During the last two decades, the United States health care labor market had an almost insatiable appetite for hospitalists, driving the specialty from nothing to over 50,000 members. Evidence of persistent demand for hospitalists abounds in the freshly released 2018 State of Hospital Medicine (SoHM) report: rising salaries, growing responsibility for the overall hospital census, and a diversifying scope of services.

The SoHM offers fascinating and detailed insights into these trends, as well as hundreds of other aspects of the field’s growth. Unfortunately, this expanding and dynamic labor market has a challenging side for hospitals, management companies, and hospitalist group leaders – we are constantly recruiting and dealing with open positions!

As a multisite leader at an academic health system, I’m looking toward the next season of recruitment with excitement. In the fall and winter we’re fortunate to receive applications from the best and brightest graduating residents and hospitalists. I realize this is a blessing, particularly compared with programs in rural areas that may not hear from many applicants. However, even when we succeed at filling the openings, there is an inevitable trickle of talent out of our clinical labor pool during the spring and summer. One person is invited to spend 20% of their time leading a teaching program, another secures a highly coveted grant, and yet another has to move because their spouse is relocated. By then, we don’t have a packed roster of applicants and have to solve the challenge in other ways. What does the typical hospital medicine program do when faced with this circumstance?

The 2018 SoHM survey first asked program leaders whether they had open and unfilled physician positions during the last year because of turnover, growth, or other factors. On average, 66% of groups serving adults and 48% of groups serving children said “yes.” For the job seekers out there, take note of some important regional differences: The regions with the highest percentage of programs dealing with unfilled positions were the East and West Coasts at 79% and 73%, respectively.

Next, the survey asked respondents to describe the percentage of total approved physician staffing that was open or unfilled during the year. On average, 12% of positions went unfilled, with important variation between different types of employers. For a typical HM group with 15 full-time equivalents, that means constantly working short two physicians!

Not only is it hard for group leaders to manage chronic understaffing, it definitely takes a toll on the group. We asked leaders to describe all of the ways their groups address coverage of the open positions. The most common tactics were for existing hospitalists to perform voluntary extra shifts (70%) and the use of moonlighters (57%). Also important were the use of locum tenens physicians (44%) and just leaving some shifts uncovered (31%).

The last option might work in a large group, where everyone can pick up an extra couple of patients, but it nonetheless degrades continuity and care progression. In a small group, leaving shifts uncovered sounds like a recipe for burnout and unsafe care – hopefully subsequent surveys will find that we can avoid that approach! Obviously, the solutions must be tailored to the group, their resources, and the alternative sources of labor available in that locality.

The SoHM report provides insight into how this is commonly handled by different employers and in different regions – we encourage anyone who is interested to purchase the report (www.hospitalmedicine.org/sohm) to dig deeper. For better or worse, the issue of unfilled positions looks likely to persist for the intermediate future. The exciting rise of hospital medicine against the backdrop of an aging population means job security, rising income, and opportunities for many to live where they choose. Until the job market saturates, though, we’ll all find ourselves looking at email inboxes with a request or two to pick up an extra shift!

Dr. White is associate professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle. He is the chair of SHM’s Practice Analysis Committee.

Reference

Society of Hospital Medicine. 2018 State of Hospital Medicine Report. pp. 89, 90, 181, 152.

During the last two decades, the United States health care labor market had an almost insatiable appetite for hospitalists, driving the specialty from nothing to over 50,000 members. Evidence of persistent demand for hospitalists abounds in the freshly released 2018 State of Hospital Medicine (SoHM) report: rising salaries, growing responsibility for the overall hospital census, and a diversifying scope of services.

The SoHM offers fascinating and detailed insights into these trends, as well as hundreds of other aspects of the field’s growth. Unfortunately, this expanding and dynamic labor market has a challenging side for hospitals, management companies, and hospitalist group leaders – we are constantly recruiting and dealing with open positions!

As a multisite leader at an academic health system, I’m looking toward the next season of recruitment with excitement. In the fall and winter we’re fortunate to receive applications from the best and brightest graduating residents and hospitalists. I realize this is a blessing, particularly compared with programs in rural areas that may not hear from many applicants. However, even when we succeed at filling the openings, there is an inevitable trickle of talent out of our clinical labor pool during the spring and summer. One person is invited to spend 20% of their time leading a teaching program, another secures a highly coveted grant, and yet another has to move because their spouse is relocated. By then, we don’t have a packed roster of applicants and have to solve the challenge in other ways. What does the typical hospital medicine program do when faced with this circumstance?

The 2018 SoHM survey first asked program leaders whether they had open and unfilled physician positions during the last year because of turnover, growth, or other factors. On average, 66% of groups serving adults and 48% of groups serving children said “yes.” For the job seekers out there, take note of some important regional differences: The regions with the highest percentage of programs dealing with unfilled positions were the East and West Coasts at 79% and 73%, respectively.

Next, the survey asked respondents to describe the percentage of total approved physician staffing that was open or unfilled during the year. On average, 12% of positions went unfilled, with important variation between different types of employers. For a typical HM group with 15 full-time equivalents, that means constantly working short two physicians!

Not only is it hard for group leaders to manage chronic understaffing, it definitely takes a toll on the group. We asked leaders to describe all of the ways their groups address coverage of the open positions. The most common tactics were for existing hospitalists to perform voluntary extra shifts (70%) and the use of moonlighters (57%). Also important were the use of locum tenens physicians (44%) and just leaving some shifts uncovered (31%).

The last option might work in a large group, where everyone can pick up an extra couple of patients, but it nonetheless degrades continuity and care progression. In a small group, leaving shifts uncovered sounds like a recipe for burnout and unsafe care – hopefully subsequent surveys will find that we can avoid that approach! Obviously, the solutions must be tailored to the group, their resources, and the alternative sources of labor available in that locality.

The SoHM report provides insight into how this is commonly handled by different employers and in different regions – we encourage anyone who is interested to purchase the report (www.hospitalmedicine.org/sohm) to dig deeper. For better or worse, the issue of unfilled positions looks likely to persist for the intermediate future. The exciting rise of hospital medicine against the backdrop of an aging population means job security, rising income, and opportunities for many to live where they choose. Until the job market saturates, though, we’ll all find ourselves looking at email inboxes with a request or two to pick up an extra shift!

Dr. White is associate professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle. He is the chair of SHM’s Practice Analysis Committee.

Reference

Society of Hospital Medicine. 2018 State of Hospital Medicine Report. pp. 89, 90, 181, 152.

During the last two decades, the United States health care labor market had an almost insatiable appetite for hospitalists, driving the specialty from nothing to over 50,000 members. Evidence of persistent demand for hospitalists abounds in the freshly released 2018 State of Hospital Medicine (SoHM) report: rising salaries, growing responsibility for the overall hospital census, and a diversifying scope of services.

The SoHM offers fascinating and detailed insights into these trends, as well as hundreds of other aspects of the field’s growth. Unfortunately, this expanding and dynamic labor market has a challenging side for hospitals, management companies, and hospitalist group leaders – we are constantly recruiting and dealing with open positions!

As a multisite leader at an academic health system, I’m looking toward the next season of recruitment with excitement. In the fall and winter we’re fortunate to receive applications from the best and brightest graduating residents and hospitalists. I realize this is a blessing, particularly compared with programs in rural areas that may not hear from many applicants. However, even when we succeed at filling the openings, there is an inevitable trickle of talent out of our clinical labor pool during the spring and summer. One person is invited to spend 20% of their time leading a teaching program, another secures a highly coveted grant, and yet another has to move because their spouse is relocated. By then, we don’t have a packed roster of applicants and have to solve the challenge in other ways. What does the typical hospital medicine program do when faced with this circumstance?

The 2018 SoHM survey first asked program leaders whether they had open and unfilled physician positions during the last year because of turnover, growth, or other factors. On average, 66% of groups serving adults and 48% of groups serving children said “yes.” For the job seekers out there, take note of some important regional differences: The regions with the highest percentage of programs dealing with unfilled positions were the East and West Coasts at 79% and 73%, respectively.

Next, the survey asked respondents to describe the percentage of total approved physician staffing that was open or unfilled during the year. On average, 12% of positions went unfilled, with important variation between different types of employers. For a typical HM group with 15 full-time equivalents, that means constantly working short two physicians!

Not only is it hard for group leaders to manage chronic understaffing, it definitely takes a toll on the group. We asked leaders to describe all of the ways their groups address coverage of the open positions. The most common tactics were for existing hospitalists to perform voluntary extra shifts (70%) and the use of moonlighters (57%). Also important were the use of locum tenens physicians (44%) and just leaving some shifts uncovered (31%).

The last option might work in a large group, where everyone can pick up an extra couple of patients, but it nonetheless degrades continuity and care progression. In a small group, leaving shifts uncovered sounds like a recipe for burnout and unsafe care – hopefully subsequent surveys will find that we can avoid that approach! Obviously, the solutions must be tailored to the group, their resources, and the alternative sources of labor available in that locality.

The SoHM report provides insight into how this is commonly handled by different employers and in different regions – we encourage anyone who is interested to purchase the report (www.hospitalmedicine.org/sohm) to dig deeper. For better or worse, the issue of unfilled positions looks likely to persist for the intermediate future. The exciting rise of hospital medicine against the backdrop of an aging population means job security, rising income, and opportunities for many to live where they choose. Until the job market saturates, though, we’ll all find ourselves looking at email inboxes with a request or two to pick up an extra shift!

Dr. White is associate professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle. He is the chair of SHM’s Practice Analysis Committee.

Reference

Society of Hospital Medicine. 2018 State of Hospital Medicine Report. pp. 89, 90, 181, 152.

After a torrent of criticism from the physician community, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has delayed its proposed collapsing of evaluation and management (E/M) codes into single payments.

The agency’s final 2019 Physician Fee Schedule, announced Nov. 1, rescinds a proposal that would have blended payments for new and established patients for office/outpatient E/M levels 2 through 5 into single payments. Instead, the agency will continue to hear perspective on the proposal with plans to collapse E/M code levels 2 through 4 into single payments beginning in 2021, while maintaining level 5.

CMS also pulled back its proposal to apply a multiple procedure payment reduction to E/M visits furnished on the same day as a procedure. Payment rates for the less expensive of the two will be maintained, rather than cut in half as initially proposed.

The final rule released is much different than the one proposed, which shows that CMS heeded concerns by physicians and took time to craft a more realistic fee schedule, said Orly Avitzur, MD, chair of the American Academy of Neurology’s Medical Economics and Management Committee. The proposed collapsed E/M levels would have likely led to shorter visit times, negatively impacting the doctor-patient relationship and patient care, she said.

As part of its final rule, CMS moved forward with several other changes to coding and documentation, including eliminating the need to document the medical necessity of a home visit in lieu of an office visit, and allowing physicians to skip documentation of changes since a prior patient visit when relevant information is already contained in the record.

Additionally, the final rule clarifies that for E/M office/outpatient visits physicians do not need to re-enter information on the patient’s chief complaint and history that has already been entered by ancillary staff or the patient. The physician may just indicate in the medical record that he or she has reviewed and verified the information.

In a statement, CMS administrator Seema Verma said the final rule cements dramatic improvements for clinicians and patients and reflects extensive input from the medical community.

“Addressing clinician burnout is critical to keeping doctors in the workforce to meet the growing needs of America’s seniors,” Ms. Verma said in the statement. “[The] rule offers immediate relief from onerous requirements that contribute to burnout in the medical profession and detract from patient care. It also delays even more significant changes to give clinicians the time they need for implementation and provides time for us to continue to work with the medical community on this effort.”

“In the final rule, CMS acknowledges concerns from physicians regarding many aspects of the proposed rule,” said Anton Decker, MD, chair of the American Gastroenterological Association’s Practice Management and Economics Committee. “In particular, proposed revisions to E/M services would have negatively impacted the doctor-patient relationship and patient care, especially for the most complex patients,” he said.

“Overall, the AGA is pleased that CMS listened to concerns and reversed certain proposals such as the multiple procedure payment reduction for E/M visits furnished on the same day as a procedure,” Dr. Decker said. “We are also pleased that CMS is giving stakeholders an additional 2 years to provide input on how best to refine E/M documentation and coding.”

sndr/istockphoto.com

CMS finalized a number of proposals to pay doctors separately for communication technology services. This includes HCPCS code G2012 for brief communication technology-based services, such as virtual check-ins and HCPCS code G2010 for remote evaluation of a recorded video and/or images submitted by an established patient, also known as store and forward.

Additionally, CMS will pay separately for new codes that describe chronic care remote physiologic monitoring (CPT codes 99453, 99454, and 99457) and interprofessional Internet consultation (CPT codes 99451, 99452, 99446, 99447, 99448, and 99449). Also new to the list of reimbursable telehealth services are HCPCS codes G0513 and G0514 for prolonged preventive services.

Telehealth physicians who treat opioid use disorder received more flexibility under the CMS 2019 fee schedule through the agency’s removal of originating site geographic requirements. CMS will now allow a patient’s home to be an originating site for telehealth services for substance use disorder treatment or co-occurring mental health disorder. The agency is also accepting comments on a new Medicare benefit category for opioid use disorder treatment furnished by opioid treatment programs under Part B beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2020.

CMS also approved updates to its Medicare Shared Savings Program, including finalizing time-sensitive program policy changes for currently participating Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs). These changes include:

• A voluntary 6-month extension for existing ACOs whose participation agreements expire on Dec. 31, 2018, and the methodology for determining financial and quality performance for the 6-month performance year from Jan. 1 to June 30, 2019.
• Revising the definition of primary care services used in beneficiary assignment.
• Providing relief for ACOs and their clinicians impacted by extreme and uncontrollable circumstances in 2018 and subsequent years.

After a torrent of criticism from the physician community, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has delayed its proposed collapsing of evaluation and management (E/M) codes into single payments.

The agency’s final 2019 Physician Fee Schedule, announced Nov. 1, rescinds a proposal that would have blended payments for new and established patients for office/outpatient E/M levels 2 through 5 into single payments. Instead, the agency will continue to hear perspective on the proposal with plans to collapse E/M code levels 2 through 4 into single payments beginning in 2021, while maintaining level 5.

CMS also pulled back its proposal to apply a multiple procedure payment reduction to E/M visits furnished on the same day as a procedure. Payment rates for the less expensive of the two will be maintained, rather than cut in half as initially proposed.

The final rule released is much different than the one proposed, which shows that CMS heeded concerns by physicians and took time to craft a more realistic fee schedule, said Orly Avitzur, MD, chair of the American Academy of Neurology’s Medical Economics and Management Committee. The proposed collapsed E/M levels would have likely led to shorter visit times, negatively impacting the doctor-patient relationship and patient care, she said.

As part of its final rule, CMS moved forward with several other changes to coding and documentation, including eliminating the need to document the medical necessity of a home visit in lieu of an office visit, and allowing physicians to skip documentation of changes since a prior patient visit when relevant information is already contained in the record.

Additionally, the final rule clarifies that for E/M office/outpatient visits physicians do not need to re-enter information on the patient’s chief complaint and history that has already been entered by ancillary staff or the patient. The physician may just indicate in the medical record that he or she has reviewed and verified the information.

In a statement, CMS administrator Seema Verma said the final rule cements dramatic improvements for clinicians and patients and reflects extensive input from the medical community.

“Addressing clinician burnout is critical to keeping doctors in the workforce to meet the growing needs of America’s seniors,” Ms. Verma said in the statement. “[The] rule offers immediate relief from onerous requirements that contribute to burnout in the medical profession and detract from patient care. It also delays even more significant changes to give clinicians the time they need for implementation and provides time for us to continue to work with the medical community on this effort.”

“In the final rule, CMS acknowledges concerns from physicians regarding many aspects of the proposed rule,” said Anton Decker, MD, chair of the American Gastroenterological Association’s Practice Management and Economics Committee. “In particular, proposed revisions to E/M services would have negatively impacted the doctor-patient relationship and patient care, especially for the most complex patients,” he said.

“Overall, the AGA is pleased that CMS listened to concerns and reversed certain proposals such as the multiple procedure payment reduction for E/M visits furnished on the same day as a procedure,” Dr. Decker said. “We are also pleased that CMS is giving stakeholders an additional 2 years to provide input on how best to refine E/M documentation and coding.”

sndr/istockphoto.com

CMS finalized a number of proposals to pay doctors separately for communication technology services. This includes HCPCS code G2012 for brief communication technology-based services, such as virtual check-ins and HCPCS code G2010 for remote evaluation of a recorded video and/or images submitted by an established patient, also known as store and forward.

Additionally, CMS will pay separately for new codes that describe chronic care remote physiologic monitoring (CPT codes 99453, 99454, and 99457) and interprofessional Internet consultation (CPT codes 99451, 99452, 99446, 99447, 99448, and 99449). Also new to the list of reimbursable telehealth services are HCPCS codes G0513 and G0514 for prolonged preventive services.

Telehealth physicians who treat opioid use disorder received more flexibility under the CMS 2019 fee schedule through the agency’s removal of originating site geographic requirements. CMS will now allow a patient’s home to be an originating site for telehealth services for substance use disorder treatment or co-occurring mental health disorder. The agency is also accepting comments on a new Medicare benefit category for opioid use disorder treatment furnished by opioid treatment programs under Part B beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2020.

CMS also approved updates to its Medicare Shared Savings Program, including finalizing time-sensitive program policy changes for currently participating Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs). These changes include:

• A voluntary 6-month extension for existing ACOs whose participation agreements expire on Dec. 31, 2018, and the methodology for determining financial and quality performance for the 6-month performance year from Jan. 1 to June 30, 2019.
• Revising the definition of primary care services used in beneficiary assignment.
• Providing relief for ACOs and their clinicians impacted by extreme and uncontrollable circumstances in 2018 and subsequent years.

After a torrent of criticism from the physician community, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has delayed its proposed collapsing of evaluation and management (E/M) codes into single payments.

The agency’s final 2019 Physician Fee Schedule, announced Nov. 1, rescinds a proposal that would have blended payments for new and established patients for office/outpatient E/M levels 2 through 5 into single payments. Instead, the agency will continue to hear perspective on the proposal with plans to collapse E/M code levels 2 through 4 into single payments beginning in 2021, while maintaining level 5.

CMS also pulled back its proposal to apply a multiple procedure payment reduction to E/M visits furnished on the same day as a procedure. Payment rates for the less expensive of the two will be maintained, rather than cut in half as initially proposed.

The final rule released is much different than the one proposed, which shows that CMS heeded concerns by physicians and took time to craft a more realistic fee schedule, said Orly Avitzur, MD, chair of the American Academy of Neurology’s Medical Economics and Management Committee. The proposed collapsed E/M levels would have likely led to shorter visit times, negatively impacting the doctor-patient relationship and patient care, she said.

As part of its final rule, CMS moved forward with several other changes to coding and documentation, including eliminating the need to document the medical necessity of a home visit in lieu of an office visit, and allowing physicians to skip documentation of changes since a prior patient visit when relevant information is already contained in the record.

Additionally, the final rule clarifies that for E/M office/outpatient visits physicians do not need to re-enter information on the patient’s chief complaint and history that has already been entered by ancillary staff or the patient. The physician may just indicate in the medical record that he or she has reviewed and verified the information.

In a statement, CMS administrator Seema Verma said the final rule cements dramatic improvements for clinicians and patients and reflects extensive input from the medical community.

“Addressing clinician burnout is critical to keeping doctors in the workforce to meet the growing needs of America’s seniors,” Ms. Verma said in the statement. “[The] rule offers immediate relief from onerous requirements that contribute to burnout in the medical profession and detract from patient care. It also delays even more significant changes to give clinicians the time they need for implementation and provides time for us to continue to work with the medical community on this effort.”

“In the final rule, CMS acknowledges concerns from physicians regarding many aspects of the proposed rule,” said Anton Decker, MD, chair of the American Gastroenterological Association’s Practice Management and Economics Committee. “In particular, proposed revisions to E/M services would have negatively impacted the doctor-patient relationship and patient care, especially for the most complex patients,” he said.

“Overall, the AGA is pleased that CMS listened to concerns and reversed certain proposals such as the multiple procedure payment reduction for E/M visits furnished on the same day as a procedure,” Dr. Decker said. “We are also pleased that CMS is giving stakeholders an additional 2 years to provide input on how best to refine E/M documentation and coding.”

sndr/istockphoto.com

CMS finalized a number of proposals to pay doctors separately for communication technology services. This includes HCPCS code G2012 for brief communication technology-based services, such as virtual check-ins and HCPCS code G2010 for remote evaluation of a recorded video and/or images submitted by an established patient, also known as store and forward.

Additionally, CMS will pay separately for new codes that describe chronic care remote physiologic monitoring (CPT codes 99453, 99454, and 99457) and interprofessional Internet consultation (CPT codes 99451, 99452, 99446, 99447, 99448, and 99449). Also new to the list of reimbursable telehealth services are HCPCS codes G0513 and G0514 for prolonged preventive services.

Telehealth physicians who treat opioid use disorder received more flexibility under the CMS 2019 fee schedule through the agency’s removal of originating site geographic requirements. CMS will now allow a patient’s home to be an originating site for telehealth services for substance use disorder treatment or co-occurring mental health disorder. The agency is also accepting comments on a new Medicare benefit category for opioid use disorder treatment furnished by opioid treatment programs under Part B beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2020.

CMS also approved updates to its Medicare Shared Savings Program, including finalizing time-sensitive program policy changes for currently participating Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs). These changes include:

• A voluntary 6-month extension for existing ACOs whose participation agreements expire on Dec. 31, 2018, and the methodology for determining financial and quality performance for the 6-month performance year from Jan. 1 to June 30, 2019.
• Revising the definition of primary care services used in beneficiary assignment.
• Providing relief for ACOs and their clinicians impacted by extreme and uncontrollable circumstances in 2018 and subsequent years.

NEW YORK – A clever strategy to evaluate long term outcomes in patients undergoing endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair identified a 20% rate of reintervention, according to data presented at a symposium on vascular and endovascular issues sponsored by the Cleveland Clinic Foundation by Philip P. Goodney, MD.

In this video interview with Dr. Goodney, an associate professor of vascular surgery at Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., he explains how Medicare data were employed to track patients long term, even when they had moved to other hospital systems.

The main message from the long-term follow-up is that there is a persistent risk of recurrence and need for reintervention, according to Dr. Goodney. The hypothesis was that there would be an early risk of failure, followed by a diminishing need for reintervention over time, but this was not what was observed.Rather, the findings suggest that the rate of reinterventions was relatively steady over the course of follow-up, suggesting that patients should be informed of a persistent risk. However, Dr. Goodney reports that age was not a predictor of reintervention, so that older patients were at no greater risk.

NEW YORK – A clever strategy to evaluate long term outcomes in patients undergoing endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair identified a 20% rate of reintervention, according to data presented at a symposium on vascular and endovascular issues sponsored by the Cleveland Clinic Foundation by Philip P. Goodney, MD.

In this video interview with Dr. Goodney, an associate professor of vascular surgery at Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., he explains how Medicare data were employed to track patients long term, even when they had moved to other hospital systems.

The main message from the long-term follow-up is that there is a persistent risk of recurrence and need for reintervention, according to Dr. Goodney. The hypothesis was that there would be an early risk of failure, followed by a diminishing need for reintervention over time, but this was not what was observed.Rather, the findings suggest that the rate of reinterventions was relatively steady over the course of follow-up, suggesting that patients should be informed of a persistent risk. However, Dr. Goodney reports that age was not a predictor of reintervention, so that older patients were at no greater risk.

NEW YORK – A clever strategy to evaluate long term outcomes in patients undergoing endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair identified a 20% rate of reintervention, according to data presented at a symposium on vascular and endovascular issues sponsored by the Cleveland Clinic Foundation by Philip P. Goodney, MD.

In this video interview with Dr. Goodney, an associate professor of vascular surgery at Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., he explains how Medicare data were employed to track patients long term, even when they had moved to other hospital systems.

The main message from the long-term follow-up is that there is a persistent risk of recurrence and need for reintervention, according to Dr. Goodney. The hypothesis was that there would be an early risk of failure, followed by a diminishing need for reintervention over time, but this was not what was observed.Rather, the findings suggest that the rate of reinterventions was relatively steady over the course of follow-up, suggesting that patients should be informed of a persistent risk. However, Dr. Goodney reports that age was not a predictor of reintervention, so that older patients were at no greater risk.

NEW YORK – With a median follow-up of almost 4 years in more than 200 patients, the snorkel/chimney technique of endovascular repair of complex abdominal aortic aneurysms continues to generate very good results, according data presented at a symposium on vascular and endovascular issues sponsored by the Cleveland Clinic Foundation.

In a video interview with Jason T. Lee, MD, professor of vascular surgery, Stanford (Calif.) University, who presented the long-term results, he explains why these findings are important.

After several single-center studies associated the snorkel/chimney technique with good rates of patency and durability, the PERICLES Registry was created almost 10 years ago to test whether these data could be reproduced in the real world.The data presented by Dr. Lee involved outcomes in 244 patients who were followed for at least 2.5 years. The median follow-up is 47 months.

The results overall confirm that this is a viable technique, according to Dr. Lee who noted very little diminution of patency rates in this long-term cohort relative to the previously published follow-up of 17.1 months.

He acknowledged that the snorkel/chimney repair is not free of potential complications, particularly gutter endovascular leaks, but he recounted that at least some resolve over time. Moreover, he suggests that several strategies are being pursued that appear promising for avoiding this risk.

Most importantly, the registry, which captured the experience at 13 centers in the United States and Europe, shows outcomes that are similar to those reported at centers where the techniques were developed and championed.

NEW YORK – With a median follow-up of almost 4 years in more than 200 patients, the snorkel/chimney technique of endovascular repair of complex abdominal aortic aneurysms continues to generate very good results, according data presented at a symposium on vascular and endovascular issues sponsored by the Cleveland Clinic Foundation.

In a video interview with Jason T. Lee, MD, professor of vascular surgery, Stanford (Calif.) University, who presented the long-term results, he explains why these findings are important.

After several single-center studies associated the snorkel/chimney technique with good rates of patency and durability, the PERICLES Registry was created almost 10 years ago to test whether these data could be reproduced in the real world.The data presented by Dr. Lee involved outcomes in 244 patients who were followed for at least 2.5 years. The median follow-up is 47 months.

The results overall confirm that this is a viable technique, according to Dr. Lee who noted very little diminution of patency rates in this long-term cohort relative to the previously published follow-up of 17.1 months.

He acknowledged that the snorkel/chimney repair is not free of potential complications, particularly gutter endovascular leaks, but he recounted that at least some resolve over time. Moreover, he suggests that several strategies are being pursued that appear promising for avoiding this risk.

Most importantly, the registry, which captured the experience at 13 centers in the United States and Europe, shows outcomes that are similar to those reported at centers where the techniques were developed and championed.

NEW YORK – With a median follow-up of almost 4 years in more than 200 patients, the snorkel/chimney technique of endovascular repair of complex abdominal aortic aneurysms continues to generate very good results, according data presented at a symposium on vascular and endovascular issues sponsored by the Cleveland Clinic Foundation.

In a video interview with Jason T. Lee, MD, professor of vascular surgery, Stanford (Calif.) University, who presented the long-term results, he explains why these findings are important.

After several single-center studies associated the snorkel/chimney technique with good rates of patency and durability, the PERICLES Registry was created almost 10 years ago to test whether these data could be reproduced in the real world.The data presented by Dr. Lee involved outcomes in 244 patients who were followed for at least 2.5 years. The median follow-up is 47 months.

The results overall confirm that this is a viable technique, according to Dr. Lee who noted very little diminution of patency rates in this long-term cohort relative to the previously published follow-up of 17.1 months.

He acknowledged that the snorkel/chimney repair is not free of potential complications, particularly gutter endovascular leaks, but he recounted that at least some resolve over time. Moreover, he suggests that several strategies are being pursued that appear promising for avoiding this risk.

Most importantly, the registry, which captured the experience at 13 centers in the United States and Europe, shows outcomes that are similar to those reported at centers where the techniques were developed and championed.

NEW YORK – Artificial intelligence is currently linked to specific problem solving and is not some form of Terminator model capable of handling multiple tasks with autonomy. In other words, each time you hear the term “AI,” it is a computer solving a specific problem or task using algorithms “and not ‘thinking’ like you and me,” said Ido Weinberg, MD, assistant professor, Harvard Medical School, Boston.

AI is present in daily life – everything from cellphones to the Alexa voice interface on a smart speaker. That AI system, however, is amassing data, learning about you, and using that data intelligently, Dr. Weinberg said at a symposium on vascular and endovascular issues sponsored by the Cleveland Clinic Foundation.

AI in health care make sense, he said, because the health sector is a vast consumer market with potential for financial gain. Repetition, which is common in the health sector, is one of the foundations required for using AI and robotics. If a task can be repeated, then it means a machine can do it, said Dr. Weinberg.

The spread of AI and robotics one day may improve health care accessibility in remote areas where physicians with the appropriate training may not be available.

AI is already at work in the health care industry. “Pulmonary nodule detection can be done better with machines than by people, pathological identification and scanning of various slides can be done better by a machine than by a humans,” he said.

Artificial intelligence also can be designed to detect emotion by assessing various cues in phrasing, key words, and tone. These AI functions already are being used by sales reps on the phone to defuse and control interactions with customers and complainants. AI also can be implemented in interactions with people, which is an important part of dealing with patients, Dr. Weinberg said. Drug discovery is a key area where AI is flourishing, as well.

Luckily, in terms of physicians keeping their jobs, there are barriers to the use of AI to replace clinicians, Dr. Weinberg pointed out. Health care is not a monolith, and every specialty is different, meaning AI would have to be tailored to each task and specialty for each unique field. Quick proliferation of AI across the board is unlikely, especially when the varying roles of nurses and physician assistants are included.

Although robots in science fiction stories and films often are capable of multitasking a variety of needs, robots at present are much more limited in real life. In surgical situations, for example, they can perform specifically tailored tasks but cannot extend beyond those defined parameters as a real surgeon can, according to Dr. Weinberg, and this lack of flexibility is a severe limitation on the expansion of AI into health care.

Despite these limitations, Dr. Weinberg urged attendees to consider how AI can be used to facilitate their work.

“Believe in the roadblocks, but be a fast adopter – an early adopter – and understand where AI can currently augment you and make you better and more productive,” he said. “And keep doing procedures; AI and robotics currently have a problem with most of those,” Dr. Weinberg concluded.

Dr. Weinberg reported no conflicts relevant to his talk.

[email protected]

NEW YORK – Artificial intelligence is currently linked to specific problem solving and is not some form of Terminator model capable of handling multiple tasks with autonomy. In other words, each time you hear the term “AI,” it is a computer solving a specific problem or task using algorithms “and not ‘thinking’ like you and me,” said Ido Weinberg, MD, assistant professor, Harvard Medical School, Boston.

AI is present in daily life – everything from cellphones to the Alexa voice interface on a smart speaker. That AI system, however, is amassing data, learning about you, and using that data intelligently, Dr. Weinberg said at a symposium on vascular and endovascular issues sponsored by the Cleveland Clinic Foundation.

AI in health care make sense, he said, because the health sector is a vast consumer market with potential for financial gain. Repetition, which is common in the health sector, is one of the foundations required for using AI and robotics. If a task can be repeated, then it means a machine can do it, said Dr. Weinberg.

The spread of AI and robotics one day may improve health care accessibility in remote areas where physicians with the appropriate training may not be available.

AI is already at work in the health care industry. “Pulmonary nodule detection can be done better with machines than by people, pathological identification and scanning of various slides can be done better by a machine than by a humans,” he said.

Artificial intelligence also can be designed to detect emotion by assessing various cues in phrasing, key words, and tone. These AI functions already are being used by sales reps on the phone to defuse and control interactions with customers and complainants. AI also can be implemented in interactions with people, which is an important part of dealing with patients, Dr. Weinberg said. Drug discovery is a key area where AI is flourishing, as well.

Luckily, in terms of physicians keeping their jobs, there are barriers to the use of AI to replace clinicians, Dr. Weinberg pointed out. Health care is not a monolith, and every specialty is different, meaning AI would have to be tailored to each task and specialty for each unique field. Quick proliferation of AI across the board is unlikely, especially when the varying roles of nurses and physician assistants are included.

Although robots in science fiction stories and films often are capable of multitasking a variety of needs, robots at present are much more limited in real life. In surgical situations, for example, they can perform specifically tailored tasks but cannot extend beyond those defined parameters as a real surgeon can, according to Dr. Weinberg, and this lack of flexibility is a severe limitation on the expansion of AI into health care.

Despite these limitations, Dr. Weinberg urged attendees to consider how AI can be used to facilitate their work.

“Believe in the roadblocks, but be a fast adopter – an early adopter – and understand where AI can currently augment you and make you better and more productive,” he said. “And keep doing procedures; AI and robotics currently have a problem with most of those,” Dr. Weinberg concluded.

Dr. Weinberg reported no conflicts relevant to his talk.

[email protected]

NEW YORK – Artificial intelligence is currently linked to specific problem solving and is not some form of Terminator model capable of handling multiple tasks with autonomy. In other words, each time you hear the term “AI,” it is a computer solving a specific problem or task using algorithms “and not ‘thinking’ like you and me,” said Ido Weinberg, MD, assistant professor, Harvard Medical School, Boston.

AI is present in daily life – everything from cellphones to the Alexa voice interface on a smart speaker. That AI system, however, is amassing data, learning about you, and using that data intelligently, Dr. Weinberg said at a symposium on vascular and endovascular issues sponsored by the Cleveland Clinic Foundation.

AI in health care make sense, he said, because the health sector is a vast consumer market with potential for financial gain. Repetition, which is common in the health sector, is one of the foundations required for using AI and robotics. If a task can be repeated, then it means a machine can do it, said Dr. Weinberg.

The spread of AI and robotics one day may improve health care accessibility in remote areas where physicians with the appropriate training may not be available.

AI is already at work in the health care industry. “Pulmonary nodule detection can be done better with machines than by people, pathological identification and scanning of various slides can be done better by a machine than by a humans,” he said.

Artificial intelligence also can be designed to detect emotion by assessing various cues in phrasing, key words, and tone. These AI functions already are being used by sales reps on the phone to defuse and control interactions with customers and complainants. AI also can be implemented in interactions with people, which is an important part of dealing with patients, Dr. Weinberg said. Drug discovery is a key area where AI is flourishing, as well.

Luckily, in terms of physicians keeping their jobs, there are barriers to the use of AI to replace clinicians, Dr. Weinberg pointed out. Health care is not a monolith, and every specialty is different, meaning AI would have to be tailored to each task and specialty for each unique field. Quick proliferation of AI across the board is unlikely, especially when the varying roles of nurses and physician assistants are included.

Although robots in science fiction stories and films often are capable of multitasking a variety of needs, robots at present are much more limited in real life. In surgical situations, for example, they can perform specifically tailored tasks but cannot extend beyond those defined parameters as a real surgeon can, according to Dr. Weinberg, and this lack of flexibility is a severe limitation on the expansion of AI into health care.

Despite these limitations, Dr. Weinberg urged attendees to consider how AI can be used to facilitate their work.

“Believe in the roadblocks, but be a fast adopter – an early adopter – and understand where AI can currently augment you and make you better and more productive,” he said. “And keep doing procedures; AI and robotics currently have a problem with most of those,” Dr. Weinberg concluded.

Dr. Weinberg reported no conflicts relevant to his talk.

[email protected]

The number of plans selected at HealthCare.gov through 2 weeks of the 2019 open enrollment is still down from last year, but the gap has closed since week 1, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

With almost 805,000 plans selected this year during the second week (Nov. 4-10) of open enrollment, the total for the 2019 coverage year stands at nearly 1.18 million for the 39 states that use the HealthCare.gov platform, which is down 20.4% from the 1.48 million plans selected through the first 2 weeks of last year’s enrollment period. After week 1, this year’s total enrollment was down by 38%, compared with last year, CMS data show.

Consumers renewing their insurance plans account for the majority selected for 2019 coverage – 619,000 in week 2 and 901,000 for weeks 1 and 2 (close to 77% in each case) – with the rest coming from new consumers – 186,000 in week 2 and 275,000 overall. The figures reported in the weekly enrollment snapshot could change later since they represent selections only and not “consumers who have paid premiums to effectuate their enrollment,” CMS said.

[email protected]

The number of plans selected at HealthCare.gov through 2 weeks of the 2019 open enrollment is still down from last year, but the gap has closed since week 1, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

With almost 805,000 plans selected this year during the second week (Nov. 4-10) of open enrollment, the total for the 2019 coverage year stands at nearly 1.18 million for the 39 states that use the HealthCare.gov platform, which is down 20.4% from the 1.48 million plans selected through the first 2 weeks of last year’s enrollment period. After week 1, this year’s total enrollment was down by 38%, compared with last year, CMS data show.

Consumers renewing their insurance plans account for the majority selected for 2019 coverage – 619,000 in week 2 and 901,000 for weeks 1 and 2 (close to 77% in each case) – with the rest coming from new consumers – 186,000 in week 2 and 275,000 overall. The figures reported in the weekly enrollment snapshot could change later since they represent selections only and not “consumers who have paid premiums to effectuate their enrollment,” CMS said.

[email protected]

The number of plans selected at HealthCare.gov through 2 weeks of the 2019 open enrollment is still down from last year, but the gap has closed since week 1, according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

With almost 805,000 plans selected this year during the second week (Nov. 4-10) of open enrollment, the total for the 2019 coverage year stands at nearly 1.18 million for the 39 states that use the HealthCare.gov platform, which is down 20.4% from the 1.48 million plans selected through the first 2 weeks of last year’s enrollment period. After week 1, this year’s total enrollment was down by 38%, compared with last year, CMS data show.

Consumers renewing their insurance plans account for the majority selected for 2019 coverage – 619,000 in week 2 and 901,000 for weeks 1 and 2 (close to 77% in each case) – with the rest coming from new consumers – 186,000 in week 2 and 275,000 overall. The figures reported in the weekly enrollment snapshot could change later since they represent selections only and not “consumers who have paid premiums to effectuate their enrollment,” CMS said.

[email protected]

NEW YORK – Registry data can be used to craft guidance for determining the appropriateness of procedures at vein centers, based on data presented by Thomas W. Wakefield, MD at the 2018 Veith Symposium.

The Vascular Quality Initiative Varicose Vein Registry (VQI-VVR), initiated in 2014 by the Society for Vascular Surgery in conjunction with the American Venous Forum, captures procedures that are performed in vein centers, office-based practices, and ambulatory or inpatient settings. The VVR looks at ablation and phlebectomy techniques and captures data including patient demographics, history, procedure data, plus early and late office-based and patient-reported follow-up in order to benchmark and improve outcomes and develop best practices and to help meet vein center certification requirements. The VVR includes 39 centers and more than 23,000 procedures.

Dr. Wakefield, who heads the VVR, used this registry as a means to illustrate how VQIs could be used to establish whether “the expected health benefit exceeds the expected negative consequences by a sufficiently wide margin that the procedure is worth doing.” This can be considered to be “appropriateness, which is part of ethical treatment.” Dr. Wakefield is the Stanley Professor of Vascular Surgery at the University of Michigan and section head, vascular surgery, University of Michigan Cardiovascular Center, Ann Arbor.

Data from the VQI registry (of which the VVR is a component) are now being used to generate appropriateness reports, said Dr. Wakefield.

The VQI represents a large comprehensive database of long-term data to define appropriate care. In addition, the VQI infrastructure is already geared to producing these reports both at a center and at a surgeon level. One disadvantage of the VVR registry, however, is low participation – only the 39 centers – and that it doesn’t capture cosmetic procedures and lesser (C1) disease. Further, it’s “likely the VQI participants are the ‘good actors,’ ” he added.

Targets for appropriateness include the proportion of patients undergoing ablation C2 or C4 disease or greater, the mean number of ablations per patient, the mean number of ablations per limb, and the proportion of perforated ablations for greater than C4 disease. Plotting out the data for these procedures at the center level can be assessed against current thinking on best practices in the various areas. For example, “the mean number of ablations per patient has been suggested at 1.8 to be about the right number,” and he used the graph of the center performance in this area to show that most of the centers were below this objective.

In an even more appropriate example of how this kind of data could be used to determine appropriateness, Dr. Wakefield described how perforated ablations should be performed for greater than C4 disease, but not for C2 disease. He described how, according to the actual data in the registry, there have been 870 total perforated treatments recorded, 38% for C2 disease, and of these 332 procedures, almost half of these were performed at one center only, with two other centers reporting 30 such procedures. “So clearly there are three centers that are doing perforated ablations for patients that are outside the guidelines,” Dr. Wakefield pointed out.

In future, payer demand is likely to demand that each treating physician provide evidence of the appropriateness of procedures performed, as well as appropriate patient selection and adherence to best practices, and good outcomes, which is part of what a society-based registry such as the VVR can provide.

“I believe the VQI-VVR is well-positioned to meet these needs. And if we ask the question ‘can VQI be used as a benchmark for setting ethical standards,’ I think it can certainly be used to help set appropriate standards, and since appropriateness is one part of ethical standards, I believe it has a role,” he concluded.

Dr. Wakefield reported that he had no disclosures.

[email protected]

NEW YORK – Registry data can be used to craft guidance for determining the appropriateness of procedures at vein centers, based on data presented by Thomas W. Wakefield, MD at the 2018 Veith Symposium.

The Vascular Quality Initiative Varicose Vein Registry (VQI-VVR), initiated in 2014 by the Society for Vascular Surgery in conjunction with the American Venous Forum, captures procedures that are performed in vein centers, office-based practices, and ambulatory or inpatient settings. The VVR looks at ablation and phlebectomy techniques and captures data including patient demographics, history, procedure data, plus early and late office-based and patient-reported follow-up in order to benchmark and improve outcomes and develop best practices and to help meet vein center certification requirements. The VVR includes 39 centers and more than 23,000 procedures.

Dr. Wakefield, who heads the VVR, used this registry as a means to illustrate how VQIs could be used to establish whether “the expected health benefit exceeds the expected negative consequences by a sufficiently wide margin that the procedure is worth doing.” This can be considered to be “appropriateness, which is part of ethical treatment.” Dr. Wakefield is the Stanley Professor of Vascular Surgery at the University of Michigan and section head, vascular surgery, University of Michigan Cardiovascular Center, Ann Arbor.

Data from the VQI registry (of which the VVR is a component) are now being used to generate appropriateness reports, said Dr. Wakefield.

The VQI represents a large comprehensive database of long-term data to define appropriate care. In addition, the VQI infrastructure is already geared to producing these reports both at a center and at a surgeon level. One disadvantage of the VVR registry, however, is low participation – only the 39 centers – and that it doesn’t capture cosmetic procedures and lesser (C1) disease. Further, it’s “likely the VQI participants are the ‘good actors,’ ” he added.

Targets for appropriateness include the proportion of patients undergoing ablation C2 or C4 disease or greater, the mean number of ablations per patient, the mean number of ablations per limb, and the proportion of perforated ablations for greater than C4 disease. Plotting out the data for these procedures at the center level can be assessed against current thinking on best practices in the various areas. For example, “the mean number of ablations per patient has been suggested at 1.8 to be about the right number,” and he used the graph of the center performance in this area to show that most of the centers were below this objective.

In an even more appropriate example of how this kind of data could be used to determine appropriateness, Dr. Wakefield described how perforated ablations should be performed for greater than C4 disease, but not for C2 disease. He described how, according to the actual data in the registry, there have been 870 total perforated treatments recorded, 38% for C2 disease, and of these 332 procedures, almost half of these were performed at one center only, with two other centers reporting 30 such procedures. “So clearly there are three centers that are doing perforated ablations for patients that are outside the guidelines,” Dr. Wakefield pointed out.

In future, payer demand is likely to demand that each treating physician provide evidence of the appropriateness of procedures performed, as well as appropriate patient selection and adherence to best practices, and good outcomes, which is part of what a society-based registry such as the VVR can provide.

“I believe the VQI-VVR is well-positioned to meet these needs. And if we ask the question ‘can VQI be used as a benchmark for setting ethical standards,’ I think it can certainly be used to help set appropriate standards, and since appropriateness is one part of ethical standards, I believe it has a role,” he concluded.

Dr. Wakefield reported that he had no disclosures.

[email protected]

NEW YORK – Registry data can be used to craft guidance for determining the appropriateness of procedures at vein centers, based on data presented by Thomas W. Wakefield, MD at the 2018 Veith Symposium.

The Vascular Quality Initiative Varicose Vein Registry (VQI-VVR), initiated in 2014 by the Society for Vascular Surgery in conjunction with the American Venous Forum, captures procedures that are performed in vein centers, office-based practices, and ambulatory or inpatient settings. The VVR looks at ablation and phlebectomy techniques and captures data including patient demographics, history, procedure data, plus early and late office-based and patient-reported follow-up in order to benchmark and improve outcomes and develop best practices and to help meet vein center certification requirements. The VVR includes 39 centers and more than 23,000 procedures.

Dr. Wakefield, who heads the VVR, used this registry as a means to illustrate how VQIs could be used to establish whether “the expected health benefit exceeds the expected negative consequences by a sufficiently wide margin that the procedure is worth doing.” This can be considered to be “appropriateness, which is part of ethical treatment.” Dr. Wakefield is the Stanley Professor of Vascular Surgery at the University of Michigan and section head, vascular surgery, University of Michigan Cardiovascular Center, Ann Arbor.

Data from the VQI registry (of which the VVR is a component) are now being used to generate appropriateness reports, said Dr. Wakefield.

The VQI represents a large comprehensive database of long-term data to define appropriate care. In addition, the VQI infrastructure is already geared to producing these reports both at a center and at a surgeon level. One disadvantage of the VVR registry, however, is low participation – only the 39 centers – and that it doesn’t capture cosmetic procedures and lesser (C1) disease. Further, it’s “likely the VQI participants are the ‘good actors,’ ” he added.

Targets for appropriateness include the proportion of patients undergoing ablation C2 or C4 disease or greater, the mean number of ablations per patient, the mean number of ablations per limb, and the proportion of perforated ablations for greater than C4 disease. Plotting out the data for these procedures at the center level can be assessed against current thinking on best practices in the various areas. For example, “the mean number of ablations per patient has been suggested at 1.8 to be about the right number,” and he used the graph of the center performance in this area to show that most of the centers were below this objective.

In an even more appropriate example of how this kind of data could be used to determine appropriateness, Dr. Wakefield described how perforated ablations should be performed for greater than C4 disease, but not for C2 disease. He described how, according to the actual data in the registry, there have been 870 total perforated treatments recorded, 38% for C2 disease, and of these 332 procedures, almost half of these were performed at one center only, with two other centers reporting 30 such procedures. “So clearly there are three centers that are doing perforated ablations for patients that are outside the guidelines,” Dr. Wakefield pointed out.

In future, payer demand is likely to demand that each treating physician provide evidence of the appropriateness of procedures performed, as well as appropriate patient selection and adherence to best practices, and good outcomes, which is part of what a society-based registry such as the VVR can provide.

“I believe the VQI-VVR is well-positioned to meet these needs. And if we ask the question ‘can VQI be used as a benchmark for setting ethical standards,’ I think it can certainly be used to help set appropriate standards, and since appropriateness is one part of ethical standards, I believe it has a role,” he concluded.

Dr. Wakefield reported that he had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Johns Hopkins Medicine

Education can improve adherence to venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis among hospitalized patients, according to researchers.

They assessed data from more than 19,000 hospital stays and found that “real-time” educational interventions directed toward patients and nurses significantly reduced nonadministration of prescribed VTE prophylaxis.

However, this did not translate to a significant reduction in VTE incidence.

Elliott Haut, MD, PhD, of the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland, and his colleagues reported these results in JAMA Network Open.

For this study, the researchers evaluated patients who were prescribed VTE prophylaxis while admitted to Johns Hopkins Hospital between April 1, 2015, and December 31, 2015.

The researchers evaluated patients in 16 hospital units. Four units were targeted for educational intervention, and the remaining 12 units served as controls.

The educational interventions were given only when patients did not receive prescribed VTE prophylaxis. A bedside nurse would document nonadministration, and an alert built into the hospital’s electronic medical record would email and page a health educator.

If the patient had refused prophylaxis, the patient would receive an educational bundle on VTE, which could consist of any or all of the following (patient’s choice):

• A one-on-one discussion with the health educator
• A two-page paper handout (available in eight languages)
• A 10-minute educational video (on a tablet).

If the nonadministration of prophylaxis was not due to patient refusal or contraindication, the health educator would educate the bedside nurse about the importance of giving all prescribed doses of VTE prophylaxis.

The study included 19,652 patient visits during which VTE prophylaxis was prescribed.

Of these, 726 visits were targeted for educational intervention. In 272 visits, the intervention was administered to a nurse alone (n=45) or the nurse and the patient (n=227).

For the remaining 454 visits, the patient was discharged before the intervention (n=123), there was an order to discontinue prophylaxis (n=111), there was a technical error (n=55), the patient (n=43) or health educator (n=41) was off unit, or “other” reasons (n=81).

Results

The proportion of nonadministered doses of VTE prophylaxis declined significantly in the hospital units targeted with educational intervention—from 9.1% pre-intervention to 5.6% post-intervention (odds ratio [OR]=0.57, P<0.001).

However, there was no significant change in the control units—13.6% and 13.3%, respectively (OR=0.98, P=0.62).

The proportion of nonadministered doses for reasons other than patient refusal decreased significantly in the intervention units—from 2.3% to 1.7% (OR, 0.74, P=0.01)—but not in control units—from 3.4% to 3.3% (OR=0.98, P=0.69).

The proportion of nonadministered doses due to patient refusal decreased significantly in the intervention units—from 5.9% to 3.4% (OR=0.53, P<0.001)—but not in control units—from 8.7% to 8.5% (OR=0.98, P=0.71).

“Our study demonstrates that educating patients quickly, as soon as we learn about a missed dose, is not only possible to implement at a large hospital but is effective in ensuring that patients take the drugs that can save their lives,” Dr. Haut said.

“The educational bundles we created are effective and optimize busy clinicians’ already packed schedules,” added study author Brandyn Lau, of the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.

“At the end of the day, we’re here to deliver high quality care and keep patients safe, and this is one method of achieving that mission.”

However, the improved adherence to VTE prophylaxis did not translate to a significant reduction in VTE in this study.

The incidence of VTE decreased from 0.30% to 0.18% (OR=0.60) in intervention units and from 0.24% to 0.20% in control units (OR=0.81).

For all patients, the incidence of VTE was 0.26% pre-intervention and 0.19% post-intervention (P=0.46).

This research was supported by a contract from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. The study authors reported support from various government agencies and private organizations.

Johns Hopkins Medicine

Education can improve adherence to venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis among hospitalized patients, according to researchers.

They assessed data from more than 19,000 hospital stays and found that “real-time” educational interventions directed toward patients and nurses significantly reduced nonadministration of prescribed VTE prophylaxis.

However, this did not translate to a significant reduction in VTE incidence.

Elliott Haut, MD, PhD, of the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland, and his colleagues reported these results in JAMA Network Open.

For this study, the researchers evaluated patients who were prescribed VTE prophylaxis while admitted to Johns Hopkins Hospital between April 1, 2015, and December 31, 2015.

The researchers evaluated patients in 16 hospital units. Four units were targeted for educational intervention, and the remaining 12 units served as controls.

The educational interventions were given only when patients did not receive prescribed VTE prophylaxis. A bedside nurse would document nonadministration, and an alert built into the hospital’s electronic medical record would email and page a health educator.

If the patient had refused prophylaxis, the patient would receive an educational bundle on VTE, which could consist of any or all of the following (patient’s choice):

• A one-on-one discussion with the health educator
• A two-page paper handout (available in eight languages)
• A 10-minute educational video (on a tablet).

If the nonadministration of prophylaxis was not due to patient refusal or contraindication, the health educator would educate the bedside nurse about the importance of giving all prescribed doses of VTE prophylaxis.

The study included 19,652 patient visits during which VTE prophylaxis was prescribed.

Of these, 726 visits were targeted for educational intervention. In 272 visits, the intervention was administered to a nurse alone (n=45) or the nurse and the patient (n=227).

For the remaining 454 visits, the patient was discharged before the intervention (n=123), there was an order to discontinue prophylaxis (n=111), there was a technical error (n=55), the patient (n=43) or health educator (n=41) was off unit, or “other” reasons (n=81).

Results

The proportion of nonadministered doses of VTE prophylaxis declined significantly in the hospital units targeted with educational intervention—from 9.1% pre-intervention to 5.6% post-intervention (odds ratio [OR]=0.57, P<0.001).

However, there was no significant change in the control units—13.6% and 13.3%, respectively (OR=0.98, P=0.62).

The proportion of nonadministered doses for reasons other than patient refusal decreased significantly in the intervention units—from 2.3% to 1.7% (OR, 0.74, P=0.01)—but not in control units—from 3.4% to 3.3% (OR=0.98, P=0.69).

The proportion of nonadministered doses due to patient refusal decreased significantly in the intervention units—from 5.9% to 3.4% (OR=0.53, P<0.001)—but not in control units—from 8.7% to 8.5% (OR=0.98, P=0.71).

“Our study demonstrates that educating patients quickly, as soon as we learn about a missed dose, is not only possible to implement at a large hospital but is effective in ensuring that patients take the drugs that can save their lives,” Dr. Haut said.

“The educational bundles we created are effective and optimize busy clinicians’ already packed schedules,” added study author Brandyn Lau, of the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.

“At the end of the day, we’re here to deliver high quality care and keep patients safe, and this is one method of achieving that mission.”

However, the improved adherence to VTE prophylaxis did not translate to a significant reduction in VTE in this study.

The incidence of VTE decreased from 0.30% to 0.18% (OR=0.60) in intervention units and from 0.24% to 0.20% in control units (OR=0.81).

For all patients, the incidence of VTE was 0.26% pre-intervention and 0.19% post-intervention (P=0.46).

This research was supported by a contract from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. The study authors reported support from various government agencies and private organizations.

Johns Hopkins Medicine

Education can improve adherence to venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis among hospitalized patients, according to researchers.

They assessed data from more than 19,000 hospital stays and found that “real-time” educational interventions directed toward patients and nurses significantly reduced nonadministration of prescribed VTE prophylaxis.

However, this did not translate to a significant reduction in VTE incidence.

Elliott Haut, MD, PhD, of the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland, and his colleagues reported these results in JAMA Network Open.

For this study, the researchers evaluated patients who were prescribed VTE prophylaxis while admitted to Johns Hopkins Hospital between April 1, 2015, and December 31, 2015.

The researchers evaluated patients in 16 hospital units. Four units were targeted for educational intervention, and the remaining 12 units served as controls.

The educational interventions were given only when patients did not receive prescribed VTE prophylaxis. A bedside nurse would document nonadministration, and an alert built into the hospital’s electronic medical record would email and page a health educator.

If the patient had refused prophylaxis, the patient would receive an educational bundle on VTE, which could consist of any or all of the following (patient’s choice):

• A one-on-one discussion with the health educator
• A two-page paper handout (available in eight languages)
• A 10-minute educational video (on a tablet).

If the nonadministration of prophylaxis was not due to patient refusal or contraindication, the health educator would educate the bedside nurse about the importance of giving all prescribed doses of VTE prophylaxis.

The study included 19,652 patient visits during which VTE prophylaxis was prescribed.

Of these, 726 visits were targeted for educational intervention. In 272 visits, the intervention was administered to a nurse alone (n=45) or the nurse and the patient (n=227).

For the remaining 454 visits, the patient was discharged before the intervention (n=123), there was an order to discontinue prophylaxis (n=111), there was a technical error (n=55), the patient (n=43) or health educator (n=41) was off unit, or “other” reasons (n=81).

Results

The proportion of nonadministered doses of VTE prophylaxis declined significantly in the hospital units targeted with educational intervention—from 9.1% pre-intervention to 5.6% post-intervention (odds ratio [OR]=0.57, P<0.001).

However, there was no significant change in the control units—13.6% and 13.3%, respectively (OR=0.98, P=0.62).

The proportion of nonadministered doses for reasons other than patient refusal decreased significantly in the intervention units—from 2.3% to 1.7% (OR, 0.74, P=0.01)—but not in control units—from 3.4% to 3.3% (OR=0.98, P=0.69).

The proportion of nonadministered doses due to patient refusal decreased significantly in the intervention units—from 5.9% to 3.4% (OR=0.53, P<0.001)—but not in control units—from 8.7% to 8.5% (OR=0.98, P=0.71).

“Our study demonstrates that educating patients quickly, as soon as we learn about a missed dose, is not only possible to implement at a large hospital but is effective in ensuring that patients take the drugs that can save their lives,” Dr. Haut said.

“The educational bundles we created are effective and optimize busy clinicians’ already packed schedules,” added study author Brandyn Lau, of the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.

“At the end of the day, we’re here to deliver high quality care and keep patients safe, and this is one method of achieving that mission.”

However, the improved adherence to VTE prophylaxis did not translate to a significant reduction in VTE in this study.

The incidence of VTE decreased from 0.30% to 0.18% (OR=0.60) in intervention units and from 0.24% to 0.20% in control units (OR=0.81).

For all patients, the incidence of VTE was 0.26% pre-intervention and 0.19% post-intervention (P=0.46).

This research was supported by a contract from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. The study authors reported support from various government agencies and private organizations.

Clinical question: Does testing procalcitonin for lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) decrease total antibiotic days without a resultant increase in adverse events?

Background: LRTIs are frequently overtreated with antibiotics. Procalcitonin may indicate bacterial infection and promote antibacterial stewardship. Studies to evaluate how testing procalcitonin affects antibiotic use for suspected lower respiratory tract infections are limited.

Study design: Randomized 1:1 intention-to-treat, multicenter trial.

Setting: 14 U.S. urban academic hospitals.

Image

Dr. Naderi is assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine, University of Colorado, Denver.

Clinical question: Does testing procalcitonin for lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) decrease total antibiotic days without a resultant increase in adverse events?

Background: LRTIs are frequently overtreated with antibiotics. Procalcitonin may indicate bacterial infection and promote antibacterial stewardship. Studies to evaluate how testing procalcitonin affects antibiotic use for suspected lower respiratory tract infections are limited.

Study design: Randomized 1:1 intention-to-treat, multicenter trial.

Setting: 14 U.S. urban academic hospitals.

Image

Dr. Naderi is assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine, University of Colorado, Denver.

Clinical question: Does testing procalcitonin for lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) decrease total antibiotic days without a resultant increase in adverse events?

Background: LRTIs are frequently overtreated with antibiotics. Procalcitonin may indicate bacterial infection and promote antibacterial stewardship. Studies to evaluate how testing procalcitonin affects antibiotic use for suspected lower respiratory tract infections are limited.

Study design: Randomized 1:1 intention-to-treat, multicenter trial.

Setting: 14 U.S. urban academic hospitals.

Image

Dr. Naderi is assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine, University of Colorado, Denver.

In this Episode, Nick Andrews (@tribnic) welcomes the first med student and the first muggle to join the program. Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia partnered with the Lantern Theater Company to offer a class that teaches staging, acting, and playwriting. The class is designed specifically for med students, current residents, attending physicians, and any other medical professionals. The class eliminates hierarchy, encourages artistic exploration, and can lead to increased empathy when dealing with patients and their families. Nick, Luis, and Craig recognize the similarities between medicine and art but also highlight what we can learn from different passions. 

Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts


 

In this Episode, Nick Andrews (@tribnic) welcomes the first med student and the first muggle to join the program. Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia partnered with the Lantern Theater Company to offer a class that teaches staging, acting, and playwriting. The class is designed specifically for med students, current residents, attending physicians, and any other medical professionals. The class eliminates hierarchy, encourages artistic exploration, and can lead to increased empathy when dealing with patients and their families. Nick, Luis, and Craig recognize the similarities between medicine and art but also highlight what we can learn from different passions. 

Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts


 

In this Episode, Nick Andrews (@tribnic) welcomes the first med student and the first muggle to join the program. Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia partnered with the Lantern Theater Company to offer a class that teaches staging, acting, and playwriting. The class is designed specifically for med students, current residents, attending physicians, and any other medical professionals. The class eliminates hierarchy, encourages artistic exploration, and can lead to increased empathy when dealing with patients and their families. Nick, Luis, and Craig recognize the similarities between medicine and art but also highlight what we can learn from different passions. 

Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts