A cardiologist friend of mine told me a story about one of his patients. The man had recently been in to see him for an office visit. He had quite a scare needing two stents after an episode of prolonged chest pain and, during the office visit, apparently had said that he had “found religion” and was going to change his ways. He showed off the Fitbit that he had gotten and shared his excitement about using a new app to track his diet on his smart phone. His blood pressure was a little elevated, so my friend added a third antihypertensive in an effort to get his blood pressure under control. He referred the patient back to his primary care physician to address his elevated hemoglobin A_1c.

My friend saw the patient again a couple of weeks later – this time at the mall. As he was driving through the parking lot, he noticed his patient sitting on a bench outside the entrance. He also noticed a cigarette in his patient’s right hand and saw the Fitbit still on his wrist. Now, it’s not that there is anything wrong with wearing a Fitbit, but …

My friend is an incredibly respectful person, and very nice. He decided not to say hello and risk embarrassing his patient, so he walked to a different door far from the bench and went inside. Nonetheless, the image bothered him. It bothered him enough to repeat the story to me 2 weeks later. It bothers me too.

The other day I was talking to a healthy young nurse with whom I work. She has been trying to get into shape, and her goal is to get to the gym 5 days a week after work. She read on a popular website that she should use a heart rate monitor to keep track of her training and that, if her heart rate is too slow, she should run faster and, if her heart rate is too fast, she should slow down. She was discouraged the other day, however, because her watch indicated that her pulse was going up to 170 while she was running hard, and she had heard that could be dangerous for her heart.

When she doesn’t push hard, though, she told me that her heart rate often plateaus at about 110, sometimes 115. She has been finding it difficult to achieve her calculated target heart rate of 120-160 beats per minute. She is frustrated and was going to skip her workout that evening. I explained to her that she should stop checking her pulse and just run – if she felt she was running too slow she could run faster.

Technology holds great promise to help us improve our health, but an over-reliance on technology can get in our way. With everything that we have learned about science and technology, the reality is that we are still people, with all our weaknesses and strengths. We often set goals with ambivalence, then rush forward hoping that a technological solution will move us in the direction we think we want to move. Unfortunately, owning a Fitbit will not make us more fit, and checking our pulse every five minutes while working out will not lead to a better exercise session. With the availability of so much technology for tracking our daily exercise, vital signs, and various other measures of health, we need to be more careful than ever to determine specifically what it is that we are trying to accomplish with the use of our technology.

When it comes to good health, it is the fundamentals that matter, and achieving the fundamentals requires being mindful and making repeated efforts to master them. For almost all adults, the most important habits to develop are still related to diet and exercise. Consuming the right diet and exercising adequately requires that the correct choices be made each and every day, all day long. Technology can help but will not do it for us. We need to be thoughtful about how we use technology and explicit about how we expect it to help. After a reasonable amount of time, we should evaluate to see if it is working for us. If it is, then we should continue to use it. If it is not, then we should stop using it or make a different change, like performing a new type of exercise.

Our goal should be to have intelligent empathic integration of technological and behavioral techniques to achieve an optimal health outcome. Putting running shoes by the bed at night is a great thing to do to encourage us to run in the morning. Choosing motivational music can help us get the energy and enthusiasm to go for that run (our favorites include the Rocky theme song and “I Didn’t Come this Far to Only Come this Far”). A visual reminder over the refrigerator can “nudge” us to make good choices as we open the door.

For those who want to learn more about how to integrate behavioral management into their advice for patients we highly recommend reading “Switch: How to Change Things When Change Is Hard” by Chip Heath and “Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness” by Richard Thaler. We have always been, and remain, excited about the promise of technology to help us accomplish our goals. That said, we told the nurse to stop checking her pulse, to put on some music, and to appreciate the leaves on the trees this autumn while she was running. As for the gentleman outside the mall, well …

We are interested in your thoughts. Please email us at [email protected].

Dr. Notte is a family physician and associate chief medical information officer for Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Follow him on Twitter @doctornotte. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, and an associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health.

A cardiologist friend of mine told me a story about one of his patients. The man had recently been in to see him for an office visit. He had quite a scare needing two stents after an episode of prolonged chest pain and, during the office visit, apparently had said that he had “found religion” and was going to change his ways. He showed off the Fitbit that he had gotten and shared his excitement about using a new app to track his diet on his smart phone. His blood pressure was a little elevated, so my friend added a third antihypertensive in an effort to get his blood pressure under control. He referred the patient back to his primary care physician to address his elevated hemoglobin A_1c.

My friend saw the patient again a couple of weeks later – this time at the mall. As he was driving through the parking lot, he noticed his patient sitting on a bench outside the entrance. He also noticed a cigarette in his patient’s right hand and saw the Fitbit still on his wrist. Now, it’s not that there is anything wrong with wearing a Fitbit, but …

My friend is an incredibly respectful person, and very nice. He decided not to say hello and risk embarrassing his patient, so he walked to a different door far from the bench and went inside. Nonetheless, the image bothered him. It bothered him enough to repeat the story to me 2 weeks later. It bothers me too.

The other day I was talking to a healthy young nurse with whom I work. She has been trying to get into shape, and her goal is to get to the gym 5 days a week after work. She read on a popular website that she should use a heart rate monitor to keep track of her training and that, if her heart rate is too slow, she should run faster and, if her heart rate is too fast, she should slow down. She was discouraged the other day, however, because her watch indicated that her pulse was going up to 170 while she was running hard, and she had heard that could be dangerous for her heart.

When she doesn’t push hard, though, she told me that her heart rate often plateaus at about 110, sometimes 115. She has been finding it difficult to achieve her calculated target heart rate of 120-160 beats per minute. She is frustrated and was going to skip her workout that evening. I explained to her that she should stop checking her pulse and just run – if she felt she was running too slow she could run faster.

Technology holds great promise to help us improve our health, but an over-reliance on technology can get in our way. With everything that we have learned about science and technology, the reality is that we are still people, with all our weaknesses and strengths. We often set goals with ambivalence, then rush forward hoping that a technological solution will move us in the direction we think we want to move. Unfortunately, owning a Fitbit will not make us more fit, and checking our pulse every five minutes while working out will not lead to a better exercise session. With the availability of so much technology for tracking our daily exercise, vital signs, and various other measures of health, we need to be more careful than ever to determine specifically what it is that we are trying to accomplish with the use of our technology.

When it comes to good health, it is the fundamentals that matter, and achieving the fundamentals requires being mindful and making repeated efforts to master them. For almost all adults, the most important habits to develop are still related to diet and exercise. Consuming the right diet and exercising adequately requires that the correct choices be made each and every day, all day long. Technology can help but will not do it for us. We need to be thoughtful about how we use technology and explicit about how we expect it to help. After a reasonable amount of time, we should evaluate to see if it is working for us. If it is, then we should continue to use it. If it is not, then we should stop using it or make a different change, like performing a new type of exercise.

Our goal should be to have intelligent empathic integration of technological and behavioral techniques to achieve an optimal health outcome. Putting running shoes by the bed at night is a great thing to do to encourage us to run in the morning. Choosing motivational music can help us get the energy and enthusiasm to go for that run (our favorites include the Rocky theme song and “I Didn’t Come this Far to Only Come this Far”). A visual reminder over the refrigerator can “nudge” us to make good choices as we open the door.

For those who want to learn more about how to integrate behavioral management into their advice for patients we highly recommend reading “Switch: How to Change Things When Change Is Hard” by Chip Heath and “Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness” by Richard Thaler. We have always been, and remain, excited about the promise of technology to help us accomplish our goals. That said, we told the nurse to stop checking her pulse, to put on some music, and to appreciate the leaves on the trees this autumn while she was running. As for the gentleman outside the mall, well …

We are interested in your thoughts. Please email us at [email protected].

Dr. Notte is a family physician and associate chief medical information officer for Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Follow him on Twitter @doctornotte. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, and an associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health.

A cardiologist friend of mine told me a story about one of his patients. The man had recently been in to see him for an office visit. He had quite a scare needing two stents after an episode of prolonged chest pain and, during the office visit, apparently had said that he had “found religion” and was going to change his ways. He showed off the Fitbit that he had gotten and shared his excitement about using a new app to track his diet on his smart phone. His blood pressure was a little elevated, so my friend added a third antihypertensive in an effort to get his blood pressure under control. He referred the patient back to his primary care physician to address his elevated hemoglobin A_1c.

My friend saw the patient again a couple of weeks later – this time at the mall. As he was driving through the parking lot, he noticed his patient sitting on a bench outside the entrance. He also noticed a cigarette in his patient’s right hand and saw the Fitbit still on his wrist. Now, it’s not that there is anything wrong with wearing a Fitbit, but …

My friend is an incredibly respectful person, and very nice. He decided not to say hello and risk embarrassing his patient, so he walked to a different door far from the bench and went inside. Nonetheless, the image bothered him. It bothered him enough to repeat the story to me 2 weeks later. It bothers me too.

The other day I was talking to a healthy young nurse with whom I work. She has been trying to get into shape, and her goal is to get to the gym 5 days a week after work. She read on a popular website that she should use a heart rate monitor to keep track of her training and that, if her heart rate is too slow, she should run faster and, if her heart rate is too fast, she should slow down. She was discouraged the other day, however, because her watch indicated that her pulse was going up to 170 while she was running hard, and she had heard that could be dangerous for her heart.

When she doesn’t push hard, though, she told me that her heart rate often plateaus at about 110, sometimes 115. She has been finding it difficult to achieve her calculated target heart rate of 120-160 beats per minute. She is frustrated and was going to skip her workout that evening. I explained to her that she should stop checking her pulse and just run – if she felt she was running too slow she could run faster.

Technology holds great promise to help us improve our health, but an over-reliance on technology can get in our way. With everything that we have learned about science and technology, the reality is that we are still people, with all our weaknesses and strengths. We often set goals with ambivalence, then rush forward hoping that a technological solution will move us in the direction we think we want to move. Unfortunately, owning a Fitbit will not make us more fit, and checking our pulse every five minutes while working out will not lead to a better exercise session. With the availability of so much technology for tracking our daily exercise, vital signs, and various other measures of health, we need to be more careful than ever to determine specifically what it is that we are trying to accomplish with the use of our technology.

When it comes to good health, it is the fundamentals that matter, and achieving the fundamentals requires being mindful and making repeated efforts to master them. For almost all adults, the most important habits to develop are still related to diet and exercise. Consuming the right diet and exercising adequately requires that the correct choices be made each and every day, all day long. Technology can help but will not do it for us. We need to be thoughtful about how we use technology and explicit about how we expect it to help. After a reasonable amount of time, we should evaluate to see if it is working for us. If it is, then we should continue to use it. If it is not, then we should stop using it or make a different change, like performing a new type of exercise.

Our goal should be to have intelligent empathic integration of technological and behavioral techniques to achieve an optimal health outcome. Putting running shoes by the bed at night is a great thing to do to encourage us to run in the morning. Choosing motivational music can help us get the energy and enthusiasm to go for that run (our favorites include the Rocky theme song and “I Didn’t Come this Far to Only Come this Far”). A visual reminder over the refrigerator can “nudge” us to make good choices as we open the door.

For those who want to learn more about how to integrate behavioral management into their advice for patients we highly recommend reading “Switch: How to Change Things When Change Is Hard” by Chip Heath and “Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness” by Richard Thaler. We have always been, and remain, excited about the promise of technology to help us accomplish our goals. That said, we told the nurse to stop checking her pulse, to put on some music, and to appreciate the leaves on the trees this autumn while she was running. As for the gentleman outside the mall, well …

We are interested in your thoughts. Please email us at [email protected].

Dr. Notte is a family physician and associate chief medical information officer for Abington (Pa.) Jefferson Health. Follow him on Twitter @doctornotte. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, and an associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Jefferson Health.

ORLANDO – Transwomen are more likely to have a lower bone mineral density (BMD) before beginning hormone therapy, compared with male reference populations, but there are no short- or long-term risks to bone health over the life of a transperson who receives hormone therapy, according to a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

“Hormonal treatment of transgender people is safe with respect to bone,” said Martin den Heijer, MD, PhD, of the VU University Medical Center in Amsterdam.

At baseline, transwomen have lower bone mass than do male reference populations, said Dr. den Heijer, citing a study that found 25 transwomen had less muscle mass (P less than or equal to .001), strength (P less than or equal to .05), and lower BMD at the hip, femoral neck, and spine (P less than .001), compared with 25 cisgender men in a control group and 941 men in a male reference population (Bone. 2013;54[1]:92-7). In a 2019 study from his own group, Dr. den Heijer said the z score in the lumbar spine for 711 transwomen was -0.9 and the incidence of osteoporosis was 14.2%, compared with a z score of 0.0 and 2.4% incidence of osteoporosis in 543 transmen (J Bone Min Res. 2019;34[3]:447-54).

In the prospective European Network for the Investigation of Gender Incongruence (ENIGI) study, researchers examined short-term effects of hormone therapy on BMD in 144 transwomen and 162 transmen who had a normal body mass index and were mostly white. The percentage of patients who reported they were current smokers was between 25% and 30%, and fewer than 10% said they consumed more than seven units of alcohol per week. Transwomen received estradiol (an oral estradiol valerate at a dose of 4 mg/day or an estradiol patch) together with 100 mg/day of cyproterone acetate, and transmen received testosterone in the form of a gel (50 mg/day), intramuscular esters (250 mg every 2-3 weeks), or intramuscular undecanoate at a dose of 1,000 mg every 12 weeks (J Sex Med. 2016;13[6]:994-9).

After 1 year of treatment, there were significant increases in BMD in transwomen in the lumbar spine (3.67%; 95% confidence interval, 3.20%-4.13%), femoral neck (1.86%; 95% CI, 1.41%-2.31%), and total hip (0.97%; 95% CI, 0.62%-1.31%). Transmen also had increased BMD in the lumbar spine (0.86%; 95% CI, 0.38%-1.35%) and total hip (1.04%; 95% CI, 0.64%-1.44%), with a slight decrease in femoral neck BMD (–0.46%; 95% CI, –1.07% to 0.16%).

Dr. den Heijer also discussed the long-term effects of hormone therapy on BMD in the Amsterdam Cohort of Dysphoria (ACOG) study, which consisted of 711 transwomen and 543 transmen and followed some patients out to 2 years, 5 years, and 10 years after beginning hormone therapy (J Sex Med. 2018;15[4]:582-90). Among transwomen, the median age was 33 years, 68.9% had begun hormone therapy, and 75.3% received a gonadectomy; among transmen, the median age was 25 years, 72.9% had begun hormone therapy, and 83.8% received a gonadectomy. Of these patients, dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry data were available for the lumbar spine BMD for 234 transwomen and 236 transmen at 2 years, 174 transwomen and 95 transmen at 5 years, and 102 transwomen and 70 transmen at 10 years.

Although there was no significant mean change in absolute BMD over the 10-year period, the concentration of estradiol in transwomen and transmen affected change in BMD the longer the transperson was receiving hormone therapy: Transwomen who received an estradiol concentration of 118 pmol/L had a decrease of –0.026% at 2 years, –0.044% at 5 years, and –0.009% at 10 years, compared with a dose of 443 pmol/L (+0.044% at 2 years, +0.025% at 5 years, +0.063% at 10 years), whereas transmen also had decreased BMD at the lowest estradiol concentrations of 95 pmol/L (–0.007% at 2 years, –0.024% at 5 years, +0.010% at 10 years), compared with transmen receiving the highest doses of 323 pmol/L (+0.028% at 2 years, +0.002% at 5 years, +0.053% at 10 years). There was no significant change in BMD in either group at any time point with regard to testosterone concentration.

When the investigators linked these patients to a national statistics database in the Netherlands to evaluate fracture incidence (J Bone Miner Res. 2019 Sep 5. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.3862), pairing five cisgender female controls and five cisgender male controls to every transgender patient, the researchers found transwomen had a higher incidence of osteoporotic fracture of the hip, spine, forearm, and humerus (41.8%), compared with cisgender men (26.6%; P = .014) and cisgender women (36.0%; P = .381). There was not enough information in the study to examine fracture information for transmen, Dr. den Heijer said. Transwomen and transmen who experienced a fracture were more likely to be a current smoker and have lower estradiol concentrations than were transwomen and transmen, respectively, who did not have a fracture.

“Attention for lifestyle factors remains important, especially smoking cessation, vitamin D intake, and regular exercise,” Dr. den Heijer said. “It remains important for everybody, but especially for transgender women.”

Dr. den Heijer reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

ORLANDO – Transwomen are more likely to have a lower bone mineral density (BMD) before beginning hormone therapy, compared with male reference populations, but there are no short- or long-term risks to bone health over the life of a transperson who receives hormone therapy, according to a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

“Hormonal treatment of transgender people is safe with respect to bone,” said Martin den Heijer, MD, PhD, of the VU University Medical Center in Amsterdam.

At baseline, transwomen have lower bone mass than do male reference populations, said Dr. den Heijer, citing a study that found 25 transwomen had less muscle mass (P less than or equal to .001), strength (P less than or equal to .05), and lower BMD at the hip, femoral neck, and spine (P less than .001), compared with 25 cisgender men in a control group and 941 men in a male reference population (Bone. 2013;54[1]:92-7). In a 2019 study from his own group, Dr. den Heijer said the z score in the lumbar spine for 711 transwomen was -0.9 and the incidence of osteoporosis was 14.2%, compared with a z score of 0.0 and 2.4% incidence of osteoporosis in 543 transmen (J Bone Min Res. 2019;34[3]:447-54).

In the prospective European Network for the Investigation of Gender Incongruence (ENIGI) study, researchers examined short-term effects of hormone therapy on BMD in 144 transwomen and 162 transmen who had a normal body mass index and were mostly white. The percentage of patients who reported they were current smokers was between 25% and 30%, and fewer than 10% said they consumed more than seven units of alcohol per week. Transwomen received estradiol (an oral estradiol valerate at a dose of 4 mg/day or an estradiol patch) together with 100 mg/day of cyproterone acetate, and transmen received testosterone in the form of a gel (50 mg/day), intramuscular esters (250 mg every 2-3 weeks), or intramuscular undecanoate at a dose of 1,000 mg every 12 weeks (J Sex Med. 2016;13[6]:994-9).

After 1 year of treatment, there were significant increases in BMD in transwomen in the lumbar spine (3.67%; 95% confidence interval, 3.20%-4.13%), femoral neck (1.86%; 95% CI, 1.41%-2.31%), and total hip (0.97%; 95% CI, 0.62%-1.31%). Transmen also had increased BMD in the lumbar spine (0.86%; 95% CI, 0.38%-1.35%) and total hip (1.04%; 95% CI, 0.64%-1.44%), with a slight decrease in femoral neck BMD (–0.46%; 95% CI, –1.07% to 0.16%).

Dr. den Heijer also discussed the long-term effects of hormone therapy on BMD in the Amsterdam Cohort of Dysphoria (ACOG) study, which consisted of 711 transwomen and 543 transmen and followed some patients out to 2 years, 5 years, and 10 years after beginning hormone therapy (J Sex Med. 2018;15[4]:582-90). Among transwomen, the median age was 33 years, 68.9% had begun hormone therapy, and 75.3% received a gonadectomy; among transmen, the median age was 25 years, 72.9% had begun hormone therapy, and 83.8% received a gonadectomy. Of these patients, dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry data were available for the lumbar spine BMD for 234 transwomen and 236 transmen at 2 years, 174 transwomen and 95 transmen at 5 years, and 102 transwomen and 70 transmen at 10 years.

Although there was no significant mean change in absolute BMD over the 10-year period, the concentration of estradiol in transwomen and transmen affected change in BMD the longer the transperson was receiving hormone therapy: Transwomen who received an estradiol concentration of 118 pmol/L had a decrease of –0.026% at 2 years, –0.044% at 5 years, and –0.009% at 10 years, compared with a dose of 443 pmol/L (+0.044% at 2 years, +0.025% at 5 years, +0.063% at 10 years), whereas transmen also had decreased BMD at the lowest estradiol concentrations of 95 pmol/L (–0.007% at 2 years, –0.024% at 5 years, +0.010% at 10 years), compared with transmen receiving the highest doses of 323 pmol/L (+0.028% at 2 years, +0.002% at 5 years, +0.053% at 10 years). There was no significant change in BMD in either group at any time point with regard to testosterone concentration.

When the investigators linked these patients to a national statistics database in the Netherlands to evaluate fracture incidence (J Bone Miner Res. 2019 Sep 5. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.3862), pairing five cisgender female controls and five cisgender male controls to every transgender patient, the researchers found transwomen had a higher incidence of osteoporotic fracture of the hip, spine, forearm, and humerus (41.8%), compared with cisgender men (26.6%; P = .014) and cisgender women (36.0%; P = .381). There was not enough information in the study to examine fracture information for transmen, Dr. den Heijer said. Transwomen and transmen who experienced a fracture were more likely to be a current smoker and have lower estradiol concentrations than were transwomen and transmen, respectively, who did not have a fracture.

“Attention for lifestyle factors remains important, especially smoking cessation, vitamin D intake, and regular exercise,” Dr. den Heijer said. “It remains important for everybody, but especially for transgender women.”

Dr. den Heijer reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

ORLANDO – Transwomen are more likely to have a lower bone mineral density (BMD) before beginning hormone therapy, compared with male reference populations, but there are no short- or long-term risks to bone health over the life of a transperson who receives hormone therapy, according to a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

“Hormonal treatment of transgender people is safe with respect to bone,” said Martin den Heijer, MD, PhD, of the VU University Medical Center in Amsterdam.

At baseline, transwomen have lower bone mass than do male reference populations, said Dr. den Heijer, citing a study that found 25 transwomen had less muscle mass (P less than or equal to .001), strength (P less than or equal to .05), and lower BMD at the hip, femoral neck, and spine (P less than .001), compared with 25 cisgender men in a control group and 941 men in a male reference population (Bone. 2013;54[1]:92-7). In a 2019 study from his own group, Dr. den Heijer said the z score in the lumbar spine for 711 transwomen was -0.9 and the incidence of osteoporosis was 14.2%, compared with a z score of 0.0 and 2.4% incidence of osteoporosis in 543 transmen (J Bone Min Res. 2019;34[3]:447-54).

In the prospective European Network for the Investigation of Gender Incongruence (ENIGI) study, researchers examined short-term effects of hormone therapy on BMD in 144 transwomen and 162 transmen who had a normal body mass index and were mostly white. The percentage of patients who reported they were current smokers was between 25% and 30%, and fewer than 10% said they consumed more than seven units of alcohol per week. Transwomen received estradiol (an oral estradiol valerate at a dose of 4 mg/day or an estradiol patch) together with 100 mg/day of cyproterone acetate, and transmen received testosterone in the form of a gel (50 mg/day), intramuscular esters (250 mg every 2-3 weeks), or intramuscular undecanoate at a dose of 1,000 mg every 12 weeks (J Sex Med. 2016;13[6]:994-9).

After 1 year of treatment, there were significant increases in BMD in transwomen in the lumbar spine (3.67%; 95% confidence interval, 3.20%-4.13%), femoral neck (1.86%; 95% CI, 1.41%-2.31%), and total hip (0.97%; 95% CI, 0.62%-1.31%). Transmen also had increased BMD in the lumbar spine (0.86%; 95% CI, 0.38%-1.35%) and total hip (1.04%; 95% CI, 0.64%-1.44%), with a slight decrease in femoral neck BMD (–0.46%; 95% CI, –1.07% to 0.16%).

Dr. den Heijer also discussed the long-term effects of hormone therapy on BMD in the Amsterdam Cohort of Dysphoria (ACOG) study, which consisted of 711 transwomen and 543 transmen and followed some patients out to 2 years, 5 years, and 10 years after beginning hormone therapy (J Sex Med. 2018;15[4]:582-90). Among transwomen, the median age was 33 years, 68.9% had begun hormone therapy, and 75.3% received a gonadectomy; among transmen, the median age was 25 years, 72.9% had begun hormone therapy, and 83.8% received a gonadectomy. Of these patients, dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry data were available for the lumbar spine BMD for 234 transwomen and 236 transmen at 2 years, 174 transwomen and 95 transmen at 5 years, and 102 transwomen and 70 transmen at 10 years.

Although there was no significant mean change in absolute BMD over the 10-year period, the concentration of estradiol in transwomen and transmen affected change in BMD the longer the transperson was receiving hormone therapy: Transwomen who received an estradiol concentration of 118 pmol/L had a decrease of –0.026% at 2 years, –0.044% at 5 years, and –0.009% at 10 years, compared with a dose of 443 pmol/L (+0.044% at 2 years, +0.025% at 5 years, +0.063% at 10 years), whereas transmen also had decreased BMD at the lowest estradiol concentrations of 95 pmol/L (–0.007% at 2 years, –0.024% at 5 years, +0.010% at 10 years), compared with transmen receiving the highest doses of 323 pmol/L (+0.028% at 2 years, +0.002% at 5 years, +0.053% at 10 years). There was no significant change in BMD in either group at any time point with regard to testosterone concentration.

When the investigators linked these patients to a national statistics database in the Netherlands to evaluate fracture incidence (J Bone Miner Res. 2019 Sep 5. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.3862), pairing five cisgender female controls and five cisgender male controls to every transgender patient, the researchers found transwomen had a higher incidence of osteoporotic fracture of the hip, spine, forearm, and humerus (41.8%), compared with cisgender men (26.6%; P = .014) and cisgender women (36.0%; P = .381). There was not enough information in the study to examine fracture information for transmen, Dr. den Heijer said. Transwomen and transmen who experienced a fracture were more likely to be a current smoker and have lower estradiol concentrations than were transwomen and transmen, respectively, who did not have a fracture.

“Attention for lifestyle factors remains important, especially smoking cessation, vitamin D intake, and regular exercise,” Dr. den Heijer said. “It remains important for everybody, but especially for transgender women.”

Dr. den Heijer reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services needs to be doing a better job overseeing the administrative costs associated with the implementation of work requirements in Medicaid, the Government Accountability Office said in a new report.

thinkstockphotos.com

The government watchdog found two key weaknesses in CMS’s oversight of the administrative costs of the Medicaid demonstration projects related to work requirements for Medicaid.

First, the GAO report notes that no consideration of the administrative costs of the work requirements is given during the administration of the approval process.

The GAO reports that, of five states’ approvals, the estimated administrative costs range from the low end of $6.1 million for New Hampshire (with 50,000 beneficiaries subject to the work requirement) to $271.6 million for Kentucky (with 620,000 beneficiaries subject to the work requirement). Indiana, with 420,000 beneficiaries subject to work requirements, has an estimated cost of $35.1 million.

A significant portion of Kentucky’s funding was for a the development of a new information technology system to help track work requirements.

“GAO found that CMS does not require states to provide projections of administrative costs when requesting demonstration approvals,” the report states. “Thus, the cost of administering demonstrations, including those with work requirements, is not transparent to the public or included in CMS’s assessment of whether a demonstration is budget neutral – that is, that federal spending will be no higher under the demonstration than it would have been without it.”

The GAO also reported that, by not requiring cost estimates, it also fails to meet the demonstration objective of transparency, something that goes hand in hand with budget neutrality.

The second weakness identified by GAO is that current procedures “may be insufficient to ensure that costs are allowable and matched at the correct rate.” Three of the five states examined in the report had received CMS approval for federal funds for administrative costs that were either not allowable for matching or were matched at higher rates than appropriate, based on CMS guidance.

The government watchdog noted that CMS did implement “procedures that may provide additional information on demonstrations’ administrative costs. ... However, it is unclear whether these efforts will result in data that improves CMS’s oversight.”

The GAO made three recommendations in the report. First, the CMS should require states to submit public projections of administrative costs when seeking approval for demonstration projects. Second, the administrative costs should be a part of the calculation for assessing the budget neutrality of demonstration project applications. Finally, CMS should do a better job assessing the risk that federal funds are being used to cover administrative costs that are not allowable and should improve oversight procedures as needed.

The GAO report included the Department of Health & Human Services’s response to the recommendations. To the first, the agency said that “its experience suggests that demonstration administrative costs will be a relatively small portion of total costs and therefore HHS believes making information about these costs available would provide stakeholders little to no value.”

Similarly, to the second recommendation, HHS countered that the information would provide little to no value given that administrative costs represent a relatively small portion of the total demonstration costs.

To the final recommendation on the need for better risk assessment, HHS said its existing approach “is appropriate for the low level of risk that administrative expenditures represent. ... CMS officials told us that they had not assessed wither current procedures sufficiently address risks posed by administrative costs for work requirements and had no plans to do so.”

[email protected]

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services needs to be doing a better job overseeing the administrative costs associated with the implementation of work requirements in Medicaid, the Government Accountability Office said in a new report.

thinkstockphotos.com

The government watchdog found two key weaknesses in CMS’s oversight of the administrative costs of the Medicaid demonstration projects related to work requirements for Medicaid.

First, the GAO report notes that no consideration of the administrative costs of the work requirements is given during the administration of the approval process.

The GAO reports that, of five states’ approvals, the estimated administrative costs range from the low end of $6.1 million for New Hampshire (with 50,000 beneficiaries subject to the work requirement) to $271.6 million for Kentucky (with 620,000 beneficiaries subject to the work requirement). Indiana, with 420,000 beneficiaries subject to work requirements, has an estimated cost of $35.1 million.

A significant portion of Kentucky’s funding was for a the development of a new information technology system to help track work requirements.

“GAO found that CMS does not require states to provide projections of administrative costs when requesting demonstration approvals,” the report states. “Thus, the cost of administering demonstrations, including those with work requirements, is not transparent to the public or included in CMS’s assessment of whether a demonstration is budget neutral – that is, that federal spending will be no higher under the demonstration than it would have been without it.”

The GAO also reported that, by not requiring cost estimates, it also fails to meet the demonstration objective of transparency, something that goes hand in hand with budget neutrality.

The second weakness identified by GAO is that current procedures “may be insufficient to ensure that costs are allowable and matched at the correct rate.” Three of the five states examined in the report had received CMS approval for federal funds for administrative costs that were either not allowable for matching or were matched at higher rates than appropriate, based on CMS guidance.

The government watchdog noted that CMS did implement “procedures that may provide additional information on demonstrations’ administrative costs. ... However, it is unclear whether these efforts will result in data that improves CMS’s oversight.”

The GAO made three recommendations in the report. First, the CMS should require states to submit public projections of administrative costs when seeking approval for demonstration projects. Second, the administrative costs should be a part of the calculation for assessing the budget neutrality of demonstration project applications. Finally, CMS should do a better job assessing the risk that federal funds are being used to cover administrative costs that are not allowable and should improve oversight procedures as needed.

The GAO report included the Department of Health & Human Services’s response to the recommendations. To the first, the agency said that “its experience suggests that demonstration administrative costs will be a relatively small portion of total costs and therefore HHS believes making information about these costs available would provide stakeholders little to no value.”

Similarly, to the second recommendation, HHS countered that the information would provide little to no value given that administrative costs represent a relatively small portion of the total demonstration costs.

To the final recommendation on the need for better risk assessment, HHS said its existing approach “is appropriate for the low level of risk that administrative expenditures represent. ... CMS officials told us that they had not assessed wither current procedures sufficiently address risks posed by administrative costs for work requirements and had no plans to do so.”

[email protected]

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services needs to be doing a better job overseeing the administrative costs associated with the implementation of work requirements in Medicaid, the Government Accountability Office said in a new report.

thinkstockphotos.com

The government watchdog found two key weaknesses in CMS’s oversight of the administrative costs of the Medicaid demonstration projects related to work requirements for Medicaid.

First, the GAO report notes that no consideration of the administrative costs of the work requirements is given during the administration of the approval process.

The GAO reports that, of five states’ approvals, the estimated administrative costs range from the low end of $6.1 million for New Hampshire (with 50,000 beneficiaries subject to the work requirement) to $271.6 million for Kentucky (with 620,000 beneficiaries subject to the work requirement). Indiana, with 420,000 beneficiaries subject to work requirements, has an estimated cost of $35.1 million.

A significant portion of Kentucky’s funding was for a the development of a new information technology system to help track work requirements.

“GAO found that CMS does not require states to provide projections of administrative costs when requesting demonstration approvals,” the report states. “Thus, the cost of administering demonstrations, including those with work requirements, is not transparent to the public or included in CMS’s assessment of whether a demonstration is budget neutral – that is, that federal spending will be no higher under the demonstration than it would have been without it.”

The GAO also reported that, by not requiring cost estimates, it also fails to meet the demonstration objective of transparency, something that goes hand in hand with budget neutrality.

The second weakness identified by GAO is that current procedures “may be insufficient to ensure that costs are allowable and matched at the correct rate.” Three of the five states examined in the report had received CMS approval for federal funds for administrative costs that were either not allowable for matching or were matched at higher rates than appropriate, based on CMS guidance.

The government watchdog noted that CMS did implement “procedures that may provide additional information on demonstrations’ administrative costs. ... However, it is unclear whether these efforts will result in data that improves CMS’s oversight.”

The GAO made three recommendations in the report. First, the CMS should require states to submit public projections of administrative costs when seeking approval for demonstration projects. Second, the administrative costs should be a part of the calculation for assessing the budget neutrality of demonstration project applications. Finally, CMS should do a better job assessing the risk that federal funds are being used to cover administrative costs that are not allowable and should improve oversight procedures as needed.

The GAO report included the Department of Health & Human Services’s response to the recommendations. To the first, the agency said that “its experience suggests that demonstration administrative costs will be a relatively small portion of total costs and therefore HHS believes making information about these costs available would provide stakeholders little to no value.”

Similarly, to the second recommendation, HHS countered that the information would provide little to no value given that administrative costs represent a relatively small portion of the total demonstration costs.

To the final recommendation on the need for better risk assessment, HHS said its existing approach “is appropriate for the low level of risk that administrative expenditures represent. ... CMS officials told us that they had not assessed wither current procedures sufficiently address risks posed by administrative costs for work requirements and had no plans to do so.”

[email protected]

Practice Puzzlers are an entertaining way to challenge your clinical expertise. To make the experience more enjoyable, here's how to use the tools located in the bar above the crossword.

• Away from your computer? Click “Print” to download and print a blank puzzle or the answer key to the puzzle.
• With the "group tool" invite colleagues to play with you and share final scores.
• To keep it fun, you can “Reveal” or “Check” a letter, word, or the entire grid; change the “Settings” to suit your preferences; or use the “Pencil” toggle to enter the answer in gray and later make it a normal entry when you’re sure about it.

Scoring

You get 10 points for each correct word completed. Revealing letters or words will cost you points. For each square you reveal, you lose 1 point, but you can still get the 10 points if you get the word right. You get 0 points if you reveal an entire word. The target time to complete this puzzle is 15 minutes. When you complete the puzzle, you will get a bonus of 15 points for every full minute under the target. There is no penalty for going over the time limit.

Practice Puzzlers are an entertaining way to challenge your clinical expertise. To make the experience more enjoyable, here's how to use the tools located in the bar above the crossword.

• Away from your computer? Click “Print” to download and print a blank puzzle or the answer key to the puzzle.
• With the "group tool" invite colleagues to play with you and share final scores.
• To keep it fun, you can “Reveal” or “Check” a letter, word, or the entire grid; change the “Settings” to suit your preferences; or use the “Pencil” toggle to enter the answer in gray and later make it a normal entry when you’re sure about it.

Scoring

You get 10 points for each correct word completed. Revealing letters or words will cost you points. For each square you reveal, you lose 1 point, but you can still get the 10 points if you get the word right. You get 0 points if you reveal an entire word. The target time to complete this puzzle is 15 minutes. When you complete the puzzle, you will get a bonus of 15 points for every full minute under the target. There is no penalty for going over the time limit.

Practice Puzzlers are an entertaining way to challenge your clinical expertise. To make the experience more enjoyable, here's how to use the tools located in the bar above the crossword.

• Away from your computer? Click “Print” to download and print a blank puzzle or the answer key to the puzzle.
• With the "group tool" invite colleagues to play with you and share final scores.
• To keep it fun, you can “Reveal” or “Check” a letter, word, or the entire grid; change the “Settings” to suit your preferences; or use the “Pencil” toggle to enter the answer in gray and later make it a normal entry when you’re sure about it.

Scoring

You get 10 points for each correct word completed. Revealing letters or words will cost you points. For each square you reveal, you lose 1 point, but you can still get the 10 points if you get the word right. You get 0 points if you reveal an entire word. The target time to complete this puzzle is 15 minutes. When you complete the puzzle, you will get a bonus of 15 points for every full minute under the target. There is no penalty for going over the time limit.

Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation is a better option than consolidation chemotherapy in patients with secondary acute myeloid leukemia, yielding significantly better survival outcomes, according to findings from an observational study.

National Institutes of Health/Wikimedia Commons/Public Domain

Although secondary AML has been identified as an independent predictor of poor prognosis, it is not included in current risk classifications that provide the basis of deciding when to perform HCT.

Christer Nilsson, MD, of Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, and colleagues, used two nationwide Swedish registries – the Swedish AML Registry and the Swedish Cancer Registry – to characterize how often HCT is performed in these patients and to evaluate its impact in a real-world setting. The registries include all patients with AML diagnosed between 1997 and 2013.

Their findings are in Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation.

The analysis included 3,337 adult patients with AML who were intensively treated and did not have acute promyelocytic leukemia. More than three-quarters of the patients had de novo AML and the remainder had secondary AML that was either therapy related or developed after an antecedent myeloid disease. In total, 100 patients with secondary AML underwent HCT while in first complete remission.

In terms of crude survival at 5 years after diagnosis, patients with secondary AML who did not undergo HCT did very poorly. The survival rate was 0% in those with AML preceded by myeloproliferative neoplasm (MPN-AML), 2% in patients with AML preceded by myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS-AML), and 4% in patients with therapy-related AML (t-AML). In contrast, the 5-year overall survival in patients who underwent HCT at any time point or disease stage was 32% for patients with MPN-AML, 18% for patients with MDS-AML, and 25% for patients t-AML.

These crude survival figures suggest that “HCT is the sole realistic curable treatment option for [secondary] AML,” the researchers wrote.

The researchers also performed a propensity score matching analysis of HCT versus chemotherapy consolidation in patients with secondary AML who had been in first complete remission for more than 90 days. The model matched 45 patients who underwent HCT with 66 patients treated with chemotherapy consolidation. The projected 5-year overall survival was 48% in the HCT group, compared with 20% in the consolidation group (P = .01). Similarly, 5-year relapse-free survival was also higher in the HCT group, compared with the consolidation group (43% vs. 21%, P = .02).

“Ideally, the role of transplantation in [secondary] AML should be evaluated in a prospective randomized trial, minimizing the risk of any bias,” the researchers wrote. “However, such a trial is lacking and most likely will never be performed.”

The researchers concluded that HCT should be considered for all patients with secondary AML who are eligible and fit for transplantation.

The study was supported by the Swedish Cancer Foundation, Swedish Research Council, Stockholm County Council, Gothenberg Medical Society, and Assar Gabrielsson Foundation. The researchers reported having no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Nilson C et al. Biol Blood Marrow Tranplant. 2019;25:1770-8.

Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation is a better option than consolidation chemotherapy in patients with secondary acute myeloid leukemia, yielding significantly better survival outcomes, according to findings from an observational study.

National Institutes of Health/Wikimedia Commons/Public Domain

Although secondary AML has been identified as an independent predictor of poor prognosis, it is not included in current risk classifications that provide the basis of deciding when to perform HCT.

Christer Nilsson, MD, of Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, and colleagues, used two nationwide Swedish registries – the Swedish AML Registry and the Swedish Cancer Registry – to characterize how often HCT is performed in these patients and to evaluate its impact in a real-world setting. The registries include all patients with AML diagnosed between 1997 and 2013.

Their findings are in Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation.

The analysis included 3,337 adult patients with AML who were intensively treated and did not have acute promyelocytic leukemia. More than three-quarters of the patients had de novo AML and the remainder had secondary AML that was either therapy related or developed after an antecedent myeloid disease. In total, 100 patients with secondary AML underwent HCT while in first complete remission.

In terms of crude survival at 5 years after diagnosis, patients with secondary AML who did not undergo HCT did very poorly. The survival rate was 0% in those with AML preceded by myeloproliferative neoplasm (MPN-AML), 2% in patients with AML preceded by myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS-AML), and 4% in patients with therapy-related AML (t-AML). In contrast, the 5-year overall survival in patients who underwent HCT at any time point or disease stage was 32% for patients with MPN-AML, 18% for patients with MDS-AML, and 25% for patients t-AML.

These crude survival figures suggest that “HCT is the sole realistic curable treatment option for [secondary] AML,” the researchers wrote.

The researchers also performed a propensity score matching analysis of HCT versus chemotherapy consolidation in patients with secondary AML who had been in first complete remission for more than 90 days. The model matched 45 patients who underwent HCT with 66 patients treated with chemotherapy consolidation. The projected 5-year overall survival was 48% in the HCT group, compared with 20% in the consolidation group (P = .01). Similarly, 5-year relapse-free survival was also higher in the HCT group, compared with the consolidation group (43% vs. 21%, P = .02).

“Ideally, the role of transplantation in [secondary] AML should be evaluated in a prospective randomized trial, minimizing the risk of any bias,” the researchers wrote. “However, such a trial is lacking and most likely will never be performed.”

The researchers concluded that HCT should be considered for all patients with secondary AML who are eligible and fit for transplantation.

The study was supported by the Swedish Cancer Foundation, Swedish Research Council, Stockholm County Council, Gothenberg Medical Society, and Assar Gabrielsson Foundation. The researchers reported having no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Nilson C et al. Biol Blood Marrow Tranplant. 2019;25:1770-8.

Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation is a better option than consolidation chemotherapy in patients with secondary acute myeloid leukemia, yielding significantly better survival outcomes, according to findings from an observational study.

National Institutes of Health/Wikimedia Commons/Public Domain

Although secondary AML has been identified as an independent predictor of poor prognosis, it is not included in current risk classifications that provide the basis of deciding when to perform HCT.

Christer Nilsson, MD, of Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, and colleagues, used two nationwide Swedish registries – the Swedish AML Registry and the Swedish Cancer Registry – to characterize how often HCT is performed in these patients and to evaluate its impact in a real-world setting. The registries include all patients with AML diagnosed between 1997 and 2013.

Their findings are in Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation.

The analysis included 3,337 adult patients with AML who were intensively treated and did not have acute promyelocytic leukemia. More than three-quarters of the patients had de novo AML and the remainder had secondary AML that was either therapy related or developed after an antecedent myeloid disease. In total, 100 patients with secondary AML underwent HCT while in first complete remission.

In terms of crude survival at 5 years after diagnosis, patients with secondary AML who did not undergo HCT did very poorly. The survival rate was 0% in those with AML preceded by myeloproliferative neoplasm (MPN-AML), 2% in patients with AML preceded by myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS-AML), and 4% in patients with therapy-related AML (t-AML). In contrast, the 5-year overall survival in patients who underwent HCT at any time point or disease stage was 32% for patients with MPN-AML, 18% for patients with MDS-AML, and 25% for patients t-AML.

These crude survival figures suggest that “HCT is the sole realistic curable treatment option for [secondary] AML,” the researchers wrote.

The researchers also performed a propensity score matching analysis of HCT versus chemotherapy consolidation in patients with secondary AML who had been in first complete remission for more than 90 days. The model matched 45 patients who underwent HCT with 66 patients treated with chemotherapy consolidation. The projected 5-year overall survival was 48% in the HCT group, compared with 20% in the consolidation group (P = .01). Similarly, 5-year relapse-free survival was also higher in the HCT group, compared with the consolidation group (43% vs. 21%, P = .02).

“Ideally, the role of transplantation in [secondary] AML should be evaluated in a prospective randomized trial, minimizing the risk of any bias,” the researchers wrote. “However, such a trial is lacking and most likely will never be performed.”

The researchers concluded that HCT should be considered for all patients with secondary AML who are eligible and fit for transplantation.

The study was supported by the Swedish Cancer Foundation, Swedish Research Council, Stockholm County Council, Gothenberg Medical Society, and Assar Gabrielsson Foundation. The researchers reported having no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Nilson C et al. Biol Blood Marrow Tranplant. 2019;25:1770-8.

Hospital medicine has grown dramatically over the past 20 years.^1,2 A recent survey regarding hospitalists’ clinical roles showed an expansion to triaging emergency department (ED) medical admissions and transfers from outside hospitals.³ From the hospitalist perspective, triaging involves the evaluation of patients for potential admission.⁴ With scrutiny on ED metrics, such as wait times (https://www.medicare.gov/hospitalcompare/search.html), health system administrators have heightened expectations for efficient patient flow, which increasingly falls to hospitalists.^5-7

Despite the growth in hospitalists’ triagist activities, there has been little formal assessment of their role. We hypothesized that this role differs from inpatient care in significant ways.^6-8 We sought to describe the triagist role in adult academic inpatient medicine settings to understand the responsibilities and skill set required.

Ten academic medical center (AMC) sites were recruited from Research Committee session attendees at the 2014 Society of Hospital Medicine national meeting and the 2014 Society of General Internal Medicine southern regional meeting. The AMCs were geographically diverse: three Western, two Midwestern, two Southern, one Northeastern, and two Southeastern. Site representatives were identified and completed a web-based questionnaire about their AMC (see Appendix 1 for the information collected). Clarifications regarding survey responses were performed via conference calls between the authors (STV, ESW) and site representatives.

Hospitalist Survey

In January 2018, surveys were sent to 583 physicians who worked as triagists. Participants received an anonymous 28-item RedCap survey by e-mail and were sent up to five reminder e-mails over six weeks (see Appendix 2 for the questions analyzed in this paper). Respondents were given the option to be entered in a gift card drawing.

Demographic information and individual workflow/practices were obtained. A 5-point Likert scale (strongly disagree – strongly agree) was used to assess hospitalists’ concurrence with current providers (eg, ED, clinic providers) regarding the management and whether patients must meet the utilization management (UM) criteria for admission. Time estimates used 5% increments and were categorized into four frequency categories based on the local modes provided in responses: Seldom (0%-10%), Occasional (15%-35%), Half-the-Time (40%-60%), and Frequently (65%-100%). Free text responses on effective/ineffective triagist qualities were elicited. Responses were included for analysis if at least 70% of questions were completed.

Data Analysis

Quantitative

Descriptive statistics were calculated for each variable. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to evaluate differences across AMCs in the time spent on in-person evaluation and communication. Weighting, based on the ratio of hospitalists to survey respondents at each AMC, was used to calculate the average institutional percentages across the study sample.

Qualitative

Responses to open-ended questions were analyzed using thematic analysis.⁹ Three independent reviewers (STV, JC, ESW) read, analyzed, and grouped the responses by codes. Codes were then assessed for overlap and grouped into themes by one reviewer (STV). A table of themes with supporting quotes and the number of mentions was subsequently developed by all three reviewers. Similar themes were combined to create domains. The domains were reviewed by the steering committee members to create a consensus description (Appendix 3).

The University of Texas Health San Antonio’s Institutional Review Board and participating institutions approved the study as exempt.

Site Characteristics

Representatives from 10 AMCs reported data on a range of one to four hospitals for a total of 22 hospitals. The median reported that the number of medical patients admitted in a 24-hour period was 31-40 (range, 11-20 to >50). The median group size of hospitalists was 41-50 (range, 0-10 to >70).

The survey response rate was 40% (n = 235), ranging from 9%-70% between institutions. Self-identified female hospitalists accounted for 52% of respondents. Four percent were 25-29 years old, 66% were 30-39 years old, 24% were 40-49 years old, and 6% were ≥50 years old. The average clinical time spent as a triagist was 16%.

Description of Triagist Activities

The activities identified by the majority of respondents across all sites included transferring patients within the hospital (73%), and assessing/approving patient transfers from outside hospitals and clinics (82%). Internal transfer activities reported by >50% of respondents included allocating patients within the hospital or bed capacity coordination, assessing intensive care unit transfers, assigning ED admissions, and consulting other services. The ED accounted for an average of 55% of calls received. Respondents also reported being involved with the documentation related to these activities.

Similarities and Differences across AMCs

Two AMCs did not have a dedicated triagist; instead, physicians supervised residents and advanced practice providers. Among the eight sites with triagists, triaging was predominantly done by faculty physicians contacted via pagers. At seven of these sites, 100% of hospitalists worked as triagists. The triage service was covered by faculty physicians from 8-24 hours per day.

Bed boards and transfer centers staffed by registered nurses, nurse coordinators, house supervisors, or physicians were common support systems, though this infrastructure was organized differently across institutions. A UM review before admission was performed at three institutions 24 hours/day. The remaining institutions reviewed patients retrospectively.

Twenty-eight percent of hospitalists across all sites “Disagreed” or “Strongly disagreed” that a patient must meet UM criteria for admission. Forty-two percent had “Frequent” different opinions regarding patient management than the consulting provider.

Triagist and current provider communication practices varied widely across AMCs (Figure). There was significant variability in verbal communication (P = .02), with >70% of respondents at two AMCs reporting verbal communication at least half the time, but <30% reporting this frequency at two other AMCs. Respondents reported variable use of electronic communication (ie, notes/orders in the electronic health record) across AMCs (P < .0001). Half of the hospitalists use it “Seldom”, 20% use it “Occasionally”, and 23% use it “Frequently”.

Differences within AMCs

Variability within AMCs was greatest for the rate of verbal communication practices, with a typical interquartile range (IQR) of 20% to 90% among the hospitalists within a given AMC and for the rate of electronic communication with a typical IQR of 0% to 50%. For other survey questions, the IQR was typically 15 to 20 percentage points.

Thematic Analysis

We received 207 and 203 responses (88% and 86%, respectively) to the open-ended questions “What qualities does an effective triagist have?’ and ‘What qualities make a triagist ineffective?” We identified 22 themes for effective and ineffective qualities, which were grouped into seven domains (Table). All themes had at least three mentions by respondents. The three most frequently mentioned themes, communication skills, efficiency, and systems knowledge, had greater than 60 mentions.

Our study of the triagist role at 10 AMCs describes critical triagist functions and identifies key findings across and within AMCs. Twenty-eight percent of hospitalists reported admitting patients even when the patient did not meet the admission criteria, consistent with previous research demonstrating the influence of factors other than clinical disease severity on triage decisions.¹⁰ However, preventable admissions remain a hospital-level quality metric.^11,12 Triagists must often balance each patient’s circumstances with the complexities of the system. Juggling the competing demands of the system while providing patient-centered care can be challenging and may explain why attending physicians are more frequently filling this role.¹³

Local context/culture is likely to play a role in the variation across sites; however, compensation for the time spent may also be a factor. If triage activities are not reimbursable, this could lead to less documentation and a lower likelihood that patients are evaluated in person.¹⁴ This reason may also explain why all hospitalists were required to serve as a triagist at most sites.

Currently, no consensus definition of the triagist role has been developed. Our results demonstrate that this role is heterogeneous and grounded in the local healthcare system practices. We propose the following working definition of the triagist: a physician who assesses patients for admission, actively supporting the transition of the patient from the outpatient to the inpatient setting. A triagist should be equipped with a skill set that includes not only clinical knowledge but also emphasizes systems knowledge, awareness of others’ goals, efficiency, an ability to communicate effectively, and the knowledge of UM. We recommend that medical directors of hospitalist programs focus their attention on locally specific, systems-based skills development when orienting new hospitalists. The financial aspects of cost should be considered and delineated as well.

Our analysis is limited in several respects. Participant AMCs were not randomly chosen, but do represent a broad array of facility types, group size, and geographic regions. The low response rates at some AMCs may result in an inaccurate representation of those sites. Data was not obtained on hospitalists that did not respond to the survey; therefore, nonresponse bias may affect outcomes. This research used self-report rather than direct observation, which could be subject to recall and social desirability bias. Finally, our results may not be generalizable to nonacademic institutions.

The hospitalist role as triagist at AMCs emphasizes communication, organizational skills, efficiency, systems-based practice, and UM knowledge. Although we found significant variation across and within AMCs, internal transfer activities were common across programs. Hospitalist programs should focus on systems-based skills development to prepare hospitalists for the role. The skill set necessary for triagist responsibilities also has implications for internal medicine resident education.⁴ With increasing emphasis on value and system effectiveness in care delivery, further studies of the triagist role should be undertaken.

Acknowledgments

The TRIAGIST Collaborative Group consists of: Maralyssa Bann, MD, Andrew White, MD (University of Washington); Jagriti Chadha, MD (University of Kentucky); Joel Boggan, MD (Duke University); Sherwin Hsu, MD (UCLA); Jeff Liao, MD (Harvard Medical School); Tabatha Matthias, DO (University of Nebraska Medical Center); Tresa McNeal, MD (Scott and White Texas A&M); Roxana Naderi, MD, Khooshbu Shah, MD (University of Colorado); David Schmit, MD (University of Texas Health San Antonio); Manivannan Veerasamy, MD (Michigan State University).

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Hospital medicine has grown dramatically over the past 20 years.^1,2 A recent survey regarding hospitalists’ clinical roles showed an expansion to triaging emergency department (ED) medical admissions and transfers from outside hospitals.³ From the hospitalist perspective, triaging involves the evaluation of patients for potential admission.⁴ With scrutiny on ED metrics, such as wait times (https://www.medicare.gov/hospitalcompare/search.html), health system administrators have heightened expectations for efficient patient flow, which increasingly falls to hospitalists.^5-7

Despite the growth in hospitalists’ triagist activities, there has been little formal assessment of their role. We hypothesized that this role differs from inpatient care in significant ways.^6-8 We sought to describe the triagist role in adult academic inpatient medicine settings to understand the responsibilities and skill set required.

Ten academic medical center (AMC) sites were recruited from Research Committee session attendees at the 2014 Society of Hospital Medicine national meeting and the 2014 Society of General Internal Medicine southern regional meeting. The AMCs were geographically diverse: three Western, two Midwestern, two Southern, one Northeastern, and two Southeastern. Site representatives were identified and completed a web-based questionnaire about their AMC (see Appendix 1 for the information collected). Clarifications regarding survey responses were performed via conference calls between the authors (STV, ESW) and site representatives.

Hospitalist Survey

In January 2018, surveys were sent to 583 physicians who worked as triagists. Participants received an anonymous 28-item RedCap survey by e-mail and were sent up to five reminder e-mails over six weeks (see Appendix 2 for the questions analyzed in this paper). Respondents were given the option to be entered in a gift card drawing.

Demographic information and individual workflow/practices were obtained. A 5-point Likert scale (strongly disagree – strongly agree) was used to assess hospitalists’ concurrence with current providers (eg, ED, clinic providers) regarding the management and whether patients must meet the utilization management (UM) criteria for admission. Time estimates used 5% increments and were categorized into four frequency categories based on the local modes provided in responses: Seldom (0%-10%), Occasional (15%-35%), Half-the-Time (40%-60%), and Frequently (65%-100%). Free text responses on effective/ineffective triagist qualities were elicited. Responses were included for analysis if at least 70% of questions were completed.

Data Analysis

Quantitative

Descriptive statistics were calculated for each variable. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to evaluate differences across AMCs in the time spent on in-person evaluation and communication. Weighting, based on the ratio of hospitalists to survey respondents at each AMC, was used to calculate the average institutional percentages across the study sample.

Qualitative

Responses to open-ended questions were analyzed using thematic analysis.⁹ Three independent reviewers (STV, JC, ESW) read, analyzed, and grouped the responses by codes. Codes were then assessed for overlap and grouped into themes by one reviewer (STV). A table of themes with supporting quotes and the number of mentions was subsequently developed by all three reviewers. Similar themes were combined to create domains. The domains were reviewed by the steering committee members to create a consensus description (Appendix 3).

The University of Texas Health San Antonio’s Institutional Review Board and participating institutions approved the study as exempt.

Site Characteristics

Representatives from 10 AMCs reported data on a range of one to four hospitals for a total of 22 hospitals. The median reported that the number of medical patients admitted in a 24-hour period was 31-40 (range, 11-20 to >50). The median group size of hospitalists was 41-50 (range, 0-10 to >70).

The survey response rate was 40% (n = 235), ranging from 9%-70% between institutions. Self-identified female hospitalists accounted for 52% of respondents. Four percent were 25-29 years old, 66% were 30-39 years old, 24% were 40-49 years old, and 6% were ≥50 years old. The average clinical time spent as a triagist was 16%.

Description of Triagist Activities

The activities identified by the majority of respondents across all sites included transferring patients within the hospital (73%), and assessing/approving patient transfers from outside hospitals and clinics (82%). Internal transfer activities reported by >50% of respondents included allocating patients within the hospital or bed capacity coordination, assessing intensive care unit transfers, assigning ED admissions, and consulting other services. The ED accounted for an average of 55% of calls received. Respondents also reported being involved with the documentation related to these activities.

Similarities and Differences across AMCs

Two AMCs did not have a dedicated triagist; instead, physicians supervised residents and advanced practice providers. Among the eight sites with triagists, triaging was predominantly done by faculty physicians contacted via pagers. At seven of these sites, 100% of hospitalists worked as triagists. The triage service was covered by faculty physicians from 8-24 hours per day.

Bed boards and transfer centers staffed by registered nurses, nurse coordinators, house supervisors, or physicians were common support systems, though this infrastructure was organized differently across institutions. A UM review before admission was performed at three institutions 24 hours/day. The remaining institutions reviewed patients retrospectively.

Twenty-eight percent of hospitalists across all sites “Disagreed” or “Strongly disagreed” that a patient must meet UM criteria for admission. Forty-two percent had “Frequent” different opinions regarding patient management than the consulting provider.

Triagist and current provider communication practices varied widely across AMCs (Figure). There was significant variability in verbal communication (P = .02), with >70% of respondents at two AMCs reporting verbal communication at least half the time, but <30% reporting this frequency at two other AMCs. Respondents reported variable use of electronic communication (ie, notes/orders in the electronic health record) across AMCs (P < .0001). Half of the hospitalists use it “Seldom”, 20% use it “Occasionally”, and 23% use it “Frequently”.

Differences within AMCs

Variability within AMCs was greatest for the rate of verbal communication practices, with a typical interquartile range (IQR) of 20% to 90% among the hospitalists within a given AMC and for the rate of electronic communication with a typical IQR of 0% to 50%. For other survey questions, the IQR was typically 15 to 20 percentage points.

Thematic Analysis

We received 207 and 203 responses (88% and 86%, respectively) to the open-ended questions “What qualities does an effective triagist have?’ and ‘What qualities make a triagist ineffective?” We identified 22 themes for effective and ineffective qualities, which were grouped into seven domains (Table). All themes had at least three mentions by respondents. The three most frequently mentioned themes, communication skills, efficiency, and systems knowledge, had greater than 60 mentions.

Our study of the triagist role at 10 AMCs describes critical triagist functions and identifies key findings across and within AMCs. Twenty-eight percent of hospitalists reported admitting patients even when the patient did not meet the admission criteria, consistent with previous research demonstrating the influence of factors other than clinical disease severity on triage decisions.¹⁰ However, preventable admissions remain a hospital-level quality metric.^11,12 Triagists must often balance each patient’s circumstances with the complexities of the system. Juggling the competing demands of the system while providing patient-centered care can be challenging and may explain why attending physicians are more frequently filling this role.¹³

Local context/culture is likely to play a role in the variation across sites; however, compensation for the time spent may also be a factor. If triage activities are not reimbursable, this could lead to less documentation and a lower likelihood that patients are evaluated in person.¹⁴ This reason may also explain why all hospitalists were required to serve as a triagist at most sites.

Currently, no consensus definition of the triagist role has been developed. Our results demonstrate that this role is heterogeneous and grounded in the local healthcare system practices. We propose the following working definition of the triagist: a physician who assesses patients for admission, actively supporting the transition of the patient from the outpatient to the inpatient setting. A triagist should be equipped with a skill set that includes not only clinical knowledge but also emphasizes systems knowledge, awareness of others’ goals, efficiency, an ability to communicate effectively, and the knowledge of UM. We recommend that medical directors of hospitalist programs focus their attention on locally specific, systems-based skills development when orienting new hospitalists. The financial aspects of cost should be considered and delineated as well.

Our analysis is limited in several respects. Participant AMCs were not randomly chosen, but do represent a broad array of facility types, group size, and geographic regions. The low response rates at some AMCs may result in an inaccurate representation of those sites. Data was not obtained on hospitalists that did not respond to the survey; therefore, nonresponse bias may affect outcomes. This research used self-report rather than direct observation, which could be subject to recall and social desirability bias. Finally, our results may not be generalizable to nonacademic institutions.

The hospitalist role as triagist at AMCs emphasizes communication, organizational skills, efficiency, systems-based practice, and UM knowledge. Although we found significant variation across and within AMCs, internal transfer activities were common across programs. Hospitalist programs should focus on systems-based skills development to prepare hospitalists for the role. The skill set necessary for triagist responsibilities also has implications for internal medicine resident education.⁴ With increasing emphasis on value and system effectiveness in care delivery, further studies of the triagist role should be undertaken.

Acknowledgments

The TRIAGIST Collaborative Group consists of: Maralyssa Bann, MD, Andrew White, MD (University of Washington); Jagriti Chadha, MD (University of Kentucky); Joel Boggan, MD (Duke University); Sherwin Hsu, MD (UCLA); Jeff Liao, MD (Harvard Medical School); Tabatha Matthias, DO (University of Nebraska Medical Center); Tresa McNeal, MD (Scott and White Texas A&M); Roxana Naderi, MD, Khooshbu Shah, MD (University of Colorado); David Schmit, MD (University of Texas Health San Antonio); Manivannan Veerasamy, MD (Michigan State University).

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Hospital medicine has grown dramatically over the past 20 years.^1,2 A recent survey regarding hospitalists’ clinical roles showed an expansion to triaging emergency department (ED) medical admissions and transfers from outside hospitals.³ From the hospitalist perspective, triaging involves the evaluation of patients for potential admission.⁴ With scrutiny on ED metrics, such as wait times (https://www.medicare.gov/hospitalcompare/search.html), health system administrators have heightened expectations for efficient patient flow, which increasingly falls to hospitalists.^5-7

Despite the growth in hospitalists’ triagist activities, there has been little formal assessment of their role. We hypothesized that this role differs from inpatient care in significant ways.^6-8 We sought to describe the triagist role in adult academic inpatient medicine settings to understand the responsibilities and skill set required.

Ten academic medical center (AMC) sites were recruited from Research Committee session attendees at the 2014 Society of Hospital Medicine national meeting and the 2014 Society of General Internal Medicine southern regional meeting. The AMCs were geographically diverse: three Western, two Midwestern, two Southern, one Northeastern, and two Southeastern. Site representatives were identified and completed a web-based questionnaire about their AMC (see Appendix 1 for the information collected). Clarifications regarding survey responses were performed via conference calls between the authors (STV, ESW) and site representatives.

Hospitalist Survey

In January 2018, surveys were sent to 583 physicians who worked as triagists. Participants received an anonymous 28-item RedCap survey by e-mail and were sent up to five reminder e-mails over six weeks (see Appendix 2 for the questions analyzed in this paper). Respondents were given the option to be entered in a gift card drawing.

Demographic information and individual workflow/practices were obtained. A 5-point Likert scale (strongly disagree – strongly agree) was used to assess hospitalists’ concurrence with current providers (eg, ED, clinic providers) regarding the management and whether patients must meet the utilization management (UM) criteria for admission. Time estimates used 5% increments and were categorized into four frequency categories based on the local modes provided in responses: Seldom (0%-10%), Occasional (15%-35%), Half-the-Time (40%-60%), and Frequently (65%-100%). Free text responses on effective/ineffective triagist qualities were elicited. Responses were included for analysis if at least 70% of questions were completed.

Data Analysis

Quantitative

Descriptive statistics were calculated for each variable. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to evaluate differences across AMCs in the time spent on in-person evaluation and communication. Weighting, based on the ratio of hospitalists to survey respondents at each AMC, was used to calculate the average institutional percentages across the study sample.

Qualitative

Responses to open-ended questions were analyzed using thematic analysis.⁹ Three independent reviewers (STV, JC, ESW) read, analyzed, and grouped the responses by codes. Codes were then assessed for overlap and grouped into themes by one reviewer (STV). A table of themes with supporting quotes and the number of mentions was subsequently developed by all three reviewers. Similar themes were combined to create domains. The domains were reviewed by the steering committee members to create a consensus description (Appendix 3).

The University of Texas Health San Antonio’s Institutional Review Board and participating institutions approved the study as exempt.

Site Characteristics

Representatives from 10 AMCs reported data on a range of one to four hospitals for a total of 22 hospitals. The median reported that the number of medical patients admitted in a 24-hour period was 31-40 (range, 11-20 to >50). The median group size of hospitalists was 41-50 (range, 0-10 to >70).

The survey response rate was 40% (n = 235), ranging from 9%-70% between institutions. Self-identified female hospitalists accounted for 52% of respondents. Four percent were 25-29 years old, 66% were 30-39 years old, 24% were 40-49 years old, and 6% were ≥50 years old. The average clinical time spent as a triagist was 16%.

Description of Triagist Activities

The activities identified by the majority of respondents across all sites included transferring patients within the hospital (73%), and assessing/approving patient transfers from outside hospitals and clinics (82%). Internal transfer activities reported by >50% of respondents included allocating patients within the hospital or bed capacity coordination, assessing intensive care unit transfers, assigning ED admissions, and consulting other services. The ED accounted for an average of 55% of calls received. Respondents also reported being involved with the documentation related to these activities.

Similarities and Differences across AMCs

Two AMCs did not have a dedicated triagist; instead, physicians supervised residents and advanced practice providers. Among the eight sites with triagists, triaging was predominantly done by faculty physicians contacted via pagers. At seven of these sites, 100% of hospitalists worked as triagists. The triage service was covered by faculty physicians from 8-24 hours per day.

Bed boards and transfer centers staffed by registered nurses, nurse coordinators, house supervisors, or physicians were common support systems, though this infrastructure was organized differently across institutions. A UM review before admission was performed at three institutions 24 hours/day. The remaining institutions reviewed patients retrospectively.

Twenty-eight percent of hospitalists across all sites “Disagreed” or “Strongly disagreed” that a patient must meet UM criteria for admission. Forty-two percent had “Frequent” different opinions regarding patient management than the consulting provider.

Triagist and current provider communication practices varied widely across AMCs (Figure). There was significant variability in verbal communication (P = .02), with >70% of respondents at two AMCs reporting verbal communication at least half the time, but <30% reporting this frequency at two other AMCs. Respondents reported variable use of electronic communication (ie, notes/orders in the electronic health record) across AMCs (P < .0001). Half of the hospitalists use it “Seldom”, 20% use it “Occasionally”, and 23% use it “Frequently”.

Differences within AMCs

Variability within AMCs was greatest for the rate of verbal communication practices, with a typical interquartile range (IQR) of 20% to 90% among the hospitalists within a given AMC and for the rate of electronic communication with a typical IQR of 0% to 50%. For other survey questions, the IQR was typically 15 to 20 percentage points.

Thematic Analysis

We received 207 and 203 responses (88% and 86%, respectively) to the open-ended questions “What qualities does an effective triagist have?’ and ‘What qualities make a triagist ineffective?” We identified 22 themes for effective and ineffective qualities, which were grouped into seven domains (Table). All themes had at least three mentions by respondents. The three most frequently mentioned themes, communication skills, efficiency, and systems knowledge, had greater than 60 mentions.

Our study of the triagist role at 10 AMCs describes critical triagist functions and identifies key findings across and within AMCs. Twenty-eight percent of hospitalists reported admitting patients even when the patient did not meet the admission criteria, consistent with previous research demonstrating the influence of factors other than clinical disease severity on triage decisions.¹⁰ However, preventable admissions remain a hospital-level quality metric.^11,12 Triagists must often balance each patient’s circumstances with the complexities of the system. Juggling the competing demands of the system while providing patient-centered care can be challenging and may explain why attending physicians are more frequently filling this role.¹³

Local context/culture is likely to play a role in the variation across sites; however, compensation for the time spent may also be a factor. If triage activities are not reimbursable, this could lead to less documentation and a lower likelihood that patients are evaluated in person.¹⁴ This reason may also explain why all hospitalists were required to serve as a triagist at most sites.

Currently, no consensus definition of the triagist role has been developed. Our results demonstrate that this role is heterogeneous and grounded in the local healthcare system practices. We propose the following working definition of the triagist: a physician who assesses patients for admission, actively supporting the transition of the patient from the outpatient to the inpatient setting. A triagist should be equipped with a skill set that includes not only clinical knowledge but also emphasizes systems knowledge, awareness of others’ goals, efficiency, an ability to communicate effectively, and the knowledge of UM. We recommend that medical directors of hospitalist programs focus their attention on locally specific, systems-based skills development when orienting new hospitalists. The financial aspects of cost should be considered and delineated as well.

Our analysis is limited in several respects. Participant AMCs were not randomly chosen, but do represent a broad array of facility types, group size, and geographic regions. The low response rates at some AMCs may result in an inaccurate representation of those sites. Data was not obtained on hospitalists that did not respond to the survey; therefore, nonresponse bias may affect outcomes. This research used self-report rather than direct observation, which could be subject to recall and social desirability bias. Finally, our results may not be generalizable to nonacademic institutions.

The hospitalist role as triagist at AMCs emphasizes communication, organizational skills, efficiency, systems-based practice, and UM knowledge. Although we found significant variation across and within AMCs, internal transfer activities were common across programs. Hospitalist programs should focus on systems-based skills development to prepare hospitalists for the role. The skill set necessary for triagist responsibilities also has implications for internal medicine resident education.⁴ With increasing emphasis on value and system effectiveness in care delivery, further studies of the triagist role should be undertaken.

Acknowledgments

The TRIAGIST Collaborative Group consists of: Maralyssa Bann, MD, Andrew White, MD (University of Washington); Jagriti Chadha, MD (University of Kentucky); Joel Boggan, MD (Duke University); Sherwin Hsu, MD (UCLA); Jeff Liao, MD (Harvard Medical School); Tabatha Matthias, DO (University of Nebraska Medical Center); Tresa McNeal, MD (Scott and White Texas A&M); Roxana Naderi, MD, Khooshbu Shah, MD (University of Colorado); David Schmit, MD (University of Texas Health San Antonio); Manivannan Veerasamy, MD (Michigan State University).

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Acute pancreatitis (AP) is the most common gastrointestinal discharge diagnosis in the United States, with a mortality rate of 1%-5%.¹ Recent data demonstrate increasing AP-related admissions, making AP management of utmost importance to hospitalists.¹ The American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) guideline specifically addresses AP management in the initial 48-72 hours of admission, during which management decisions can alter disease course and length of stay. AP requires two of the following three criteria for diagnosis: characteristic abdominal pain, elevation of lipase or amylase ≥3 times the upper limit of normal, and/or radiographic evidence of pancreatitis on cross-sectional imaging. The guideline provides eight recommendations, which we consolidated to highlight practice changing recommendations: fluids, nutrition, management of the most common causes, and prophylactic antibiotics.^2,3

KEY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE HOSPITALIST

Fluids

Recommendation 1. In patients with AP, use goal-directed isotonic crystalloids for fluid management (conditional recommendation, very low-quality evidence).

The guideline emphasizes goal-directed fluid management despite low-quality, heterogeneous evidence and does not recommend Ringer’s lactate over normal saline. “Goal-directed” fluid management involves the use of crystalloid infusions titrated to improve physiologic and biochemical markers, but no target volume is specified by the guideline. Frequent reassessments should look for signs of volume overload, the primary risk of harm with fluid therapy. Despite failure to reduce mortality or morbidities such as pancreatic necrosis or persistent multi-organ failure, the AGA cites the mortality benefit of goal-directed therapy in sepsis as justification for this approach in AP, given the similar physiologic abnormalities.

Nutrition

Recommendation 2. Begin feeding early in patients with AP regardless of predicted severity. If oral nutrition is not tolerated, enteral feeding with either a nasogastric or nasojejunal tube is preferred to parenteral nutrition (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence).

Early feeding (ie, within 24 hours) is recommended regardless of AP severity. This represents a change from prior practices of bowel rest, theorized to prevent continued stimulation of an inflamed pancreas. Although early feeding has not been linked to improved mortality, it has demonstrated lower rates of multi-organ failure and infected pancreatic necrosis, possibly due to maintenance of the gut mucosal barrier and reduced bacterial translocation. When oral feeding is not tolerated, enteral nutrition is preferred over parenteral nutrition due to less risks. The preferred dietary composition guidance for patients with persistent pain or ileus is not addressed.

Management of the Most Common Causes of AP in Adults

Recommendation 3. Patients with mild acute biliary pancreatitis should have cholecystectomy during the initial admission (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence).

All patients with suspected biliary pancreatitis should receive a surgical consultation for cholecystectomy during the index admission. At the time of the guideline release, only one trial was available to support the recommendation of early cholecystectomy; however, newer studies similarly support cholecystectomy during index admission by demonstrating reductions in composite outcomes of mortality and gallstone-related complications, readmission for pancreatitis, and other pancreatobiliary complications.⁴ A Cochrane review included in the guideline found no differences in complication rates even in patients with severe biliary pancreatitis. In the absence of cholangitis, urgent endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERCP) is not indicated as most stones causing biliary pancreatitis pass spontaneously.

Recommendation 4. In patients with acute alcoholic pancreatitis, brief alcohol intervention should occur during admission (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence).

Ongoing alcohol consumption is a risk factor for recurrent acute and chronic pancreatitis. Only one trial assessed the impact of inpatient alcohol cessation counseling on recurrent AP, noting a trend toward reduced readmissions.⁵ However, indirect evidence from similar interventions in ambulatory settings demonstrates reductions in alcohol intake, leading to the AGA recommendation for inpatients with alcohol-induced AP.³

Antibiotics

Recommendation 5. Avoid empiric antibiotics in patients with AP who otherwise lack an indication, regardless of predicted severity (conditional recommendation, low-quality evidence).

Since 2002, well performed trials have consistently failed to demonstrate improvement in outcomes such as multi-organ failure or length of stay with use of prophylactic antibiotics for AP, even severe AP and pancreatic necrosis. Therefore, the AGA recommends against prophylactic antibiotics in initial management of AP regardless of disease severity. Lack of blinding in the majority of trial designs conducted before 2002 contributed to the overall assessment of low-quality evidence. The guideline does not address acute biliary pancreatitis with cholangitis, for which antibiotics and ERCP for decompression are critical.

CRITIQUE

The AGA Institute supported this guideline development and employed the rigorous and standardized GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology. This approach allowed the guideline panel members to account not only for evidence quality, but also the benefits and harms of an intervention and resource utilization. None of the authors had any stated conflicts of interest.

The guideline heavily weighted results from randomized control trials, most of which excluded key populations cared for by hospitalists (eg, patients older than 75 years, with end-stage renal disease). Particular areas where this creates challenges for clinicians and patients alike include goal-directed fluid therapy and when to consider more invasive interventions such as ERCP and early cholecystectomy. For example, patients considered to be poor surgical candidates may benefit from ERCP with biliary sphincterotomy to reduce the risk of recurrent biliary pancreatitis.

Lack of specificity in the guidelines for goal-directed fluid management and enteral feeding regimens makes it challenging to standardize hospitalists’ approach to the early care of patients with AP. Interestingly, the 2013 American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) Guideline for the Management of AP included strong recommendations for the use of Ringer’s lactate and volume targets in the initial management of AP.⁶ Evidence supporting the use of Ringer’s lactate versus normal saline is based largely upon improved inflammatory markers, theoretical potentiation of pancreatic enzyme activation with hypercholemic metabolic acidosis, and small studies demonstrating trends toward improved mortality.⁷ The ACG guideline was released prior to mounting evidence suggesting that goal-directed fluid therapy in sepsis does not improve mortality versus usual care.⁸ The growing uncertainty regarding the efficacy of goal-directed fluids for septic shock, as well limitations of studies on AP, may contribute to the differences between the AGA and ACG recommendations.

Finally, as the guideline covers the initial therapeutic management of AP, no recommendations are made for diagnostic studies such as right upper quadrant ultrasound. This noninvasive and readily available test plays a critical role in evaluating for presence of gallstones and other potential etiologies of abdominal pain.

AREAS IN NEED OF FUTURE STUDY

Additional research is needed to better understand goal-directed fluid therapy with respect to the fluid type, amount, and target outcomes. Similarly, determining the optimal enteral feeding regimens for patients failing oral intake would help clinicians meet the recommendation for early nutrition. Finally, clarification on the roles and timing of endoscopic and surgical procedures for patients with severe biliary pancreatitis, as well as geriatric and medically complex populations, would help hospitalists advocate for a multidisciplinary approach to this common and often serious disease.

Disclosures

The authors have nothing to disclose.

Acute pancreatitis (AP) is the most common gastrointestinal discharge diagnosis in the United States, with a mortality rate of 1%-5%.¹ Recent data demonstrate increasing AP-related admissions, making AP management of utmost importance to hospitalists.¹ The American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) guideline specifically addresses AP management in the initial 48-72 hours of admission, during which management decisions can alter disease course and length of stay. AP requires two of the following three criteria for diagnosis: characteristic abdominal pain, elevation of lipase or amylase ≥3 times the upper limit of normal, and/or radiographic evidence of pancreatitis on cross-sectional imaging. The guideline provides eight recommendations, which we consolidated to highlight practice changing recommendations: fluids, nutrition, management of the most common causes, and prophylactic antibiotics.^2,3

KEY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE HOSPITALIST

Fluids

Recommendation 1. In patients with AP, use goal-directed isotonic crystalloids for fluid management (conditional recommendation, very low-quality evidence).

The guideline emphasizes goal-directed fluid management despite low-quality, heterogeneous evidence and does not recommend Ringer’s lactate over normal saline. “Goal-directed” fluid management involves the use of crystalloid infusions titrated to improve physiologic and biochemical markers, but no target volume is specified by the guideline. Frequent reassessments should look for signs of volume overload, the primary risk of harm with fluid therapy. Despite failure to reduce mortality or morbidities such as pancreatic necrosis or persistent multi-organ failure, the AGA cites the mortality benefit of goal-directed therapy in sepsis as justification for this approach in AP, given the similar physiologic abnormalities.

Nutrition

Recommendation 2. Begin feeding early in patients with AP regardless of predicted severity. If oral nutrition is not tolerated, enteral feeding with either a nasogastric or nasojejunal tube is preferred to parenteral nutrition (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence).

Early feeding (ie, within 24 hours) is recommended regardless of AP severity. This represents a change from prior practices of bowel rest, theorized to prevent continued stimulation of an inflamed pancreas. Although early feeding has not been linked to improved mortality, it has demonstrated lower rates of multi-organ failure and infected pancreatic necrosis, possibly due to maintenance of the gut mucosal barrier and reduced bacterial translocation. When oral feeding is not tolerated, enteral nutrition is preferred over parenteral nutrition due to less risks. The preferred dietary composition guidance for patients with persistent pain or ileus is not addressed.

Management of the Most Common Causes of AP in Adults

Recommendation 3. Patients with mild acute biliary pancreatitis should have cholecystectomy during the initial admission (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence).

All patients with suspected biliary pancreatitis should receive a surgical consultation for cholecystectomy during the index admission. At the time of the guideline release, only one trial was available to support the recommendation of early cholecystectomy; however, newer studies similarly support cholecystectomy during index admission by demonstrating reductions in composite outcomes of mortality and gallstone-related complications, readmission for pancreatitis, and other pancreatobiliary complications.⁴ A Cochrane review included in the guideline found no differences in complication rates even in patients with severe biliary pancreatitis. In the absence of cholangitis, urgent endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERCP) is not indicated as most stones causing biliary pancreatitis pass spontaneously.

Recommendation 4. In patients with acute alcoholic pancreatitis, brief alcohol intervention should occur during admission (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence).

Ongoing alcohol consumption is a risk factor for recurrent acute and chronic pancreatitis. Only one trial assessed the impact of inpatient alcohol cessation counseling on recurrent AP, noting a trend toward reduced readmissions.⁵ However, indirect evidence from similar interventions in ambulatory settings demonstrates reductions in alcohol intake, leading to the AGA recommendation for inpatients with alcohol-induced AP.³

Antibiotics

Recommendation 5. Avoid empiric antibiotics in patients with AP who otherwise lack an indication, regardless of predicted severity (conditional recommendation, low-quality evidence).

Since 2002, well performed trials have consistently failed to demonstrate improvement in outcomes such as multi-organ failure or length of stay with use of prophylactic antibiotics for AP, even severe AP and pancreatic necrosis. Therefore, the AGA recommends against prophylactic antibiotics in initial management of AP regardless of disease severity. Lack of blinding in the majority of trial designs conducted before 2002 contributed to the overall assessment of low-quality evidence. The guideline does not address acute biliary pancreatitis with cholangitis, for which antibiotics and ERCP for decompression are critical.

CRITIQUE

The AGA Institute supported this guideline development and employed the rigorous and standardized GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology. This approach allowed the guideline panel members to account not only for evidence quality, but also the benefits and harms of an intervention and resource utilization. None of the authors had any stated conflicts of interest.

The guideline heavily weighted results from randomized control trials, most of which excluded key populations cared for by hospitalists (eg, patients older than 75 years, with end-stage renal disease). Particular areas where this creates challenges for clinicians and patients alike include goal-directed fluid therapy and when to consider more invasive interventions such as ERCP and early cholecystectomy. For example, patients considered to be poor surgical candidates may benefit from ERCP with biliary sphincterotomy to reduce the risk of recurrent biliary pancreatitis.

Lack of specificity in the guidelines for goal-directed fluid management and enteral feeding regimens makes it challenging to standardize hospitalists’ approach to the early care of patients with AP. Interestingly, the 2013 American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) Guideline for the Management of AP included strong recommendations for the use of Ringer’s lactate and volume targets in the initial management of AP.⁶ Evidence supporting the use of Ringer’s lactate versus normal saline is based largely upon improved inflammatory markers, theoretical potentiation of pancreatic enzyme activation with hypercholemic metabolic acidosis, and small studies demonstrating trends toward improved mortality.⁷ The ACG guideline was released prior to mounting evidence suggesting that goal-directed fluid therapy in sepsis does not improve mortality versus usual care.⁸ The growing uncertainty regarding the efficacy of goal-directed fluids for septic shock, as well limitations of studies on AP, may contribute to the differences between the AGA and ACG recommendations.

Finally, as the guideline covers the initial therapeutic management of AP, no recommendations are made for diagnostic studies such as right upper quadrant ultrasound. This noninvasive and readily available test plays a critical role in evaluating for presence of gallstones and other potential etiologies of abdominal pain.

AREAS IN NEED OF FUTURE STUDY

Additional research is needed to better understand goal-directed fluid therapy with respect to the fluid type, amount, and target outcomes. Similarly, determining the optimal enteral feeding regimens for patients failing oral intake would help clinicians meet the recommendation for early nutrition. Finally, clarification on the roles and timing of endoscopic and surgical procedures for patients with severe biliary pancreatitis, as well as geriatric and medically complex populations, would help hospitalists advocate for a multidisciplinary approach to this common and often serious disease.

Disclosures

The authors have nothing to disclose.

Acute pancreatitis (AP) is the most common gastrointestinal discharge diagnosis in the United States, with a mortality rate of 1%-5%.¹ Recent data demonstrate increasing AP-related admissions, making AP management of utmost importance to hospitalists.¹ The American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) guideline specifically addresses AP management in the initial 48-72 hours of admission, during which management decisions can alter disease course and length of stay. AP requires two of the following three criteria for diagnosis: characteristic abdominal pain, elevation of lipase or amylase ≥3 times the upper limit of normal, and/or radiographic evidence of pancreatitis on cross-sectional imaging. The guideline provides eight recommendations, which we consolidated to highlight practice changing recommendations: fluids, nutrition, management of the most common causes, and prophylactic antibiotics.^2,3

KEY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE HOSPITALIST

Fluids

Recommendation 1. In patients with AP, use goal-directed isotonic crystalloids for fluid management (conditional recommendation, very low-quality evidence).

The guideline emphasizes goal-directed fluid management despite low-quality, heterogeneous evidence and does not recommend Ringer’s lactate over normal saline. “Goal-directed” fluid management involves the use of crystalloid infusions titrated to improve physiologic and biochemical markers, but no target volume is specified by the guideline. Frequent reassessments should look for signs of volume overload, the primary risk of harm with fluid therapy. Despite failure to reduce mortality or morbidities such as pancreatic necrosis or persistent multi-organ failure, the AGA cites the mortality benefit of goal-directed therapy in sepsis as justification for this approach in AP, given the similar physiologic abnormalities.

Nutrition

Recommendation 2. Begin feeding early in patients with AP regardless of predicted severity. If oral nutrition is not tolerated, enteral feeding with either a nasogastric or nasojejunal tube is preferred to parenteral nutrition (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence).

Early feeding (ie, within 24 hours) is recommended regardless of AP severity. This represents a change from prior practices of bowel rest, theorized to prevent continued stimulation of an inflamed pancreas. Although early feeding has not been linked to improved mortality, it has demonstrated lower rates of multi-organ failure and infected pancreatic necrosis, possibly due to maintenance of the gut mucosal barrier and reduced bacterial translocation. When oral feeding is not tolerated, enteral nutrition is preferred over parenteral nutrition due to less risks. The preferred dietary composition guidance for patients with persistent pain or ileus is not addressed.

Management of the Most Common Causes of AP in Adults

Recommendation 3. Patients with mild acute biliary pancreatitis should have cholecystectomy during the initial admission (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence).

All patients with suspected biliary pancreatitis should receive a surgical consultation for cholecystectomy during the index admission. At the time of the guideline release, only one trial was available to support the recommendation of early cholecystectomy; however, newer studies similarly support cholecystectomy during index admission by demonstrating reductions in composite outcomes of mortality and gallstone-related complications, readmission for pancreatitis, and other pancreatobiliary complications.⁴ A Cochrane review included in the guideline found no differences in complication rates even in patients with severe biliary pancreatitis. In the absence of cholangitis, urgent endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERCP) is not indicated as most stones causing biliary pancreatitis pass spontaneously.

Recommendation 4. In patients with acute alcoholic pancreatitis, brief alcohol intervention should occur during admission (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence).

Ongoing alcohol consumption is a risk factor for recurrent acute and chronic pancreatitis. Only one trial assessed the impact of inpatient alcohol cessation counseling on recurrent AP, noting a trend toward reduced readmissions.⁵ However, indirect evidence from similar interventions in ambulatory settings demonstrates reductions in alcohol intake, leading to the AGA recommendation for inpatients with alcohol-induced AP.³

Antibiotics

Recommendation 5. Avoid empiric antibiotics in patients with AP who otherwise lack an indication, regardless of predicted severity (conditional recommendation, low-quality evidence).

Since 2002, well performed trials have consistently failed to demonstrate improvement in outcomes such as multi-organ failure or length of stay with use of prophylactic antibiotics for AP, even severe AP and pancreatic necrosis. Therefore, the AGA recommends against prophylactic antibiotics in initial management of AP regardless of disease severity. Lack of blinding in the majority of trial designs conducted before 2002 contributed to the overall assessment of low-quality evidence. The guideline does not address acute biliary pancreatitis with cholangitis, for which antibiotics and ERCP for decompression are critical.

CRITIQUE

The AGA Institute supported this guideline development and employed the rigorous and standardized GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology. This approach allowed the guideline panel members to account not only for evidence quality, but also the benefits and harms of an intervention and resource utilization. None of the authors had any stated conflicts of interest.

The guideline heavily weighted results from randomized control trials, most of which excluded key populations cared for by hospitalists (eg, patients older than 75 years, with end-stage renal disease). Particular areas where this creates challenges for clinicians and patients alike include goal-directed fluid therapy and when to consider more invasive interventions such as ERCP and early cholecystectomy. For example, patients considered to be poor surgical candidates may benefit from ERCP with biliary sphincterotomy to reduce the risk of recurrent biliary pancreatitis.

Lack of specificity in the guidelines for goal-directed fluid management and enteral feeding regimens makes it challenging to standardize hospitalists’ approach to the early care of patients with AP. Interestingly, the 2013 American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) Guideline for the Management of AP included strong recommendations for the use of Ringer’s lactate and volume targets in the initial management of AP.⁶ Evidence supporting the use of Ringer’s lactate versus normal saline is based largely upon improved inflammatory markers, theoretical potentiation of pancreatic enzyme activation with hypercholemic metabolic acidosis, and small studies demonstrating trends toward improved mortality.⁷ The ACG guideline was released prior to mounting evidence suggesting that goal-directed fluid therapy in sepsis does not improve mortality versus usual care.⁸ The growing uncertainty regarding the efficacy of goal-directed fluids for septic shock, as well limitations of studies on AP, may contribute to the differences between the AGA and ACG recommendations.

Finally, as the guideline covers the initial therapeutic management of AP, no recommendations are made for diagnostic studies such as right upper quadrant ultrasound. This noninvasive and readily available test plays a critical role in evaluating for presence of gallstones and other potential etiologies of abdominal pain.

AREAS IN NEED OF FUTURE STUDY

Additional research is needed to better understand goal-directed fluid therapy with respect to the fluid type, amount, and target outcomes. Similarly, determining the optimal enteral feeding regimens for patients failing oral intake would help clinicians meet the recommendation for early nutrition. Finally, clarification on the roles and timing of endoscopic and surgical procedures for patients with severe biliary pancreatitis, as well as geriatric and medically complex populations, would help hospitalists advocate for a multidisciplinary approach to this common and often serious disease.

Disclosures

The authors have nothing to disclose.

Given the breadth and depth of patients cared for by hospital medicine providers, it is challenging to remain current with the literature. The authors critically appraised the literature from March 2018 to April 2019 for high-quality studies relevant to hospital medicine. Articles were selected based on methodologic rigor and likelihood to impact clinical practice. Thirty articles were selected by the presenting authors for the Hospital Medicine Updates at the 2019 Society of Hospital Medicine (CH, CM) and Society of General Internal Medicine Annual Meetings (BS, AB). After two sequential rounds of voting and group discussion to adjudicate voting discrepancies, the authors selected the 10 most impactful articles for this review. Each article is described below with the key points summarized in the Table.

Clinical Practice Guidelines for Clostridium difficile Infection in Adults and Children: 2017 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA). McDonald LC, et al. Clin Infect Dis. 2018;66(7):e1–e48.¹

Background. In the United States, approximately 500,000 Clostridioides difficile infections (CDI) occur annually with 15,000-30,000 deaths. CDI has become a marker of hospital quality and has been placed under numerous “pay for performance” metrics. The Infectious Diseases Society of America/Society of Healthcare Epidemiology of America updated their guidelines from 2010 regarding hospital surveillance, diagnostic testing, treatment, and infection precautions and control.

Findings. The panel included 14 multidisciplinary experts in epidemiology, diagnosis, infection control, and clinical management of adult and pediatric CDI. They used problem intervention comparison-outcome (PICO)-formatted, evidence-based questions. The selection of data and final recommendations were made in accordance with the GRADE criteria. A total of 35 recommendations were made.

Key clinical recommendations for hospitalists caring for adults: (1) Prescribe vancomycin or fidaxomicin over metronidazole for the initial treatment of CDI (strong recommendation, high quality of evidence); (2) Limit testing to the patients with unexplained new onset diarrhea, which is defined as greater than or equal to 3 unformed stools in 24 hours (weak recommendation, very low-quality evidence); (3) Avoid routine repeat testing within seven days, and only test asymptomatic patients for epidemiologic reasons (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence); (4) Minimize the frequency and duration of high-risk antibiotic therapy and the number of antibiotic agents prescribed (strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence); (5) Discontinue therapy with the inciting antibiotic agent as soon as possible (strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence).

Caveats. As with the clinical application of any guidelines, individual case adjustments may be required.

Mortality and Morbidity in Acutely Ill Adults Treated with Liberal versus Conservative Oxygen Therapy (IOTA): a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Chu DK, et al. Lancet. 2018;391(10131):1693-1705.²

Background. Supplemental oxygen is often given to acutely ill hospitalized adults, even when they are not hypoxic or dyspneic. The safety and efficacy of this practice is unknown.

Findings. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated 25 randomized controlled trials enrolling 16,037 patients. Patients presented with several conditions, including sepsis, critical illness, stroke, myocardial infarction, and emergency surgery. The fraction of inspired oxygen in the liberal arms varied from 30% to 100%. Most patients randomized to the conservative arm received no supplemental oxygen. Delivery of liberal oxygen to acutely ill adults was associated with increased in-hospital mortality (relative risk [RR]: 1.21; 95% CI: 1.03-1.43), 30-day mortality (RR: 1.14; 95% CI: 1.01-1.29), and 90-day mortality (RR: 1.10; 95% CI: 1.00-1.20). The results were believed to be of high quality and were robust across multiple sensitivity analyses. It seemed that the mortality began to increase when supplemental oxygen raised the peripheral oxygen saturation (Sp0₂) above a range of 94%-96%.

Caveats. Heterogeneity was observed in the study settings and oxygen delivery. In addition, the cause for increased mortality could not be determined.

Implications. In hospitalized acutely ill adults, “liberal” supplemental oxygen was associated with increased in-hospital and longer-term mortality. The study authors postulated that this finding resulted from the direct toxic effects of oxygen or that oxygen delivery may “mask” illness and lead to delays in diagnosis and treatment. A subsequent clinical practice guideline recommends (1) a target SpO₂ of less than 96% for patients receiving oxygen therapy; (2) a target SpO₂ range of 90%-94% seems appropriate for most hospitalized adults.³

Do Words Matter? Stigmatizing Language and the Transmission of Bias in the Medical Record. P Goddu A, et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2018;33(5):68-91.⁴

Background. Previous work has shown that clinician bias affects health outcomes, often worsening health disparities. It is unknown whether clinicians’ language in medical records biases other clinicians and whether this affects patients.

Findings. The investigators randomized medical students and residents in internal and emergency medicine at one academic medical center to review one of two vignettes in the format of notes on the same hypothetical patient with sickle cell disease (SCD) admitted with a pain crisis. One vignette contained stigmatizing language, and the other contained neutral language. The trainees exposed to the vignettes with stigmatizing language showed a more negative attitude toward the patient, as measured by a previously validated scale of attitudes toward patients with SCD (20.6 stigmatizing vs 25.6 neutral, with a total score range of 7-35 for the instrument; higher scores indicate more positive attitudes; P < .001). Furthermore, the intensity of pain treatment was assessed in the resident group and was less aggressive when residents were exposed to stigmatizing language (5.56 stigmatizing vs 6.22 neutral on a scale of 2-7, with higher scores indicating more aggressive pain treatment; P = .003).

Cautions. This research was a single-center study of residents and medical students in two departments. Additionally, the study used vignettes on a hypothetical patient so trainees in the study group might have witnessed stronger stigmatizing language than what is typically observed in an actual patients’ notes.

Implications. Stigmatizing language used in medical records possibly contributed to health disparities by negatively impacting other physicians’ biases and prescribing practices toward patients with SCD at an academic medical center. Clinicians should avoid stigmatizing language in medical records.

Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation with Heart Failure. Marrouche, NF et al. New Engl J Med. 2018;378:417-427.⁵

Background. Atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with heart failure is associated with increased mortality and morbidity. Small-scale studies have suggested that ablation of AF may benefit patients with heart failure.

Findings. This multicenter trial included 398 patients with heart failure and symptomatic AF. Patients had New York Heart Association Class II-IV heart failure, an ejection fraction (EF) of 35% or less, and an internal cardiac defibrillator (ICD). Patients were randomized to either ablation or medical therapy. All enrolled patients either refused, failed, or showed poor tolerance to antiarrhythmic therapy for AF. The primary outcome was death from any cause or hospitalization for heart failure.

The composite endpoint occurred in 28.5% of the ablation group versus 44.6% of patients in the medical therapy group (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.43-0.87). Fewer patients in the ablation group died (13% vs 25%; HR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.32-0.86) or were hospitalized for heart failure (21% vs 36%; HR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.37-0.83). The patients in the ablation group had higher EF increases above baseline and a greater proportion were in sinus rhythm at the 60-month follow-up visit.

Cautions. The trial was terminated early due to slow recruitment and lower than expected events. Over twice as many patients were lost to follow-up in the ablation group versus the medical therapy group, and by 60 months, AF recurred in 50% of patients who underwent ablation. The sample size was small, and the trial was unblinded.

Implications. Ablation should be considered for AF in patients with heart failure. Additional studies to evaluate ablation versus medical therapy for patients with heart failure and AF are underway.

Medication for Opioid Use Disorder after Nonfatal Opioid Overdose and Association with Mortality. Larochelle MR, et al. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(3):137-145.⁶

Background. More than 70,000 Americans died of drug overdose in 2017; this number is higher than the deaths resulting from human immunodeficiency virus, car crash, or gun violence at their peaks.⁷ Methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone are approved by the Federal Drug Administration for the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD). These medications increase treatment retention; methadone and buprenorphine have been associated with significant decreases in all-cause and overdose mortality.⁸ However, whether receipt of these medications following a nonfatal opioid overdose reduces mortality is unknown.

Findings. This retrospective cohort study included 17,568 opioid overdose survivors from the Massachusetts’s Public Health Dataset between 2012 and 2014. Only three in 10 of these patients received any medications for OUD over 12 months following overdose. All-cause mortality was 4.7 deaths (95% CI: 4.4-5.0 deaths) per 100 person-years. The relative risk for all-cause mortality was 53% lower with methadone (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.32-0.71) and 37% lower with buprenorphine (aHR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.46-0.87).

Caveats. This cohort study may have missed confounders explaining why certain patients received medications for OUD. As a result, association cannot be interpreted as causation.

Implications. Methadone and buprenorphine are associated with a reduction in preventable deaths in patients with OUD who have survived an overdose. All patients with OUD should be considered for therapy.

Outcomes Associated with Apixaban Use in Patients with End-Stage Kidney Disease and Atrial Fibrillation in the United States. Siontis, KC, et al. Circulation. 2018;138:1519–1529.⁹

Background. Patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) have poor outcomes when treated with warfarin for AF. These patients were excluded from clinical trials of direct oral anticoagulants. The goal of this study was to determine the outcomes of the use of apixaban in patients with ESKD and AF.

Findings. This retrospective cohort study included 25,523 Medicare patients with ESKD and AF on anticoagulants. A 3:1 propensity score match was performed between patients on warfarin and apixaban. Time without stroke/systemic embolism, bleeding (major, gastrointestinal, and intracranial), and death were assessed. A total of 2,351 patients were on apixaban, and 23,172 patients were on warfarin. No difference was observed in the risk of stroke/systemic embolism between apixaban and warfarin (HR 0.88; 95% CI: 0.69-1.12). Apixaban was associated with a lower risk of major bleeding (HR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.59-0.87). Standard-dose apixaban (5 mg twice a day) was associated with lower risks of stroke/systemic embolism and death compared with reduced-dose apixaban (2.5 mg twice a day; n = 1,317; HR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.37-0.98; P = .04 for stroke/systemic embolism; HR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.45-0.92; P = .01 for death) or warfarin (HR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.42-0.97; P = .04 for stroke/systemic embolism; HR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.46-0.85; P = .003 for death).

Cautions. There may be unique patient factors that led providers to prescribe apixaban to patients with ESKD.

Implications. The use of standard-dose apixaban appears safe and potentially preferable in patients with ESKD and AF due to reductions in major bleeding, thromboembolism, and mortality risk compared with warfarin. Several additional studies are pending to evaluate the use and dose of apixaban in patients with ESKD and AF.

Outcomes Associated with De-escalating Therapy for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Culture-Negative Nosocomial Pneumonia. Cowley MC, et al. Chest. 2019;155(1):53-59.¹⁰

Background. Patients diagnosed with hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) are often treated empirically with broad-spectrum antibiotics. In many patients with HAP, cultures remain negative, and providers must decide if antibiotics can safely be narrowed. Specifically, the safety of deciding to “de-escalate” and discontinue the coverage for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) if cultures remain negative is unclear.

Findings. In this single-center retrospective cohort study, 279 patients who were (1) diagnosed with HAP and (2) had negative sputum cultures were enrolled. The patients in whom MRSA coverage was de-escalated by day four were compared with those with continued anti-MRSA coverage. No difference was observed between the two groups in terms of degree of illness or comorbidities. The patients who were de-escalated received five fewer days of anti-MRSA coverage than patients who were not. No difference was noted in the 28-day mortality between the two groups (de-escalation: 23% vs no de-escalation: 28%; 95% CI: −16.1%-6.5%). The incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) was significantly lower in the de-escalation group (36% vs 50%; 95% CI: −26.9- 0.04), and the overall length of stay was five days shorter in the de-escalation group (95% CI: 0.1-6.4 days).

Caveats. Given the retrospective nature, unmeasured confounders may have impacted the decision to de-escalate anti-MRSA coverage. The observed lower risk of AKI in the de-escalation group may be due to the simultaneous de-escalation of anti-Pseudomonas antibiotic agents in addition to the de-escalation of anti-MRSA coverage, as opposed to de-escalation of the anti-MRSA coverage alone.

Implications. De-escalation of anti-MRSA coverage in patients with HAP with negative cultures is associated with fewer antibiotic days, less AKI, and possibly shorter length of stay.

Partial Oral versus Intravenous Antibiotic Treatment for Endocarditis (POET). Iversen K et al. New Engl J Med. 2019;380(5):415-424.¹¹

Background. Patients with left-sided infective endocarditis are typically treated with up to six weeks of intravenous (IV) antibiotics. The investigators studied the effectiveness and safety of switching to oral antibiotics after at least 10 days of IV therapy.

Findings. This randomized, multicenter, noninferiority trial at cardiac centers across Denmark included 400 adults with left-sided endocarditis who were clinically stable after at least 10 days of IV antibiotics. Half of the patients were randomized to continue IV therapy, whereas the other half was switched to oral antibiotics to complete the treatment course. Six months after therapy, no significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of the primary composite outcomes, including all-cause mortality, unplanned cardiac surgery, embolic events, or relapse of bacteremia with the primary pathogen (IV-treated group: 12.1%; orally treated group: 9.0% [between-group difference: 3.1%; P = .40]).

Caveats. A total of 20% of the screened population (1,954 adults) was randomized, and about 1% (5/400) of patients used injection drugs. None of the patients had MRSA. Patients in the oral group were assessed two to three times per week as outpatients, which may not be feasible in most settings.

Implications. Switching to oral antibiotics after at least 10 days of IV therapy appears to be safe and effective in selected patients with left-sided endocarditis. However, this study largely excluded patients with injection drug use and/or MRSA infections.

Oral versus Intravenous Antibiotics for Bone and Joint Infection (OVIVA). Li HK, et al. New Engl J Med. 2019;380(5):425-436.¹²

Background. Most complex orthopedic infections are treated with several weeks of IV antibiotics. This study sought to determine whether oral antibiotics are noninferior to IV antibiotics for bone and joint infections.

Findings. This randomized, multicenter, noninferiority, open-label trial of 1,054 adults with bone and joint infections in the United Kingdom included patients with prosthetic joints, other indwelling joint hardware, and native joint infections. Within seven days of antibiotic medication or within seven days of surgery (if performed), the patients received either IV or oral antibiotics for six weeks with a primary endpoint of treatment failure one year after the study randomization. The choice and duration of antibiotic treatment were determined by the involved infectious disease physician. A majority (77%) of patients received greater than six weeks of therapy. Treatment failure was defined by clinical, microbiologic, or histologic criteria. Most enrolled patients were infected with Staphylococcus aureus, with 10% having methicillin-resistant S. aureus. Treatment failure was more frequent in the IV group than the oral group (14.6% vs 13.2%), and these findings were consistent across all subgroups. More patients discontinued treatment in the IV group than the oral group.

Cautions. This study included a heterogenous population of patients with bone and joint infections, with or without hardware, and with different species of bacteria. Patients with bacteremia, endocarditis, or another indication for IV therapy were excluded. Limited injection drug use history was available for the enrolled patients. Most patients had lower limb infections. Thus, these findings are less applicable to vertebral osteomyelitis. Additionally, the study offered no comparison of specific antibiotics.

Implications. With appropriate oversight from infectious disease specialists, targeted oral therapy may be appropriate for the treatment of osteomyelitis. This shift in practice likely requires more study before broad implementation.

Prognostic Accuracy of the HEART Score for Prediction of Major Adverse Cardiac Events in Patients Presenting with Chest Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis. Fernando S, et al. Acad Emerg Med. 2019;26(2):140-151.¹³

Background. Chest pain accounts for over eight million emergency department (ED) visits yearly in the United States. Of those presenting with chest pain, 10%-20% will experience acute coronary syndrome (ACS) requiring further medical treatment. Given the fear of missing ACS, many low-risk patients are hospitalized. The American Heart Association has advocated using validated predictive scoring models to identify patients with chest pain who are at low risk for short-term major cardiovascular adverse event (MACE) for potential discharge without further testing. The authors evaluated the prognostic accuracy of higher risk scores to predict MACE in adult ED patients presenting with chest pain.

Findings. This study was a systematic review and meta-analysis of 30 prospective and retrospective studies evaluating the history–electrocardiogram–age–risk factors–troponin (HEART) score through May 1, 2018. Meta-analysis compared the sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratios, negative likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratios of the HEART score and the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) score when reported. An intermediate HEART score of 4-6 had a sensitivity of 95.9% and a specificity of 44.6%. A high HEART score of greater than or equal to 7 had a sensitivity of 39.5% and a specificity of 95.0%. Similarly, a high TIMI score of great than or equal to 6 had a sensitivity of only 2.8% and a specificity of 99.6%. The authors concluded that a HEART score of greater than or equal to 4 best identifies patients at risk of MACE who need greater consideration for additional testing.

Caveats. This meta-analysis failed to assess the potential adverse effects of false positive downstream testing. Additionally, no study compared the HEART score with the experienced clinician gestalt, which has often been equivalent to decision rules.

Implication. A HEART score greater than or equal to 4 risk stratifies ED patients with chest pain requiring further consideration for evaluation versus those that can be discharged with low risk for short-term MACE.

Given the breadth and depth of patients cared for by hospital medicine providers, it is challenging to remain current with the literature. The authors critically appraised the literature from March 2018 to April 2019 for high-quality studies relevant to hospital medicine. Articles were selected based on methodologic rigor and likelihood to impact clinical practice. Thirty articles were selected by the presenting authors for the Hospital Medicine Updates at the 2019 Society of Hospital Medicine (CH, CM) and Society of General Internal Medicine Annual Meetings (BS, AB). After two sequential rounds of voting and group discussion to adjudicate voting discrepancies, the authors selected the 10 most impactful articles for this review. Each article is described below with the key points summarized in the Table.

Clinical Practice Guidelines for Clostridium difficile Infection in Adults and Children: 2017 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA). McDonald LC, et al. Clin Infect Dis. 2018;66(7):e1–e48.¹

Background. In the United States, approximately 500,000 Clostridioides difficile infections (CDI) occur annually with 15,000-30,000 deaths. CDI has become a marker of hospital quality and has been placed under numerous “pay for performance” metrics. The Infectious Diseases Society of America/Society of Healthcare Epidemiology of America updated their guidelines from 2010 regarding hospital surveillance, diagnostic testing, treatment, and infection precautions and control.

Findings. The panel included 14 multidisciplinary experts in epidemiology, diagnosis, infection control, and clinical management of adult and pediatric CDI. They used problem intervention comparison-outcome (PICO)-formatted, evidence-based questions. The selection of data and final recommendations were made in accordance with the GRADE criteria. A total of 35 recommendations were made.

Key clinical recommendations for hospitalists caring for adults: (1) Prescribe vancomycin or fidaxomicin over metronidazole for the initial treatment of CDI (strong recommendation, high quality of evidence); (2) Limit testing to the patients with unexplained new onset diarrhea, which is defined as greater than or equal to 3 unformed stools in 24 hours (weak recommendation, very low-quality evidence); (3) Avoid routine repeat testing within seven days, and only test asymptomatic patients for epidemiologic reasons (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence); (4) Minimize the frequency and duration of high-risk antibiotic therapy and the number of antibiotic agents prescribed (strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence); (5) Discontinue therapy with the inciting antibiotic agent as soon as possible (strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence).

Caveats. As with the clinical application of any guidelines, individual case adjustments may be required.

Mortality and Morbidity in Acutely Ill Adults Treated with Liberal versus Conservative Oxygen Therapy (IOTA): a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Chu DK, et al. Lancet. 2018;391(10131):1693-1705.²

Background. Supplemental oxygen is often given to acutely ill hospitalized adults, even when they are not hypoxic or dyspneic. The safety and efficacy of this practice is unknown.

Findings. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated 25 randomized controlled trials enrolling 16,037 patients. Patients presented with several conditions, including sepsis, critical illness, stroke, myocardial infarction, and emergency surgery. The fraction of inspired oxygen in the liberal arms varied from 30% to 100%. Most patients randomized to the conservative arm received no supplemental oxygen. Delivery of liberal oxygen to acutely ill adults was associated with increased in-hospital mortality (relative risk [RR]: 1.21; 95% CI: 1.03-1.43), 30-day mortality (RR: 1.14; 95% CI: 1.01-1.29), and 90-day mortality (RR: 1.10; 95% CI: 1.00-1.20). The results were believed to be of high quality and were robust across multiple sensitivity analyses. It seemed that the mortality began to increase when supplemental oxygen raised the peripheral oxygen saturation (Sp0₂) above a range of 94%-96%.

Caveats. Heterogeneity was observed in the study settings and oxygen delivery. In addition, the cause for increased mortality could not be determined.

Implications. In hospitalized acutely ill adults, “liberal” supplemental oxygen was associated with increased in-hospital and longer-term mortality. The study authors postulated that this finding resulted from the direct toxic effects of oxygen or that oxygen delivery may “mask” illness and lead to delays in diagnosis and treatment. A subsequent clinical practice guideline recommends (1) a target SpO₂ of less than 96% for patients receiving oxygen therapy; (2) a target SpO₂ range of 90%-94% seems appropriate for most hospitalized adults.³

Do Words Matter? Stigmatizing Language and the Transmission of Bias in the Medical Record. P Goddu A, et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2018;33(5):68-91.⁴

Background. Previous work has shown that clinician bias affects health outcomes, often worsening health disparities. It is unknown whether clinicians’ language in medical records biases other clinicians and whether this affects patients.

Findings. The investigators randomized medical students and residents in internal and emergency medicine at one academic medical center to review one of two vignettes in the format of notes on the same hypothetical patient with sickle cell disease (SCD) admitted with a pain crisis. One vignette contained stigmatizing language, and the other contained neutral language. The trainees exposed to the vignettes with stigmatizing language showed a more negative attitude toward the patient, as measured by a previously validated scale of attitudes toward patients with SCD (20.6 stigmatizing vs 25.6 neutral, with a total score range of 7-35 for the instrument; higher scores indicate more positive attitudes; P < .001). Furthermore, the intensity of pain treatment was assessed in the resident group and was less aggressive when residents were exposed to stigmatizing language (5.56 stigmatizing vs 6.22 neutral on a scale of 2-7, with higher scores indicating more aggressive pain treatment; P = .003).

Cautions. This research was a single-center study of residents and medical students in two departments. Additionally, the study used vignettes on a hypothetical patient so trainees in the study group might have witnessed stronger stigmatizing language than what is typically observed in an actual patients’ notes.

Implications. Stigmatizing language used in medical records possibly contributed to health disparities by negatively impacting other physicians’ biases and prescribing practices toward patients with SCD at an academic medical center. Clinicians should avoid stigmatizing language in medical records.

Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation with Heart Failure. Marrouche, NF et al. New Engl J Med. 2018;378:417-427.⁵

Background. Atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with heart failure is associated with increased mortality and morbidity. Small-scale studies have suggested that ablation of AF may benefit patients with heart failure.

Findings. This multicenter trial included 398 patients with heart failure and symptomatic AF. Patients had New York Heart Association Class II-IV heart failure, an ejection fraction (EF) of 35% or less, and an internal cardiac defibrillator (ICD). Patients were randomized to either ablation or medical therapy. All enrolled patients either refused, failed, or showed poor tolerance to antiarrhythmic therapy for AF. The primary outcome was death from any cause or hospitalization for heart failure.

The composite endpoint occurred in 28.5% of the ablation group versus 44.6% of patients in the medical therapy group (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.43-0.87). Fewer patients in the ablation group died (13% vs 25%; HR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.32-0.86) or were hospitalized for heart failure (21% vs 36%; HR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.37-0.83). The patients in the ablation group had higher EF increases above baseline and a greater proportion were in sinus rhythm at the 60-month follow-up visit.

Cautions. The trial was terminated early due to slow recruitment and lower than expected events. Over twice as many patients were lost to follow-up in the ablation group versus the medical therapy group, and by 60 months, AF recurred in 50% of patients who underwent ablation. The sample size was small, and the trial was unblinded.

Implications. Ablation should be considered for AF in patients with heart failure. Additional studies to evaluate ablation versus medical therapy for patients with heart failure and AF are underway.

Medication for Opioid Use Disorder after Nonfatal Opioid Overdose and Association with Mortality. Larochelle MR, et al. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(3):137-145.⁶

Background. More than 70,000 Americans died of drug overdose in 2017; this number is higher than the deaths resulting from human immunodeficiency virus, car crash, or gun violence at their peaks.⁷ Methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone are approved by the Federal Drug Administration for the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD). These medications increase treatment retention; methadone and buprenorphine have been associated with significant decreases in all-cause and overdose mortality.⁸ However, whether receipt of these medications following a nonfatal opioid overdose reduces mortality is unknown.

Findings. This retrospective cohort study included 17,568 opioid overdose survivors from the Massachusetts’s Public Health Dataset between 2012 and 2014. Only three in 10 of these patients received any medications for OUD over 12 months following overdose. All-cause mortality was 4.7 deaths (95% CI: 4.4-5.0 deaths) per 100 person-years. The relative risk for all-cause mortality was 53% lower with methadone (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.32-0.71) and 37% lower with buprenorphine (aHR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.46-0.87).

Caveats. This cohort study may have missed confounders explaining why certain patients received medications for OUD. As a result, association cannot be interpreted as causation.

Implications. Methadone and buprenorphine are associated with a reduction in preventable deaths in patients with OUD who have survived an overdose. All patients with OUD should be considered for therapy.

Outcomes Associated with Apixaban Use in Patients with End-Stage Kidney Disease and Atrial Fibrillation in the United States. Siontis, KC, et al. Circulation. 2018;138:1519–1529.⁹

Background. Patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) have poor outcomes when treated with warfarin for AF. These patients were excluded from clinical trials of direct oral anticoagulants. The goal of this study was to determine the outcomes of the use of apixaban in patients with ESKD and AF.

Findings. This retrospective cohort study included 25,523 Medicare patients with ESKD and AF on anticoagulants. A 3:1 propensity score match was performed between patients on warfarin and apixaban. Time without stroke/systemic embolism, bleeding (major, gastrointestinal, and intracranial), and death were assessed. A total of 2,351 patients were on apixaban, and 23,172 patients were on warfarin. No difference was observed in the risk of stroke/systemic embolism between apixaban and warfarin (HR 0.88; 95% CI: 0.69-1.12). Apixaban was associated with a lower risk of major bleeding (HR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.59-0.87). Standard-dose apixaban (5 mg twice a day) was associated with lower risks of stroke/systemic embolism and death compared with reduced-dose apixaban (2.5 mg twice a day; n = 1,317; HR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.37-0.98; P = .04 for stroke/systemic embolism; HR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.45-0.92; P = .01 for death) or warfarin (HR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.42-0.97; P = .04 for stroke/systemic embolism; HR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.46-0.85; P = .003 for death).

Cautions. There may be unique patient factors that led providers to prescribe apixaban to patients with ESKD.

Implications. The use of standard-dose apixaban appears safe and potentially preferable in patients with ESKD and AF due to reductions in major bleeding, thromboembolism, and mortality risk compared with warfarin. Several additional studies are pending to evaluate the use and dose of apixaban in patients with ESKD and AF.

Outcomes Associated with De-escalating Therapy for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Culture-Negative Nosocomial Pneumonia. Cowley MC, et al. Chest. 2019;155(1):53-59.¹⁰

Background. Patients diagnosed with hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) are often treated empirically with broad-spectrum antibiotics. In many patients with HAP, cultures remain negative, and providers must decide if antibiotics can safely be narrowed. Specifically, the safety of deciding to “de-escalate” and discontinue the coverage for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) if cultures remain negative is unclear.

Findings. In this single-center retrospective cohort study, 279 patients who were (1) diagnosed with HAP and (2) had negative sputum cultures were enrolled. The patients in whom MRSA coverage was de-escalated by day four were compared with those with continued anti-MRSA coverage. No difference was observed between the two groups in terms of degree of illness or comorbidities. The patients who were de-escalated received five fewer days of anti-MRSA coverage than patients who were not. No difference was noted in the 28-day mortality between the two groups (de-escalation: 23% vs no de-escalation: 28%; 95% CI: −16.1%-6.5%). The incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) was significantly lower in the de-escalation group (36% vs 50%; 95% CI: −26.9- 0.04), and the overall length of stay was five days shorter in the de-escalation group (95% CI: 0.1-6.4 days).

Caveats. Given the retrospective nature, unmeasured confounders may have impacted the decision to de-escalate anti-MRSA coverage. The observed lower risk of AKI in the de-escalation group may be due to the simultaneous de-escalation of anti-Pseudomonas antibiotic agents in addition to the de-escalation of anti-MRSA coverage, as opposed to de-escalation of the anti-MRSA coverage alone.

Implications. De-escalation of anti-MRSA coverage in patients with HAP with negative cultures is associated with fewer antibiotic days, less AKI, and possibly shorter length of stay.

Partial Oral versus Intravenous Antibiotic Treatment for Endocarditis (POET). Iversen K et al. New Engl J Med. 2019;380(5):415-424.¹¹

Background. Patients with left-sided infective endocarditis are typically treated with up to six weeks of intravenous (IV) antibiotics. The investigators studied the effectiveness and safety of switching to oral antibiotics after at least 10 days of IV therapy.

Findings. This randomized, multicenter, noninferiority trial at cardiac centers across Denmark included 400 adults with left-sided endocarditis who were clinically stable after at least 10 days of IV antibiotics. Half of the patients were randomized to continue IV therapy, whereas the other half was switched to oral antibiotics to complete the treatment course. Six months after therapy, no significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of the primary composite outcomes, including all-cause mortality, unplanned cardiac surgery, embolic events, or relapse of bacteremia with the primary pathogen (IV-treated group: 12.1%; orally treated group: 9.0% [between-group difference: 3.1%; P = .40]).

Caveats. A total of 20% of the screened population (1,954 adults) was randomized, and about 1% (5/400) of patients used injection drugs. None of the patients had MRSA. Patients in the oral group were assessed two to three times per week as outpatients, which may not be feasible in most settings.

Implications. Switching to oral antibiotics after at least 10 days of IV therapy appears to be safe and effective in selected patients with left-sided endocarditis. However, this study largely excluded patients with injection drug use and/or MRSA infections.

Oral versus Intravenous Antibiotics for Bone and Joint Infection (OVIVA). Li HK, et al. New Engl J Med. 2019;380(5):425-436.¹²

Background. Most complex orthopedic infections are treated with several weeks of IV antibiotics. This study sought to determine whether oral antibiotics are noninferior to IV antibiotics for bone and joint infections.

Findings. This randomized, multicenter, noninferiority, open-label trial of 1,054 adults with bone and joint infections in the United Kingdom included patients with prosthetic joints, other indwelling joint hardware, and native joint infections. Within seven days of antibiotic medication or within seven days of surgery (if performed), the patients received either IV or oral antibiotics for six weeks with a primary endpoint of treatment failure one year after the study randomization. The choice and duration of antibiotic treatment were determined by the involved infectious disease physician. A majority (77%) of patients received greater than six weeks of therapy. Treatment failure was defined by clinical, microbiologic, or histologic criteria. Most enrolled patients were infected with Staphylococcus aureus, with 10% having methicillin-resistant S. aureus. Treatment failure was more frequent in the IV group than the oral group (14.6% vs 13.2%), and these findings were consistent across all subgroups. More patients discontinued treatment in the IV group than the oral group.

Cautions. This study included a heterogenous population of patients with bone and joint infections, with or without hardware, and with different species of bacteria. Patients with bacteremia, endocarditis, or another indication for IV therapy were excluded. Limited injection drug use history was available for the enrolled patients. Most patients had lower limb infections. Thus, these findings are less applicable to vertebral osteomyelitis. Additionally, the study offered no comparison of specific antibiotics.

Implications. With appropriate oversight from infectious disease specialists, targeted oral therapy may be appropriate for the treatment of osteomyelitis. This shift in practice likely requires more study before broad implementation.

Prognostic Accuracy of the HEART Score for Prediction of Major Adverse Cardiac Events in Patients Presenting with Chest Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis. Fernando S, et al. Acad Emerg Med. 2019;26(2):140-151.¹³

Background. Chest pain accounts for over eight million emergency department (ED) visits yearly in the United States. Of those presenting with chest pain, 10%-20% will experience acute coronary syndrome (ACS) requiring further medical treatment. Given the fear of missing ACS, many low-risk patients are hospitalized. The American Heart Association has advocated using validated predictive scoring models to identify patients with chest pain who are at low risk for short-term major cardiovascular adverse event (MACE) for potential discharge without further testing. The authors evaluated the prognostic accuracy of higher risk scores to predict MACE in adult ED patients presenting with chest pain.

Findings. This study was a systematic review and meta-analysis of 30 prospective and retrospective studies evaluating the history–electrocardiogram–age–risk factors–troponin (HEART) score through May 1, 2018. Meta-analysis compared the sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratios, negative likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratios of the HEART score and the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) score when reported. An intermediate HEART score of 4-6 had a sensitivity of 95.9% and a specificity of 44.6%. A high HEART score of greater than or equal to 7 had a sensitivity of 39.5% and a specificity of 95.0%. Similarly, a high TIMI score of great than or equal to 6 had a sensitivity of only 2.8% and a specificity of 99.6%. The authors concluded that a HEART score of greater than or equal to 4 best identifies patients at risk of MACE who need greater consideration for additional testing.

Caveats. This meta-analysis failed to assess the potential adverse effects of false positive downstream testing. Additionally, no study compared the HEART score with the experienced clinician gestalt, which has often been equivalent to decision rules.

Implication. A HEART score greater than or equal to 4 risk stratifies ED patients with chest pain requiring further consideration for evaluation versus those that can be discharged with low risk for short-term MACE.

Given the breadth and depth of patients cared for by hospital medicine providers, it is challenging to remain current with the literature. The authors critically appraised the literature from March 2018 to April 2019 for high-quality studies relevant to hospital medicine. Articles were selected based on methodologic rigor and likelihood to impact clinical practice. Thirty articles were selected by the presenting authors for the Hospital Medicine Updates at the 2019 Society of Hospital Medicine (CH, CM) and Society of General Internal Medicine Annual Meetings (BS, AB). After two sequential rounds of voting and group discussion to adjudicate voting discrepancies, the authors selected the 10 most impactful articles for this review. Each article is described below with the key points summarized in the Table.

Clinical Practice Guidelines for Clostridium difficile Infection in Adults and Children: 2017 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA). McDonald LC, et al. Clin Infect Dis. 2018;66(7):e1–e48.¹

Background. In the United States, approximately 500,000 Clostridioides difficile infections (CDI) occur annually with 15,000-30,000 deaths. CDI has become a marker of hospital quality and has been placed under numerous “pay for performance” metrics. The Infectious Diseases Society of America/Society of Healthcare Epidemiology of America updated their guidelines from 2010 regarding hospital surveillance, diagnostic testing, treatment, and infection precautions and control.

Findings. The panel included 14 multidisciplinary experts in epidemiology, diagnosis, infection control, and clinical management of adult and pediatric CDI. They used problem intervention comparison-outcome (PICO)-formatted, evidence-based questions. The selection of data and final recommendations were made in accordance with the GRADE criteria. A total of 35 recommendations were made.

Key clinical recommendations for hospitalists caring for adults: (1) Prescribe vancomycin or fidaxomicin over metronidazole for the initial treatment of CDI (strong recommendation, high quality of evidence); (2) Limit testing to the patients with unexplained new onset diarrhea, which is defined as greater than or equal to 3 unformed stools in 24 hours (weak recommendation, very low-quality evidence); (3) Avoid routine repeat testing within seven days, and only test asymptomatic patients for epidemiologic reasons (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence); (4) Minimize the frequency and duration of high-risk antibiotic therapy and the number of antibiotic agents prescribed (strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence); (5) Discontinue therapy with the inciting antibiotic agent as soon as possible (strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence).

Caveats. As with the clinical application of any guidelines, individual case adjustments may be required.

Mortality and Morbidity in Acutely Ill Adults Treated with Liberal versus Conservative Oxygen Therapy (IOTA): a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Chu DK, et al. Lancet. 2018;391(10131):1693-1705.²

Background. Supplemental oxygen is often given to acutely ill hospitalized adults, even when they are not hypoxic or dyspneic. The safety and efficacy of this practice is unknown.

Findings. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated 25 randomized controlled trials enrolling 16,037 patients. Patients presented with several conditions, including sepsis, critical illness, stroke, myocardial infarction, and emergency surgery. The fraction of inspired oxygen in the liberal arms varied from 30% to 100%. Most patients randomized to the conservative arm received no supplemental oxygen. Delivery of liberal oxygen to acutely ill adults was associated with increased in-hospital mortality (relative risk [RR]: 1.21; 95% CI: 1.03-1.43), 30-day mortality (RR: 1.14; 95% CI: 1.01-1.29), and 90-day mortality (RR: 1.10; 95% CI: 1.00-1.20). The results were believed to be of high quality and were robust across multiple sensitivity analyses. It seemed that the mortality began to increase when supplemental oxygen raised the peripheral oxygen saturation (Sp0₂) above a range of 94%-96%.

Caveats. Heterogeneity was observed in the study settings and oxygen delivery. In addition, the cause for increased mortality could not be determined.

Implications. In hospitalized acutely ill adults, “liberal” supplemental oxygen was associated with increased in-hospital and longer-term mortality. The study authors postulated that this finding resulted from the direct toxic effects of oxygen or that oxygen delivery may “mask” illness and lead to delays in diagnosis and treatment. A subsequent clinical practice guideline recommends (1) a target SpO₂ of less than 96% for patients receiving oxygen therapy; (2) a target SpO₂ range of 90%-94% seems appropriate for most hospitalized adults.³

Do Words Matter? Stigmatizing Language and the Transmission of Bias in the Medical Record. P Goddu A, et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2018;33(5):68-91.⁴

Background. Previous work has shown that clinician bias affects health outcomes, often worsening health disparities. It is unknown whether clinicians’ language in medical records biases other clinicians and whether this affects patients.

Findings. The investigators randomized medical students and residents in internal and emergency medicine at one academic medical center to review one of two vignettes in the format of notes on the same hypothetical patient with sickle cell disease (SCD) admitted with a pain crisis. One vignette contained stigmatizing language, and the other contained neutral language. The trainees exposed to the vignettes with stigmatizing language showed a more negative attitude toward the patient, as measured by a previously validated scale of attitudes toward patients with SCD (20.6 stigmatizing vs 25.6 neutral, with a total score range of 7-35 for the instrument; higher scores indicate more positive attitudes; P < .001). Furthermore, the intensity of pain treatment was assessed in the resident group and was less aggressive when residents were exposed to stigmatizing language (5.56 stigmatizing vs 6.22 neutral on a scale of 2-7, with higher scores indicating more aggressive pain treatment; P = .003).

Cautions. This research was a single-center study of residents and medical students in two departments. Additionally, the study used vignettes on a hypothetical patient so trainees in the study group might have witnessed stronger stigmatizing language than what is typically observed in an actual patients’ notes.

Implications. Stigmatizing language used in medical records possibly contributed to health disparities by negatively impacting other physicians’ biases and prescribing practices toward patients with SCD at an academic medical center. Clinicians should avoid stigmatizing language in medical records.

Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation with Heart Failure. Marrouche, NF et al. New Engl J Med. 2018;378:417-427.⁵

Background. Atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with heart failure is associated with increased mortality and morbidity. Small-scale studies have suggested that ablation of AF may benefit patients with heart failure.

Findings. This multicenter trial included 398 patients with heart failure and symptomatic AF. Patients had New York Heart Association Class II-IV heart failure, an ejection fraction (EF) of 35% or less, and an internal cardiac defibrillator (ICD). Patients were randomized to either ablation or medical therapy. All enrolled patients either refused, failed, or showed poor tolerance to antiarrhythmic therapy for AF. The primary outcome was death from any cause or hospitalization for heart failure.

The composite endpoint occurred in 28.5% of the ablation group versus 44.6% of patients in the medical therapy group (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.43-0.87). Fewer patients in the ablation group died (13% vs 25%; HR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.32-0.86) or were hospitalized for heart failure (21% vs 36%; HR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.37-0.83). The patients in the ablation group had higher EF increases above baseline and a greater proportion were in sinus rhythm at the 60-month follow-up visit.

Cautions. The trial was terminated early due to slow recruitment and lower than expected events. Over twice as many patients were lost to follow-up in the ablation group versus the medical therapy group, and by 60 months, AF recurred in 50% of patients who underwent ablation. The sample size was small, and the trial was unblinded.

Implications. Ablation should be considered for AF in patients with heart failure. Additional studies to evaluate ablation versus medical therapy for patients with heart failure and AF are underway.

Medication for Opioid Use Disorder after Nonfatal Opioid Overdose and Association with Mortality. Larochelle MR, et al. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(3):137-145.⁶

Background. More than 70,000 Americans died of drug overdose in 2017; this number is higher than the deaths resulting from human immunodeficiency virus, car crash, or gun violence at their peaks.⁷ Methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone are approved by the Federal Drug Administration for the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD). These medications increase treatment retention; methadone and buprenorphine have been associated with significant decreases in all-cause and overdose mortality.⁸ However, whether receipt of these medications following a nonfatal opioid overdose reduces mortality is unknown.

Findings. This retrospective cohort study included 17,568 opioid overdose survivors from the Massachusetts’s Public Health Dataset between 2012 and 2014. Only three in 10 of these patients received any medications for OUD over 12 months following overdose. All-cause mortality was 4.7 deaths (95% CI: 4.4-5.0 deaths) per 100 person-years. The relative risk for all-cause mortality was 53% lower with methadone (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.32-0.71) and 37% lower with buprenorphine (aHR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.46-0.87).

Caveats. This cohort study may have missed confounders explaining why certain patients received medications for OUD. As a result, association cannot be interpreted as causation.

Implications. Methadone and buprenorphine are associated with a reduction in preventable deaths in patients with OUD who have survived an overdose. All patients with OUD should be considered for therapy.

Outcomes Associated with Apixaban Use in Patients with End-Stage Kidney Disease and Atrial Fibrillation in the United States. Siontis, KC, et al. Circulation. 2018;138:1519–1529.⁹

Background. Patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) have poor outcomes when treated with warfarin for AF. These patients were excluded from clinical trials of direct oral anticoagulants. The goal of this study was to determine the outcomes of the use of apixaban in patients with ESKD and AF.

Findings. This retrospective cohort study included 25,523 Medicare patients with ESKD and AF on anticoagulants. A 3:1 propensity score match was performed between patients on warfarin and apixaban. Time without stroke/systemic embolism, bleeding (major, gastrointestinal, and intracranial), and death were assessed. A total of 2,351 patients were on apixaban, and 23,172 patients were on warfarin. No difference was observed in the risk of stroke/systemic embolism between apixaban and warfarin (HR 0.88; 95% CI: 0.69-1.12). Apixaban was associated with a lower risk of major bleeding (HR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.59-0.87). Standard-dose apixaban (5 mg twice a day) was associated with lower risks of stroke/systemic embolism and death compared with reduced-dose apixaban (2.5 mg twice a day; n = 1,317; HR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.37-0.98; P = .04 for stroke/systemic embolism; HR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.45-0.92; P = .01 for death) or warfarin (HR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.42-0.97; P = .04 for stroke/systemic embolism; HR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.46-0.85; P = .003 for death).

Cautions. There may be unique patient factors that led providers to prescribe apixaban to patients with ESKD.

Implications. The use of standard-dose apixaban appears safe and potentially preferable in patients with ESKD and AF due to reductions in major bleeding, thromboembolism, and mortality risk compared with warfarin. Several additional studies are pending to evaluate the use and dose of apixaban in patients with ESKD and AF.

Outcomes Associated with De-escalating Therapy for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Culture-Negative Nosocomial Pneumonia. Cowley MC, et al. Chest. 2019;155(1):53-59.¹⁰

Background. Patients diagnosed with hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) are often treated empirically with broad-spectrum antibiotics. In many patients with HAP, cultures remain negative, and providers must decide if antibiotics can safely be narrowed. Specifically, the safety of deciding to “de-escalate” and discontinue the coverage for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) if cultures remain negative is unclear.

Findings. In this single-center retrospective cohort study, 279 patients who were (1) diagnosed with HAP and (2) had negative sputum cultures were enrolled. The patients in whom MRSA coverage was de-escalated by day four were compared with those with continued anti-MRSA coverage. No difference was observed between the two groups in terms of degree of illness or comorbidities. The patients who were de-escalated received five fewer days of anti-MRSA coverage than patients who were not. No difference was noted in the 28-day mortality between the two groups (de-escalation: 23% vs no de-escalation: 28%; 95% CI: −16.1%-6.5%). The incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) was significantly lower in the de-escalation group (36% vs 50%; 95% CI: −26.9- 0.04), and the overall length of stay was five days shorter in the de-escalation group (95% CI: 0.1-6.4 days).

Caveats. Given the retrospective nature, unmeasured confounders may have impacted the decision to de-escalate anti-MRSA coverage. The observed lower risk of AKI in the de-escalation group may be due to the simultaneous de-escalation of anti-Pseudomonas antibiotic agents in addition to the de-escalation of anti-MRSA coverage, as opposed to de-escalation of the anti-MRSA coverage alone.

Implications. De-escalation of anti-MRSA coverage in patients with HAP with negative cultures is associated with fewer antibiotic days, less AKI, and possibly shorter length of stay.

Partial Oral versus Intravenous Antibiotic Treatment for Endocarditis (POET). Iversen K et al. New Engl J Med. 2019;380(5):415-424.¹¹

Background. Patients with left-sided infective endocarditis are typically treated with up to six weeks of intravenous (IV) antibiotics. The investigators studied the effectiveness and safety of switching to oral antibiotics after at least 10 days of IV therapy.

Findings. This randomized, multicenter, noninferiority trial at cardiac centers across Denmark included 400 adults with left-sided endocarditis who were clinically stable after at least 10 days of IV antibiotics. Half of the patients were randomized to continue IV therapy, whereas the other half was switched to oral antibiotics to complete the treatment course. Six months after therapy, no significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of the primary composite outcomes, including all-cause mortality, unplanned cardiac surgery, embolic events, or relapse of bacteremia with the primary pathogen (IV-treated group: 12.1%; orally treated group: 9.0% [between-group difference: 3.1%; P = .40]).

Caveats. A total of 20% of the screened population (1,954 adults) was randomized, and about 1% (5/400) of patients used injection drugs. None of the patients had MRSA. Patients in the oral group were assessed two to three times per week as outpatients, which may not be feasible in most settings.

Implications. Switching to oral antibiotics after at least 10 days of IV therapy appears to be safe and effective in selected patients with left-sided endocarditis. However, this study largely excluded patients with injection drug use and/or MRSA infections.

Oral versus Intravenous Antibiotics for Bone and Joint Infection (OVIVA). Li HK, et al. New Engl J Med. 2019;380(5):425-436.¹²

Background. Most complex orthopedic infections are treated with several weeks of IV antibiotics. This study sought to determine whether oral antibiotics are noninferior to IV antibiotics for bone and joint infections.

Findings. This randomized, multicenter, noninferiority, open-label trial of 1,054 adults with bone and joint infections in the United Kingdom included patients with prosthetic joints, other indwelling joint hardware, and native joint infections. Within seven days of antibiotic medication or within seven days of surgery (if performed), the patients received either IV or oral antibiotics for six weeks with a primary endpoint of treatment failure one year after the study randomization. The choice and duration of antibiotic treatment were determined by the involved infectious disease physician. A majority (77%) of patients received greater than six weeks of therapy. Treatment failure was defined by clinical, microbiologic, or histologic criteria. Most enrolled patients were infected with Staphylococcus aureus, with 10% having methicillin-resistant S. aureus. Treatment failure was more frequent in the IV group than the oral group (14.6% vs 13.2%), and these findings were consistent across all subgroups. More patients discontinued treatment in the IV group than the oral group.

Cautions. This study included a heterogenous population of patients with bone and joint infections, with or without hardware, and with different species of bacteria. Patients with bacteremia, endocarditis, or another indication for IV therapy were excluded. Limited injection drug use history was available for the enrolled patients. Most patients had lower limb infections. Thus, these findings are less applicable to vertebral osteomyelitis. Additionally, the study offered no comparison of specific antibiotics.

Implications. With appropriate oversight from infectious disease specialists, targeted oral therapy may be appropriate for the treatment of osteomyelitis. This shift in practice likely requires more study before broad implementation.

Prognostic Accuracy of the HEART Score for Prediction of Major Adverse Cardiac Events in Patients Presenting with Chest Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis. Fernando S, et al. Acad Emerg Med. 2019;26(2):140-151.¹³

Background. Chest pain accounts for over eight million emergency department (ED) visits yearly in the United States. Of those presenting with chest pain, 10%-20% will experience acute coronary syndrome (ACS) requiring further medical treatment. Given the fear of missing ACS, many low-risk patients are hospitalized. The American Heart Association has advocated using validated predictive scoring models to identify patients with chest pain who are at low risk for short-term major cardiovascular adverse event (MACE) for potential discharge without further testing. The authors evaluated the prognostic accuracy of higher risk scores to predict MACE in adult ED patients presenting with chest pain.

Findings. This study was a systematic review and meta-analysis of 30 prospective and retrospective studies evaluating the history–electrocardiogram–age–risk factors–troponin (HEART) score through May 1, 2018. Meta-analysis compared the sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratios, negative likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratios of the HEART score and the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) score when reported. An intermediate HEART score of 4-6 had a sensitivity of 95.9% and a specificity of 44.6%. A high HEART score of greater than or equal to 7 had a sensitivity of 39.5% and a specificity of 95.0%. Similarly, a high TIMI score of great than or equal to 6 had a sensitivity of only 2.8% and a specificity of 99.6%. The authors concluded that a HEART score of greater than or equal to 4 best identifies patients at risk of MACE who need greater consideration for additional testing.

Caveats. This meta-analysis failed to assess the potential adverse effects of false positive downstream testing. Additionally, no study compared the HEART score with the experienced clinician gestalt, which has often been equivalent to decision rules.

Implication. A HEART score greater than or equal to 4 risk stratifies ED patients with chest pain requiring further consideration for evaluation versus those that can be discharged with low risk for short-term MACE.

As the VA moves toward increased utilization of non-VA care, it is crucial to understand and address the challenges of transitional care faced by dual-use veterans to provide high-quality care that improves healthcare outcomes.^7,11,12 The VA implemented a shift in policy from the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014 (Public Law 113-146; “Choice Act”) to the VA Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks (MISSION) Act beginning June 6, 2019.^13,14 Under the MISSION Act, veterans have more ways to access healthcare within the VA’s network and through approved non-VA medical providers in the community known as “community care providers.”¹⁵ This shift expanded the existing VA Choice Act of 2014, where the program allowed those veterans who are unable to schedule an appointment within 30 days of their preferred date or the clinically appropriate date, or on the basis of their place of residence, to elect to receive care from eligible non-VA healthcare entities or providers.^14,15 These efforts to better serve veterans by increasing non-VA care might present added care coordination challenges for patients and their providers when they seek care in the VA.

High-quality transitional care prevents poor outcomes such as hospital readmissions.^16-18 When communication and coordination across healthcare delivery systems are lacking, patients and their families often find themselves at risk for adverse events.^19,20 Past research shows that patients have fewer adverse events when they receive comprehensive postdischarge care, including instructions on medications and self-care, symptom recognition and management, and reminders to attend follow-up appointments.^17,21,22 Although researchers have identified the components of effective transitional care,²³ barriers persist. The communication and collaboration needed to provide coordinated care across healthcare delivery systems are difficult due to the lack of standardized approaches between systems.²⁴ Consequently, follow-up care may be delayed or missed altogether. To our knowledge, there is no published research identifying transitional care challenges for clinicians, staff, and veterans in transitioning from non-VA hospitals to a VA primary care setting.

Study Design

We conducted a qualitative assessment within the VA Eastern Colorado Health Care System, an urban tertiary medical center, as well as urban and rural non-VA hospitals used by veterans. Semi-structured interview guides informed by the practical robust implementation and sustainability (PRISM) model, the Lean approach, and the Ideal Transitions of Care Bridge were used.^25-27 We explored the PRISM domains such as recipient’s characteristics, the interaction with the external environment, and the implementation and sustainability infrastructure to inform the design and implementation of the intervention.²⁵ The Lean approach included methods to optimize processes by maximizing efficiency and minimizing waste.²⁶ The Ideal Transitions of Care Bridge was used to identify the domains in transitions of care such as discharge planning, communication of information, and care coordination.²⁷

Setting and Participants

We identified the top 10 non-VA hospitals serving the most urban and rural veterans in 2015 using VA administrative data. Purposive sampling was used to ensure that urban and rural non-VA hospitals and different roles within these hospitals were represented. VA clinicians and staff were selected from the Denver VA Medical Center, a tertiary hospital within the Eastern Colorado Health Care System and one VA Community-Based Outpatient Clinic (CBOC) that primarily serves rural veterans. The Denver VA Medical Center has three clinics staffed by Patient Aligned Care Teams (PACTs), a model built on the concept of Patient-Centered Medical Home.²⁸ Hospital leadership were initially approached for permission to recruit their staff and to be involved as key informants, and all agreed. To ensure representativeness, diversity of roles was recruited, including PACT primary care physicians, nurses, and other staff members such as medical assistants and administrators. Veterans were approached for sampling if they were discharged from a non-VA hospital during June–September 2015 and used the VA for primary care. This was to ensure that they remembered the process they went through postdischarge at the time of the interview.

Data Collection and Analysis

The evaluation team members (RA, EL, and MM) conducted the interviews from November 2015 to July 2016. Clinicians, staff, and veterans were asked semi-structured questions about their experiences and their role in transitioning VA patients across systems (see Appendix for interview guides). Veterans were asked to describe their experience and satisfaction with the current postdischarge transition process. We stopped the interviews when we reached data saturation.²⁹

Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and validated (transcribed interviews were double-checked against recording) to ensure data quality and accuracy. Coding was guided by a conventional content analysis technique^{30, 31} using a deductive and inductive coding approach.³¹ The deductive coding approach was drawn from the Ideal Transitions of Care Bridge and PRISM domains. ^32,33 Two evaluation team members (RA and EL) defined the initial code book by independently coding the first three interviews, worked to clarify the meanings of emergent codes, and came to a consensus when disagreements occurred. Next, a priori codes were added by team members to include the PRISM domains. These PRISM domains included the implementation and sustainability infrastructure, the external environment, the characteristics of intervention recipients, and the organizational and patient perspectives of an intervention.

Additional emergent codes were added to the code book and agreed upon by team members (RA, EL, and MM). Consistent with previously used methods, consensus building was achieved by identifying and resolving differences by discussing with team members (RA, EL, MM, CB, and RB).²⁹ Codes were examined and organized into themes by team members.^29,34-36 This process was continued until no new themes were identified. Results were reviewed by all evaluation team members to assess thoroughness and comprehensiveness.^34,35 In addition, team members triangulated the findings with VA and non-VA participants to ensure validity and reduce researcher bias.^29,37

We conducted a total of 70 interviews with 23 VA and 29 non-VA hospital clinicians and staff and 18 veterans (Table 1). Overall, we found that there was no standardized process for transitioning veterans across healthcare delivery systems. Participants reported that transitions were often inefficient when non-VA hospitals could not (1) identify patients as veterans and notify VA primary care of discharge; (2) transfer non-VA hospital medical records to VA primary care; (3) obtain follow-up care appointments with VA primary care; and (4) write VA formulary medications for veterans to fill at VA pharmacies. In addition, participants discussed about facilitators and suggestions to overcome these inefficiencies and improve transitional care (Table2). We mapped the identified barriers as well as the suggestions for improvement to the PRISM and the Ideal Transitions of Care Bridge domains (Table 3).

Unable to Identify Patients as Veterans and Notify VA Primary Care of Discharge

VA and non-VA participants reported difficulty in communicating about veterans’ hospitalizations and discharge follow-up needs across systems. Non-VA clinicians referenced difficulty in identifying patients as veterans to communicate with VA, except in instances where the VA is a payor, while VA providers described feeling largely uninformed of the veterans non-VA hospitalization. For non-VA clinicians, the lack of a systematic method for veteran identification often left them to inadvertently identify veteran status by asking about their primary care clinicians and insurance and even through an offhanded comment made by the veteran. If a veteran was identified, non-VA clinicians described being uncertain about the best way to notify VA primary care of the patient’s impending discharge. Veterans described instances of the non-VA hospital knowing their veteran status upon admission, but accounts varied on whether the non-VA hospital notified the VA primary care of their hospitalization (Table 2, Theme 1).

Unable to Transfer Non-VA Hospital Medical Records to VA Primary Care

VA clinicians discussed about the challenges associated with obtaining the veteran’s medical record from the non-VA hospitals, and when it was received, it was often incomplete information and significantly delayed. They described relying on the veteran’s description of the care received, which was not complete or accurate information needed to make clinical judgment or coordinate follow-up care. Non-VA clinicians mentioned about trying several methods for transferring the medical record to VA primary care, including discharge summary via electronic system and sometimes solely relying on patients to deliver discharge paperwork to their primary care clinicians. In instances where non-VA hospitals sent discharge paperwork to VA, there was no way for non-VA hospitals to verify whether the faxed electronic medical record was received by the VA hospital. Most of the veterans discussed receiving written postdischarge instructions to take to their VA primary care clinicians; however, they were unsure whether the VA primary care received their medical record or any other information from the non-VA hospital (Table 2, Theme 2).

Unable to Obtain Follow-Up Care Appointments with VA Primary Care

All participants described how difficult it was to obtain a follow-up appointment for veterans with VA primary care. This often resulted in delayed follow-up care. VA clinicians also shared that a non-VA hospitalization can be the impetus for a veteran to seek care at the VA for the very first time. Once eligibility is determined, the veteran is assigned a VA primary care clinician. This process may take up to six weeks, and in the meantime, the veteran is scheduled in VA urgent care for immediate postdischarge care. This lag in primary care assignment creates delayed and fragmented care (Table 2, Theme 3).

Non-VA clinicians, administrators, and staff also discussed the difficulties in scheduling follow-up care with VA primary care. Although discharge paperwork instructed patients to see their VA clinicians, there was no process in place for non-VA clinicians to confirm whether the follow-up care was received due to lack of bilateral communication. In addition, veterans discussed the inefficiencies in scheduling follow-up appointments with VA clinicians where attempts to follow-up with primary care clinicians took eight weeks or more. Several veterans described walking into the clinic without an appointment asking to be seen postdischarge or utilizing the VA emergency department for follow-up care after discharge from a non-VA hospital. Veterans admitted utilizing the VA emergency department for nonemergent reasons such as filling their prescriptions because they are unable to see a VA PCP in a timely manner (Table 2, Theme 3).

Unable to Write VA Formulary Medications for Veterans to Fill at VA Pharmacies

All participants described the difficulties in obtaining medications at VA pharmacies when prescribed by the non-VA hospital clinicians. VA clinicians often had to reassess, and rewrite prescriptions written by clinicians, causing delays. Moreover, rural VA clinicians described lack of VA pharmacies in their locations, where veterans had to mail order medications, causing further delays in needed medications. Non-VA clinicians echoed these frustrations. They noted that veterans were confused about their VA pharmacy benefits as well as the need for the non-VA clinicians to follow VA formulary guidelines. Veterans expressed that it was especially challenging to physically go to the VA pharmacy to pick up medications after discharge due to lack of transportation, limited VA pharmacy hours, and long wait times. Several veterans discussed paying for their prescriptions out of pocket even though they had VA pharmacy benefits because it was more convenient to use the non-VA pharmacy. In other instances, veterans discussed going to a VA emergency department and waiting for hours to have their non-VA clinician prescription rewritten by a VA clinician (Table 2, Theme 4).

Facilitators of the Current Transition Process

Several participants provided examples of when transitional care communication between systems occurred seamlessly. VA staff and veterans noted that the VA increased the availability of urgent care appointments, which allowed for timelier postacute care follow-up appointments. Non-VA hospital clinicians also noted the availability of additional appointment slots but stated that they did not learn about these additional appointments directly from the VA. Instead, they learned of these through medical residents caring for patients at both VA and non-VA hospitals. One VA CBOC designated two nurses to care for walk-in veterans for their postdischarge follow-up needs. Some VA participants also noted that the VA Call Center Nurses occasionally called veterans upon discharge to schedule a follow-up appointment and facilitated timely care.

Participants from a VA CBOC discussed being part of a Community Transitions Consortium aimed at identifying high-utilizing patients (veteran and nonveteran) and improving communication across systems. The consortium members discussed each facility’s transition-of-care process, described having access to local non-VA hospital medical records and a backline phone number at the non-VA hospitals to coordinate transitional care. This allowed the VA clinicians to learn about non-VA hospital processes and veteran needs.

Suggestions for Improving the Transitional Care Process

VA and non-VA clinicians suggested hiring a VA liaison, preferably with a clinical background to facilitate care coordination across healthcare systems. They recommended that this person work closely with VA primary care, strengthen the relationship with non-VA hospitals, and help veterans learn more about the transition-of-care processes. Topics discussed for veteran education included how to (1) access their primary care team; (2) alert VA of non-VA hospitalization and the billing process; (3) recognize symptoms and manage care; and (4) obtain follow-up care appointments. Furthermore, they suggested that the liaison would help facilitate the transfer of medical records between VA and non-VA hospitals. Other suggestions included allowing veterans to fill prescriptions at non-VA pharmacies and dedicating a phone line for non-VA clinicians to speak to VA clinicians and staff.

Veterans agreed that improvements to the current process should include an efficient system for obtaining medications and the ability to schedule timely follow-up appointments. Furthermore, veterans wanted education about the VA transition-of-care process following a non-VA hospitalization, including payment and VA notification processes (Table 2, Theme 5).

Participants described the current transitional care process as inefficient with specific barriers that have negative consequences on patient care and clinician and staff work processes. They described difficulties in obtaining medications prescribed by non-VA clinicians from VA pharmacies, delays in follow-up appointments at the VA, and lack of bilateral communication between systems and medical record transfer. Participants also provided concrete suggestions to improving the current process, including a care coordinator with clinical background. These findings are important in the context of VA increasing veteran access to care in the community.

Despite an increasing emphasis on veteran access to non-VA care as a result of the VA strategic goals and several new programs,^7,12,13 there has not been a close examination of the current transition-of-care process from non-VA hospitals to VA primary care. Several studies have shown that the period following a hospitalization is especially vulnerable and associated with adverse events such as readmission, high cost, and death.^12,31,32 Our findings agree with previous research that identified medical record transfer across systems as one of the most challenging issues contributing to deficits in communication between care teams.³³ In addition, our study brought into focus the significant challenges faced by veterans in obtaining medications post non-VA hospital discharge. Addressing these key barriers in transitional care will improve the quality, safety, and value of healthcare in the current transition process.^38,39

Based on our findings, our participants’ concern in transitional care can be addressed in various ways. First, as veterans are increasingly receiving care in the community, identifying their veteran status early on in the non-VA hospital setting could help in improved, real time communication with the VA. This could be done by updating patient intake forms to ask patients whether they are veterans or not. Second, VA policy-level changes should work to provide veterans access to non-VA pharmacy benefits equivalent to the access patients are receiving for hospital, specialty, and outpatient care. Third, patient and provider satisfaction for dual-use veterans should be examined closely. Although participants expressed frustration with the overall transitions of care from non-VA hospitals to VA primary care setting, influence of this on the Quadruple Aim-improving patient outcomes, experience, and reducing clinician and staff burnout should be examined closely.⁴⁰ Fourth, evidence-based interventions such as nurse-led transitional care programs that have proven helpful in reducing adverse outcomes in both VA and non-VA settings will be useful to implement.^41-45 Such programs could be located in the VA, and a care coordinator role could help facilitate transitional care needs for veterans by working with multiple non-VA hospitals.

The limitations of this study are that the perspectives shared by these participants may not represent all VA and non-VA hospitals as well as veterans’ experiences with transition of care. In addition, the study was conducted in one state and the findings may not be applicable to other healthcare systems. However, our study highlighted the consistent challenges of receiving care across VA and other hospital systems. Two strengths of this study are that it was conducted by multidisciplinary research team members with expertise in qualitative research, clinical care, and implementation science and that we obtained convergent information from VA, non-VA, and veteran participants.

Our current transition-of-care process has several shortcomings. There was a clear agreement on barriers, facilitators, and suggestions for improving the current transitions-of-care process among VA and non-VA hospital participants, as well as from veterans who experienced transitions across different delivery systems. Transitioning veterans to VA primary care following a non-VA hospitalization is a crucial first step for improving care for veterans and reducing adverse outcomes such as avoidable hospital readmissions and death.

These results describe the inefficiencies experienced by patients, clinicians, and staff and their suggestions to alleviate these barriers for optimal continuum of care. To avoid frustration and inefficiencies, the increased emphasis of providing non-VA care for veterans should consider the challenges experienced in transitional care and the opportunities for increased coordination of care.

As the VA moves toward increased utilization of non-VA care, it is crucial to understand and address the challenges of transitional care faced by dual-use veterans to provide high-quality care that improves healthcare outcomes.^7,11,12 The VA implemented a shift in policy from the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014 (Public Law 113-146; “Choice Act”) to the VA Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks (MISSION) Act beginning June 6, 2019.^13,14 Under the MISSION Act, veterans have more ways to access healthcare within the VA’s network and through approved non-VA medical providers in the community known as “community care providers.”¹⁵ This shift expanded the existing VA Choice Act of 2014, where the program allowed those veterans who are unable to schedule an appointment within 30 days of their preferred date or the clinically appropriate date, or on the basis of their place of residence, to elect to receive care from eligible non-VA healthcare entities or providers.^14,15 These efforts to better serve veterans by increasing non-VA care might present added care coordination challenges for patients and their providers when they seek care in the VA.

High-quality transitional care prevents poor outcomes such as hospital readmissions.^16-18 When communication and coordination across healthcare delivery systems are lacking, patients and their families often find themselves at risk for adverse events.^19,20 Past research shows that patients have fewer adverse events when they receive comprehensive postdischarge care, including instructions on medications and self-care, symptom recognition and management, and reminders to attend follow-up appointments.^17,21,22 Although researchers have identified the components of effective transitional care,²³ barriers persist. The communication and collaboration needed to provide coordinated care across healthcare delivery systems are difficult due to the lack of standardized approaches between systems.²⁴ Consequently, follow-up care may be delayed or missed altogether. To our knowledge, there is no published research identifying transitional care challenges for clinicians, staff, and veterans in transitioning from non-VA hospitals to a VA primary care setting.

Study Design

We conducted a qualitative assessment within the VA Eastern Colorado Health Care System, an urban tertiary medical center, as well as urban and rural non-VA hospitals used by veterans. Semi-structured interview guides informed by the practical robust implementation and sustainability (PRISM) model, the Lean approach, and the Ideal Transitions of Care Bridge were used.^25-27 We explored the PRISM domains such as recipient’s characteristics, the interaction with the external environment, and the implementation and sustainability infrastructure to inform the design and implementation of the intervention.²⁵ The Lean approach included methods to optimize processes by maximizing efficiency and minimizing waste.²⁶ The Ideal Transitions of Care Bridge was used to identify the domains in transitions of care such as discharge planning, communication of information, and care coordination.²⁷

Setting and Participants

We identified the top 10 non-VA hospitals serving the most urban and rural veterans in 2015 using VA administrative data. Purposive sampling was used to ensure that urban and rural non-VA hospitals and different roles within these hospitals were represented. VA clinicians and staff were selected from the Denver VA Medical Center, a tertiary hospital within the Eastern Colorado Health Care System and one VA Community-Based Outpatient Clinic (CBOC) that primarily serves rural veterans. The Denver VA Medical Center has three clinics staffed by Patient Aligned Care Teams (PACTs), a model built on the concept of Patient-Centered Medical Home.²⁸ Hospital leadership were initially approached for permission to recruit their staff and to be involved as key informants, and all agreed. To ensure representativeness, diversity of roles was recruited, including PACT primary care physicians, nurses, and other staff members such as medical assistants and administrators. Veterans were approached for sampling if they were discharged from a non-VA hospital during June–September 2015 and used the VA for primary care. This was to ensure that they remembered the process they went through postdischarge at the time of the interview.

Data Collection and Analysis

The evaluation team members (RA, EL, and MM) conducted the interviews from November 2015 to July 2016. Clinicians, staff, and veterans were asked semi-structured questions about their experiences and their role in transitioning VA patients across systems (see Appendix for interview guides). Veterans were asked to describe their experience and satisfaction with the current postdischarge transition process. We stopped the interviews when we reached data saturation.²⁹

Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and validated (transcribed interviews were double-checked against recording) to ensure data quality and accuracy. Coding was guided by a conventional content analysis technique^{30, 31} using a deductive and inductive coding approach.³¹ The deductive coding approach was drawn from the Ideal Transitions of Care Bridge and PRISM domains. ^32,33 Two evaluation team members (RA and EL) defined the initial code book by independently coding the first three interviews, worked to clarify the meanings of emergent codes, and came to a consensus when disagreements occurred. Next, a priori codes were added by team members to include the PRISM domains. These PRISM domains included the implementation and sustainability infrastructure, the external environment, the characteristics of intervention recipients, and the organizational and patient perspectives of an intervention.

Additional emergent codes were added to the code book and agreed upon by team members (RA, EL, and MM). Consistent with previously used methods, consensus building was achieved by identifying and resolving differences by discussing with team members (RA, EL, MM, CB, and RB).²⁹ Codes were examined and organized into themes by team members.^29,34-36 This process was continued until no new themes were identified. Results were reviewed by all evaluation team members to assess thoroughness and comprehensiveness.^34,35 In addition, team members triangulated the findings with VA and non-VA participants to ensure validity and reduce researcher bias.^29,37

We conducted a total of 70 interviews with 23 VA and 29 non-VA hospital clinicians and staff and 18 veterans (Table 1). Overall, we found that there was no standardized process for transitioning veterans across healthcare delivery systems. Participants reported that transitions were often inefficient when non-VA hospitals could not (1) identify patients as veterans and notify VA primary care of discharge; (2) transfer non-VA hospital medical records to VA primary care; (3) obtain follow-up care appointments with VA primary care; and (4) write VA formulary medications for veterans to fill at VA pharmacies. In addition, participants discussed about facilitators and suggestions to overcome these inefficiencies and improve transitional care (Table2). We mapped the identified barriers as well as the suggestions for improvement to the PRISM and the Ideal Transitions of Care Bridge domains (Table 3).

Unable to Identify Patients as Veterans and Notify VA Primary Care of Discharge

VA and non-VA participants reported difficulty in communicating about veterans’ hospitalizations and discharge follow-up needs across systems. Non-VA clinicians referenced difficulty in identifying patients as veterans to communicate with VA, except in instances where the VA is a payor, while VA providers described feeling largely uninformed of the veterans non-VA hospitalization. For non-VA clinicians, the lack of a systematic method for veteran identification often left them to inadvertently identify veteran status by asking about their primary care clinicians and insurance and even through an offhanded comment made by the veteran. If a veteran was identified, non-VA clinicians described being uncertain about the best way to notify VA primary care of the patient’s impending discharge. Veterans described instances of the non-VA hospital knowing their veteran status upon admission, but accounts varied on whether the non-VA hospital notified the VA primary care of their hospitalization (Table 2, Theme 1).

Unable to Transfer Non-VA Hospital Medical Records to VA Primary Care

VA clinicians discussed about the challenges associated with obtaining the veteran’s medical record from the non-VA hospitals, and when it was received, it was often incomplete information and significantly delayed. They described relying on the veteran’s description of the care received, which was not complete or accurate information needed to make clinical judgment or coordinate follow-up care. Non-VA clinicians mentioned about trying several methods for transferring the medical record to VA primary care, including discharge summary via electronic system and sometimes solely relying on patients to deliver discharge paperwork to their primary care clinicians. In instances where non-VA hospitals sent discharge paperwork to VA, there was no way for non-VA hospitals to verify whether the faxed electronic medical record was received by the VA hospital. Most of the veterans discussed receiving written postdischarge instructions to take to their VA primary care clinicians; however, they were unsure whether the VA primary care received their medical record or any other information from the non-VA hospital (Table 2, Theme 2).

Unable to Obtain Follow-Up Care Appointments with VA Primary Care

All participants described how difficult it was to obtain a follow-up appointment for veterans with VA primary care. This often resulted in delayed follow-up care. VA clinicians also shared that a non-VA hospitalization can be the impetus for a veteran to seek care at the VA for the very first time. Once eligibility is determined, the veteran is assigned a VA primary care clinician. This process may take up to six weeks, and in the meantime, the veteran is scheduled in VA urgent care for immediate postdischarge care. This lag in primary care assignment creates delayed and fragmented care (Table 2, Theme 3).

Non-VA clinicians, administrators, and staff also discussed the difficulties in scheduling follow-up care with VA primary care. Although discharge paperwork instructed patients to see their VA clinicians, there was no process in place for non-VA clinicians to confirm whether the follow-up care was received due to lack of bilateral communication. In addition, veterans discussed the inefficiencies in scheduling follow-up appointments with VA clinicians where attempts to follow-up with primary care clinicians took eight weeks or more. Several veterans described walking into the clinic without an appointment asking to be seen postdischarge or utilizing the VA emergency department for follow-up care after discharge from a non-VA hospital. Veterans admitted utilizing the VA emergency department for nonemergent reasons such as filling their prescriptions because they are unable to see a VA PCP in a timely manner (Table 2, Theme 3).

Unable to Write VA Formulary Medications for Veterans to Fill at VA Pharmacies

All participants described the difficulties in obtaining medications at VA pharmacies when prescribed by the non-VA hospital clinicians. VA clinicians often had to reassess, and rewrite prescriptions written by clinicians, causing delays. Moreover, rural VA clinicians described lack of VA pharmacies in their locations, where veterans had to mail order medications, causing further delays in needed medications. Non-VA clinicians echoed these frustrations. They noted that veterans were confused about their VA pharmacy benefits as well as the need for the non-VA clinicians to follow VA formulary guidelines. Veterans expressed that it was especially challenging to physically go to the VA pharmacy to pick up medications after discharge due to lack of transportation, limited VA pharmacy hours, and long wait times. Several veterans discussed paying for their prescriptions out of pocket even though they had VA pharmacy benefits because it was more convenient to use the non-VA pharmacy. In other instances, veterans discussed going to a VA emergency department and waiting for hours to have their non-VA clinician prescription rewritten by a VA clinician (Table 2, Theme 4).

Facilitators of the Current Transition Process

Several participants provided examples of when transitional care communication between systems occurred seamlessly. VA staff and veterans noted that the VA increased the availability of urgent care appointments, which allowed for timelier postacute care follow-up appointments. Non-VA hospital clinicians also noted the availability of additional appointment slots but stated that they did not learn about these additional appointments directly from the VA. Instead, they learned of these through medical residents caring for patients at both VA and non-VA hospitals. One VA CBOC designated two nurses to care for walk-in veterans for their postdischarge follow-up needs. Some VA participants also noted that the VA Call Center Nurses occasionally called veterans upon discharge to schedule a follow-up appointment and facilitated timely care.

Participants from a VA CBOC discussed being part of a Community Transitions Consortium aimed at identifying high-utilizing patients (veteran and nonveteran) and improving communication across systems. The consortium members discussed each facility’s transition-of-care process, described having access to local non-VA hospital medical records and a backline phone number at the non-VA hospitals to coordinate transitional care. This allowed the VA clinicians to learn about non-VA hospital processes and veteran needs.

Suggestions for Improving the Transitional Care Process

VA and non-VA clinicians suggested hiring a VA liaison, preferably with a clinical background to facilitate care coordination across healthcare systems. They recommended that this person work closely with VA primary care, strengthen the relationship with non-VA hospitals, and help veterans learn more about the transition-of-care processes. Topics discussed for veteran education included how to (1) access their primary care team; (2) alert VA of non-VA hospitalization and the billing process; (3) recognize symptoms and manage care; and (4) obtain follow-up care appointments. Furthermore, they suggested that the liaison would help facilitate the transfer of medical records between VA and non-VA hospitals. Other suggestions included allowing veterans to fill prescriptions at non-VA pharmacies and dedicating a phone line for non-VA clinicians to speak to VA clinicians and staff.

Veterans agreed that improvements to the current process should include an efficient system for obtaining medications and the ability to schedule timely follow-up appointments. Furthermore, veterans wanted education about the VA transition-of-care process following a non-VA hospitalization, including payment and VA notification processes (Table 2, Theme 5).

Participants described the current transitional care process as inefficient with specific barriers that have negative consequences on patient care and clinician and staff work processes. They described difficulties in obtaining medications prescribed by non-VA clinicians from VA pharmacies, delays in follow-up appointments at the VA, and lack of bilateral communication between systems and medical record transfer. Participants also provided concrete suggestions to improving the current process, including a care coordinator with clinical background. These findings are important in the context of VA increasing veteran access to care in the community.

Despite an increasing emphasis on veteran access to non-VA care as a result of the VA strategic goals and several new programs,^7,12,13 there has not been a close examination of the current transition-of-care process from non-VA hospitals to VA primary care. Several studies have shown that the period following a hospitalization is especially vulnerable and associated with adverse events such as readmission, high cost, and death.^12,31,32 Our findings agree with previous research that identified medical record transfer across systems as one of the most challenging issues contributing to deficits in communication between care teams.³³ In addition, our study brought into focus the significant challenges faced by veterans in obtaining medications post non-VA hospital discharge. Addressing these key barriers in transitional care will improve the quality, safety, and value of healthcare in the current transition process.^38,39

Based on our findings, our participants’ concern in transitional care can be addressed in various ways. First, as veterans are increasingly receiving care in the community, identifying their veteran status early on in the non-VA hospital setting could help in improved, real time communication with the VA. This could be done by updating patient intake forms to ask patients whether they are veterans or not. Second, VA policy-level changes should work to provide veterans access to non-VA pharmacy benefits equivalent to the access patients are receiving for hospital, specialty, and outpatient care. Third, patient and provider satisfaction for dual-use veterans should be examined closely. Although participants expressed frustration with the overall transitions of care from non-VA hospitals to VA primary care setting, influence of this on the Quadruple Aim-improving patient outcomes, experience, and reducing clinician and staff burnout should be examined closely.⁴⁰ Fourth, evidence-based interventions such as nurse-led transitional care programs that have proven helpful in reducing adverse outcomes in both VA and non-VA settings will be useful to implement.^41-45 Such programs could be located in the VA, and a care coordinator role could help facilitate transitional care needs for veterans by working with multiple non-VA hospitals.

The limitations of this study are that the perspectives shared by these participants may not represent all VA and non-VA hospitals as well as veterans’ experiences with transition of care. In addition, the study was conducted in one state and the findings may not be applicable to other healthcare systems. However, our study highlighted the consistent challenges of receiving care across VA and other hospital systems. Two strengths of this study are that it was conducted by multidisciplinary research team members with expertise in qualitative research, clinical care, and implementation science and that we obtained convergent information from VA, non-VA, and veteran participants.

Our current transition-of-care process has several shortcomings. There was a clear agreement on barriers, facilitators, and suggestions for improving the current transitions-of-care process among VA and non-VA hospital participants, as well as from veterans who experienced transitions across different delivery systems. Transitioning veterans to VA primary care following a non-VA hospitalization is a crucial first step for improving care for veterans and reducing adverse outcomes such as avoidable hospital readmissions and death.

These results describe the inefficiencies experienced by patients, clinicians, and staff and their suggestions to alleviate these barriers for optimal continuum of care. To avoid frustration and inefficiencies, the increased emphasis of providing non-VA care for veterans should consider the challenges experienced in transitional care and the opportunities for increased coordination of care.

As the VA moves toward increased utilization of non-VA care, it is crucial to understand and address the challenges of transitional care faced by dual-use veterans to provide high-quality care that improves healthcare outcomes.^7,11,12 The VA implemented a shift in policy from the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014 (Public Law 113-146; “Choice Act”) to the VA Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks (MISSION) Act beginning June 6, 2019.^13,14 Under the MISSION Act, veterans have more ways to access healthcare within the VA’s network and through approved non-VA medical providers in the community known as “community care providers.”¹⁵ This shift expanded the existing VA Choice Act of 2014, where the program allowed those veterans who are unable to schedule an appointment within 30 days of their preferred date or the clinically appropriate date, or on the basis of their place of residence, to elect to receive care from eligible non-VA healthcare entities or providers.^14,15 These efforts to better serve veterans by increasing non-VA care might present added care coordination challenges for patients and their providers when they seek care in the VA.

High-quality transitional care prevents poor outcomes such as hospital readmissions.^16-18 When communication and coordination across healthcare delivery systems are lacking, patients and their families often find themselves at risk for adverse events.^19,20 Past research shows that patients have fewer adverse events when they receive comprehensive postdischarge care, including instructions on medications and self-care, symptom recognition and management, and reminders to attend follow-up appointments.^17,21,22 Although researchers have identified the components of effective transitional care,²³ barriers persist. The communication and collaboration needed to provide coordinated care across healthcare delivery systems are difficult due to the lack of standardized approaches between systems.²⁴ Consequently, follow-up care may be delayed or missed altogether. To our knowledge, there is no published research identifying transitional care challenges for clinicians, staff, and veterans in transitioning from non-VA hospitals to a VA primary care setting.

Study Design

We conducted a qualitative assessment within the VA Eastern Colorado Health Care System, an urban tertiary medical center, as well as urban and rural non-VA hospitals used by veterans. Semi-structured interview guides informed by the practical robust implementation and sustainability (PRISM) model, the Lean approach, and the Ideal Transitions of Care Bridge were used.^25-27 We explored the PRISM domains such as recipient’s characteristics, the interaction with the external environment, and the implementation and sustainability infrastructure to inform the design and implementation of the intervention.²⁵ The Lean approach included methods to optimize processes by maximizing efficiency and minimizing waste.²⁶ The Ideal Transitions of Care Bridge was used to identify the domains in transitions of care such as discharge planning, communication of information, and care coordination.²⁷

Setting and Participants

We identified the top 10 non-VA hospitals serving the most urban and rural veterans in 2015 using VA administrative data. Purposive sampling was used to ensure that urban and rural non-VA hospitals and different roles within these hospitals were represented. VA clinicians and staff were selected from the Denver VA Medical Center, a tertiary hospital within the Eastern Colorado Health Care System and one VA Community-Based Outpatient Clinic (CBOC) that primarily serves rural veterans. The Denver VA Medical Center has three clinics staffed by Patient Aligned Care Teams (PACTs), a model built on the concept of Patient-Centered Medical Home.²⁸ Hospital leadership were initially approached for permission to recruit their staff and to be involved as key informants, and all agreed. To ensure representativeness, diversity of roles was recruited, including PACT primary care physicians, nurses, and other staff members such as medical assistants and administrators. Veterans were approached for sampling if they were discharged from a non-VA hospital during June–September 2015 and used the VA for primary care. This was to ensure that they remembered the process they went through postdischarge at the time of the interview.

Data Collection and Analysis

The evaluation team members (RA, EL, and MM) conducted the interviews from November 2015 to July 2016. Clinicians, staff, and veterans were asked semi-structured questions about their experiences and their role in transitioning VA patients across systems (see Appendix for interview guides). Veterans were asked to describe their experience and satisfaction with the current postdischarge transition process. We stopped the interviews when we reached data saturation.²⁹

Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and validated (transcribed interviews were double-checked against recording) to ensure data quality and accuracy. Coding was guided by a conventional content analysis technique^{30, 31} using a deductive and inductive coding approach.³¹ The deductive coding approach was drawn from the Ideal Transitions of Care Bridge and PRISM domains. ^32,33 Two evaluation team members (RA and EL) defined the initial code book by independently coding the first three interviews, worked to clarify the meanings of emergent codes, and came to a consensus when disagreements occurred. Next, a priori codes were added by team members to include the PRISM domains. These PRISM domains included the implementation and sustainability infrastructure, the external environment, the characteristics of intervention recipients, and the organizational and patient perspectives of an intervention.

Additional emergent codes were added to the code book and agreed upon by team members (RA, EL, and MM). Consistent with previously used methods, consensus building was achieved by identifying and resolving differences by discussing with team members (RA, EL, MM, CB, and RB).²⁹ Codes were examined and organized into themes by team members.^29,34-36 This process was continued until no new themes were identified. Results were reviewed by all evaluation team members to assess thoroughness and comprehensiveness.^34,35 In addition, team members triangulated the findings with VA and non-VA participants to ensure validity and reduce researcher bias.^29,37

We conducted a total of 70 interviews with 23 VA and 29 non-VA hospital clinicians and staff and 18 veterans (Table 1). Overall, we found that there was no standardized process for transitioning veterans across healthcare delivery systems. Participants reported that transitions were often inefficient when non-VA hospitals could not (1) identify patients as veterans and notify VA primary care of discharge; (2) transfer non-VA hospital medical records to VA primary care; (3) obtain follow-up care appointments with VA primary care; and (4) write VA formulary medications for veterans to fill at VA pharmacies. In addition, participants discussed about facilitators and suggestions to overcome these inefficiencies and improve transitional care (Table2). We mapped the identified barriers as well as the suggestions for improvement to the PRISM and the Ideal Transitions of Care Bridge domains (Table 3).

Unable to Identify Patients as Veterans and Notify VA Primary Care of Discharge

VA and non-VA participants reported difficulty in communicating about veterans’ hospitalizations and discharge follow-up needs across systems. Non-VA clinicians referenced difficulty in identifying patients as veterans to communicate with VA, except in instances where the VA is a payor, while VA providers described feeling largely uninformed of the veterans non-VA hospitalization. For non-VA clinicians, the lack of a systematic method for veteran identification often left them to inadvertently identify veteran status by asking about their primary care clinicians and insurance and even through an offhanded comment made by the veteran. If a veteran was identified, non-VA clinicians described being uncertain about the best way to notify VA primary care of the patient’s impending discharge. Veterans described instances of the non-VA hospital knowing their veteran status upon admission, but accounts varied on whether the non-VA hospital notified the VA primary care of their hospitalization (Table 2, Theme 1).

Unable to Transfer Non-VA Hospital Medical Records to VA Primary Care

VA clinicians discussed about the challenges associated with obtaining the veteran’s medical record from the non-VA hospitals, and when it was received, it was often incomplete information and significantly delayed. They described relying on the veteran’s description of the care received, which was not complete or accurate information needed to make clinical judgment or coordinate follow-up care. Non-VA clinicians mentioned about trying several methods for transferring the medical record to VA primary care, including discharge summary via electronic system and sometimes solely relying on patients to deliver discharge paperwork to their primary care clinicians. In instances where non-VA hospitals sent discharge paperwork to VA, there was no way for non-VA hospitals to verify whether the faxed electronic medical record was received by the VA hospital. Most of the veterans discussed receiving written postdischarge instructions to take to their VA primary care clinicians; however, they were unsure whether the VA primary care received their medical record or any other information from the non-VA hospital (Table 2, Theme 2).

Unable to Obtain Follow-Up Care Appointments with VA Primary Care

All participants described how difficult it was to obtain a follow-up appointment for veterans with VA primary care. This often resulted in delayed follow-up care. VA clinicians also shared that a non-VA hospitalization can be the impetus for a veteran to seek care at the VA for the very first time. Once eligibility is determined, the veteran is assigned a VA primary care clinician. This process may take up to six weeks, and in the meantime, the veteran is scheduled in VA urgent care for immediate postdischarge care. This lag in primary care assignment creates delayed and fragmented care (Table 2, Theme 3).

Non-VA clinicians, administrators, and staff also discussed the difficulties in scheduling follow-up care with VA primary care. Although discharge paperwork instructed patients to see their VA clinicians, there was no process in place for non-VA clinicians to confirm whether the follow-up care was received due to lack of bilateral communication. In addition, veterans discussed the inefficiencies in scheduling follow-up appointments with VA clinicians where attempts to follow-up with primary care clinicians took eight weeks or more. Several veterans described walking into the clinic without an appointment asking to be seen postdischarge or utilizing the VA emergency department for follow-up care after discharge from a non-VA hospital. Veterans admitted utilizing the VA emergency department for nonemergent reasons such as filling their prescriptions because they are unable to see a VA PCP in a timely manner (Table 2, Theme 3).

Unable to Write VA Formulary Medications for Veterans to Fill at VA Pharmacies

All participants described the difficulties in obtaining medications at VA pharmacies when prescribed by the non-VA hospital clinicians. VA clinicians often had to reassess, and rewrite prescriptions written by clinicians, causing delays. Moreover, rural VA clinicians described lack of VA pharmacies in their locations, where veterans had to mail order medications, causing further delays in needed medications. Non-VA clinicians echoed these frustrations. They noted that veterans were confused about their VA pharmacy benefits as well as the need for the non-VA clinicians to follow VA formulary guidelines. Veterans expressed that it was especially challenging to physically go to the VA pharmacy to pick up medications after discharge due to lack of transportation, limited VA pharmacy hours, and long wait times. Several veterans discussed paying for their prescriptions out of pocket even though they had VA pharmacy benefits because it was more convenient to use the non-VA pharmacy. In other instances, veterans discussed going to a VA emergency department and waiting for hours to have their non-VA clinician prescription rewritten by a VA clinician (Table 2, Theme 4).

Facilitators of the Current Transition Process

Several participants provided examples of when transitional care communication between systems occurred seamlessly. VA staff and veterans noted that the VA increased the availability of urgent care appointments, which allowed for timelier postacute care follow-up appointments. Non-VA hospital clinicians also noted the availability of additional appointment slots but stated that they did not learn about these additional appointments directly from the VA. Instead, they learned of these through medical residents caring for patients at both VA and non-VA hospitals. One VA CBOC designated two nurses to care for walk-in veterans for their postdischarge follow-up needs. Some VA participants also noted that the VA Call Center Nurses occasionally called veterans upon discharge to schedule a follow-up appointment and facilitated timely care.

Participants from a VA CBOC discussed being part of a Community Transitions Consortium aimed at identifying high-utilizing patients (veteran and nonveteran) and improving communication across systems. The consortium members discussed each facility’s transition-of-care process, described having access to local non-VA hospital medical records and a backline phone number at the non-VA hospitals to coordinate transitional care. This allowed the VA clinicians to learn about non-VA hospital processes and veteran needs.

Suggestions for Improving the Transitional Care Process

VA and non-VA clinicians suggested hiring a VA liaison, preferably with a clinical background to facilitate care coordination across healthcare systems. They recommended that this person work closely with VA primary care, strengthen the relationship with non-VA hospitals, and help veterans learn more about the transition-of-care processes. Topics discussed for veteran education included how to (1) access their primary care team; (2) alert VA of non-VA hospitalization and the billing process; (3) recognize symptoms and manage care; and (4) obtain follow-up care appointments. Furthermore, they suggested that the liaison would help facilitate the transfer of medical records between VA and non-VA hospitals. Other suggestions included allowing veterans to fill prescriptions at non-VA pharmacies and dedicating a phone line for non-VA clinicians to speak to VA clinicians and staff.

Veterans agreed that improvements to the current process should include an efficient system for obtaining medications and the ability to schedule timely follow-up appointments. Furthermore, veterans wanted education about the VA transition-of-care process following a non-VA hospitalization, including payment and VA notification processes (Table 2, Theme 5).

Participants described the current transitional care process as inefficient with specific barriers that have negative consequences on patient care and clinician and staff work processes. They described difficulties in obtaining medications prescribed by non-VA clinicians from VA pharmacies, delays in follow-up appointments at the VA, and lack of bilateral communication between systems and medical record transfer. Participants also provided concrete suggestions to improving the current process, including a care coordinator with clinical background. These findings are important in the context of VA increasing veteran access to care in the community.

Despite an increasing emphasis on veteran access to non-VA care as a result of the VA strategic goals and several new programs,^7,12,13 there has not been a close examination of the current transition-of-care process from non-VA hospitals to VA primary care. Several studies have shown that the period following a hospitalization is especially vulnerable and associated with adverse events such as readmission, high cost, and death.^12,31,32 Our findings agree with previous research that identified medical record transfer across systems as one of the most challenging issues contributing to deficits in communication between care teams.³³ In addition, our study brought into focus the significant challenges faced by veterans in obtaining medications post non-VA hospital discharge. Addressing these key barriers in transitional care will improve the quality, safety, and value of healthcare in the current transition process.^38,39

Based on our findings, our participants’ concern in transitional care can be addressed in various ways. First, as veterans are increasingly receiving care in the community, identifying their veteran status early on in the non-VA hospital setting could help in improved, real time communication with the VA. This could be done by updating patient intake forms to ask patients whether they are veterans or not. Second, VA policy-level changes should work to provide veterans access to non-VA pharmacy benefits equivalent to the access patients are receiving for hospital, specialty, and outpatient care. Third, patient and provider satisfaction for dual-use veterans should be examined closely. Although participants expressed frustration with the overall transitions of care from non-VA hospitals to VA primary care setting, influence of this on the Quadruple Aim-improving patient outcomes, experience, and reducing clinician and staff burnout should be examined closely.⁴⁰ Fourth, evidence-based interventions such as nurse-led transitional care programs that have proven helpful in reducing adverse outcomes in both VA and non-VA settings will be useful to implement.^41-45 Such programs could be located in the VA, and a care coordinator role could help facilitate transitional care needs for veterans by working with multiple non-VA hospitals.

The limitations of this study are that the perspectives shared by these participants may not represent all VA and non-VA hospitals as well as veterans’ experiences with transition of care. In addition, the study was conducted in one state and the findings may not be applicable to other healthcare systems. However, our study highlighted the consistent challenges of receiving care across VA and other hospital systems. Two strengths of this study are that it was conducted by multidisciplinary research team members with expertise in qualitative research, clinical care, and implementation science and that we obtained convergent information from VA, non-VA, and veteran participants.

Our current transition-of-care process has several shortcomings. There was a clear agreement on barriers, facilitators, and suggestions for improving the current transitions-of-care process among VA and non-VA hospital participants, as well as from veterans who experienced transitions across different delivery systems. Transitioning veterans to VA primary care following a non-VA hospitalization is a crucial first step for improving care for veterans and reducing adverse outcomes such as avoidable hospital readmissions and death.

These results describe the inefficiencies experienced by patients, clinicians, and staff and their suggestions to alleviate these barriers for optimal continuum of care. To avoid frustration and inefficiencies, the increased emphasis of providing non-VA care for veterans should consider the challenges experienced in transitional care and the opportunities for increased coordination of care.