Case

A 45-year-old previously healthy female was admitted to the ICU with sepsis caused by community-acquired pneumonia. Per hospital policy, all patients admitted to the ICU are screened for MRSA colonization. If the nasal screen is positive, contact isolation is initiated and the hospital’s MRSA decolonization protocol is implemented. Her nasal screen was positive for MRSA.

Overview

MRSA infections are associated with significant morbidity and mortality, and death occurs in almost 5% of patients who develop a MRSA infection. In 2005, invasive MRSA was responsible for approximately 278,000 hospitalizations and 19,000 deaths. MRSA is a common cause of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) and is the most common pathogen in surgical site infections (SSIs) and ventilator-associated pneumonias. The cost of treating MRSA infections is substantial; in 2003, $14.5 billion was spent on MRSA-related hospitalizations.

It is well known that MRSA colonization is a risk factor for the subsequent development of a MRSA infection. This risk persists over time, and approximately 25% of individuals who are colonized with MRSA for more than one year will develop a late-onset MRSA infection.¹ It is estimated that between 0.8% and 6% of people in the U.S. are asymptomatically colonized with MRSA.

One infection control strategy for reducing the transmission of MRSA among hospitalized patients involves screening for the presence of this organism and then placing colonized and/or infected patients in isolation; however, there is considerable controversy about which patients should be screened.

An additional element of many infection control strategies involves MRSA decolonization, but there is uncertainty about which patients benefit from it and significant variability in its reported success rates.² Additionally, several studies have indicated that MRSA decolonization is only temporary and that patients become recolonized over time.

Treatment

It is estimated that 10% to 20% of MRSA carriers will develop an infection while they are hospitalized. Furthermore, even after they have been discharged from the hospital, their risk for developing a MRSA infection persists.

Most patients who develop a MRSA infection have been colonized prior to infection, and these patients usually develop an infection caused by the same strain as the colonization. In view of this fact, a primary goal of decolonization is reducing the likelihood of “auto-infection.” Another goal of decolonization is reducing the transmission of MRSA to other patients.

In order to determine whether MRSA colonization is present, patients undergo screening, and specimens are collected from the nares using nasal swabs. Specimens from extranasal sites, such as the groin, are sometimes also obtained for screening. These screening tests are usually done with either cultures or polymerase chain reaction testing.

There is significant variability in the details of screening and decolonization protocols among different healthcare facilities. Typically, the screening test costs more than the agents used for decolonization. Partly for this reason, some facilities forego screening altogether, instead treating all patients with a decolonization regimen; however, there is concern that administering decolonizing medications to all patients would lead to the unnecessary treatment of large numbers of patients. Such widespread use of the decolonizing agents might promote the development of resistance to these medications.

Medications. Decolonization typically involves the use of a topical antibiotic, most commonly mupirocin, which is applied to the nares. This may be used in conjunction with an oral antimicrobial agent. While the nares are the anatomical locations most commonly colonized by MRSA, extranasal colonization occurs in 50% of those who are nasally colonized.

Of the topical medications available for decolonization, mupirocin has the highest efficacy, with eradication of MRSA and methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) colonization ranging from 81% to 93%. To increase the likelihood of successful decolonization, an antiseptic agent, such as chlorhexidine gluconate, may also be applied to the skin. Chlorhexidine gluconate is also commonly used to prevent other HAIs.

Neomycin is sometimes used for decolonization, but its efficacy for this purpose is questionable. There are also concerns about resistance, but it may be an option in cases of documented mupirocin resistance. Preparations that contain tea tree oil appear to be more effective for decolonization of skin sites than for nasal decolonization. Table 1 lists the topical antibiotics and antiseptics that may be utilized for decolonization, while Table 2 lists the oral medications that can be used for this purpose. Table 3 lists investigational agents being evaluated for their ability to decolonize patients.

It has been suggested that the patients who might derive the most benefit from decolonization are those at increased risk for developing a MRSA infection during a specific time interval. This would include patients who are admitted to the ICU for an acute illness and cardiothoracic surgery patients. A benefit from decolonization has also been observed in hemodialysis patients, who have an incidence of invasive MRSA infections 100 times greater than the general population. Otherwise, there are no data to support the routine use of decolonization in nonsurgical patients.

It is not uncommon for hospitals to screen patients admitted to the ICU for MRSA nasal colonization; in fact, screening is mandatory in nine states. If the nasal screen is positive, contact precautions are instituted. The decision about whether or not to initiate a decolonization protocol varies among different ICUs, but most do not carry out universal decolonization.

Some studies show decolonization is beneficial for ICU patients. These studies include a large cluster-randomized trial called REDUCE MRSA,³ which took place in 43 hospitals and involved 74,256 patients in 74 ICUs. The study showed that universal (i.e., without screening) decolonization using mupirocin and chlorhexidine was effective in reducing rates of MRSA clinical isolates, as well as bloodstream infection from any pathogen. Other studies have demonstrated benefits from the decolonization of ICU patients.^4,5

Surgical Site Infections. Meanwhile, SSIs are often associated with increased mortality rates and substantial healthcare costs, including increased hospital lengths of stay and readmission rates. Staphylococcus aureus is the pathogen most commonly isolated from SSIs. In surgical patients, colonization with MRSA is associated with an elevated rate of MRSA SSIs. The goal of decolonization in surgical patients is not to permanently eliminate MRSA but to prevent SSIs by suppressing the presence of this organism for a relatively brief duration.

There is evidence that decolonization reduces SSIs for cardiothoracic surgeries.⁶ For these patients, it is cost effective to screen for nasal carriage of MRSA and then treat carriers with a combination of pre-operative mupirocin and chlorhexidine. It may be reasonable to delay cardiothoracic surgery in colonized patients who will require implantation of prosthetic material until they complete MRSA decolonization.

In addition to reducing the risk of auto-infection, another goal of decolonization is limiting the possibility of transmission of MRSA from a colonized patient to a susceptible individual; however, there are only limited data available that measure the efficacy of decolonization for preventing transmission.

Concerns about the potential hazards of decolonization therapy have impacted its widespread implementation. The biggest concern is that patients may develop resistance to the antimicrobial agents used for decolonization, particularly if they are used at increased frequency. Mupirocin resistance monitoring is valuable, but, unfortunately, the susceptibility of Staphylococcus aureus to mupirocin is not routinely evaluated, so the prevalence of mupirocin resistance in local strains is often unknown. Another concern about decolonization is the cost of screening and decolonizing patients.

Back to the Case

The patient in this case required admission to an ICU and, based on the results of the REDUCE MRSA clinical trial, she would likely benefit from undergoing decolonization to reduce her risk of both MRSA-positive clinical cultures and bloodstream infections caused by any pathogen.

Bottom Line

Decolonization is beneficial for patients at increased risk of developing a MRSA infection during a specific period, such as patients admitted to the ICU and those undergoing cardiothoracic surgery.

Dr. Clarke is assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at Emory University Hospital and a faculty member in the Emory University Department of Medicine, both in Atlanta.

References

1. Dow G, Field D, Mancuso M, Allard J. Decolonization of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus during routine hospital care: Efficacy and long-term follow-up. Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol. 2010;21(1):38-44.
2. Simor AE. Staphylococcal decolonisation: An effective strategy for prevention of infection? Lancet Infect Dis. 2011;11(12):952-962.
3. Huang SS, Septimus E, Kleinman K, et al. Targeted versus universal decolonization to prevent ICU infection. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(24):2255-2265.
4. Fraser T, Fatica C, Scarpelli M, et al. Decrease in Staphylococcus aureus colonization and hospital-acquired infection in a medical intensive care unit after institution of an active surveillance and decolonization program. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2010;31(8):779-783.
5. Robotham J, Graves N, Cookson B, et al. Screening, isolation, and decolonisation strategies in the control of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in intensive care units: Cost effectiveness evaluation. BMJ. 2011;343:d5694.
6. Schweizer M, Perencevich E, McDanel J, et al. Effectiveness of a bundled intervention of decolonization and prophylaxis to decrease Gram positive surgical site infections after cardiac or orthopedic surgery: Systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2013;346:f2743.

Case

A 45-year-old previously healthy female was admitted to the ICU with sepsis caused by community-acquired pneumonia. Per hospital policy, all patients admitted to the ICU are screened for MRSA colonization. If the nasal screen is positive, contact isolation is initiated and the hospital’s MRSA decolonization protocol is implemented. Her nasal screen was positive for MRSA.

Overview

MRSA infections are associated with significant morbidity and mortality, and death occurs in almost 5% of patients who develop a MRSA infection. In 2005, invasive MRSA was responsible for approximately 278,000 hospitalizations and 19,000 deaths. MRSA is a common cause of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) and is the most common pathogen in surgical site infections (SSIs) and ventilator-associated pneumonias. The cost of treating MRSA infections is substantial; in 2003, $14.5 billion was spent on MRSA-related hospitalizations.

It is well known that MRSA colonization is a risk factor for the subsequent development of a MRSA infection. This risk persists over time, and approximately 25% of individuals who are colonized with MRSA for more than one year will develop a late-onset MRSA infection.¹ It is estimated that between 0.8% and 6% of people in the U.S. are asymptomatically colonized with MRSA.

One infection control strategy for reducing the transmission of MRSA among hospitalized patients involves screening for the presence of this organism and then placing colonized and/or infected patients in isolation; however, there is considerable controversy about which patients should be screened.

An additional element of many infection control strategies involves MRSA decolonization, but there is uncertainty about which patients benefit from it and significant variability in its reported success rates.² Additionally, several studies have indicated that MRSA decolonization is only temporary and that patients become recolonized over time.

Treatment

It is estimated that 10% to 20% of MRSA carriers will develop an infection while they are hospitalized. Furthermore, even after they have been discharged from the hospital, their risk for developing a MRSA infection persists.

Most patients who develop a MRSA infection have been colonized prior to infection, and these patients usually develop an infection caused by the same strain as the colonization. In view of this fact, a primary goal of decolonization is reducing the likelihood of “auto-infection.” Another goal of decolonization is reducing the transmission of MRSA to other patients.

In order to determine whether MRSA colonization is present, patients undergo screening, and specimens are collected from the nares using nasal swabs. Specimens from extranasal sites, such as the groin, are sometimes also obtained for screening. These screening tests are usually done with either cultures or polymerase chain reaction testing.

There is significant variability in the details of screening and decolonization protocols among different healthcare facilities. Typically, the screening test costs more than the agents used for decolonization. Partly for this reason, some facilities forego screening altogether, instead treating all patients with a decolonization regimen; however, there is concern that administering decolonizing medications to all patients would lead to the unnecessary treatment of large numbers of patients. Such widespread use of the decolonizing agents might promote the development of resistance to these medications.

Medications. Decolonization typically involves the use of a topical antibiotic, most commonly mupirocin, which is applied to the nares. This may be used in conjunction with an oral antimicrobial agent. While the nares are the anatomical locations most commonly colonized by MRSA, extranasal colonization occurs in 50% of those who are nasally colonized.

Of the topical medications available for decolonization, mupirocin has the highest efficacy, with eradication of MRSA and methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) colonization ranging from 81% to 93%. To increase the likelihood of successful decolonization, an antiseptic agent, such as chlorhexidine gluconate, may also be applied to the skin. Chlorhexidine gluconate is also commonly used to prevent other HAIs.

Neomycin is sometimes used for decolonization, but its efficacy for this purpose is questionable. There are also concerns about resistance, but it may be an option in cases of documented mupirocin resistance. Preparations that contain tea tree oil appear to be more effective for decolonization of skin sites than for nasal decolonization. Table 1 lists the topical antibiotics and antiseptics that may be utilized for decolonization, while Table 2 lists the oral medications that can be used for this purpose. Table 3 lists investigational agents being evaluated for their ability to decolonize patients.

It has been suggested that the patients who might derive the most benefit from decolonization are those at increased risk for developing a MRSA infection during a specific time interval. This would include patients who are admitted to the ICU for an acute illness and cardiothoracic surgery patients. A benefit from decolonization has also been observed in hemodialysis patients, who have an incidence of invasive MRSA infections 100 times greater than the general population. Otherwise, there are no data to support the routine use of decolonization in nonsurgical patients.

It is not uncommon for hospitals to screen patients admitted to the ICU for MRSA nasal colonization; in fact, screening is mandatory in nine states. If the nasal screen is positive, contact precautions are instituted. The decision about whether or not to initiate a decolonization protocol varies among different ICUs, but most do not carry out universal decolonization.

Some studies show decolonization is beneficial for ICU patients. These studies include a large cluster-randomized trial called REDUCE MRSA,³ which took place in 43 hospitals and involved 74,256 patients in 74 ICUs. The study showed that universal (i.e., without screening) decolonization using mupirocin and chlorhexidine was effective in reducing rates of MRSA clinical isolates, as well as bloodstream infection from any pathogen. Other studies have demonstrated benefits from the decolonization of ICU patients.^4,5

Surgical Site Infections. Meanwhile, SSIs are often associated with increased mortality rates and substantial healthcare costs, including increased hospital lengths of stay and readmission rates. Staphylococcus aureus is the pathogen most commonly isolated from SSIs. In surgical patients, colonization with MRSA is associated with an elevated rate of MRSA SSIs. The goal of decolonization in surgical patients is not to permanently eliminate MRSA but to prevent SSIs by suppressing the presence of this organism for a relatively brief duration.

There is evidence that decolonization reduces SSIs for cardiothoracic surgeries.⁶ For these patients, it is cost effective to screen for nasal carriage of MRSA and then treat carriers with a combination of pre-operative mupirocin and chlorhexidine. It may be reasonable to delay cardiothoracic surgery in colonized patients who will require implantation of prosthetic material until they complete MRSA decolonization.

In addition to reducing the risk of auto-infection, another goal of decolonization is limiting the possibility of transmission of MRSA from a colonized patient to a susceptible individual; however, there are only limited data available that measure the efficacy of decolonization for preventing transmission.

Concerns about the potential hazards of decolonization therapy have impacted its widespread implementation. The biggest concern is that patients may develop resistance to the antimicrobial agents used for decolonization, particularly if they are used at increased frequency. Mupirocin resistance monitoring is valuable, but, unfortunately, the susceptibility of Staphylococcus aureus to mupirocin is not routinely evaluated, so the prevalence of mupirocin resistance in local strains is often unknown. Another concern about decolonization is the cost of screening and decolonizing patients.

Back to the Case

The patient in this case required admission to an ICU and, based on the results of the REDUCE MRSA clinical trial, she would likely benefit from undergoing decolonization to reduce her risk of both MRSA-positive clinical cultures and bloodstream infections caused by any pathogen.

Bottom Line

Decolonization is beneficial for patients at increased risk of developing a MRSA infection during a specific period, such as patients admitted to the ICU and those undergoing cardiothoracic surgery.

Dr. Clarke is assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at Emory University Hospital and a faculty member in the Emory University Department of Medicine, both in Atlanta.

References

1. Dow G, Field D, Mancuso M, Allard J. Decolonization of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus during routine hospital care: Efficacy and long-term follow-up. Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol. 2010;21(1):38-44.
2. Simor AE. Staphylococcal decolonisation: An effective strategy for prevention of infection? Lancet Infect Dis. 2011;11(12):952-962.
3. Huang SS, Septimus E, Kleinman K, et al. Targeted versus universal decolonization to prevent ICU infection. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(24):2255-2265.
4. Fraser T, Fatica C, Scarpelli M, et al. Decrease in Staphylococcus aureus colonization and hospital-acquired infection in a medical intensive care unit after institution of an active surveillance and decolonization program. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2010;31(8):779-783.
5. Robotham J, Graves N, Cookson B, et al. Screening, isolation, and decolonisation strategies in the control of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in intensive care units: Cost effectiveness evaluation. BMJ. 2011;343:d5694.
6. Schweizer M, Perencevich E, McDanel J, et al. Effectiveness of a bundled intervention of decolonization and prophylaxis to decrease Gram positive surgical site infections after cardiac or orthopedic surgery: Systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2013;346:f2743.

Case

A 45-year-old previously healthy female was admitted to the ICU with sepsis caused by community-acquired pneumonia. Per hospital policy, all patients admitted to the ICU are screened for MRSA colonization. If the nasal screen is positive, contact isolation is initiated and the hospital’s MRSA decolonization protocol is implemented. Her nasal screen was positive for MRSA.

Overview

MRSA infections are associated with significant morbidity and mortality, and death occurs in almost 5% of patients who develop a MRSA infection. In 2005, invasive MRSA was responsible for approximately 278,000 hospitalizations and 19,000 deaths. MRSA is a common cause of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) and is the most common pathogen in surgical site infections (SSIs) and ventilator-associated pneumonias. The cost of treating MRSA infections is substantial; in 2003, $14.5 billion was spent on MRSA-related hospitalizations.

It is well known that MRSA colonization is a risk factor for the subsequent development of a MRSA infection. This risk persists over time, and approximately 25% of individuals who are colonized with MRSA for more than one year will develop a late-onset MRSA infection.¹ It is estimated that between 0.8% and 6% of people in the U.S. are asymptomatically colonized with MRSA.

One infection control strategy for reducing the transmission of MRSA among hospitalized patients involves screening for the presence of this organism and then placing colonized and/or infected patients in isolation; however, there is considerable controversy about which patients should be screened.

An additional element of many infection control strategies involves MRSA decolonization, but there is uncertainty about which patients benefit from it and significant variability in its reported success rates.² Additionally, several studies have indicated that MRSA decolonization is only temporary and that patients become recolonized over time.

Treatment

It is estimated that 10% to 20% of MRSA carriers will develop an infection while they are hospitalized. Furthermore, even after they have been discharged from the hospital, their risk for developing a MRSA infection persists.

Most patients who develop a MRSA infection have been colonized prior to infection, and these patients usually develop an infection caused by the same strain as the colonization. In view of this fact, a primary goal of decolonization is reducing the likelihood of “auto-infection.” Another goal of decolonization is reducing the transmission of MRSA to other patients.

In order to determine whether MRSA colonization is present, patients undergo screening, and specimens are collected from the nares using nasal swabs. Specimens from extranasal sites, such as the groin, are sometimes also obtained for screening. These screening tests are usually done with either cultures or polymerase chain reaction testing.

There is significant variability in the details of screening and decolonization protocols among different healthcare facilities. Typically, the screening test costs more than the agents used for decolonization. Partly for this reason, some facilities forego screening altogether, instead treating all patients with a decolonization regimen; however, there is concern that administering decolonizing medications to all patients would lead to the unnecessary treatment of large numbers of patients. Such widespread use of the decolonizing agents might promote the development of resistance to these medications.

Medications. Decolonization typically involves the use of a topical antibiotic, most commonly mupirocin, which is applied to the nares. This may be used in conjunction with an oral antimicrobial agent. While the nares are the anatomical locations most commonly colonized by MRSA, extranasal colonization occurs in 50% of those who are nasally colonized.

Of the topical medications available for decolonization, mupirocin has the highest efficacy, with eradication of MRSA and methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) colonization ranging from 81% to 93%. To increase the likelihood of successful decolonization, an antiseptic agent, such as chlorhexidine gluconate, may also be applied to the skin. Chlorhexidine gluconate is also commonly used to prevent other HAIs.

Neomycin is sometimes used for decolonization, but its efficacy for this purpose is questionable. There are also concerns about resistance, but it may be an option in cases of documented mupirocin resistance. Preparations that contain tea tree oil appear to be more effective for decolonization of skin sites than for nasal decolonization. Table 1 lists the topical antibiotics and antiseptics that may be utilized for decolonization, while Table 2 lists the oral medications that can be used for this purpose. Table 3 lists investigational agents being evaluated for their ability to decolonize patients.

It has been suggested that the patients who might derive the most benefit from decolonization are those at increased risk for developing a MRSA infection during a specific time interval. This would include patients who are admitted to the ICU for an acute illness and cardiothoracic surgery patients. A benefit from decolonization has also been observed in hemodialysis patients, who have an incidence of invasive MRSA infections 100 times greater than the general population. Otherwise, there are no data to support the routine use of decolonization in nonsurgical patients.

It is not uncommon for hospitals to screen patients admitted to the ICU for MRSA nasal colonization; in fact, screening is mandatory in nine states. If the nasal screen is positive, contact precautions are instituted. The decision about whether or not to initiate a decolonization protocol varies among different ICUs, but most do not carry out universal decolonization.

Some studies show decolonization is beneficial for ICU patients. These studies include a large cluster-randomized trial called REDUCE MRSA,³ which took place in 43 hospitals and involved 74,256 patients in 74 ICUs. The study showed that universal (i.e., without screening) decolonization using mupirocin and chlorhexidine was effective in reducing rates of MRSA clinical isolates, as well as bloodstream infection from any pathogen. Other studies have demonstrated benefits from the decolonization of ICU patients.^4,5

Surgical Site Infections. Meanwhile, SSIs are often associated with increased mortality rates and substantial healthcare costs, including increased hospital lengths of stay and readmission rates. Staphylococcus aureus is the pathogen most commonly isolated from SSIs. In surgical patients, colonization with MRSA is associated with an elevated rate of MRSA SSIs. The goal of decolonization in surgical patients is not to permanently eliminate MRSA but to prevent SSIs by suppressing the presence of this organism for a relatively brief duration.

There is evidence that decolonization reduces SSIs for cardiothoracic surgeries.⁶ For these patients, it is cost effective to screen for nasal carriage of MRSA and then treat carriers with a combination of pre-operative mupirocin and chlorhexidine. It may be reasonable to delay cardiothoracic surgery in colonized patients who will require implantation of prosthetic material until they complete MRSA decolonization.

In addition to reducing the risk of auto-infection, another goal of decolonization is limiting the possibility of transmission of MRSA from a colonized patient to a susceptible individual; however, there are only limited data available that measure the efficacy of decolonization for preventing transmission.

Concerns about the potential hazards of decolonization therapy have impacted its widespread implementation. The biggest concern is that patients may develop resistance to the antimicrobial agents used for decolonization, particularly if they are used at increased frequency. Mupirocin resistance monitoring is valuable, but, unfortunately, the susceptibility of Staphylococcus aureus to mupirocin is not routinely evaluated, so the prevalence of mupirocin resistance in local strains is often unknown. Another concern about decolonization is the cost of screening and decolonizing patients.

Back to the Case

The patient in this case required admission to an ICU and, based on the results of the REDUCE MRSA clinical trial, she would likely benefit from undergoing decolonization to reduce her risk of both MRSA-positive clinical cultures and bloodstream infections caused by any pathogen.

Bottom Line

Decolonization is beneficial for patients at increased risk of developing a MRSA infection during a specific period, such as patients admitted to the ICU and those undergoing cardiothoracic surgery.

Dr. Clarke is assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at Emory University Hospital and a faculty member in the Emory University Department of Medicine, both in Atlanta.

References

1. Dow G, Field D, Mancuso M, Allard J. Decolonization of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus during routine hospital care: Efficacy and long-term follow-up. Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol. 2010;21(1):38-44.
2. Simor AE. Staphylococcal decolonisation: An effective strategy for prevention of infection? Lancet Infect Dis. 2011;11(12):952-962.
3. Huang SS, Septimus E, Kleinman K, et al. Targeted versus universal decolonization to prevent ICU infection. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(24):2255-2265.
4. Fraser T, Fatica C, Scarpelli M, et al. Decrease in Staphylococcus aureus colonization and hospital-acquired infection in a medical intensive care unit after institution of an active surveillance and decolonization program. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2010;31(8):779-783.
5. Robotham J, Graves N, Cookson B, et al. Screening, isolation, and decolonisation strategies in the control of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in intensive care units: Cost effectiveness evaluation. BMJ. 2011;343:d5694.
6. Schweizer M, Perencevich E, McDanel J, et al. Effectiveness of a bundled intervention of decolonization and prophylaxis to decrease Gram positive surgical site infections after cardiac or orthopedic surgery: Systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2013;346:f2743.

I think my team of hospitalists is probably tired of hearing my sports analogies. But as I look at the State of Hospital Medicine 2014 report (SOHM), I cannot help but see relationships to athletics.

When you think about football, you automatically contemplate the scope of a particular team and the context of the upcoming season. What are the strengths of the team—do we emphasize offense or defense or special teams? How about the variety of formations or the scheduling and strength of opponents? How about the depth of our roster—what is the talent level available? How do we compare to other teams?

How in the world does this relate to the SOHM? It gives us a chance to evaluate our own hospital medicine groups (HMGs) in the context of the other HMGs across the country. When I look at scope of services and, particularly, the data from Figure 3.1, I am struck with the breadth of the range of services in which HMGs engage. Certainly, our core identity as hospitalists includes admitting referral patients and unassigned patients, but, as of 2014, nearly 90% of hospitalist groups are also managing and co-managing surgical and medical subspecialty patients. To my eyes, the big change since 2012 is the 20% increase in the number of HMGs medically co-managing medical subspecialty patients.

There are some newcomers to our roster, as well—the palliative care and post-acute care work being done by 15% and 25% of our groups, respectively. Particularly striking is the fact that one quarter of HMGs are involved in post-acute care, follow-up clinics, nursing homes, and the like.

My take on this is that factors such as increased complexity of hospitalized patients with lean length of stay and higher acuity needs at discharge transition are driving the need for a measure of continuity and expertise post discharge that may best be provided by HMGs. The trending of the post-acute care challenges/opportunities will certainly be worth watching—sort of like a rookie player who is having a big impact.

As hospitalists may become focused on throughput (admissions discharges and transfers), the interruption to perform procedures may decrease the net value of the hospitalist to the institution.

 

—William A. Landis, MD, FHM

Not surprisingly, nighttime admissions work continues to gain traction. Nearly 60% of HMGs are performing nighttime admissions.

In my regional chapter, we recently heard a presentation on “nocturnists.” An interesting contention that caught my attention was that the nocturnist viewed herself as providing expert clinical care during off-hours—particularly at night—and that she was looking to increase the value and not just “put her finger in the dike,” so to speak, until the cavalry arrived at daybreak. As HMG responsibilities increase during the off-hours, I am thinking that my colleague is right: We are going to have to increase our depth and strength at this particular position so that we might actually become known as the “nighttime experts.” I look for this trend to continue.

Finally, I am drawn to the data on care of patients in the ICU, a number that continues to rise—almost 70% of HMGs now. Meanwhile, procedures have dipped to 33% from 53% in the last report. At first, it seemed a little bit puzzling to me that as involvement in the ICUs seemed to increase, procedures diminished. My anecdotal experience is that most of my procedures occurred on patients who had intensive care requirements. Nonetheless, many hospitalists I have talked to seem to believe that the requirement/expectation of imaging in the performance of more and more invasive procedures—now a standard of care— has increasingly driven procedures to specialized areas of the hospital such as imaging/radiology departments. There may also be a net decrease in the number of procedures performed as more noninvasive diagnostic modalities provide satisfactory information.

As hospitalists may become focused on throughput (admissions discharges and transfers), the interruption to perform procedures may decrease the net value of the hospitalist to the institution. It may make sense for others to be doing procedures. Whatever the cause, my guess is these two trends may continue.

Diving deeper into the granularity of the report will lead the reader to discover subtle differences and trends. Academics, pediatric hospitalists, and independent HMGs all have some nuances, not to mention regional variation. You will have to dig into the report yourself to explore.

Just as there is a freshness to every new sports season, there is a freshness to reviewing the information from the SOHM reports, and evaluating the scope of service is always an exciting moment.

Dr. Landis is medical director of Wellspan Hospitalists in York, Pa., and a member of SHM’s Practice Analysis Committee.

I think my team of hospitalists is probably tired of hearing my sports analogies. But as I look at the State of Hospital Medicine 2014 report (SOHM), I cannot help but see relationships to athletics.

When you think about football, you automatically contemplate the scope of a particular team and the context of the upcoming season. What are the strengths of the team—do we emphasize offense or defense or special teams? How about the variety of formations or the scheduling and strength of opponents? How about the depth of our roster—what is the talent level available? How do we compare to other teams?

How in the world does this relate to the SOHM? It gives us a chance to evaluate our own hospital medicine groups (HMGs) in the context of the other HMGs across the country. When I look at scope of services and, particularly, the data from Figure 3.1, I am struck with the breadth of the range of services in which HMGs engage. Certainly, our core identity as hospitalists includes admitting referral patients and unassigned patients, but, as of 2014, nearly 90% of hospitalist groups are also managing and co-managing surgical and medical subspecialty patients. To my eyes, the big change since 2012 is the 20% increase in the number of HMGs medically co-managing medical subspecialty patients.

There are some newcomers to our roster, as well—the palliative care and post-acute care work being done by 15% and 25% of our groups, respectively. Particularly striking is the fact that one quarter of HMGs are involved in post-acute care, follow-up clinics, nursing homes, and the like.

My take on this is that factors such as increased complexity of hospitalized patients with lean length of stay and higher acuity needs at discharge transition are driving the need for a measure of continuity and expertise post discharge that may best be provided by HMGs. The trending of the post-acute care challenges/opportunities will certainly be worth watching—sort of like a rookie player who is having a big impact.

As hospitalists may become focused on throughput (admissions discharges and transfers), the interruption to perform procedures may decrease the net value of the hospitalist to the institution.

 

—William A. Landis, MD, FHM

Not surprisingly, nighttime admissions work continues to gain traction. Nearly 60% of HMGs are performing nighttime admissions.

In my regional chapter, we recently heard a presentation on “nocturnists.” An interesting contention that caught my attention was that the nocturnist viewed herself as providing expert clinical care during off-hours—particularly at night—and that she was looking to increase the value and not just “put her finger in the dike,” so to speak, until the cavalry arrived at daybreak. As HMG responsibilities increase during the off-hours, I am thinking that my colleague is right: We are going to have to increase our depth and strength at this particular position so that we might actually become known as the “nighttime experts.” I look for this trend to continue.

Finally, I am drawn to the data on care of patients in the ICU, a number that continues to rise—almost 70% of HMGs now. Meanwhile, procedures have dipped to 33% from 53% in the last report. At first, it seemed a little bit puzzling to me that as involvement in the ICUs seemed to increase, procedures diminished. My anecdotal experience is that most of my procedures occurred on patients who had intensive care requirements. Nonetheless, many hospitalists I have talked to seem to believe that the requirement/expectation of imaging in the performance of more and more invasive procedures—now a standard of care— has increasingly driven procedures to specialized areas of the hospital such as imaging/radiology departments. There may also be a net decrease in the number of procedures performed as more noninvasive diagnostic modalities provide satisfactory information.

As hospitalists may become focused on throughput (admissions discharges and transfers), the interruption to perform procedures may decrease the net value of the hospitalist to the institution. It may make sense for others to be doing procedures. Whatever the cause, my guess is these two trends may continue.

Diving deeper into the granularity of the report will lead the reader to discover subtle differences and trends. Academics, pediatric hospitalists, and independent HMGs all have some nuances, not to mention regional variation. You will have to dig into the report yourself to explore.

Just as there is a freshness to every new sports season, there is a freshness to reviewing the information from the SOHM reports, and evaluating the scope of service is always an exciting moment.

Dr. Landis is medical director of Wellspan Hospitalists in York, Pa., and a member of SHM’s Practice Analysis Committee.

I think my team of hospitalists is probably tired of hearing my sports analogies. But as I look at the State of Hospital Medicine 2014 report (SOHM), I cannot help but see relationships to athletics.

When you think about football, you automatically contemplate the scope of a particular team and the context of the upcoming season. What are the strengths of the team—do we emphasize offense or defense or special teams? How about the variety of formations or the scheduling and strength of opponents? How about the depth of our roster—what is the talent level available? How do we compare to other teams?

How in the world does this relate to the SOHM? It gives us a chance to evaluate our own hospital medicine groups (HMGs) in the context of the other HMGs across the country. When I look at scope of services and, particularly, the data from Figure 3.1, I am struck with the breadth of the range of services in which HMGs engage. Certainly, our core identity as hospitalists includes admitting referral patients and unassigned patients, but, as of 2014, nearly 90% of hospitalist groups are also managing and co-managing surgical and medical subspecialty patients. To my eyes, the big change since 2012 is the 20% increase in the number of HMGs medically co-managing medical subspecialty patients.

There are some newcomers to our roster, as well—the palliative care and post-acute care work being done by 15% and 25% of our groups, respectively. Particularly striking is the fact that one quarter of HMGs are involved in post-acute care, follow-up clinics, nursing homes, and the like.

My take on this is that factors such as increased complexity of hospitalized patients with lean length of stay and higher acuity needs at discharge transition are driving the need for a measure of continuity and expertise post discharge that may best be provided by HMGs. The trending of the post-acute care challenges/opportunities will certainly be worth watching—sort of like a rookie player who is having a big impact.

As hospitalists may become focused on throughput (admissions discharges and transfers), the interruption to perform procedures may decrease the net value of the hospitalist to the institution.

 

—William A. Landis, MD, FHM

Not surprisingly, nighttime admissions work continues to gain traction. Nearly 60% of HMGs are performing nighttime admissions.

In my regional chapter, we recently heard a presentation on “nocturnists.” An interesting contention that caught my attention was that the nocturnist viewed herself as providing expert clinical care during off-hours—particularly at night—and that she was looking to increase the value and not just “put her finger in the dike,” so to speak, until the cavalry arrived at daybreak. As HMG responsibilities increase during the off-hours, I am thinking that my colleague is right: We are going to have to increase our depth and strength at this particular position so that we might actually become known as the “nighttime experts.” I look for this trend to continue.

Finally, I am drawn to the data on care of patients in the ICU, a number that continues to rise—almost 70% of HMGs now. Meanwhile, procedures have dipped to 33% from 53% in the last report. At first, it seemed a little bit puzzling to me that as involvement in the ICUs seemed to increase, procedures diminished. My anecdotal experience is that most of my procedures occurred on patients who had intensive care requirements. Nonetheless, many hospitalists I have talked to seem to believe that the requirement/expectation of imaging in the performance of more and more invasive procedures—now a standard of care— has increasingly driven procedures to specialized areas of the hospital such as imaging/radiology departments. There may also be a net decrease in the number of procedures performed as more noninvasive diagnostic modalities provide satisfactory information.

As hospitalists may become focused on throughput (admissions discharges and transfers), the interruption to perform procedures may decrease the net value of the hospitalist to the institution. It may make sense for others to be doing procedures. Whatever the cause, my guess is these two trends may continue.

Diving deeper into the granularity of the report will lead the reader to discover subtle differences and trends. Academics, pediatric hospitalists, and independent HMGs all have some nuances, not to mention regional variation. You will have to dig into the report yourself to explore.

Just as there is a freshness to every new sports season, there is a freshness to reviewing the information from the SOHM reports, and evaluating the scope of service is always an exciting moment.

Dr. Landis is medical director of Wellspan Hospitalists in York, Pa., and a member of SHM’s Practice Analysis Committee.

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) aggressively reorganized its infrastructure in the mid-1990s, undergoing a dramatic transformation from a stagnant “hospital system” to a model “healthcare system” characterized by patient-centered quality care. Central to these efforts was an enterprise-wide update of its existing health information technology (HIT), known as VistA (Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture), with the rollout of a graphical user interface familiar to most U.S. trainees, the computerized patient record system (CPRS). Although many U.S. hospitals are struggling to meet the national directive related to electronic health records (EHR), the VA boasts a comprehensive electronic records system that has been utilized across all its major clinical sites and units for over 15 years.

In light of the high price tag usually attached to HIT implementation, cost-conscious readers should be able to appreciate the magnitude of the VHA’s accomplishment in rolling out a CPRS in a cost-neutral fashion. Despite a 75% increase in the overall number of patients treated at the VA from 1996 to 2004 (2.8 million to 4.9 million), the VA witnessed a startling net decrease in cost per patient during the same time period—compare $5,058 spent per patient per year in 1996 to $5,048 per patient in 2004. Even more striking was the measurable impact on quality and efficiency in care delivery, particularly in preventive services and chronic disease management and outcomes. In a separate cost-benefit analysis of the VA’s HIT investment and implementation, a staggering benefit of $3.09 billion was found. It is not surprising that the VHA advanced to the top of the leaderboard compared to other U.S. health systems.

In a recent Medscape Electronic Health Records survey of more than 18,500 physicians in a variety of practice situations between April and June of 2014, VA-CPRS received the highest marks for user satisfaction, outshining other popular systems, including Practice Fusion, Epic Systems, and Amazing Charts. It is no wonder that international observers have praised VistA as “the gold standard in clinical informatics.”

What distinguishes the VA’s EHR from any “off-the-shelf” software available is the continued dynamic partnership that exists between frontline end users and supportive programmers. This relationship has resulted in 26 discreet versions of CPRS customized to enhance the capabilities and meet the local needs of VHA clinicians. Emphasis is placed on end user value-added functionality with the vision to optimize workflow rather than requiring physicians to align their clinical processes to a pre-scripted system.

The VA’s transformation has not ground to a halt. Rather, the successor to CPRS, known as the Health Management Platform (HMP), is already being piloted. Built as a groundbreaking, browser-based tool designed to further modernize patient care, the HMP shifts the focus away from a single-provider, single patient-chart model to a patient-centered team-based approach that better reflects and supports the way healthcare teams actually provide care. VA clinicians will be able to customize their own interface to support their workflow, communicate with other healthcare providers using secure internal instant messaging, and access built-in guideline-driven support tools that can assist clinical decision making.

Veterans will be able to input personal information using mobile devices and have complete access to their patient record, patient-provider communication tools, and consumer-friendly disease management information.

Administrators will have the ability to extract population-based data in real time to provide prompt feedback to frontline clinicians and identify specific gaps in healthcare delivery. The new HMP opens doors for improved interactions with system and developer partners worldwide.

Clearly the VA is not content to mimic the advancements of others, but once again is poised to revolutionize the arena of healthcare informatics.

Dr. Hazelrigg is section chief of hospital medicine at McGuire VAMC in Richmond, VA.  Dr. Kwan is a hospitalist at the VA in San Diego, CA. Both are members of SHM's VA Task Force.

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) aggressively reorganized its infrastructure in the mid-1990s, undergoing a dramatic transformation from a stagnant “hospital system” to a model “healthcare system” characterized by patient-centered quality care. Central to these efforts was an enterprise-wide update of its existing health information technology (HIT), known as VistA (Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture), with the rollout of a graphical user interface familiar to most U.S. trainees, the computerized patient record system (CPRS). Although many U.S. hospitals are struggling to meet the national directive related to electronic health records (EHR), the VA boasts a comprehensive electronic records system that has been utilized across all its major clinical sites and units for over 15 years.

In light of the high price tag usually attached to HIT implementation, cost-conscious readers should be able to appreciate the magnitude of the VHA’s accomplishment in rolling out a CPRS in a cost-neutral fashion. Despite a 75% increase in the overall number of patients treated at the VA from 1996 to 2004 (2.8 million to 4.9 million), the VA witnessed a startling net decrease in cost per patient during the same time period—compare $5,058 spent per patient per year in 1996 to $5,048 per patient in 2004. Even more striking was the measurable impact on quality and efficiency in care delivery, particularly in preventive services and chronic disease management and outcomes. In a separate cost-benefit analysis of the VA’s HIT investment and implementation, a staggering benefit of $3.09 billion was found. It is not surprising that the VHA advanced to the top of the leaderboard compared to other U.S. health systems.

In a recent Medscape Electronic Health Records survey of more than 18,500 physicians in a variety of practice situations between April and June of 2014, VA-CPRS received the highest marks for user satisfaction, outshining other popular systems, including Practice Fusion, Epic Systems, and Amazing Charts. It is no wonder that international observers have praised VistA as “the gold standard in clinical informatics.”

What distinguishes the VA’s EHR from any “off-the-shelf” software available is the continued dynamic partnership that exists between frontline end users and supportive programmers. This relationship has resulted in 26 discreet versions of CPRS customized to enhance the capabilities and meet the local needs of VHA clinicians. Emphasis is placed on end user value-added functionality with the vision to optimize workflow rather than requiring physicians to align their clinical processes to a pre-scripted system.

The VA’s transformation has not ground to a halt. Rather, the successor to CPRS, known as the Health Management Platform (HMP), is already being piloted. Built as a groundbreaking, browser-based tool designed to further modernize patient care, the HMP shifts the focus away from a single-provider, single patient-chart model to a patient-centered team-based approach that better reflects and supports the way healthcare teams actually provide care. VA clinicians will be able to customize their own interface to support their workflow, communicate with other healthcare providers using secure internal instant messaging, and access built-in guideline-driven support tools that can assist clinical decision making.

Veterans will be able to input personal information using mobile devices and have complete access to their patient record, patient-provider communication tools, and consumer-friendly disease management information.

Administrators will have the ability to extract population-based data in real time to provide prompt feedback to frontline clinicians and identify specific gaps in healthcare delivery. The new HMP opens doors for improved interactions with system and developer partners worldwide.

Clearly the VA is not content to mimic the advancements of others, but once again is poised to revolutionize the arena of healthcare informatics.

Dr. Hazelrigg is section chief of hospital medicine at McGuire VAMC in Richmond, VA.  Dr. Kwan is a hospitalist at the VA in San Diego, CA. Both are members of SHM's VA Task Force.

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) aggressively reorganized its infrastructure in the mid-1990s, undergoing a dramatic transformation from a stagnant “hospital system” to a model “healthcare system” characterized by patient-centered quality care. Central to these efforts was an enterprise-wide update of its existing health information technology (HIT), known as VistA (Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture), with the rollout of a graphical user interface familiar to most U.S. trainees, the computerized patient record system (CPRS). Although many U.S. hospitals are struggling to meet the national directive related to electronic health records (EHR), the VA boasts a comprehensive electronic records system that has been utilized across all its major clinical sites and units for over 15 years.

In light of the high price tag usually attached to HIT implementation, cost-conscious readers should be able to appreciate the magnitude of the VHA’s accomplishment in rolling out a CPRS in a cost-neutral fashion. Despite a 75% increase in the overall number of patients treated at the VA from 1996 to 2004 (2.8 million to 4.9 million), the VA witnessed a startling net decrease in cost per patient during the same time period—compare $5,058 spent per patient per year in 1996 to $5,048 per patient in 2004. Even more striking was the measurable impact on quality and efficiency in care delivery, particularly in preventive services and chronic disease management and outcomes. In a separate cost-benefit analysis of the VA’s HIT investment and implementation, a staggering benefit of $3.09 billion was found. It is not surprising that the VHA advanced to the top of the leaderboard compared to other U.S. health systems.

In a recent Medscape Electronic Health Records survey of more than 18,500 physicians in a variety of practice situations between April and June of 2014, VA-CPRS received the highest marks for user satisfaction, outshining other popular systems, including Practice Fusion, Epic Systems, and Amazing Charts. It is no wonder that international observers have praised VistA as “the gold standard in clinical informatics.”

What distinguishes the VA’s EHR from any “off-the-shelf” software available is the continued dynamic partnership that exists between frontline end users and supportive programmers. This relationship has resulted in 26 discreet versions of CPRS customized to enhance the capabilities and meet the local needs of VHA clinicians. Emphasis is placed on end user value-added functionality with the vision to optimize workflow rather than requiring physicians to align their clinical processes to a pre-scripted system.

The VA’s transformation has not ground to a halt. Rather, the successor to CPRS, known as the Health Management Platform (HMP), is already being piloted. Built as a groundbreaking, browser-based tool designed to further modernize patient care, the HMP shifts the focus away from a single-provider, single patient-chart model to a patient-centered team-based approach that better reflects and supports the way healthcare teams actually provide care. VA clinicians will be able to customize their own interface to support their workflow, communicate with other healthcare providers using secure internal instant messaging, and access built-in guideline-driven support tools that can assist clinical decision making.

Veterans will be able to input personal information using mobile devices and have complete access to their patient record, patient-provider communication tools, and consumer-friendly disease management information.

Administrators will have the ability to extract population-based data in real time to provide prompt feedback to frontline clinicians and identify specific gaps in healthcare delivery. The new HMP opens doors for improved interactions with system and developer partners worldwide.

Clearly the VA is not content to mimic the advancements of others, but once again is poised to revolutionize the arena of healthcare informatics.

Dr. Hazelrigg is section chief of hospital medicine at McGuire VAMC in Richmond, VA.  Dr. Kwan is a hospitalist at the VA in San Diego, CA. Both are members of SHM's VA Task Force.

December 17

Masters Deadline for Nominations

Do you know someone who has earned a place in the “Hall of Fame” for hospital medicine? Nominations for the Master in Hospital Medicine are due next month.

December 31

Membership Ambassadors

Now through Dec. 31, all active SHM members can earn 2015-2016 dues credits and special recognition for recruiting new physician, physician assistant, nurse practitioner, pharmacist, or affiliate members.

January 9, 2015

SFHM and FHM Deadline for Submission

Don’t wait until the last minute to submit your application for the Fellow or Senior Fellow in Hospital Medicine designation. Start now and submit ahead of time.

May 7-9, 2015

Quality and Safety Educators Academy

Quality improvement and patient safety are no longer just electives for trainees; they are part of the core education. That’s why educators everywhere need to learn from SHM’s Quality and Safety Educators Academy.

December 17

Masters Deadline for Nominations

Do you know someone who has earned a place in the “Hall of Fame” for hospital medicine? Nominations for the Master in Hospital Medicine are due next month.

December 31

Membership Ambassadors

Now through Dec. 31, all active SHM members can earn 2015-2016 dues credits and special recognition for recruiting new physician, physician assistant, nurse practitioner, pharmacist, or affiliate members.

January 9, 2015

SFHM and FHM Deadline for Submission

Don’t wait until the last minute to submit your application for the Fellow or Senior Fellow in Hospital Medicine designation. Start now and submit ahead of time.

May 7-9, 2015

Quality and Safety Educators Academy

Quality improvement and patient safety are no longer just electives for trainees; they are part of the core education. That’s why educators everywhere need to learn from SHM’s Quality and Safety Educators Academy.

December 17

Masters Deadline for Nominations

Do you know someone who has earned a place in the “Hall of Fame” for hospital medicine? Nominations for the Master in Hospital Medicine are due next month.

December 31

Membership Ambassadors

Now through Dec. 31, all active SHM members can earn 2015-2016 dues credits and special recognition for recruiting new physician, physician assistant, nurse practitioner, pharmacist, or affiliate members.

January 9, 2015

SFHM and FHM Deadline for Submission

Don’t wait until the last minute to submit your application for the Fellow or Senior Fellow in Hospital Medicine designation. Start now and submit ahead of time.

May 7-9, 2015

Quality and Safety Educators Academy

Quality improvement and patient safety are no longer just electives for trainees; they are part of the core education. That’s why educators everywhere need to learn from SHM’s Quality and Safety Educators Academy.

Adverse drug events and medication errors are unfortunately all too common within hospitals, but hospitalists can now take the lead in preventing them using SHM’s MARQUIS [Multi-Center Medication Reconciliation Quality Improvement Study] toolkit.

The authors of the new toolkit outline the hospitalist’s role in reducing medication errors as:

• Take responsibility for the accuracy of the medication reconciliation process for each patient under your care;
• Lead, coordinate, or participate in medication reconciliation quality improvement (QI) efforts with other key team members on the “front lines” to inform the hospital QI team on key interventions that would lead to improved patient outcomes;
• Become trained in taking the “best possible medication history” and in using effective discharge medication counseling; and
• Identify patients who are at high risk for a medication reconciliation error and would benefit from a more intensive medication reconciliation process.

“The MARQUIS study is important because it shows the potential of a mentored implementation effort, working with local hospitalist leaders and a QI toolkit, to improve medication safety related to the medication reconciliation process,” says MARQUIS principal investigator Jeff Schnipper, MD, MPH, FHM.

“It also shows the importance of institutional commitment to the success of these efforts. Lastly, hospitalists need to realize that medication reconciliation is not just some external regulatory requirement—it’s about the safety of the medications they order—and, therefore, that they need to ensure the quality of the process for the patients they care for and to lead efforts to improve the process across their hospitals.”

For more information, visit www.hospitalmedicine.org/marquis.

Adverse drug events and medication errors are unfortunately all too common within hospitals, but hospitalists can now take the lead in preventing them using SHM’s MARQUIS [Multi-Center Medication Reconciliation Quality Improvement Study] toolkit.

The authors of the new toolkit outline the hospitalist’s role in reducing medication errors as:

• Take responsibility for the accuracy of the medication reconciliation process for each patient under your care;
• Lead, coordinate, or participate in medication reconciliation quality improvement (QI) efforts with other key team members on the “front lines” to inform the hospital QI team on key interventions that would lead to improved patient outcomes;
• Become trained in taking the “best possible medication history” and in using effective discharge medication counseling; and
• Identify patients who are at high risk for a medication reconciliation error and would benefit from a more intensive medication reconciliation process.

“The MARQUIS study is important because it shows the potential of a mentored implementation effort, working with local hospitalist leaders and a QI toolkit, to improve medication safety related to the medication reconciliation process,” says MARQUIS principal investigator Jeff Schnipper, MD, MPH, FHM.

“It also shows the importance of institutional commitment to the success of these efforts. Lastly, hospitalists need to realize that medication reconciliation is not just some external regulatory requirement—it’s about the safety of the medications they order—and, therefore, that they need to ensure the quality of the process for the patients they care for and to lead efforts to improve the process across their hospitals.”

For more information, visit www.hospitalmedicine.org/marquis.

Adverse drug events and medication errors are unfortunately all too common within hospitals, but hospitalists can now take the lead in preventing them using SHM’s MARQUIS [Multi-Center Medication Reconciliation Quality Improvement Study] toolkit.

The authors of the new toolkit outline the hospitalist’s role in reducing medication errors as:

• Take responsibility for the accuracy of the medication reconciliation process for each patient under your care;
• Lead, coordinate, or participate in medication reconciliation quality improvement (QI) efforts with other key team members on the “front lines” to inform the hospital QI team on key interventions that would lead to improved patient outcomes;
• Become trained in taking the “best possible medication history” and in using effective discharge medication counseling; and
• Identify patients who are at high risk for a medication reconciliation error and would benefit from a more intensive medication reconciliation process.

“The MARQUIS study is important because it shows the potential of a mentored implementation effort, working with local hospitalist leaders and a QI toolkit, to improve medication safety related to the medication reconciliation process,” says MARQUIS principal investigator Jeff Schnipper, MD, MPH, FHM.

“It also shows the importance of institutional commitment to the success of these efforts. Lastly, hospitalists need to realize that medication reconciliation is not just some external regulatory requirement—it’s about the safety of the medications they order—and, therefore, that they need to ensure the quality of the process for the patients they care for and to lead efforts to improve the process across their hospitals.”

For more information, visit www.hospitalmedicine.org/marquis.

Hospitalists know that many hospitalizations aren’t like those on TV. Instead of being discharged to their homes, many patients are discharged to post-acute care facilities for further care. And those transitions from hospital to post-acute care can be just as challenging as—if not more than—discharges to home care.

Making those transitions safer, smoother, and more effective can not only help an individual patient, but it can have a broader impact, according to the lead author of SHM’s new Post-Acute Care Transitions Toolkit, now available at www.hospitalmedicine.org/pact.

“Post-acute care transitions is an important area where hospitalists can contribute to improving the population health of their community,” says hospitalist Robert Young, MD, of Northwestern University in Chicago.

Both Dr. Young and the new toolkit recommend that hospitalists partner with the post-acute providers to make sure that communication between settings is complete during transitioning and open for ongoing questions as they arise. “Developing a relationship with your post-acute providers to work on these transitions issues provides the opportunity for ongoing quality and process improvement vital to our patients’ care,” Dr. Young says.

Hospitalists know that many hospitalizations aren’t like those on TV. Instead of being discharged to their homes, many patients are discharged to post-acute care facilities for further care. And those transitions from hospital to post-acute care can be just as challenging as—if not more than—discharges to home care.

Making those transitions safer, smoother, and more effective can not only help an individual patient, but it can have a broader impact, according to the lead author of SHM’s new Post-Acute Care Transitions Toolkit, now available at www.hospitalmedicine.org/pact.

“Post-acute care transitions is an important area where hospitalists can contribute to improving the population health of their community,” says hospitalist Robert Young, MD, of Northwestern University in Chicago.

Both Dr. Young and the new toolkit recommend that hospitalists partner with the post-acute providers to make sure that communication between settings is complete during transitioning and open for ongoing questions as they arise. “Developing a relationship with your post-acute providers to work on these transitions issues provides the opportunity for ongoing quality and process improvement vital to our patients’ care,” Dr. Young says.

Hospitalists know that many hospitalizations aren’t like those on TV. Instead of being discharged to their homes, many patients are discharged to post-acute care facilities for further care. And those transitions from hospital to post-acute care can be just as challenging as—if not more than—discharges to home care.

Making those transitions safer, smoother, and more effective can not only help an individual patient, but it can have a broader impact, according to the lead author of SHM’s new Post-Acute Care Transitions Toolkit, now available at www.hospitalmedicine.org/pact.

“Post-acute care transitions is an important area where hospitalists can contribute to improving the population health of their community,” says hospitalist Robert Young, MD, of Northwestern University in Chicago.

Both Dr. Young and the new toolkit recommend that hospitalists partner with the post-acute providers to make sure that communication between settings is complete during transitioning and open for ongoing questions as they arise. “Developing a relationship with your post-acute providers to work on these transitions issues provides the opportunity for ongoing quality and process improvement vital to our patients’ care,” Dr. Young says.

If you haven’t checked out SHM’s online Learning Portal, now is the time. SHM will be introducing new content for pediatric hospitalists and more information on the use of anticoagulants. Access to the SHM Learning Portal is free for members: www.shmlearningportal.org.

If you haven’t checked out SHM’s online Learning Portal, now is the time. SHM will be introducing new content for pediatric hospitalists and more information on the use of anticoagulants. Access to the SHM Learning Portal is free for members: www.shmlearningportal.org.

If you haven’t checked out SHM’s online Learning Portal, now is the time. SHM will be introducing new content for pediatric hospitalists and more information on the use of anticoagulants. Access to the SHM Learning Portal is free for members: www.shmlearningportal.org.

As the HM movement continues to grow, more medical students, residents, and hospitalists in the first few years of their new career are looking to answer some of the fundamental questions about a career in the specialty: How can I get involved in quality improvement?

How do I find a career mentor and approach him or her? How can I build a CV that reflects my career path and aspirations?

Many of those topics—and lots of others—will be addressed comprehensively for the first time ever at Hospital Medicine 2015 during a daylong track for young physicians. Courses on Monday, March 30, will include:

• Career Pathways in Hospital Medicine
• How to Stand Out: Being the Best Applicant

You Can Be

• Getting to the Top of the Pile: Writing Your CV
• Quality and Safety for Residents and Students
• Time Management
• Making the Most of Your Mentoring Relationships

Registration discounts apply for residents and medical students. For more information, visit www.hospitalmedicine2015.org.

As the HM movement continues to grow, more medical students, residents, and hospitalists in the first few years of their new career are looking to answer some of the fundamental questions about a career in the specialty: How can I get involved in quality improvement?

How do I find a career mentor and approach him or her? How can I build a CV that reflects my career path and aspirations?

Many of those topics—and lots of others—will be addressed comprehensively for the first time ever at Hospital Medicine 2015 during a daylong track for young physicians. Courses on Monday, March 30, will include:

• Career Pathways in Hospital Medicine
• How to Stand Out: Being the Best Applicant

You Can Be

• Getting to the Top of the Pile: Writing Your CV
• Quality and Safety for Residents and Students
• Time Management
• Making the Most of Your Mentoring Relationships

Registration discounts apply for residents and medical students. For more information, visit www.hospitalmedicine2015.org.

As the HM movement continues to grow, more medical students, residents, and hospitalists in the first few years of their new career are looking to answer some of the fundamental questions about a career in the specialty: How can I get involved in quality improvement?

How do I find a career mentor and approach him or her? How can I build a CV that reflects my career path and aspirations?

Many of those topics—and lots of others—will be addressed comprehensively for the first time ever at Hospital Medicine 2015 during a daylong track for young physicians. Courses on Monday, March 30, will include:

• Career Pathways in Hospital Medicine
• How to Stand Out: Being the Best Applicant

You Can Be

• Getting to the Top of the Pile: Writing Your CV
• Quality and Safety for Residents and Students
• Time Management
• Making the Most of Your Mentoring Relationships

Registration discounts apply for residents and medical students. For more information, visit www.hospitalmedicine2015.org.

Controlling diabetes in the hospital is one of the most predominant challenges hospitalists face. In addition to the condition’s increased prevalence among the general population, patients with diabetes are commonly admitted to the hospital multiple times. And the treatment of diabetes can make the treatment of other conditions more difficult.

In fact, a 2014 study conducted in California by the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research and the California Center for Public Health Advocacy revealed that one-third of hospitalized patients older than 34 in California have diabetes.

For hospitalists ready to tackle a condition like diabetes—increasingly common and challenging to treat—SHM now has more resources than ever. And hospitalists can start to take advantage of them today.

Glycemic Control Implementation Toolkit

SHM’s Glycemic Control Implementation Toolkit gives hospitalists the first advantages in treating hyperglycemia in the hospital. Using SHM’s proven approach to quality improvement, including personal experience and evidence-based medicine, the toolkit enables hospitalists to implement effective regimens and protocols that optimize glycemic control and minimize hypoglycemia.

The toolkit (www.hospitalmedicine.org/gcmi) is easy to use and includes step-by-step instructions, from first steps to performance tracking to continuing improvement.

Hospital Medicine 2015

Ready to learn directly from the experts in inpatient glycemic control and share experiences with thousands of other hospitalists? HM15 will feature the most current information and research from the leading authorities on glycemic control.

For more information and to register online, visit www.hospitalmedicine2015.org.

Glycemic Control Mentored Implementation

SHM’s signature mentored implementation model helps hospitals create and implement programs that make a difference. The Glycemic Control Mentored Implementation (GCMI) Program links hospitals with national leaders in the field for a mentored relationship, critical data benchmarking, and collaboration with peers.

GCMI has now moved to a rolling acceptance model, so hospitals can now apply any time to start preventing hypoglycemia and better managing their inpatients with hyperglycemia and diabetes. For more information, visit www.hospitalmedicine.org/gcmi.

Brendon Shank is SHM’s associate vice president of communications.

Controlling diabetes in the hospital is one of the most predominant challenges hospitalists face. In addition to the condition’s increased prevalence among the general population, patients with diabetes are commonly admitted to the hospital multiple times. And the treatment of diabetes can make the treatment of other conditions more difficult.

In fact, a 2014 study conducted in California by the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research and the California Center for Public Health Advocacy revealed that one-third of hospitalized patients older than 34 in California have diabetes.

For hospitalists ready to tackle a condition like diabetes—increasingly common and challenging to treat—SHM now has more resources than ever. And hospitalists can start to take advantage of them today.

Glycemic Control Implementation Toolkit

SHM’s Glycemic Control Implementation Toolkit gives hospitalists the first advantages in treating hyperglycemia in the hospital. Using SHM’s proven approach to quality improvement, including personal experience and evidence-based medicine, the toolkit enables hospitalists to implement effective regimens and protocols that optimize glycemic control and minimize hypoglycemia.

The toolkit (www.hospitalmedicine.org/gcmi) is easy to use and includes step-by-step instructions, from first steps to performance tracking to continuing improvement.

Hospital Medicine 2015

Ready to learn directly from the experts in inpatient glycemic control and share experiences with thousands of other hospitalists? HM15 will feature the most current information and research from the leading authorities on glycemic control.

For more information and to register online, visit www.hospitalmedicine2015.org.

Glycemic Control Mentored Implementation

SHM’s signature mentored implementation model helps hospitals create and implement programs that make a difference. The Glycemic Control Mentored Implementation (GCMI) Program links hospitals with national leaders in the field for a mentored relationship, critical data benchmarking, and collaboration with peers.

GCMI has now moved to a rolling acceptance model, so hospitals can now apply any time to start preventing hypoglycemia and better managing their inpatients with hyperglycemia and diabetes. For more information, visit www.hospitalmedicine.org/gcmi.

Brendon Shank is SHM’s associate vice president of communications.

Controlling diabetes in the hospital is one of the most predominant challenges hospitalists face. In addition to the condition’s increased prevalence among the general population, patients with diabetes are commonly admitted to the hospital multiple times. And the treatment of diabetes can make the treatment of other conditions more difficult.

In fact, a 2014 study conducted in California by the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research and the California Center for Public Health Advocacy revealed that one-third of hospitalized patients older than 34 in California have diabetes.

For hospitalists ready to tackle a condition like diabetes—increasingly common and challenging to treat—SHM now has more resources than ever. And hospitalists can start to take advantage of them today.

Glycemic Control Implementation Toolkit

SHM’s Glycemic Control Implementation Toolkit gives hospitalists the first advantages in treating hyperglycemia in the hospital. Using SHM’s proven approach to quality improvement, including personal experience and evidence-based medicine, the toolkit enables hospitalists to implement effective regimens and protocols that optimize glycemic control and minimize hypoglycemia.

The toolkit (www.hospitalmedicine.org/gcmi) is easy to use and includes step-by-step instructions, from first steps to performance tracking to continuing improvement.

Hospital Medicine 2015

Ready to learn directly from the experts in inpatient glycemic control and share experiences with thousands of other hospitalists? HM15 will feature the most current information and research from the leading authorities on glycemic control.

For more information and to register online, visit www.hospitalmedicine2015.org.

Glycemic Control Mentored Implementation

SHM’s signature mentored implementation model helps hospitals create and implement programs that make a difference. The Glycemic Control Mentored Implementation (GCMI) Program links hospitals with national leaders in the field for a mentored relationship, critical data benchmarking, and collaboration with peers.

GCMI has now moved to a rolling acceptance model, so hospitals can now apply any time to start preventing hypoglycemia and better managing their inpatients with hyperglycemia and diabetes. For more information, visit www.hospitalmedicine.org/gcmi.

Brendon Shank is SHM’s associate vice president of communications.

Many hospitalists feel an understandable wave of trepidation when confronted with treating a pregnant woman. They are unfamiliar with the special concerns of pregnancy and unacquainted with how pregnancy can affect preexisting conditions. Historically, most pregnant women have been young and have not yet experienced the typical health challenges that emerge as people age; however, expectant mothers still appear as patients in hospitals.¹

With more women putting off pregnancy until their late 30s or early 40s, advances in reproductive medicine that allow pregnancies at more advanced ages, and a rise in obesity and related conditions, more and more pregnant women find themselves in the ED or admitted to the hospital.²

To increase the comfort level of practitioners nationwide, The Hospitalist spoke with several obstetricians (OBs) and hospitalists about what they thought were the most important things you should know when treating a mother-to-be. Here are their answers.

1 Involve an OB in the decision-making process as early as possible.

The most efficient and most comfortable way to proceed is to get input from an OB early in the process of treating a pregnant woman. The specialist can give expert opinions on what tests should be ordered and any special precautions to take to protect the fetus.³ Determining which medications can be prescribed safely is an area of particular discomfort for internal medicine hospitalists.

Edward Ma, MD, a hospitalist at the Coatesville VA Medical Center in Coatesville, Pa., explains the dilemma: “I am comfortable using Category A drugs and usually Category B medications, but because I do not [treat pregnant women] very often, I feel very uncomfortable giving a Category C medication unless I’ve spoken with an OB. This is where I really want guidance.”

In cases where the usual medication for a condition may not be indicated for pregnancy, an OB can help you balance the interests of the mother and child. Making these decisions is made much more comfortable when a physician who treats pregnancy on a daily basis can help.

2 Perform the tests you would perform if the patient were not pregnant.

An important axiom to remember when assessing a pregnant woman is that unless the mother is healthy, the baby cannot be healthy. Therefore, you must do what needs to be done to properly diagnose and treat the mother, and this includes the studies that would be performed if she were not pregnant.

Robert Olson, MD, an OB/GYN hospitalist at PeaceHealth St. Joseph Medical Center in Bellingham, Wash., and founding president of the Society of OB/GYN Hospitalists, cautions hospitalists to proceed as normal with testing. “Whether she’s pregnant or not,” he says, “she needs all the studies a nonpregnant woman would get. If an asthma patient needs a chest X-ray to rule out pneumonia, then do it, because if the mother is not getting enough oxygen, the baby is not getting enough oxygen.”

The tests should be performed as responsibly as possible, Dr. Olson adds. During that chest X-ray, for example, shield the abdomen with a lead apron.⁴

3 When analyzing test results, make sure you are familiar with what is “normal” for a pregnant woman.

The physiological changes in the body during pregnancy can be extreme, and as a result, the parameters of what is considered acceptable in test results may be dramatically different from those seen in nonpregnant patients. For example, early in pregnancy, progesterone causes respiratory alkalosis, so maternal carbon dioxide parameters that range between 28 and 30 are much lower than the nonpregnant normal of 40. A result of 40 from a blood gases test in pregnancy indicates that the woman is on the verge of respiratory failure.

A hospitalist unfamiliar with the correct parameters in pregnancy could make a significant and life-threatening misjudgment.⁵

4 Thromboembolism and pulmonary embolism are some of the most common causes of maternal death.⁶

According to Carolyn M. Zelop, MD, board certified maternal-fetal medicine specialist and director of perinatal ultrasound and research at Valley Hospital in Ridgewood, N.J., “Thromboembolism and pulmonary embolism should always remain part of your differential, even if they are not at the top of the list of possible diagnoses.

“Tests required to exclude these diagnoses, even though they involve very small amounts of radiation, are important to perform,” says Dr. Zelop, a clinical professor at NYU School of Medicine in New York City.

Approaching these diagnostic tests with caution is justified, but it is trumped by the necessity of excluding a life-threatening condition.

5 Prior to 20 weeks, admit the patient to the physician treating her chief complaint.

“Whatever medical condition brings a patient to the hospital prior to 20 weeks, that is the physician that should do the admission,” Dr. Olson says. “If she is suffering from asthma, the internal medicine hospitalist or pulmonologist should admit. If it is appendicitis, the surgeon should do the admission.

“We need to take care of pregnant patients just as well as if they weren’t pregnant.”

During the first half of the pregnancy, care should be directed to the mother. Up until 20 weeks, what is best for the mother is what is best for the baby because the fetus is not viable. It cannot survive outside the mother, so the mother must be saved in order to save the fetus. That means you must give the mother all necessary care to return her to health.

6 After 20 weeks, make sure a pregnant woman is always tilted toward her left side—never supine.

Once an expectant mother reaches 20 weeks, the weight of her expanding uterus can compress the aorta and inferior vena cava, resulting in inadequate blood flow to the baby and to the mother’s brain. A supine position is detrimental not only because it can cause a pregnant woman to feel faint, but also because the interruption in normal blood flow can throw off test results during assessment. Shifting a woman to her left, even with a small tilt from an IV bag under her right hip, can return hemodynamics to homeostasis.

“Left lateral uterine displacement is particularly critical during surgery and while trying to resuscitate a pregnant woman who has coded,” Dr. Zelop says. “The supine position dramatically alters cardiac output. It is nearly impossible to revive someone when the blood flow is compromised by the compression of the uterus in the latter half of pregnancy.”

Click here to listen to Dr. Carolyn Zelop discuss cardiovascular emergencies in pregnant patients.

Remember, however, that the 20-week rule applies to single pregnancies—multiples create a heavier uterus earlier in the pregnancy, so base the timing of lateral uterine displacement on size, not gestational age.

7 Almost all medications can be used in pregnancy.

Despite the stated pregnancy category you read on Hippocrates and warnings pharmaceutical companies place on drug labels, almost all medications can be used in an acute crisis, and even in a subacute situation. As with the choice to perform the necessary tests to correctly diagnose a pregnant woman, the correct drugs to treat the mother must be used. Although there are medications to which you would not chronically expose a fetus, in an emergency situation, they may be acceptable.

This is an area where an OB consult can be especially helpful to balance the needs of mother and baby. If a particular drug is not the best choice for a fetus, an OB can help find the next best option. The specialist’s familiarity with the use of medications in pregnancy may also shed light on a drug labeled “unsafe”: it may be problematic only during certain gestational ages or in concert with a particular drug.

“Sometimes right medication use is not obvious,” says Brigid McCue, MD, chief of the department of OB/GYN at Jordan Hospital in Plymouth, Mass. “Most people would not assume a pregnant woman could undergo chemotherapy for breast cancer or leukemia, but there are options out there. Many patients have been treated for cancer during their pregnancy and have perfectly healthy babies.

“It is a challenge, and every decision is weighed carefully. There is usually some consequence to the baby—maybe it is delivered early or is smaller. But it’s so much nicer for the mom to survive her cancer and be there for the baby.”

8 You can determine gestational age by the position of the uterus relative to the umbilicus.

To make a correct judgment about which medications to use, as well as other treatment decisions, it is vital to ascertain the gestational age of the fetus, but in an acute emergency, there may not be time to do an ultrasound to determine gestational age.

A good way to determine gestational age is to use the umbilicus as a landmark during the physical exam. The rule of thumb is that the uterus touches the umbilicus at 20 weeks and travels one centimeter above it every week thereafter until week 36 or so. As with left lateral uterine displacement after 20 weeks, this rule applies to singleton pregnancies. Multiple fetuses cause a larger uterus earlier in the pregnancy.

9 Do not use lower extremities for vascular access in a pregnant woman.

Dr. Zelop points out that the weight of a pregnant uterus can “significantly compromise intravascular blood flow in the lower extremities.”

“Going below the waist for access can be problematic,” she adds. “Although there may be cases of trauma that make access in the upper limbs difficult or impossible, the lower extremities are not a viable choice.”

Some resuscitation protocols recommend intraosseous access; however, the lower extremities are still not recommended for access in a pregnant woman.

10 The pregnant airway must be treated with respect.

The pregnant airway differs from that of a nonpregnant woman in many important ways, so if intubation becomes necessary, make sure you are familiar with what you are facing. The airway is edematous, which varies the usual landmarks. Increased progesterone causes relaxation of the sphincters between the esophagus and the stomach, and this change predisposes pregnant women to aspiration and loss of consciousness.

In some studies, a failure rate as high as one in 250 is reported. If the patient’s airway needs to be secured, find the most experienced person available to do the intubation. Also, use a smaller tube than would be used for a nonpregnant intubation, usually one size down.

Always ask a woman in labor if she has had any complications during her pregnancy before doing a vaginal exam.

In most cases, deliveries go well for mother and baby; however, certain conditions not immediately apparent upon observation can cause severe problems. For example, a vaginal exam in a pregnant woman with placenta previa can result in a massive hemorrhage.

“In the third trimester, 500 cc of blood per minute flows to the uterus, so a tremendous amount of blood can be lost very quickly,” Dr. Zelop cautions. “Even in cases of women who appear healthy and normal, your radar must be up because an unknown complication can result in major bleeding.”

Maybelle Cowan-Lincoln is a freelance writer in New Jersey.

References

1. Ma, Edward. Coatesville VA Medical Center, Coatesville, Pa. Telephone interview. October 31, 2013.
2. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Ventura SJ, et al. National Vital Statistics Reports: Volume 62, Number 1. June 28, 2013. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr62/nvsr62_01.pdf. Accessed October 6, 2014.
3. McCue, Brigid. Chief, department of OB/GYN, Jordan Hospital, Plymouth, Mass. Telephone interview. October 28, 2013.
4. Olson, Robert. Founding president, Society of OB/GYN Hospitalists; OB/GYN hospitalist at PeaceHealth St. Joseph Medical Center, Bellingham, Wash. Telephone interview. October 31, 2013.
5. Zelop, Carolyn M. Director, perinatal ultrasound and research, Valley Hospital, Ridgewood, N.J. Telephone interview. October 30, 2013.
6. Callahan, William. Chief, Maternal and Infant Health Branch, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. E-mail interview. November 12, 2013.

Many hospitalists feel an understandable wave of trepidation when confronted with treating a pregnant woman. They are unfamiliar with the special concerns of pregnancy and unacquainted with how pregnancy can affect preexisting conditions. Historically, most pregnant women have been young and have not yet experienced the typical health challenges that emerge as people age; however, expectant mothers still appear as patients in hospitals.¹

With more women putting off pregnancy until their late 30s or early 40s, advances in reproductive medicine that allow pregnancies at more advanced ages, and a rise in obesity and related conditions, more and more pregnant women find themselves in the ED or admitted to the hospital.²

To increase the comfort level of practitioners nationwide, The Hospitalist spoke with several obstetricians (OBs) and hospitalists about what they thought were the most important things you should know when treating a mother-to-be. Here are their answers.

1 Involve an OB in the decision-making process as early as possible.

The most efficient and most comfortable way to proceed is to get input from an OB early in the process of treating a pregnant woman. The specialist can give expert opinions on what tests should be ordered and any special precautions to take to protect the fetus.³ Determining which medications can be prescribed safely is an area of particular discomfort for internal medicine hospitalists.

Edward Ma, MD, a hospitalist at the Coatesville VA Medical Center in Coatesville, Pa., explains the dilemma: “I am comfortable using Category A drugs and usually Category B medications, but because I do not [treat pregnant women] very often, I feel very uncomfortable giving a Category C medication unless I’ve spoken with an OB. This is where I really want guidance.”

In cases where the usual medication for a condition may not be indicated for pregnancy, an OB can help you balance the interests of the mother and child. Making these decisions is made much more comfortable when a physician who treats pregnancy on a daily basis can help.

2 Perform the tests you would perform if the patient were not pregnant.

An important axiom to remember when assessing a pregnant woman is that unless the mother is healthy, the baby cannot be healthy. Therefore, you must do what needs to be done to properly diagnose and treat the mother, and this includes the studies that would be performed if she were not pregnant.

Robert Olson, MD, an OB/GYN hospitalist at PeaceHealth St. Joseph Medical Center in Bellingham, Wash., and founding president of the Society of OB/GYN Hospitalists, cautions hospitalists to proceed as normal with testing. “Whether she’s pregnant or not,” he says, “she needs all the studies a nonpregnant woman would get. If an asthma patient needs a chest X-ray to rule out pneumonia, then do it, because if the mother is not getting enough oxygen, the baby is not getting enough oxygen.”

The tests should be performed as responsibly as possible, Dr. Olson adds. During that chest X-ray, for example, shield the abdomen with a lead apron.⁴

3 When analyzing test results, make sure you are familiar with what is “normal” for a pregnant woman.

The physiological changes in the body during pregnancy can be extreme, and as a result, the parameters of what is considered acceptable in test results may be dramatically different from those seen in nonpregnant patients. For example, early in pregnancy, progesterone causes respiratory alkalosis, so maternal carbon dioxide parameters that range between 28 and 30 are much lower than the nonpregnant normal of 40. A result of 40 from a blood gases test in pregnancy indicates that the woman is on the verge of respiratory failure.

A hospitalist unfamiliar with the correct parameters in pregnancy could make a significant and life-threatening misjudgment.⁵

4 Thromboembolism and pulmonary embolism are some of the most common causes of maternal death.⁶

According to Carolyn M. Zelop, MD, board certified maternal-fetal medicine specialist and director of perinatal ultrasound and research at Valley Hospital in Ridgewood, N.J., “Thromboembolism and pulmonary embolism should always remain part of your differential, even if they are not at the top of the list of possible diagnoses.

“Tests required to exclude these diagnoses, even though they involve very small amounts of radiation, are important to perform,” says Dr. Zelop, a clinical professor at NYU School of Medicine in New York City.

Approaching these diagnostic tests with caution is justified, but it is trumped by the necessity of excluding a life-threatening condition.

5 Prior to 20 weeks, admit the patient to the physician treating her chief complaint.

“Whatever medical condition brings a patient to the hospital prior to 20 weeks, that is the physician that should do the admission,” Dr. Olson says. “If she is suffering from asthma, the internal medicine hospitalist or pulmonologist should admit. If it is appendicitis, the surgeon should do the admission.

“We need to take care of pregnant patients just as well as if they weren’t pregnant.”

During the first half of the pregnancy, care should be directed to the mother. Up until 20 weeks, what is best for the mother is what is best for the baby because the fetus is not viable. It cannot survive outside the mother, so the mother must be saved in order to save the fetus. That means you must give the mother all necessary care to return her to health.

6 After 20 weeks, make sure a pregnant woman is always tilted toward her left side—never supine.

Once an expectant mother reaches 20 weeks, the weight of her expanding uterus can compress the aorta and inferior vena cava, resulting in inadequate blood flow to the baby and to the mother’s brain. A supine position is detrimental not only because it can cause a pregnant woman to feel faint, but also because the interruption in normal blood flow can throw off test results during assessment. Shifting a woman to her left, even with a small tilt from an IV bag under her right hip, can return hemodynamics to homeostasis.

“Left lateral uterine displacement is particularly critical during surgery and while trying to resuscitate a pregnant woman who has coded,” Dr. Zelop says. “The supine position dramatically alters cardiac output. It is nearly impossible to revive someone when the blood flow is compromised by the compression of the uterus in the latter half of pregnancy.”

Click here to listen to Dr. Carolyn Zelop discuss cardiovascular emergencies in pregnant patients.

Remember, however, that the 20-week rule applies to single pregnancies—multiples create a heavier uterus earlier in the pregnancy, so base the timing of lateral uterine displacement on size, not gestational age.

7 Almost all medications can be used in pregnancy.

Despite the stated pregnancy category you read on Hippocrates and warnings pharmaceutical companies place on drug labels, almost all medications can be used in an acute crisis, and even in a subacute situation. As with the choice to perform the necessary tests to correctly diagnose a pregnant woman, the correct drugs to treat the mother must be used. Although there are medications to which you would not chronically expose a fetus, in an emergency situation, they may be acceptable.

This is an area where an OB consult can be especially helpful to balance the needs of mother and baby. If a particular drug is not the best choice for a fetus, an OB can help find the next best option. The specialist’s familiarity with the use of medications in pregnancy may also shed light on a drug labeled “unsafe”: it may be problematic only during certain gestational ages or in concert with a particular drug.

“Sometimes right medication use is not obvious,” says Brigid McCue, MD, chief of the department of OB/GYN at Jordan Hospital in Plymouth, Mass. “Most people would not assume a pregnant woman could undergo chemotherapy for breast cancer or leukemia, but there are options out there. Many patients have been treated for cancer during their pregnancy and have perfectly healthy babies.

“It is a challenge, and every decision is weighed carefully. There is usually some consequence to the baby—maybe it is delivered early or is smaller. But it’s so much nicer for the mom to survive her cancer and be there for the baby.”

8 You can determine gestational age by the position of the uterus relative to the umbilicus.

To make a correct judgment about which medications to use, as well as other treatment decisions, it is vital to ascertain the gestational age of the fetus, but in an acute emergency, there may not be time to do an ultrasound to determine gestational age.

A good way to determine gestational age is to use the umbilicus as a landmark during the physical exam. The rule of thumb is that the uterus touches the umbilicus at 20 weeks and travels one centimeter above it every week thereafter until week 36 or so. As with left lateral uterine displacement after 20 weeks, this rule applies to singleton pregnancies. Multiple fetuses cause a larger uterus earlier in the pregnancy.

9 Do not use lower extremities for vascular access in a pregnant woman.

Dr. Zelop points out that the weight of a pregnant uterus can “significantly compromise intravascular blood flow in the lower extremities.”

“Going below the waist for access can be problematic,” she adds. “Although there may be cases of trauma that make access in the upper limbs difficult or impossible, the lower extremities are not a viable choice.”

Some resuscitation protocols recommend intraosseous access; however, the lower extremities are still not recommended for access in a pregnant woman.

10 The pregnant airway must be treated with respect.

The pregnant airway differs from that of a nonpregnant woman in many important ways, so if intubation becomes necessary, make sure you are familiar with what you are facing. The airway is edematous, which varies the usual landmarks. Increased progesterone causes relaxation of the sphincters between the esophagus and the stomach, and this change predisposes pregnant women to aspiration and loss of consciousness.

In some studies, a failure rate as high as one in 250 is reported. If the patient’s airway needs to be secured, find the most experienced person available to do the intubation. Also, use a smaller tube than would be used for a nonpregnant intubation, usually one size down.

Always ask a woman in labor if she has had any complications during her pregnancy before doing a vaginal exam.

In most cases, deliveries go well for mother and baby; however, certain conditions not immediately apparent upon observation can cause severe problems. For example, a vaginal exam in a pregnant woman with placenta previa can result in a massive hemorrhage.

“In the third trimester, 500 cc of blood per minute flows to the uterus, so a tremendous amount of blood can be lost very quickly,” Dr. Zelop cautions. “Even in cases of women who appear healthy and normal, your radar must be up because an unknown complication can result in major bleeding.”

Maybelle Cowan-Lincoln is a freelance writer in New Jersey.

References

1. Ma, Edward. Coatesville VA Medical Center, Coatesville, Pa. Telephone interview. October 31, 2013.
2. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Ventura SJ, et al. National Vital Statistics Reports: Volume 62, Number 1. June 28, 2013. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr62/nvsr62_01.pdf. Accessed October 6, 2014.
3. McCue, Brigid. Chief, department of OB/GYN, Jordan Hospital, Plymouth, Mass. Telephone interview. October 28, 2013.
4. Olson, Robert. Founding president, Society of OB/GYN Hospitalists; OB/GYN hospitalist at PeaceHealth St. Joseph Medical Center, Bellingham, Wash. Telephone interview. October 31, 2013.
5. Zelop, Carolyn M. Director, perinatal ultrasound and research, Valley Hospital, Ridgewood, N.J. Telephone interview. October 30, 2013.
6. Callahan, William. Chief, Maternal and Infant Health Branch, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. E-mail interview. November 12, 2013.

Many hospitalists feel an understandable wave of trepidation when confronted with treating a pregnant woman. They are unfamiliar with the special concerns of pregnancy and unacquainted with how pregnancy can affect preexisting conditions. Historically, most pregnant women have been young and have not yet experienced the typical health challenges that emerge as people age; however, expectant mothers still appear as patients in hospitals.¹

With more women putting off pregnancy until their late 30s or early 40s, advances in reproductive medicine that allow pregnancies at more advanced ages, and a rise in obesity and related conditions, more and more pregnant women find themselves in the ED or admitted to the hospital.²

To increase the comfort level of practitioners nationwide, The Hospitalist spoke with several obstetricians (OBs) and hospitalists about what they thought were the most important things you should know when treating a mother-to-be. Here are their answers.

1 Involve an OB in the decision-making process as early as possible.

The most efficient and most comfortable way to proceed is to get input from an OB early in the process of treating a pregnant woman. The specialist can give expert opinions on what tests should be ordered and any special precautions to take to protect the fetus.³ Determining which medications can be prescribed safely is an area of particular discomfort for internal medicine hospitalists.

Edward Ma, MD, a hospitalist at the Coatesville VA Medical Center in Coatesville, Pa., explains the dilemma: “I am comfortable using Category A drugs and usually Category B medications, but because I do not [treat pregnant women] very often, I feel very uncomfortable giving a Category C medication unless I’ve spoken with an OB. This is where I really want guidance.”

In cases where the usual medication for a condition may not be indicated for pregnancy, an OB can help you balance the interests of the mother and child. Making these decisions is made much more comfortable when a physician who treats pregnancy on a daily basis can help.

2 Perform the tests you would perform if the patient were not pregnant.

An important axiom to remember when assessing a pregnant woman is that unless the mother is healthy, the baby cannot be healthy. Therefore, you must do what needs to be done to properly diagnose and treat the mother, and this includes the studies that would be performed if she were not pregnant.

Robert Olson, MD, an OB/GYN hospitalist at PeaceHealth St. Joseph Medical Center in Bellingham, Wash., and founding president of the Society of OB/GYN Hospitalists, cautions hospitalists to proceed as normal with testing. “Whether she’s pregnant or not,” he says, “she needs all the studies a nonpregnant woman would get. If an asthma patient needs a chest X-ray to rule out pneumonia, then do it, because if the mother is not getting enough oxygen, the baby is not getting enough oxygen.”

The tests should be performed as responsibly as possible, Dr. Olson adds. During that chest X-ray, for example, shield the abdomen with a lead apron.⁴

3 When analyzing test results, make sure you are familiar with what is “normal” for a pregnant woman.

The physiological changes in the body during pregnancy can be extreme, and as a result, the parameters of what is considered acceptable in test results may be dramatically different from those seen in nonpregnant patients. For example, early in pregnancy, progesterone causes respiratory alkalosis, so maternal carbon dioxide parameters that range between 28 and 30 are much lower than the nonpregnant normal of 40. A result of 40 from a blood gases test in pregnancy indicates that the woman is on the verge of respiratory failure.

A hospitalist unfamiliar with the correct parameters in pregnancy could make a significant and life-threatening misjudgment.⁵

4 Thromboembolism and pulmonary embolism are some of the most common causes of maternal death.⁶

According to Carolyn M. Zelop, MD, board certified maternal-fetal medicine specialist and director of perinatal ultrasound and research at Valley Hospital in Ridgewood, N.J., “Thromboembolism and pulmonary embolism should always remain part of your differential, even if they are not at the top of the list of possible diagnoses.

“Tests required to exclude these diagnoses, even though they involve very small amounts of radiation, are important to perform,” says Dr. Zelop, a clinical professor at NYU School of Medicine in New York City.

Approaching these diagnostic tests with caution is justified, but it is trumped by the necessity of excluding a life-threatening condition.

5 Prior to 20 weeks, admit the patient to the physician treating her chief complaint.

“Whatever medical condition brings a patient to the hospital prior to 20 weeks, that is the physician that should do the admission,” Dr. Olson says. “If she is suffering from asthma, the internal medicine hospitalist or pulmonologist should admit. If it is appendicitis, the surgeon should do the admission.

“We need to take care of pregnant patients just as well as if they weren’t pregnant.”

During the first half of the pregnancy, care should be directed to the mother. Up until 20 weeks, what is best for the mother is what is best for the baby because the fetus is not viable. It cannot survive outside the mother, so the mother must be saved in order to save the fetus. That means you must give the mother all necessary care to return her to health.

6 After 20 weeks, make sure a pregnant woman is always tilted toward her left side—never supine.

Once an expectant mother reaches 20 weeks, the weight of her expanding uterus can compress the aorta and inferior vena cava, resulting in inadequate blood flow to the baby and to the mother’s brain. A supine position is detrimental not only because it can cause a pregnant woman to feel faint, but also because the interruption in normal blood flow can throw off test results during assessment. Shifting a woman to her left, even with a small tilt from an IV bag under her right hip, can return hemodynamics to homeostasis.

“Left lateral uterine displacement is particularly critical during surgery and while trying to resuscitate a pregnant woman who has coded,” Dr. Zelop says. “The supine position dramatically alters cardiac output. It is nearly impossible to revive someone when the blood flow is compromised by the compression of the uterus in the latter half of pregnancy.”

Click here to listen to Dr. Carolyn Zelop discuss cardiovascular emergencies in pregnant patients.

Remember, however, that the 20-week rule applies to single pregnancies—multiples create a heavier uterus earlier in the pregnancy, so base the timing of lateral uterine displacement on size, not gestational age.

7 Almost all medications can be used in pregnancy.

Despite the stated pregnancy category you read on Hippocrates and warnings pharmaceutical companies place on drug labels, almost all medications can be used in an acute crisis, and even in a subacute situation. As with the choice to perform the necessary tests to correctly diagnose a pregnant woman, the correct drugs to treat the mother must be used. Although there are medications to which you would not chronically expose a fetus, in an emergency situation, they may be acceptable.

This is an area where an OB consult can be especially helpful to balance the needs of mother and baby. If a particular drug is not the best choice for a fetus, an OB can help find the next best option. The specialist’s familiarity with the use of medications in pregnancy may also shed light on a drug labeled “unsafe”: it may be problematic only during certain gestational ages or in concert with a particular drug.

“Sometimes right medication use is not obvious,” says Brigid McCue, MD, chief of the department of OB/GYN at Jordan Hospital in Plymouth, Mass. “Most people would not assume a pregnant woman could undergo chemotherapy for breast cancer or leukemia, but there are options out there. Many patients have been treated for cancer during their pregnancy and have perfectly healthy babies.

“It is a challenge, and every decision is weighed carefully. There is usually some consequence to the baby—maybe it is delivered early or is smaller. But it’s so much nicer for the mom to survive her cancer and be there for the baby.”

8 You can determine gestational age by the position of the uterus relative to the umbilicus.

To make a correct judgment about which medications to use, as well as other treatment decisions, it is vital to ascertain the gestational age of the fetus, but in an acute emergency, there may not be time to do an ultrasound to determine gestational age.

A good way to determine gestational age is to use the umbilicus as a landmark during the physical exam. The rule of thumb is that the uterus touches the umbilicus at 20 weeks and travels one centimeter above it every week thereafter until week 36 or so. As with left lateral uterine displacement after 20 weeks, this rule applies to singleton pregnancies. Multiple fetuses cause a larger uterus earlier in the pregnancy.

9 Do not use lower extremities for vascular access in a pregnant woman.

Dr. Zelop points out that the weight of a pregnant uterus can “significantly compromise intravascular blood flow in the lower extremities.”

“Going below the waist for access can be problematic,” she adds. “Although there may be cases of trauma that make access in the upper limbs difficult or impossible, the lower extremities are not a viable choice.”

Some resuscitation protocols recommend intraosseous access; however, the lower extremities are still not recommended for access in a pregnant woman.

10 The pregnant airway must be treated with respect.

The pregnant airway differs from that of a nonpregnant woman in many important ways, so if intubation becomes necessary, make sure you are familiar with what you are facing. The airway is edematous, which varies the usual landmarks. Increased progesterone causes relaxation of the sphincters between the esophagus and the stomach, and this change predisposes pregnant women to aspiration and loss of consciousness.

In some studies, a failure rate as high as one in 250 is reported. If the patient’s airway needs to be secured, find the most experienced person available to do the intubation. Also, use a smaller tube than would be used for a nonpregnant intubation, usually one size down.

Always ask a woman in labor if she has had any complications during her pregnancy before doing a vaginal exam.

In most cases, deliveries go well for mother and baby; however, certain conditions not immediately apparent upon observation can cause severe problems. For example, a vaginal exam in a pregnant woman with placenta previa can result in a massive hemorrhage.

“In the third trimester, 500 cc of blood per minute flows to the uterus, so a tremendous amount of blood can be lost very quickly,” Dr. Zelop cautions. “Even in cases of women who appear healthy and normal, your radar must be up because an unknown complication can result in major bleeding.”

Maybelle Cowan-Lincoln is a freelance writer in New Jersey.

References

1. Ma, Edward. Coatesville VA Medical Center, Coatesville, Pa. Telephone interview. October 31, 2013.
2. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Ventura SJ, et al. National Vital Statistics Reports: Volume 62, Number 1. June 28, 2013. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr62/nvsr62_01.pdf. Accessed October 6, 2014.
3. McCue, Brigid. Chief, department of OB/GYN, Jordan Hospital, Plymouth, Mass. Telephone interview. October 28, 2013.
4. Olson, Robert. Founding president, Society of OB/GYN Hospitalists; OB/GYN hospitalist at PeaceHealth St. Joseph Medical Center, Bellingham, Wash. Telephone interview. October 31, 2013.
5. Zelop, Carolyn M. Director, perinatal ultrasound and research, Valley Hospital, Ridgewood, N.J. Telephone interview. October 30, 2013.
6. Callahan, William. Chief, Maternal and Infant Health Branch, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. E-mail interview. November 12, 2013.