiable risks. Though we can undoubtedly use this knowledge to guide internal decisions about admissions and discharges, do we also have an obligation to inform our patients about these risks in real time? Ultimately, hospitalization itself might be viewed as a “procedure” or intervention that has inherent risks for all who receive it, regardless of the individual patient or hospital characteristics. As hospitalists, we should continue to strive to reduce these risks, but we should also initiate a conversation about the risks and benefits of hospitalization similarly to how we discuss other procedures with patients and their families.

“If you define the problem correctly, you almost have the solution.”
—Steve Jobs

In the classic tale of a chaotic kitchen before an important dinner, two feuding chefs urgently need the only remaining orange in the pantry for their respective dishes. The first chef asserts its necessity for his prized sauce. The second chef retorts that her dessert will be ruined without it. After an emotion-laden battle, they finally agree to compromise, cutting the orange in half. The first chef squeezes the juice out of his half of the orange for his sauce, while the second grates half the zest she needs for her cake. Each chef had less of the orange than their recipe needed, but figured this was the best they could do given the dispute.¹

Conflict frequently occurs for hospitalists leading change efforts, managing service lines, and caring for patients. Often conflict can help clarify a decision or course of action. However, when navigated poorly, disputes can also consume precious energy and sap the goodwill and cooperation needed to effectively lead change and ensure excellent clinical care. Worse yet, ineffective conversations can result in begrudging and ultimately value-destroying agreements, as the chefs above demonstrate.

Instead of focusing on someone’s position (the need for the orange), successful leaders first seek to understand all discernible underlying interests (zest, juice) and motivations (creating a signature dish) of each party.¹ Essential to this process is swift recognition of the conflict and self-regulation. Rather than succumbing to strong fight-or-flight reactions, the wise hospitalist first takes inventory of their own interests and calmly applies a known schema, similar to their approach to common clinical scenarios.

So how can you get to the underlying interests effectively? We use a three-step process reminding us of the benefits of the orange’s ACID.²

Ask open-ended questions and closely listen to their responses. Listening more than talking is critical to this process. When facing conflict, it is common to listen only to refute the other’s position. Instead, actively suppress your instinct to “reload” and seek to genuinely understand the other’s perspective. Continue to ask clarifying questions until you feel you understand their interests.

A new hire requests a higher salary than offered. Ask with curiosity: “Can you tell me more about some of your financial priorities? Even if I can’t do much about the dollar figure, there may be benefits and other helpful tips I can suggest.”

Restate your understanding of their interests from listening. This critical step serves to confirm your good-faith effort to address a common problem and to demonstrate that you have heard their perspective accurately. Even if you ultimately cannot agree on a solution to the dispute at hand, demonstrating an understanding of their perspective helps to preserve the relationship, which can be useful for future conflicts.

“I am hearing that you are hoping to save money for the future, to pay down outstanding loans, and to expand your family. Is that right?”

Accurately defining interests and demonstrating your understanding will maximize the possibility of mutually acceptable solutions. Share your own perspective, being careful to describe your underlying interests, not positions. What mutual goals do you share? What potential solutions were not immediately evident based on positions alone? During this process, remain open to arriving at a solution that you had not anticipated.

“While I unfortunately have little wiggle room on annual salary, there are some options for loan repayment, housing down payment assistance, and low-cost childcare at the health system, which is where my kids went.”

Whether you are a chef or a hospitalist and whether you are dividing oranges or clinical shifts, understanding the interests buried within the conflict will help define and potentially solve the problem. When you encounter an orange, remember the value of its ACID.

Acknowledgement

The authors wish to thank Charlie Wray, DO, Division of Hospital Medicine, San Francisco VA, for assistance with revisions of early drafts.

“If you define the problem correctly, you almost have the solution.”
—Steve Jobs

In the classic tale of a chaotic kitchen before an important dinner, two feuding chefs urgently need the only remaining orange in the pantry for their respective dishes. The first chef asserts its necessity for his prized sauce. The second chef retorts that her dessert will be ruined without it. After an emotion-laden battle, they finally agree to compromise, cutting the orange in half. The first chef squeezes the juice out of his half of the orange for his sauce, while the second grates half the zest she needs for her cake. Each chef had less of the orange than their recipe needed, but figured this was the best they could do given the dispute.¹

Conflict frequently occurs for hospitalists leading change efforts, managing service lines, and caring for patients. Often conflict can help clarify a decision or course of action. However, when navigated poorly, disputes can also consume precious energy and sap the goodwill and cooperation needed to effectively lead change and ensure excellent clinical care. Worse yet, ineffective conversations can result in begrudging and ultimately value-destroying agreements, as the chefs above demonstrate.

Instead of focusing on someone’s position (the need for the orange), successful leaders first seek to understand all discernible underlying interests (zest, juice) and motivations (creating a signature dish) of each party.¹ Essential to this process is swift recognition of the conflict and self-regulation. Rather than succumbing to strong fight-or-flight reactions, the wise hospitalist first takes inventory of their own interests and calmly applies a known schema, similar to their approach to common clinical scenarios.

So how can you get to the underlying interests effectively? We use a three-step process reminding us of the benefits of the orange’s ACID.²

Ask open-ended questions and closely listen to their responses. Listening more than talking is critical to this process. When facing conflict, it is common to listen only to refute the other’s position. Instead, actively suppress your instinct to “reload” and seek to genuinely understand the other’s perspective. Continue to ask clarifying questions until you feel you understand their interests.

A new hire requests a higher salary than offered. Ask with curiosity: “Can you tell me more about some of your financial priorities? Even if I can’t do much about the dollar figure, there may be benefits and other helpful tips I can suggest.”

Restate your understanding of their interests from listening. This critical step serves to confirm your good-faith effort to address a common problem and to demonstrate that you have heard their perspective accurately. Even if you ultimately cannot agree on a solution to the dispute at hand, demonstrating an understanding of their perspective helps to preserve the relationship, which can be useful for future conflicts.

“I am hearing that you are hoping to save money for the future, to pay down outstanding loans, and to expand your family. Is that right?”

Accurately defining interests and demonstrating your understanding will maximize the possibility of mutually acceptable solutions. Share your own perspective, being careful to describe your underlying interests, not positions. What mutual goals do you share? What potential solutions were not immediately evident based on positions alone? During this process, remain open to arriving at a solution that you had not anticipated.

“While I unfortunately have little wiggle room on annual salary, there are some options for loan repayment, housing down payment assistance, and low-cost childcare at the health system, which is where my kids went.”

Whether you are a chef or a hospitalist and whether you are dividing oranges or clinical shifts, understanding the interests buried within the conflict will help define and potentially solve the problem. When you encounter an orange, remember the value of its ACID.

Acknowledgement

The authors wish to thank Charlie Wray, DO, Division of Hospital Medicine, San Francisco VA, for assistance with revisions of early drafts.

“If you define the problem correctly, you almost have the solution.”
—Steve Jobs

In the classic tale of a chaotic kitchen before an important dinner, two feuding chefs urgently need the only remaining orange in the pantry for their respective dishes. The first chef asserts its necessity for his prized sauce. The second chef retorts that her dessert will be ruined without it. After an emotion-laden battle, they finally agree to compromise, cutting the orange in half. The first chef squeezes the juice out of his half of the orange for his sauce, while the second grates half the zest she needs for her cake. Each chef had less of the orange than their recipe needed, but figured this was the best they could do given the dispute.¹

Conflict frequently occurs for hospitalists leading change efforts, managing service lines, and caring for patients. Often conflict can help clarify a decision or course of action. However, when navigated poorly, disputes can also consume precious energy and sap the goodwill and cooperation needed to effectively lead change and ensure excellent clinical care. Worse yet, ineffective conversations can result in begrudging and ultimately value-destroying agreements, as the chefs above demonstrate.

Instead of focusing on someone’s position (the need for the orange), successful leaders first seek to understand all discernible underlying interests (zest, juice) and motivations (creating a signature dish) of each party.¹ Essential to this process is swift recognition of the conflict and self-regulation. Rather than succumbing to strong fight-or-flight reactions, the wise hospitalist first takes inventory of their own interests and calmly applies a known schema, similar to their approach to common clinical scenarios.

So how can you get to the underlying interests effectively? We use a three-step process reminding us of the benefits of the orange’s ACID.²

Ask open-ended questions and closely listen to their responses. Listening more than talking is critical to this process. When facing conflict, it is common to listen only to refute the other’s position. Instead, actively suppress your instinct to “reload” and seek to genuinely understand the other’s perspective. Continue to ask clarifying questions until you feel you understand their interests.

A new hire requests a higher salary than offered. Ask with curiosity: “Can you tell me more about some of your financial priorities? Even if I can’t do much about the dollar figure, there may be benefits and other helpful tips I can suggest.”

Restate your understanding of their interests from listening. This critical step serves to confirm your good-faith effort to address a common problem and to demonstrate that you have heard their perspective accurately. Even if you ultimately cannot agree on a solution to the dispute at hand, demonstrating an understanding of their perspective helps to preserve the relationship, which can be useful for future conflicts.

“I am hearing that you are hoping to save money for the future, to pay down outstanding loans, and to expand your family. Is that right?”

Accurately defining interests and demonstrating your understanding will maximize the possibility of mutually acceptable solutions. Share your own perspective, being careful to describe your underlying interests, not positions. What mutual goals do you share? What potential solutions were not immediately evident based on positions alone? During this process, remain open to arriving at a solution that you had not anticipated.

“While I unfortunately have little wiggle room on annual salary, there are some options for loan repayment, housing down payment assistance, and low-cost childcare at the health system, which is where my kids went.”

Whether you are a chef or a hospitalist and whether you are dividing oranges or clinical shifts, understanding the interests buried within the conflict will help define and potentially solve the problem. When you encounter an orange, remember the value of its ACID.

Acknowledgement

The authors wish to thank Charlie Wray, DO, Division of Hospital Medicine, San Francisco VA, for assistance with revisions of early drafts.

I appreciate the input from Dr. Rauch regarding the terminology of “fellowship” in regards to APP postgraduate training programs.¹ When researching these programs, the overwhelming majority we surveyed described themselves as fellowships. Because of this, we chose to use the same nomenclature. The survey we used was meant to explore and quantify certain discreet components of program creation and execution, and further study would be needed to shed light on how they name themselves.

While it is not known if the term “fellowship” in this context would be confusing to patients, it does seem that the ideal terminology has not yet been clarified. In 2014, the American Association of Nurse Practitioners released a position statement that, for NP postgraduate training programs, the term “fellowship” should be used above other terms.² We were unable to find a similar position statement regarding postgraduate physician assistant training, but did note that the Association of Post-Graduate PA Programs website uses the terms “residency” and “fellowship” seemingly interchangeably.³ As most of the programs that we surveyed train mixed groups of nurse practitioners and physician assistants, developing unified language will be an important step in the future.

I appreciate the input from Dr. Rauch regarding the terminology of “fellowship” in regards to APP postgraduate training programs.¹ When researching these programs, the overwhelming majority we surveyed described themselves as fellowships. Because of this, we chose to use the same nomenclature. The survey we used was meant to explore and quantify certain discreet components of program creation and execution, and further study would be needed to shed light on how they name themselves.

While it is not known if the term “fellowship” in this context would be confusing to patients, it does seem that the ideal terminology has not yet been clarified. In 2014, the American Association of Nurse Practitioners released a position statement that, for NP postgraduate training programs, the term “fellowship” should be used above other terms.² We were unable to find a similar position statement regarding postgraduate physician assistant training, but did note that the Association of Post-Graduate PA Programs website uses the terms “residency” and “fellowship” seemingly interchangeably.³ As most of the programs that we surveyed train mixed groups of nurse practitioners and physician assistants, developing unified language will be an important step in the future.

I appreciate the input from Dr. Rauch regarding the terminology of “fellowship” in regards to APP postgraduate training programs.¹ When researching these programs, the overwhelming majority we surveyed described themselves as fellowships. Because of this, we chose to use the same nomenclature. The survey we used was meant to explore and quantify certain discreet components of program creation and execution, and further study would be needed to shed light on how they name themselves.

While it is not known if the term “fellowship” in this context would be confusing to patients, it does seem that the ideal terminology has not yet been clarified. In 2014, the American Association of Nurse Practitioners released a position statement that, for NP postgraduate training programs, the term “fellowship” should be used above other terms.² We were unable to find a similar position statement regarding postgraduate physician assistant training, but did note that the Association of Post-Graduate PA Programs website uses the terms “residency” and “fellowship” seemingly interchangeably.³ As most of the programs that we surveyed train mixed groups of nurse practitioners and physician assistants, developing unified language will be an important step in the future.

I read with interest the recent article by Klimpl et al. “The Current State of Advanced Practice provider Fellowships in Hospital Medicine: A Survey of Program Directors.”¹ I appreciate the description of the variation in training as well as the discussion points about the driving forces behind the training programs. However, I am concerned about the terminology used, specifically “fellowship,” and how it can create confusion for patients. Accredited medical/surgical fellowships have a precise meaning and convey an assurance of standardized additional training. Even many non-Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education fellowships within a single field have a shared curriculum. Using the same terminology for other medical providers may be seen as equating their post-training competency with physicians who have completed fellowship training. As the authors point out, there is a wide divergence in the clinical experience required to become a licensed practitioner among NPs, PAs, and physicians. As such, using the same terminology for their respective training programs makes it difficult for the public to differentiate between them.

I read with interest the recent article by Klimpl et al. “The Current State of Advanced Practice provider Fellowships in Hospital Medicine: A Survey of Program Directors.”¹ I appreciate the description of the variation in training as well as the discussion points about the driving forces behind the training programs. However, I am concerned about the terminology used, specifically “fellowship,” and how it can create confusion for patients. Accredited medical/surgical fellowships have a precise meaning and convey an assurance of standardized additional training. Even many non-Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education fellowships within a single field have a shared curriculum. Using the same terminology for other medical providers may be seen as equating their post-training competency with physicians who have completed fellowship training. As the authors point out, there is a wide divergence in the clinical experience required to become a licensed practitioner among NPs, PAs, and physicians. As such, using the same terminology for their respective training programs makes it difficult for the public to differentiate between them.

I read with interest the recent article by Klimpl et al. “The Current State of Advanced Practice provider Fellowships in Hospital Medicine: A Survey of Program Directors.”¹ I appreciate the description of the variation in training as well as the discussion points about the driving forces behind the training programs. However, I am concerned about the terminology used, specifically “fellowship,” and how it can create confusion for patients. Accredited medical/surgical fellowships have a precise meaning and convey an assurance of standardized additional training. Even many non-Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education fellowships within a single field have a shared curriculum. Using the same terminology for other medical providers may be seen as equating their post-training competency with physicians who have completed fellowship training. As the authors point out, there is a wide divergence in the clinical experience required to become a licensed practitioner among NPs, PAs, and physicians. As such, using the same terminology for their respective training programs makes it difficult for the public to differentiate between them.

A 73-year-old man presents to the emergency department with sepsis secondary to community-acquired pneumonia. The patient requires supplemental oxygen and is started on intravenous antibiotics. His admitting physician expects he will need more than two nights of hospital care and suggests that inpatient status, rather than outpatient (observation) status, would be appropriate under Medicare’s “Two-Midnight Rule.” The physician also suspects the patient may need a brief stay in a skilled nursing facility (SNF) following the mentioned hospitalization and notes that the patient has a Medicare Advantage plan (Table) and wonders if the Two-Midnight Rule applies. Further, she questions whether Medicare’s “Three-Midnight Rule” for SNF benefits will factor in the patient’s discharge planning.

Since the 1970s, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has allowed enrollees to receive their Medicare benefits from privately managed health plans through the so-called Medicare Advantage programs. CMS contracts with commercial insurers who, in exchange for a set payment per Medicare enrollee, “accept full responsibility (ie, risk) for the costs of their enrollees’ care.”¹ Over the past 20 years the percent of Medicare Advantage enrollees has nearly doubled nationwide, from 18% to 34%, and is projected to grow even further to 42% by 2028.^2,3 The reasons beneficiaries choose to enroll in Medicare Advantage over Traditional Medicare have yet to be thoroughly studied; ease of enrollment and plan administration, as well as lower deductibles, copays, and out-of-pocket maximums for in-network services, are thought to be some of the driving factors.

The federal government has asserted two goals for the development of Medicare Advantage: beneficiary choice and economic efficiency.¹ Medicare Advantage plans must be actuarially equal to Traditional Medicare but do not have to cover services in precisely the same way. Medicare Advantage plans may achieve cost savings through narrower networks, strict control of access to SNF services and acute care inpatient rehabilitation, and prior authorization requirements, the latter of which has received recent congressional attention.^4,5 On the other hand, many Medicare Advantage plans offer dental, fitness, optical, and caregiver benefits that are not included under Traditional Medicare. Beneficiaries can theoretically compare the coverage and costs of Traditional Medicare to Medicare Advantage programs and make informed choices based on their individualized needs. The second stated goal for the Medicare Advantage option assumes that privately managed plans provide care at lower costs compared with CMS; this assumption has yet to be confirmed with solid data. Indeed, a recent analysis comparing the overall costs of Medicare Advantage to those of Traditional Medicare concluded that Medicare Advantage costs CMS more than Traditional Medicare,⁶ perhaps in part due to risk adjustment practices.⁷

There are a number of areas of uncertainty regarding the specifics of how Medicare Advantage plans work, including Medicare Advantage programs’ use of outpatient (observation) stays. CMS has tried to provide guidance to healthcare organizations and clinicians regarding the appropriate use of inpatient hospitalizations for patients with Traditional Medicare, including the implementation of the Two-Midnight Rule in 2013. According to the rule, clinicians should place inpatient admission orders when they reasonably expect a patient’s care to extend across two midnights.⁸ Such admission decisions are subject to review by Medicare contractors and Quality Improvement Organizations.

In contrast, Medicare Advantage plans which enter into contracts with specific healthcare systems are not required to abide by CMS’ guidelines for the Two-Midnight Rule.⁹ When Medicare Advantage firms negotiate contracts with individual hospitals and healthcare organizations, CMS has been clear that such contracts are not required to include the Two-Midnight Rule when it comes to making hospitalization status decisions.¹⁰ Instead, in these instances, Medicare Advantage plans often use proprietary decision tools containing clinical criteria, such as Milliman Care Guidelines or InterQual, and/or their own plan’s internal criteria as part of the decision-making process to grant inpatient or outpatient (observation) status. More importantly, CMS has stated that for hospitals and healthcare systems that do not contract with Medicare Advantage programs, the Two-Midnight Rule should apply when it comes to making hospitalization status decisions.¹⁰

Implications for Patients

Currently, there are no data available to compare between Medicare Advantage enrollees and traditional medicine beneficiaries in terms of the frequency of observation use and out-of-pocket cost for observation stays. As alluded to in the patient’s case, the use of outpatient (observation) status has implications for a patient’s posthospitalization SNF benefit. Under Traditional Medicare, patients must be hospitalized for three consecutive inpatient midnights in order to qualify for the SNF benefit. Time spent under outpatient (observation) status does not count toward this three-day requirement. Interestingly, some Medicare Advantage programs have demonstrated innovation in this area, waiving the three inpatient midnight requirement for their beneficiaries;¹¹ there is evidence, however, that compared with their Traditional Medicare counterparts, Medicare Advantage beneficiaries are admitted to lower quality SNFs.¹² The posthospitalization consequences of an inpatient versus outpatient (observation) status determination for a Medicare Advantage beneficiary is thus unclear, further complicating the decision-making process for patients when it comes to choosing a Medicare policy, and for providers when it comes to choosing an admission status.

Implications for Clinicians and Healthcare Systems

After performing an initial history and physical exam, if a healthcare provider determines that a patient requires hospitalization, an order is placed to classify the stay as inpatient or outpatient (observation). For beneficiaries with Traditional Medicare or a Medicare Advantage plan that has not contracted with the hospital, clinicians should follow the Two-Midnight Rule for making this determination. For contracted Medicare Advantage, the rules are variable. Under Medicare’s Conditions of Participation, hospitals and healthcare organizations are required to have utilization management (UM) programs to assist physicians in making appropriate admission decisions. UM reviews can happen at any point during or after a patient’s stay, however, and physicians may have to make decisions using their best judgment at the time of admission without real-time input from UM teams.

Outpatient (observation) care and the challenges surrounding appropriate status orders have complicated the admission decision. In one study of 2014 Traditional Medicare claims, almost half of outpatient (observation) stays contained a status change.¹³ Based on a recent survey of hospitalist physicians, about two-thirds of hospitalists report at least monthly requests from patients to change their status.¹⁴ Hospital medicine physicians report that these requests “can severely damage the therapeutic bond”¹⁴ between provider and patient because the provider must assign status based on CMS rules, not patient request.

CMS could improve the current system in one of two ways. First, CMS could require that all Medicare Advantage plans follow the same polices as Traditional Medicare policies regarding the Two- and Three-Midnight Rules. This would eliminate the need for both hospitals and healthcare organizations to dedicate time and resources to negotiating with each Medicare Advantage program and to managing each Medicare Advantage patient admission based on a specific contract. Ideally, CMS could completely eliminate its outpatient (observation) policy so that all hospitalizations are treated exactly the same, classified under the same billing status and with beneficiaries having the same postacute benefit. This would be consistent with the sentiment behind the recent Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) report suggesting that CMS consider counting outpatient midnights toward the three-midnight requirement for postacute SNF care “so that beneficiaries receiving similar hospital care have similar access to these services.”¹⁵

The physician in the example above should tell their patient that they will be admitted as an inpatient given her expectation that the patient will need hospitalization for oxygen support, parenteral antibiotics, and evaluation by physical therapy to determine a medically appropriate discharge plan. The physician should document the medical necessity for the admission, specifically her expectation that the patient will require at least two midnights of medically necessary hospital care. If the patient has Traditional Medicare, this documentation, along with the inpatient status order, will fulfill the requirements for an inpatient stay. If the patient has a Medicare Advantage plan, the physician can advise the patient that the plan administrators will ultimately determine if an inpatient stay will be covered or denied.

In the proposed clinical scenario, the rules determining the patient’s hospitalization status depend on whether the hospital contracts with the patient’s Medicare Advantage plan, and if so, what the contracted criteria are in determining inpatient and outpatient (observation) status. The physician could consider real-time input from the hospital’s UM team, if available. Regardless of UM input, if the physician hospitalizes the patient as an inpatient, the Medicare Advantage plan administrators will make a determination regarding the appropriateness of the admission status, as well as whether the patient qualifies for posthospitalization Medicare SNF benefits (if requested) and, additionally, which SNFs will be covered. If denied, the hospitalist will have the option of a peer-to-peer discussion with the insurance company to overturn the denial. Given the confusion, complexity, and implications presented by this admission status decision-making process, standardization across Traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage plans, or a budget-neutral plan to eliminate status distinction altogether, is certainly warranted.

A 73-year-old man presents to the emergency department with sepsis secondary to community-acquired pneumonia. The patient requires supplemental oxygen and is started on intravenous antibiotics. His admitting physician expects he will need more than two nights of hospital care and suggests that inpatient status, rather than outpatient (observation) status, would be appropriate under Medicare’s “Two-Midnight Rule.” The physician also suspects the patient may need a brief stay in a skilled nursing facility (SNF) following the mentioned hospitalization and notes that the patient has a Medicare Advantage plan (Table) and wonders if the Two-Midnight Rule applies. Further, she questions whether Medicare’s “Three-Midnight Rule” for SNF benefits will factor in the patient’s discharge planning.

Since the 1970s, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has allowed enrollees to receive their Medicare benefits from privately managed health plans through the so-called Medicare Advantage programs. CMS contracts with commercial insurers who, in exchange for a set payment per Medicare enrollee, “accept full responsibility (ie, risk) for the costs of their enrollees’ care.”¹ Over the past 20 years the percent of Medicare Advantage enrollees has nearly doubled nationwide, from 18% to 34%, and is projected to grow even further to 42% by 2028.^2,3 The reasons beneficiaries choose to enroll in Medicare Advantage over Traditional Medicare have yet to be thoroughly studied; ease of enrollment and plan administration, as well as lower deductibles, copays, and out-of-pocket maximums for in-network services, are thought to be some of the driving factors.

The federal government has asserted two goals for the development of Medicare Advantage: beneficiary choice and economic efficiency.¹ Medicare Advantage plans must be actuarially equal to Traditional Medicare but do not have to cover services in precisely the same way. Medicare Advantage plans may achieve cost savings through narrower networks, strict control of access to SNF services and acute care inpatient rehabilitation, and prior authorization requirements, the latter of which has received recent congressional attention.^4,5 On the other hand, many Medicare Advantage plans offer dental, fitness, optical, and caregiver benefits that are not included under Traditional Medicare. Beneficiaries can theoretically compare the coverage and costs of Traditional Medicare to Medicare Advantage programs and make informed choices based on their individualized needs. The second stated goal for the Medicare Advantage option assumes that privately managed plans provide care at lower costs compared with CMS; this assumption has yet to be confirmed with solid data. Indeed, a recent analysis comparing the overall costs of Medicare Advantage to those of Traditional Medicare concluded that Medicare Advantage costs CMS more than Traditional Medicare,⁶ perhaps in part due to risk adjustment practices.⁷

There are a number of areas of uncertainty regarding the specifics of how Medicare Advantage plans work, including Medicare Advantage programs’ use of outpatient (observation) stays. CMS has tried to provide guidance to healthcare organizations and clinicians regarding the appropriate use of inpatient hospitalizations for patients with Traditional Medicare, including the implementation of the Two-Midnight Rule in 2013. According to the rule, clinicians should place inpatient admission orders when they reasonably expect a patient’s care to extend across two midnights.⁸ Such admission decisions are subject to review by Medicare contractors and Quality Improvement Organizations.

In contrast, Medicare Advantage plans which enter into contracts with specific healthcare systems are not required to abide by CMS’ guidelines for the Two-Midnight Rule.⁹ When Medicare Advantage firms negotiate contracts with individual hospitals and healthcare organizations, CMS has been clear that such contracts are not required to include the Two-Midnight Rule when it comes to making hospitalization status decisions.¹⁰ Instead, in these instances, Medicare Advantage plans often use proprietary decision tools containing clinical criteria, such as Milliman Care Guidelines or InterQual, and/or their own plan’s internal criteria as part of the decision-making process to grant inpatient or outpatient (observation) status. More importantly, CMS has stated that for hospitals and healthcare systems that do not contract with Medicare Advantage programs, the Two-Midnight Rule should apply when it comes to making hospitalization status decisions.¹⁰

Implications for Patients

Currently, there are no data available to compare between Medicare Advantage enrollees and traditional medicine beneficiaries in terms of the frequency of observation use and out-of-pocket cost for observation stays. As alluded to in the patient’s case, the use of outpatient (observation) status has implications for a patient’s posthospitalization SNF benefit. Under Traditional Medicare, patients must be hospitalized for three consecutive inpatient midnights in order to qualify for the SNF benefit. Time spent under outpatient (observation) status does not count toward this three-day requirement. Interestingly, some Medicare Advantage programs have demonstrated innovation in this area, waiving the three inpatient midnight requirement for their beneficiaries;¹¹ there is evidence, however, that compared with their Traditional Medicare counterparts, Medicare Advantage beneficiaries are admitted to lower quality SNFs.¹² The posthospitalization consequences of an inpatient versus outpatient (observation) status determination for a Medicare Advantage beneficiary is thus unclear, further complicating the decision-making process for patients when it comes to choosing a Medicare policy, and for providers when it comes to choosing an admission status.

Implications for Clinicians and Healthcare Systems

After performing an initial history and physical exam, if a healthcare provider determines that a patient requires hospitalization, an order is placed to classify the stay as inpatient or outpatient (observation). For beneficiaries with Traditional Medicare or a Medicare Advantage plan that has not contracted with the hospital, clinicians should follow the Two-Midnight Rule for making this determination. For contracted Medicare Advantage, the rules are variable. Under Medicare’s Conditions of Participation, hospitals and healthcare organizations are required to have utilization management (UM) programs to assist physicians in making appropriate admission decisions. UM reviews can happen at any point during or after a patient’s stay, however, and physicians may have to make decisions using their best judgment at the time of admission without real-time input from UM teams.

Outpatient (observation) care and the challenges surrounding appropriate status orders have complicated the admission decision. In one study of 2014 Traditional Medicare claims, almost half of outpatient (observation) stays contained a status change.¹³ Based on a recent survey of hospitalist physicians, about two-thirds of hospitalists report at least monthly requests from patients to change their status.¹⁴ Hospital medicine physicians report that these requests “can severely damage the therapeutic bond”¹⁴ between provider and patient because the provider must assign status based on CMS rules, not patient request.

CMS could improve the current system in one of two ways. First, CMS could require that all Medicare Advantage plans follow the same polices as Traditional Medicare policies regarding the Two- and Three-Midnight Rules. This would eliminate the need for both hospitals and healthcare organizations to dedicate time and resources to negotiating with each Medicare Advantage program and to managing each Medicare Advantage patient admission based on a specific contract. Ideally, CMS could completely eliminate its outpatient (observation) policy so that all hospitalizations are treated exactly the same, classified under the same billing status and with beneficiaries having the same postacute benefit. This would be consistent with the sentiment behind the recent Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) report suggesting that CMS consider counting outpatient midnights toward the three-midnight requirement for postacute SNF care “so that beneficiaries receiving similar hospital care have similar access to these services.”¹⁵

The physician in the example above should tell their patient that they will be admitted as an inpatient given her expectation that the patient will need hospitalization for oxygen support, parenteral antibiotics, and evaluation by physical therapy to determine a medically appropriate discharge plan. The physician should document the medical necessity for the admission, specifically her expectation that the patient will require at least two midnights of medically necessary hospital care. If the patient has Traditional Medicare, this documentation, along with the inpatient status order, will fulfill the requirements for an inpatient stay. If the patient has a Medicare Advantage plan, the physician can advise the patient that the plan administrators will ultimately determine if an inpatient stay will be covered or denied.

In the proposed clinical scenario, the rules determining the patient’s hospitalization status depend on whether the hospital contracts with the patient’s Medicare Advantage plan, and if so, what the contracted criteria are in determining inpatient and outpatient (observation) status. The physician could consider real-time input from the hospital’s UM team, if available. Regardless of UM input, if the physician hospitalizes the patient as an inpatient, the Medicare Advantage plan administrators will make a determination regarding the appropriateness of the admission status, as well as whether the patient qualifies for posthospitalization Medicare SNF benefits (if requested) and, additionally, which SNFs will be covered. If denied, the hospitalist will have the option of a peer-to-peer discussion with the insurance company to overturn the denial. Given the confusion, complexity, and implications presented by this admission status decision-making process, standardization across Traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage plans, or a budget-neutral plan to eliminate status distinction altogether, is certainly warranted.

A 73-year-old man presents to the emergency department with sepsis secondary to community-acquired pneumonia. The patient requires supplemental oxygen and is started on intravenous antibiotics. His admitting physician expects he will need more than two nights of hospital care and suggests that inpatient status, rather than outpatient (observation) status, would be appropriate under Medicare’s “Two-Midnight Rule.” The physician also suspects the patient may need a brief stay in a skilled nursing facility (SNF) following the mentioned hospitalization and notes that the patient has a Medicare Advantage plan (Table) and wonders if the Two-Midnight Rule applies. Further, she questions whether Medicare’s “Three-Midnight Rule” for SNF benefits will factor in the patient’s discharge planning.

Since the 1970s, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has allowed enrollees to receive their Medicare benefits from privately managed health plans through the so-called Medicare Advantage programs. CMS contracts with commercial insurers who, in exchange for a set payment per Medicare enrollee, “accept full responsibility (ie, risk) for the costs of their enrollees’ care.”¹ Over the past 20 years the percent of Medicare Advantage enrollees has nearly doubled nationwide, from 18% to 34%, and is projected to grow even further to 42% by 2028.^2,3 The reasons beneficiaries choose to enroll in Medicare Advantage over Traditional Medicare have yet to be thoroughly studied; ease of enrollment and plan administration, as well as lower deductibles, copays, and out-of-pocket maximums for in-network services, are thought to be some of the driving factors.

The federal government has asserted two goals for the development of Medicare Advantage: beneficiary choice and economic efficiency.¹ Medicare Advantage plans must be actuarially equal to Traditional Medicare but do not have to cover services in precisely the same way. Medicare Advantage plans may achieve cost savings through narrower networks, strict control of access to SNF services and acute care inpatient rehabilitation, and prior authorization requirements, the latter of which has received recent congressional attention.^4,5 On the other hand, many Medicare Advantage plans offer dental, fitness, optical, and caregiver benefits that are not included under Traditional Medicare. Beneficiaries can theoretically compare the coverage and costs of Traditional Medicare to Medicare Advantage programs and make informed choices based on their individualized needs. The second stated goal for the Medicare Advantage option assumes that privately managed plans provide care at lower costs compared with CMS; this assumption has yet to be confirmed with solid data. Indeed, a recent analysis comparing the overall costs of Medicare Advantage to those of Traditional Medicare concluded that Medicare Advantage costs CMS more than Traditional Medicare,⁶ perhaps in part due to risk adjustment practices.⁷

There are a number of areas of uncertainty regarding the specifics of how Medicare Advantage plans work, including Medicare Advantage programs’ use of outpatient (observation) stays. CMS has tried to provide guidance to healthcare organizations and clinicians regarding the appropriate use of inpatient hospitalizations for patients with Traditional Medicare, including the implementation of the Two-Midnight Rule in 2013. According to the rule, clinicians should place inpatient admission orders when they reasonably expect a patient’s care to extend across two midnights.⁸ Such admission decisions are subject to review by Medicare contractors and Quality Improvement Organizations.

In contrast, Medicare Advantage plans which enter into contracts with specific healthcare systems are not required to abide by CMS’ guidelines for the Two-Midnight Rule.⁹ When Medicare Advantage firms negotiate contracts with individual hospitals and healthcare organizations, CMS has been clear that such contracts are not required to include the Two-Midnight Rule when it comes to making hospitalization status decisions.¹⁰ Instead, in these instances, Medicare Advantage plans often use proprietary decision tools containing clinical criteria, such as Milliman Care Guidelines or InterQual, and/or their own plan’s internal criteria as part of the decision-making process to grant inpatient or outpatient (observation) status. More importantly, CMS has stated that for hospitals and healthcare systems that do not contract with Medicare Advantage programs, the Two-Midnight Rule should apply when it comes to making hospitalization status decisions.¹⁰

Implications for Patients

Currently, there are no data available to compare between Medicare Advantage enrollees and traditional medicine beneficiaries in terms of the frequency of observation use and out-of-pocket cost for observation stays. As alluded to in the patient’s case, the use of outpatient (observation) status has implications for a patient’s posthospitalization SNF benefit. Under Traditional Medicare, patients must be hospitalized for three consecutive inpatient midnights in order to qualify for the SNF benefit. Time spent under outpatient (observation) status does not count toward this three-day requirement. Interestingly, some Medicare Advantage programs have demonstrated innovation in this area, waiving the three inpatient midnight requirement for their beneficiaries;¹¹ there is evidence, however, that compared with their Traditional Medicare counterparts, Medicare Advantage beneficiaries are admitted to lower quality SNFs.¹² The posthospitalization consequences of an inpatient versus outpatient (observation) status determination for a Medicare Advantage beneficiary is thus unclear, further complicating the decision-making process for patients when it comes to choosing a Medicare policy, and for providers when it comes to choosing an admission status.

Implications for Clinicians and Healthcare Systems

After performing an initial history and physical exam, if a healthcare provider determines that a patient requires hospitalization, an order is placed to classify the stay as inpatient or outpatient (observation). For beneficiaries with Traditional Medicare or a Medicare Advantage plan that has not contracted with the hospital, clinicians should follow the Two-Midnight Rule for making this determination. For contracted Medicare Advantage, the rules are variable. Under Medicare’s Conditions of Participation, hospitals and healthcare organizations are required to have utilization management (UM) programs to assist physicians in making appropriate admission decisions. UM reviews can happen at any point during or after a patient’s stay, however, and physicians may have to make decisions using their best judgment at the time of admission without real-time input from UM teams.

Outpatient (observation) care and the challenges surrounding appropriate status orders have complicated the admission decision. In one study of 2014 Traditional Medicare claims, almost half of outpatient (observation) stays contained a status change.¹³ Based on a recent survey of hospitalist physicians, about two-thirds of hospitalists report at least monthly requests from patients to change their status.¹⁴ Hospital medicine physicians report that these requests “can severely damage the therapeutic bond”¹⁴ between provider and patient because the provider must assign status based on CMS rules, not patient request.

CMS could improve the current system in one of two ways. First, CMS could require that all Medicare Advantage plans follow the same polices as Traditional Medicare policies regarding the Two- and Three-Midnight Rules. This would eliminate the need for both hospitals and healthcare organizations to dedicate time and resources to negotiating with each Medicare Advantage program and to managing each Medicare Advantage patient admission based on a specific contract. Ideally, CMS could completely eliminate its outpatient (observation) policy so that all hospitalizations are treated exactly the same, classified under the same billing status and with beneficiaries having the same postacute benefit. This would be consistent with the sentiment behind the recent Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) report suggesting that CMS consider counting outpatient midnights toward the three-midnight requirement for postacute SNF care “so that beneficiaries receiving similar hospital care have similar access to these services.”¹⁵

The physician in the example above should tell their patient that they will be admitted as an inpatient given her expectation that the patient will need hospitalization for oxygen support, parenteral antibiotics, and evaluation by physical therapy to determine a medically appropriate discharge plan. The physician should document the medical necessity for the admission, specifically her expectation that the patient will require at least two midnights of medically necessary hospital care. If the patient has Traditional Medicare, this documentation, along with the inpatient status order, will fulfill the requirements for an inpatient stay. If the patient has a Medicare Advantage plan, the physician can advise the patient that the plan administrators will ultimately determine if an inpatient stay will be covered or denied.

In the proposed clinical scenario, the rules determining the patient’s hospitalization status depend on whether the hospital contracts with the patient’s Medicare Advantage plan, and if so, what the contracted criteria are in determining inpatient and outpatient (observation) status. The physician could consider real-time input from the hospital’s UM team, if available. Regardless of UM input, if the physician hospitalizes the patient as an inpatient, the Medicare Advantage plan administrators will make a determination regarding the appropriateness of the admission status, as well as whether the patient qualifies for posthospitalization Medicare SNF benefits (if requested) and, additionally, which SNFs will be covered. If denied, the hospitalist will have the option of a peer-to-peer discussion with the insurance company to overturn the denial. Given the confusion, complexity, and implications presented by this admission status decision-making process, standardization across Traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage plans, or a budget-neutral plan to eliminate status distinction altogether, is certainly warranted.

The Journal of Hospital Medicine introduced the Choosing Wisely^®: Next Steps in Improving Healthcare Value series in 2015¹ as a companion to the popular Choosing Wisely^®: Things We Do For No Reason^™ series² that was introduced in October in the same year. Both series were created in partnership with the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation and were designed in the spirit of the Choosing Wisely^® campaign’s mission to “promote conversations between clinicians and patients” in choosing care supported by evidence that minimizes harm, including avoidance of unnecessary treatments and tests.³ The Choosing Wisely^®: Next Steps in Improving Healthcare Value series extends these principles as a forum for manuscripts that focus on translating value-based concepts into daily operations, including systems-level care delivery redesign initiatives, payment model innovations, and analyses of relevant policies or practice trends.

Since its inception, 16 Choosing Wisely^®: Next Steps in Improving Healthcare Value manuscripts have been published, encompassing a wide range of topics such as postacute care transitions,⁴ the role of hospital medicine practice within accountable care organizations (ACOs),⁵ and quality and value at end-of-life.⁶

Few physicians receive health policy training.^7,8 Hospital medicine practitioners are a core component of the workforce, driving change and value-based improvements at almost every inpatient facility across the country. Regardless of their background or experience, hospital medicine practitioners must interface with legislation, regulation, and other policies every day while providing patient care. Intentional, value-based improvements are more likely to succeed if those providing direct patient care understand health policies, particularly the effects of those policies on transactional, point-of-care decisions.

We are pleased to expand the Choosing Wisely^®: Next Steps in Improving Healthcare Value series to include articles exploring health policy implications at the bedside. These articles will use common clinical scenarios to illuminate health policies most germane to hospital medicine practitioners and present applications of the policies as they relate to value at the level of patient–provider interactions. Each article will present a clinical scenario, explain key policy terms, address implications of specific policies in clinical practice, and propose how those policies can be improved (Appendix). Going forward, Choosing Wisely^®: Next Steps in Improving Healthcare Value manuscript titles will include either “Policy in Clinical Practice” or “Improving Healthcare Value” to better establish a connection to the series and distinguish between the two article types.

The first Choosing Wisely^®: Next Steps in Improving Healthcare Value—Implications of Health Policy on Clinical Decision-Making manuscript appears in this issue of the Journal of Hospital Medicine.⁹ As is the current practice for Choosing Wisely^®: Next Steps in Improving Healthcare Value, authors are requested to send series editors a 500-word precis for review to ensure topic suitability before submission of a full manuscript. The precis, as well as any questions pertaining to the new series, can be directed to [email protected].

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation for supporting this series.

The Journal of Hospital Medicine introduced the Choosing Wisely^®: Next Steps in Improving Healthcare Value series in 2015¹ as a companion to the popular Choosing Wisely^®: Things We Do For No Reason^™ series² that was introduced in October in the same year. Both series were created in partnership with the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation and were designed in the spirit of the Choosing Wisely^® campaign’s mission to “promote conversations between clinicians and patients” in choosing care supported by evidence that minimizes harm, including avoidance of unnecessary treatments and tests.³ The Choosing Wisely^®: Next Steps in Improving Healthcare Value series extends these principles as a forum for manuscripts that focus on translating value-based concepts into daily operations, including systems-level care delivery redesign initiatives, payment model innovations, and analyses of relevant policies or practice trends.

Since its inception, 16 Choosing Wisely^®: Next Steps in Improving Healthcare Value manuscripts have been published, encompassing a wide range of topics such as postacute care transitions,⁴ the role of hospital medicine practice within accountable care organizations (ACOs),⁵ and quality and value at end-of-life.⁶

Few physicians receive health policy training.^7,8 Hospital medicine practitioners are a core component of the workforce, driving change and value-based improvements at almost every inpatient facility across the country. Regardless of their background or experience, hospital medicine practitioners must interface with legislation, regulation, and other policies every day while providing patient care. Intentional, value-based improvements are more likely to succeed if those providing direct patient care understand health policies, particularly the effects of those policies on transactional, point-of-care decisions.

We are pleased to expand the Choosing Wisely^®: Next Steps in Improving Healthcare Value series to include articles exploring health policy implications at the bedside. These articles will use common clinical scenarios to illuminate health policies most germane to hospital medicine practitioners and present applications of the policies as they relate to value at the level of patient–provider interactions. Each article will present a clinical scenario, explain key policy terms, address implications of specific policies in clinical practice, and propose how those policies can be improved (Appendix). Going forward, Choosing Wisely^®: Next Steps in Improving Healthcare Value manuscript titles will include either “Policy in Clinical Practice” or “Improving Healthcare Value” to better establish a connection to the series and distinguish between the two article types.

The first Choosing Wisely^®: Next Steps in Improving Healthcare Value—Implications of Health Policy on Clinical Decision-Making manuscript appears in this issue of the Journal of Hospital Medicine.⁹ As is the current practice for Choosing Wisely^®: Next Steps in Improving Healthcare Value, authors are requested to send series editors a 500-word precis for review to ensure topic suitability before submission of a full manuscript. The precis, as well as any questions pertaining to the new series, can be directed to [email protected].

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation for supporting this series.

The Journal of Hospital Medicine introduced the Choosing Wisely^®: Next Steps in Improving Healthcare Value series in 2015¹ as a companion to the popular Choosing Wisely^®: Things We Do For No Reason^™ series² that was introduced in October in the same year. Both series were created in partnership with the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation and were designed in the spirit of the Choosing Wisely^® campaign’s mission to “promote conversations between clinicians and patients” in choosing care supported by evidence that minimizes harm, including avoidance of unnecessary treatments and tests.³ The Choosing Wisely^®: Next Steps in Improving Healthcare Value series extends these principles as a forum for manuscripts that focus on translating value-based concepts into daily operations, including systems-level care delivery redesign initiatives, payment model innovations, and analyses of relevant policies or practice trends.

Since its inception, 16 Choosing Wisely^®: Next Steps in Improving Healthcare Value manuscripts have been published, encompassing a wide range of topics such as postacute care transitions,⁴ the role of hospital medicine practice within accountable care organizations (ACOs),⁵ and quality and value at end-of-life.⁶

Few physicians receive health policy training.^7,8 Hospital medicine practitioners are a core component of the workforce, driving change and value-based improvements at almost every inpatient facility across the country. Regardless of their background or experience, hospital medicine practitioners must interface with legislation, regulation, and other policies every day while providing patient care. Intentional, value-based improvements are more likely to succeed if those providing direct patient care understand health policies, particularly the effects of those policies on transactional, point-of-care decisions.

We are pleased to expand the Choosing Wisely^®: Next Steps in Improving Healthcare Value series to include articles exploring health policy implications at the bedside. These articles will use common clinical scenarios to illuminate health policies most germane to hospital medicine practitioners and present applications of the policies as they relate to value at the level of patient–provider interactions. Each article will present a clinical scenario, explain key policy terms, address implications of specific policies in clinical practice, and propose how those policies can be improved (Appendix). Going forward, Choosing Wisely^®: Next Steps in Improving Healthcare Value manuscript titles will include either “Policy in Clinical Practice” or “Improving Healthcare Value” to better establish a connection to the series and distinguish between the two article types.

The first Choosing Wisely^®: Next Steps in Improving Healthcare Value—Implications of Health Policy on Clinical Decision-Making manuscript appears in this issue of the Journal of Hospital Medicine.⁹ As is the current practice for Choosing Wisely^®: Next Steps in Improving Healthcare Value, authors are requested to send series editors a 500-word precis for review to ensure topic suitability before submission of a full manuscript. The precis, as well as any questions pertaining to the new series, can be directed to [email protected].

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation for supporting this series.

Dermatopathologic evaluation of the tissue sample indicated that the lesion was a neurofibroma, and clinical correlation fine-tuned the diagnosis to segmental neurofibromatosis (NF). The diagnosis of segmental NF is clinical, with biopsy to confirm that the lesions are neurofibromas. Segmental NF is a mosaic form of neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) that results from a postzygotic mutation of the NF1 gene. While NF1 is a relatively common neurocutaneous disorder that occurs with a frequency of 1 in 3000, segmental NF is uncommon, with an estimated prevalence of 1 in 40,000.

NF1 often follows an autosomal dominant inheritance pattern, although up to 50% of patients with NF1 arise de novo from spontaneous mutations. NF1 is characterized by multiple café-au-lait macules, axillary freckling, neurofibromas, and Lisch nodules (pigmented iris hamartomas). Systemic findings associated with NF1 include malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors, optic gliomas, and vasculopathy. While patients with segmental NF may exhibit some of these same findings, the distribution of the neurofibromas is often limited to a single dermatome. Additionally, patients with segmental NF typically do not exhibit extracutaneous lesions, systemic involvement, or a family history of NF. Segmental NF treatment typically focuses on symptomatic management or cosmetic concerns.

This patient did not have any of the systemic complications that occasionally occur with segmental NF, so no medical treatment was required. The patient was advised that cutaneous and subcutaneous neurofibromas do not require removal unless there is pain, bleeding, disfigurement, or signs of malignant transformation. The patient was not interested in removal of the nodules for cosmetic reasons, so he was encouraged to seek follow-up care, as needed. 
 

This case was adapted from: Laurent KJ, Beachkofsky TM, Loyd A, et al. Segmental distribution of nodules on trunk. J Fam Pract. 2017;66: 765-767.

Dermatopathologic evaluation of the tissue sample indicated that the lesion was a neurofibroma, and clinical correlation fine-tuned the diagnosis to segmental neurofibromatosis (NF). The diagnosis of segmental NF is clinical, with biopsy to confirm that the lesions are neurofibromas. Segmental NF is a mosaic form of neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) that results from a postzygotic mutation of the NF1 gene. While NF1 is a relatively common neurocutaneous disorder that occurs with a frequency of 1 in 3000, segmental NF is uncommon, with an estimated prevalence of 1 in 40,000.

NF1 often follows an autosomal dominant inheritance pattern, although up to 50% of patients with NF1 arise de novo from spontaneous mutations. NF1 is characterized by multiple café-au-lait macules, axillary freckling, neurofibromas, and Lisch nodules (pigmented iris hamartomas). Systemic findings associated with NF1 include malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors, optic gliomas, and vasculopathy. While patients with segmental NF may exhibit some of these same findings, the distribution of the neurofibromas is often limited to a single dermatome. Additionally, patients with segmental NF typically do not exhibit extracutaneous lesions, systemic involvement, or a family history of NF. Segmental NF treatment typically focuses on symptomatic management or cosmetic concerns.

This patient did not have any of the systemic complications that occasionally occur with segmental NF, so no medical treatment was required. The patient was advised that cutaneous and subcutaneous neurofibromas do not require removal unless there is pain, bleeding, disfigurement, or signs of malignant transformation. The patient was not interested in removal of the nodules for cosmetic reasons, so he was encouraged to seek follow-up care, as needed. 
 

This case was adapted from: Laurent KJ, Beachkofsky TM, Loyd A, et al. Segmental distribution of nodules on trunk. J Fam Pract. 2017;66: 765-767.

Dermatopathologic evaluation of the tissue sample indicated that the lesion was a neurofibroma, and clinical correlation fine-tuned the diagnosis to segmental neurofibromatosis (NF). The diagnosis of segmental NF is clinical, with biopsy to confirm that the lesions are neurofibromas. Segmental NF is a mosaic form of neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) that results from a postzygotic mutation of the NF1 gene. While NF1 is a relatively common neurocutaneous disorder that occurs with a frequency of 1 in 3000, segmental NF is uncommon, with an estimated prevalence of 1 in 40,000.

NF1 often follows an autosomal dominant inheritance pattern, although up to 50% of patients with NF1 arise de novo from spontaneous mutations. NF1 is characterized by multiple café-au-lait macules, axillary freckling, neurofibromas, and Lisch nodules (pigmented iris hamartomas). Systemic findings associated with NF1 include malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumors, optic gliomas, and vasculopathy. While patients with segmental NF may exhibit some of these same findings, the distribution of the neurofibromas is often limited to a single dermatome. Additionally, patients with segmental NF typically do not exhibit extracutaneous lesions, systemic involvement, or a family history of NF. Segmental NF treatment typically focuses on symptomatic management or cosmetic concerns.

This patient did not have any of the systemic complications that occasionally occur with segmental NF, so no medical treatment was required. The patient was advised that cutaneous and subcutaneous neurofibromas do not require removal unless there is pain, bleeding, disfigurement, or signs of malignant transformation. The patient was not interested in removal of the nodules for cosmetic reasons, so he was encouraged to seek follow-up care, as needed. 
 

This case was adapted from: Laurent KJ, Beachkofsky TM, Loyd A, et al. Segmental distribution of nodules on trunk. J Fam Pract. 2017;66: 765-767.

In this edition of “How I Will Treat My Next Patient,” I highlight two presentations from the recent San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) that will likely change practice for some breast cancer patients – even before the ball drops in Times Square on New Year’s Eve.

Residual cancer burden

Researchers reported a multi-institutional analysis of individual patient-level data on 5,160 patients who had received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for localized breast cancer at 11 different centers. They found that residual cancer burden (RCB) was significantly associated with event-free (EFS) and distant recurrence-free survival. The value of calculating RCB was seen across all breast cancer tumor phenotypes (SABCS 2019, Abstract GS5-01).

RCB is calculated by analyzing the residual disease after NAC for the primary tumor bed, the number of positive axillary nodes, and the size of largest node metastasis. It is graded from RCB-0 (pCR) to RCB-III (extensive residual disease).

Both EFS and distant recurrence-free survival were strongly associated with RCB for the overall population and for each breast cancer subtype. For hormone receptor–positive/HER2-negative disease there was a slight hiccup in that RCB-0 was associated with a 10-year EFS of 81%, but EFS was 86% for RCB-I. Fortunately, the prognostic reliability of RCB was clear for RCB-II (69%) and RCB-III (52%). The presenter, W. Fraser Symmans, MD, commented that RCB is most prognostic when higher levels of residual disease are present. RCB remained prognostic in multivariate models adjusting for age, grade, and clinical T and N stage at diagnosis.

How these results influence practice

After neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with localized breast cancer, we struggle when patients ask: “So, doctor, how am I likely to do?” We piece together a complicated – and inconsistent – answer, based on breast cancer subtype, original stage of disease, whether pCR was attained, and other factors.

For patients with triple-negative breast cancer, we have the option of adding capecitabine and/or participation in ongoing clinical trials, for patients with residual disease after NAC. Among the HER2-positive patients, we have data from the KATHERINE, ExtaNET, and APHINITY trials that provide options for additional treatment in those patients, as well. For patients with potentially hormonally responsive, HER2-negative disease, we can emphasize the importance of postoperative adjuvant endocrine therapy, the mandate for continued adherence to oral therapy, and the lower likelihood of (and prognostic value of) pCR in that breast cancer subtype.

Where we previously had a complicated, nuanced discussion, we now have data from a multi-institutional, meticulous analysis to guide further treatment, candidacy for clinical trials, and our expectations of what would be meaningful results from additional therapy. This meets my definition of “practice-changing” research.
 

APHINITY follow-up

APHINITY was a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that previously demonstrated that pertuzumab added to standard chemotherapy plus 1 year of trastuzumab in operable HER2-positive breast cancer was associated with modest, but statistically significant, improvement in invasive disease–free survival (IDFS), compared with placebo and chemotherapy plus trastuzumab (hazard ratio, 0.81; P = .04). When the initial results – with a median follow-up of 45.4 months – were published, the authors promised an update at 6 years. Martine Piccart, MD, PhD, provided that update at the 2019 SABCS (Abstract GS1-04).

In the updated analysis, overall survival was 94.8% among patients on the pertuzumab arm and 93.9% among patients taking placebo (HR, 0.85). IDFS rates were 90.6% versus 87.8% in the intent-to-treat population. The investigator commented that this difference was caused mainly by a reduction in distant and loco-regional recurrences.

Central nervous system metastases, contralateral invasive breast cancers, and death without a prior event were no different between the two treatment groups.

Improvement in IDFS (the primary endpoint) from pertuzumab was most impressive in the node-positive cohort, 87.9% versus 83.4% for placebo (HR, 0.72). There was no benefit in the node-negative population (95.0% vs. 94.9%; HR, 1.02).

In contrast to the 3-year analysis, the benefits in IDFS were seen regardless of hormone receptor status. Additionally, no new safety concerns emerged. The rate of severe cardiac events was below 1% in both groups.

How these results influence practice

“Patience is a virtue” appeared for the first time in the English language around 1360, in William Langland’s poem “Piers Plowman.” They are true words, indeed.

When the initial results of APHINITY were published in 2017, they led to the approval of pertuzumab as an addition to chemotherapy plus trastuzumab for high-risk, early, HER2-positive breast cancer patients. Still, the difference in IDFS curves was visually unimpressive (absolute difference 1.7% in the intent-to-treat and 3.2% in the node-positive patients) and pertuzumab was associated with more grade 3 toxicities (primarily diarrhea) and treatment discontinuations.

An optimist would have observed that the IDFS curves in 2017 did not start to diverge until 24 months and would have noted that the divergence increased with time. That virtuously patient person would have expected that the second interim analysis would show larger absolute benefits, and that the hormone receptor–positive patients (64% of the total) would not yet have relapsed by the first interim analysis and that pertuzumab’s benefit in that group would emerge late.

That appears to be what is happening. It provides hope that an overall survival benefit will become more evident with time. If the target P value for an overall survival difference (.0012) is met by the time of the third interim analysis, our patience (and the FDA’s decision to grant approval for pertuzumab for this indication) will have been amply rewarded. For selected HER2-posiitve patients with high RCB, especially those who tolerated neoadjuvant trastuzumab plus pertuzumab regimens, postoperative adjuvant pertuzumab may be an appealing option.

Dr. Lyss has been a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years, practicing in St. Louis. His clinical and research interests are in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of breast and lung cancers and in expanding access to clinical trials to medically underserved populations.

In this edition of “How I Will Treat My Next Patient,” I highlight two presentations from the recent San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) that will likely change practice for some breast cancer patients – even before the ball drops in Times Square on New Year’s Eve.

Residual cancer burden

Researchers reported a multi-institutional analysis of individual patient-level data on 5,160 patients who had received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for localized breast cancer at 11 different centers. They found that residual cancer burden (RCB) was significantly associated with event-free (EFS) and distant recurrence-free survival. The value of calculating RCB was seen across all breast cancer tumor phenotypes (SABCS 2019, Abstract GS5-01).

RCB is calculated by analyzing the residual disease after NAC for the primary tumor bed, the number of positive axillary nodes, and the size of largest node metastasis. It is graded from RCB-0 (pCR) to RCB-III (extensive residual disease).

Both EFS and distant recurrence-free survival were strongly associated with RCB for the overall population and for each breast cancer subtype. For hormone receptor–positive/HER2-negative disease there was a slight hiccup in that RCB-0 was associated with a 10-year EFS of 81%, but EFS was 86% for RCB-I. Fortunately, the prognostic reliability of RCB was clear for RCB-II (69%) and RCB-III (52%). The presenter, W. Fraser Symmans, MD, commented that RCB is most prognostic when higher levels of residual disease are present. RCB remained prognostic in multivariate models adjusting for age, grade, and clinical T and N stage at diagnosis.

How these results influence practice

After neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with localized breast cancer, we struggle when patients ask: “So, doctor, how am I likely to do?” We piece together a complicated – and inconsistent – answer, based on breast cancer subtype, original stage of disease, whether pCR was attained, and other factors.

For patients with triple-negative breast cancer, we have the option of adding capecitabine and/or participation in ongoing clinical trials, for patients with residual disease after NAC. Among the HER2-positive patients, we have data from the KATHERINE, ExtaNET, and APHINITY trials that provide options for additional treatment in those patients, as well. For patients with potentially hormonally responsive, HER2-negative disease, we can emphasize the importance of postoperative adjuvant endocrine therapy, the mandate for continued adherence to oral therapy, and the lower likelihood of (and prognostic value of) pCR in that breast cancer subtype.

Where we previously had a complicated, nuanced discussion, we now have data from a multi-institutional, meticulous analysis to guide further treatment, candidacy for clinical trials, and our expectations of what would be meaningful results from additional therapy. This meets my definition of “practice-changing” research.
 

APHINITY follow-up

APHINITY was a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that previously demonstrated that pertuzumab added to standard chemotherapy plus 1 year of trastuzumab in operable HER2-positive breast cancer was associated with modest, but statistically significant, improvement in invasive disease–free survival (IDFS), compared with placebo and chemotherapy plus trastuzumab (hazard ratio, 0.81; P = .04). When the initial results – with a median follow-up of 45.4 months – were published, the authors promised an update at 6 years. Martine Piccart, MD, PhD, provided that update at the 2019 SABCS (Abstract GS1-04).

In the updated analysis, overall survival was 94.8% among patients on the pertuzumab arm and 93.9% among patients taking placebo (HR, 0.85). IDFS rates were 90.6% versus 87.8% in the intent-to-treat population. The investigator commented that this difference was caused mainly by a reduction in distant and loco-regional recurrences.

Central nervous system metastases, contralateral invasive breast cancers, and death without a prior event were no different between the two treatment groups.

Improvement in IDFS (the primary endpoint) from pertuzumab was most impressive in the node-positive cohort, 87.9% versus 83.4% for placebo (HR, 0.72). There was no benefit in the node-negative population (95.0% vs. 94.9%; HR, 1.02).

In contrast to the 3-year analysis, the benefits in IDFS were seen regardless of hormone receptor status. Additionally, no new safety concerns emerged. The rate of severe cardiac events was below 1% in both groups.

How these results influence practice

“Patience is a virtue” appeared for the first time in the English language around 1360, in William Langland’s poem “Piers Plowman.” They are true words, indeed.

When the initial results of APHINITY were published in 2017, they led to the approval of pertuzumab as an addition to chemotherapy plus trastuzumab for high-risk, early, HER2-positive breast cancer patients. Still, the difference in IDFS curves was visually unimpressive (absolute difference 1.7% in the intent-to-treat and 3.2% in the node-positive patients) and pertuzumab was associated with more grade 3 toxicities (primarily diarrhea) and treatment discontinuations.

An optimist would have observed that the IDFS curves in 2017 did not start to diverge until 24 months and would have noted that the divergence increased with time. That virtuously patient person would have expected that the second interim analysis would show larger absolute benefits, and that the hormone receptor–positive patients (64% of the total) would not yet have relapsed by the first interim analysis and that pertuzumab’s benefit in that group would emerge late.

That appears to be what is happening. It provides hope that an overall survival benefit will become more evident with time. If the target P value for an overall survival difference (.0012) is met by the time of the third interim analysis, our patience (and the FDA’s decision to grant approval for pertuzumab for this indication) will have been amply rewarded. For selected HER2-posiitve patients with high RCB, especially those who tolerated neoadjuvant trastuzumab plus pertuzumab regimens, postoperative adjuvant pertuzumab may be an appealing option.

Dr. Lyss has been a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years, practicing in St. Louis. His clinical and research interests are in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of breast and lung cancers and in expanding access to clinical trials to medically underserved populations.

In this edition of “How I Will Treat My Next Patient,” I highlight two presentations from the recent San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium (SABCS) that will likely change practice for some breast cancer patients – even before the ball drops in Times Square on New Year’s Eve.

Residual cancer burden

Researchers reported a multi-institutional analysis of individual patient-level data on 5,160 patients who had received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for localized breast cancer at 11 different centers. They found that residual cancer burden (RCB) was significantly associated with event-free (EFS) and distant recurrence-free survival. The value of calculating RCB was seen across all breast cancer tumor phenotypes (SABCS 2019, Abstract GS5-01).

RCB is calculated by analyzing the residual disease after NAC for the primary tumor bed, the number of positive axillary nodes, and the size of largest node metastasis. It is graded from RCB-0 (pCR) to RCB-III (extensive residual disease).

Both EFS and distant recurrence-free survival were strongly associated with RCB for the overall population and for each breast cancer subtype. For hormone receptor–positive/HER2-negative disease there was a slight hiccup in that RCB-0 was associated with a 10-year EFS of 81%, but EFS was 86% for RCB-I. Fortunately, the prognostic reliability of RCB was clear for RCB-II (69%) and RCB-III (52%). The presenter, W. Fraser Symmans, MD, commented that RCB is most prognostic when higher levels of residual disease are present. RCB remained prognostic in multivariate models adjusting for age, grade, and clinical T and N stage at diagnosis.

How these results influence practice

After neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with localized breast cancer, we struggle when patients ask: “So, doctor, how am I likely to do?” We piece together a complicated – and inconsistent – answer, based on breast cancer subtype, original stage of disease, whether pCR was attained, and other factors.

For patients with triple-negative breast cancer, we have the option of adding capecitabine and/or participation in ongoing clinical trials, for patients with residual disease after NAC. Among the HER2-positive patients, we have data from the KATHERINE, ExtaNET, and APHINITY trials that provide options for additional treatment in those patients, as well. For patients with potentially hormonally responsive, HER2-negative disease, we can emphasize the importance of postoperative adjuvant endocrine therapy, the mandate for continued adherence to oral therapy, and the lower likelihood of (and prognostic value of) pCR in that breast cancer subtype.

Where we previously had a complicated, nuanced discussion, we now have data from a multi-institutional, meticulous analysis to guide further treatment, candidacy for clinical trials, and our expectations of what would be meaningful results from additional therapy. This meets my definition of “practice-changing” research.
 

APHINITY follow-up

APHINITY was a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that previously demonstrated that pertuzumab added to standard chemotherapy plus 1 year of trastuzumab in operable HER2-positive breast cancer was associated with modest, but statistically significant, improvement in invasive disease–free survival (IDFS), compared with placebo and chemotherapy plus trastuzumab (hazard ratio, 0.81; P = .04). When the initial results – with a median follow-up of 45.4 months – were published, the authors promised an update at 6 years. Martine Piccart, MD, PhD, provided that update at the 2019 SABCS (Abstract GS1-04).

In the updated analysis, overall survival was 94.8% among patients on the pertuzumab arm and 93.9% among patients taking placebo (HR, 0.85). IDFS rates were 90.6% versus 87.8% in the intent-to-treat population. The investigator commented that this difference was caused mainly by a reduction in distant and loco-regional recurrences.

Central nervous system metastases, contralateral invasive breast cancers, and death without a prior event were no different between the two treatment groups.

Improvement in IDFS (the primary endpoint) from pertuzumab was most impressive in the node-positive cohort, 87.9% versus 83.4% for placebo (HR, 0.72). There was no benefit in the node-negative population (95.0% vs. 94.9%; HR, 1.02).

In contrast to the 3-year analysis, the benefits in IDFS were seen regardless of hormone receptor status. Additionally, no new safety concerns emerged. The rate of severe cardiac events was below 1% in both groups.

How these results influence practice

“Patience is a virtue” appeared for the first time in the English language around 1360, in William Langland’s poem “Piers Plowman.” They are true words, indeed.

When the initial results of APHINITY were published in 2017, they led to the approval of pertuzumab as an addition to chemotherapy plus trastuzumab for high-risk, early, HER2-positive breast cancer patients. Still, the difference in IDFS curves was visually unimpressive (absolute difference 1.7% in the intent-to-treat and 3.2% in the node-positive patients) and pertuzumab was associated with more grade 3 toxicities (primarily diarrhea) and treatment discontinuations.

An optimist would have observed that the IDFS curves in 2017 did not start to diverge until 24 months and would have noted that the divergence increased with time. That virtuously patient person would have expected that the second interim analysis would show larger absolute benefits, and that the hormone receptor–positive patients (64% of the total) would not yet have relapsed by the first interim analysis and that pertuzumab’s benefit in that group would emerge late.

That appears to be what is happening. It provides hope that an overall survival benefit will become more evident with time. If the target P value for an overall survival difference (.0012) is met by the time of the third interim analysis, our patience (and the FDA’s decision to grant approval for pertuzumab for this indication) will have been amply rewarded. For selected HER2-posiitve patients with high RCB, especially those who tolerated neoadjuvant trastuzumab plus pertuzumab regimens, postoperative adjuvant pertuzumab may be an appealing option.

Dr. Lyss has been a community-based medical oncologist and clinical researcher for more than 35 years, practicing in St. Louis. His clinical and research interests are in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of breast and lung cancers and in expanding access to clinical trials to medically underserved populations.

MADRID – Adults with atopic dermatitis (AD) face significantly increased risks of osteoporosis and major osteoporotic fractures – even if they’ve never taken systemic corticosteroids, according to a large observational Danish national registry study.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

A key study finding was that these elevated risks were concentrated in the patients who used potent or superpotent topical corticosteroids. Adult AD patients who used mild- or moderate-potency topical steroids were not at significantly increased risk. Neither were patients on topical calcineurin inhibitors, Jacob P. Thyssen, MD, PhD, reported at a meeting of the European Task Force on Atopic Dermatitis held in conjunction with the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“The absolute risk is low, but it’s real,” commented Dr. Thyssen, professor of dermatology at the University of Copenhagen.

His advice to colleagues: “Dermatologists should consider alternative treatments in the chronic excessive users of topical corticosteroids, or use them in combination with prophylactic treatment to preserve bone homeostasis in such patients.”

He presented the results of a retrospective case-control study of 10,636 Danish adults with AD and 87,989 matched controls. At baseline in this study, which featured a maximum of 20 years of follow-up starting in 1997, participants had no history of osteoporosis.

Dr. Thyssen expressed the absolute risk of being diagnosed with osteoporosis in the study as follows: If 10,000 adult AD patients were followed for 1 year, on average 23.5 of them would be diagnosed with osteoporosis, a rate more than double the 10.3 per 10,000 in the general population. Moreover, on average, 42.6 out of 10,000 adult AD patients would incur a major osteoporotic fracture during a year of follow-up, compared with 32.3 individuals in the general population.

In the subgroup of patients who never used systemic corticosteroids, the risk of being diagnosed with osteoporosis was 12.8 per 10,000 per year, significantly higher than the 7.4 per 10,000 rate in the general population. Similarly, the 1-year rate of major osteoporotic fractures was 33.1 per 10,000 among the AD group and 29.6 in matched controls.

In a Cox regression analysis adjusted for age, sex, socioeconomic status, body mass index, asthma, and the use of a variety of medications thought to potentially have a negative effect upon bone metabolism, the risk of osteoporosis in the entire group of 10,636 adult AD patients was 51% greater than in matched controls, and their risk of major osteoporotic fractures was 18% greater. In the subgroup of AD patients who never used systemic steroids, the risks of osteoporosis and major osteoporotic fractures were 82% and 14% greater than in controls. The medications adjusted for in the regression analysis included proton pump inhibitors, thiazide diuretics, H₂ receptor blockers, statins, cyclosporine, hormone therapy, contraceptives, and psychotropic medications.

Scoring Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) ratings were available on roughly 4,000 of the adult AD patients. In an analysis of this large subgroup, disease severity as reflected in SCORAD scores did not explain the increased osteoporosis and fracture risks. However, the use of potent or superpotent topical corticosteroids did. Patients who used potent topical steroids had a statistically significant 16% increased risk of being diagnosed with osteoporosis than nonusers, as well as a 7% increased risk of major osteoporotic fractures. Patients who applied superpotent topical steroids had 42% and 18% increased risks of those two adverse outcomes.

In contrast, neither the use of topical calcineurin inhibitors nor mild- or mid-potency topical steroids was associated with increased risk of bone events in a Cox regression analysis adjusted for potential confounders.

A relationship between the use of high-potency topical corticosteroids and adverse bone events is biologically plausible, according to Dr. Thyssen. He and his coinvestigators have previously documented a 100%-400% increased rate of chemical penetration through atopic skin, which is notoriously barrier damaged.

“We find it very likely that, if you put topical steroids on atopic skin in high amounts and for a very long time, you may have systemic effects,” he said.

A great many adult AD patients do exactly that. When Dr. Thyssen and coworkers analyzed Danish national prescription drug registry data for their patient cohort, they found that roughly one-third of the elderly subgroup had filled prescriptions totaling greater than 2 kg of mometasone or other similar-potency steroids over the previous 10 years.

“So we know that a significant proportion of our atopic dermatitis patients are really high users of topical corticosteroids,” the dermatologist noted.

Dr. Thyssen’s national osteoporosis and fracture study was funded with a government research grant. He reported serving as an advisor to and/or recipient of research grants from AbbVie, Pfizer, Leo Pharma, Eli Lilly, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, and Union Therapeutics.

[email protected]

MADRID – Adults with atopic dermatitis (AD) face significantly increased risks of osteoporosis and major osteoporotic fractures – even if they’ve never taken systemic corticosteroids, according to a large observational Danish national registry study.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

A key study finding was that these elevated risks were concentrated in the patients who used potent or superpotent topical corticosteroids. Adult AD patients who used mild- or moderate-potency topical steroids were not at significantly increased risk. Neither were patients on topical calcineurin inhibitors, Jacob P. Thyssen, MD, PhD, reported at a meeting of the European Task Force on Atopic Dermatitis held in conjunction with the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“The absolute risk is low, but it’s real,” commented Dr. Thyssen, professor of dermatology at the University of Copenhagen.

His advice to colleagues: “Dermatologists should consider alternative treatments in the chronic excessive users of topical corticosteroids, or use them in combination with prophylactic treatment to preserve bone homeostasis in such patients.”

He presented the results of a retrospective case-control study of 10,636 Danish adults with AD and 87,989 matched controls. At baseline in this study, which featured a maximum of 20 years of follow-up starting in 1997, participants had no history of osteoporosis.

Dr. Thyssen expressed the absolute risk of being diagnosed with osteoporosis in the study as follows: If 10,000 adult AD patients were followed for 1 year, on average 23.5 of them would be diagnosed with osteoporosis, a rate more than double the 10.3 per 10,000 in the general population. Moreover, on average, 42.6 out of 10,000 adult AD patients would incur a major osteoporotic fracture during a year of follow-up, compared with 32.3 individuals in the general population.

In the subgroup of patients who never used systemic corticosteroids, the risk of being diagnosed with osteoporosis was 12.8 per 10,000 per year, significantly higher than the 7.4 per 10,000 rate in the general population. Similarly, the 1-year rate of major osteoporotic fractures was 33.1 per 10,000 among the AD group and 29.6 in matched controls.

In a Cox regression analysis adjusted for age, sex, socioeconomic status, body mass index, asthma, and the use of a variety of medications thought to potentially have a negative effect upon bone metabolism, the risk of osteoporosis in the entire group of 10,636 adult AD patients was 51% greater than in matched controls, and their risk of major osteoporotic fractures was 18% greater. In the subgroup of AD patients who never used systemic steroids, the risks of osteoporosis and major osteoporotic fractures were 82% and 14% greater than in controls. The medications adjusted for in the regression analysis included proton pump inhibitors, thiazide diuretics, H₂ receptor blockers, statins, cyclosporine, hormone therapy, contraceptives, and psychotropic medications.

Scoring Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) ratings were available on roughly 4,000 of the adult AD patients. In an analysis of this large subgroup, disease severity as reflected in SCORAD scores did not explain the increased osteoporosis and fracture risks. However, the use of potent or superpotent topical corticosteroids did. Patients who used potent topical steroids had a statistically significant 16% increased risk of being diagnosed with osteoporosis than nonusers, as well as a 7% increased risk of major osteoporotic fractures. Patients who applied superpotent topical steroids had 42% and 18% increased risks of those two adverse outcomes.

In contrast, neither the use of topical calcineurin inhibitors nor mild- or mid-potency topical steroids was associated with increased risk of bone events in a Cox regression analysis adjusted for potential confounders.

A relationship between the use of high-potency topical corticosteroids and adverse bone events is biologically plausible, according to Dr. Thyssen. He and his coinvestigators have previously documented a 100%-400% increased rate of chemical penetration through atopic skin, which is notoriously barrier damaged.

“We find it very likely that, if you put topical steroids on atopic skin in high amounts and for a very long time, you may have systemic effects,” he said.

A great many adult AD patients do exactly that. When Dr. Thyssen and coworkers analyzed Danish national prescription drug registry data for their patient cohort, they found that roughly one-third of the elderly subgroup had filled prescriptions totaling greater than 2 kg of mometasone or other similar-potency steroids over the previous 10 years.

“So we know that a significant proportion of our atopic dermatitis patients are really high users of topical corticosteroids,” the dermatologist noted.

Dr. Thyssen’s national osteoporosis and fracture study was funded with a government research grant. He reported serving as an advisor to and/or recipient of research grants from AbbVie, Pfizer, Leo Pharma, Eli Lilly, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, and Union Therapeutics.

[email protected]

MADRID – Adults with atopic dermatitis (AD) face significantly increased risks of osteoporosis and major osteoporotic fractures – even if they’ve never taken systemic corticosteroids, according to a large observational Danish national registry study.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

A key study finding was that these elevated risks were concentrated in the patients who used potent or superpotent topical corticosteroids. Adult AD patients who used mild- or moderate-potency topical steroids were not at significantly increased risk. Neither were patients on topical calcineurin inhibitors, Jacob P. Thyssen, MD, PhD, reported at a meeting of the European Task Force on Atopic Dermatitis held in conjunction with the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“The absolute risk is low, but it’s real,” commented Dr. Thyssen, professor of dermatology at the University of Copenhagen.

His advice to colleagues: “Dermatologists should consider alternative treatments in the chronic excessive users of topical corticosteroids, or use them in combination with prophylactic treatment to preserve bone homeostasis in such patients.”

He presented the results of a retrospective case-control study of 10,636 Danish adults with AD and 87,989 matched controls. At baseline in this study, which featured a maximum of 20 years of follow-up starting in 1997, participants had no history of osteoporosis.

Dr. Thyssen expressed the absolute risk of being diagnosed with osteoporosis in the study as follows: If 10,000 adult AD patients were followed for 1 year, on average 23.5 of them would be diagnosed with osteoporosis, a rate more than double the 10.3 per 10,000 in the general population. Moreover, on average, 42.6 out of 10,000 adult AD patients would incur a major osteoporotic fracture during a year of follow-up, compared with 32.3 individuals in the general population.

In the subgroup of patients who never used systemic corticosteroids, the risk of being diagnosed with osteoporosis was 12.8 per 10,000 per year, significantly higher than the 7.4 per 10,000 rate in the general population. Similarly, the 1-year rate of major osteoporotic fractures was 33.1 per 10,000 among the AD group and 29.6 in matched controls.

In a Cox regression analysis adjusted for age, sex, socioeconomic status, body mass index, asthma, and the use of a variety of medications thought to potentially have a negative effect upon bone metabolism, the risk of osteoporosis in the entire group of 10,636 adult AD patients was 51% greater than in matched controls, and their risk of major osteoporotic fractures was 18% greater. In the subgroup of AD patients who never used systemic steroids, the risks of osteoporosis and major osteoporotic fractures were 82% and 14% greater than in controls. The medications adjusted for in the regression analysis included proton pump inhibitors, thiazide diuretics, H₂ receptor blockers, statins, cyclosporine, hormone therapy, contraceptives, and psychotropic medications.

Scoring Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) ratings were available on roughly 4,000 of the adult AD patients. In an analysis of this large subgroup, disease severity as reflected in SCORAD scores did not explain the increased osteoporosis and fracture risks. However, the use of potent or superpotent topical corticosteroids did. Patients who used potent topical steroids had a statistically significant 16% increased risk of being diagnosed with osteoporosis than nonusers, as well as a 7% increased risk of major osteoporotic fractures. Patients who applied superpotent topical steroids had 42% and 18% increased risks of those two adverse outcomes.

In contrast, neither the use of topical calcineurin inhibitors nor mild- or mid-potency topical steroids was associated with increased risk of bone events in a Cox regression analysis adjusted for potential confounders.

A relationship between the use of high-potency topical corticosteroids and adverse bone events is biologically plausible, according to Dr. Thyssen. He and his coinvestigators have previously documented a 100%-400% increased rate of chemical penetration through atopic skin, which is notoriously barrier damaged.

“We find it very likely that, if you put topical steroids on atopic skin in high amounts and for a very long time, you may have systemic effects,” he said.

A great many adult AD patients do exactly that. When Dr. Thyssen and coworkers analyzed Danish national prescription drug registry data for their patient cohort, they found that roughly one-third of the elderly subgroup had filled prescriptions totaling greater than 2 kg of mometasone or other similar-potency steroids over the previous 10 years.

“So we know that a significant proportion of our atopic dermatitis patients are really high users of topical corticosteroids,” the dermatologist noted.

Dr. Thyssen’s national osteoporosis and fracture study was funded with a government research grant. He reported serving as an advisor to and/or recipient of research grants from AbbVie, Pfizer, Leo Pharma, Eli Lilly, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, and Union Therapeutics.

[email protected]