Dr. Nelson

Dr. Nelson

I hope you’re already familiar with “The Key Principles and Characteristics of an Effective Hospital Medicine Group: An Assessment Guide for Hospitals and Hospitalists” [www.hospitalmedicine.org/keychar] and have spent at least a few minutes reviewing the list of 10 “principles” and 47 “characteristics” thought to be associated with effective hospital medicine groups (HMGs). (Full disclosure: I was one of the authors of the article published in February 2014 in the Journal of Hospital Medicine.) Most of us are very busy, so the temptation might be high to set the article aside and risk forgetting it. But I hope many in our field, both clinicians and administrators, will look at it more carefully. There are a number of ways you could use the guide to stimulate thinking or change in your practice.

Grading Our Specialty

I just returned from a meeting of about 10 hospitalist leaders from different organizations around the country. Attendees represented the diversity of our field, including hospital-employed HMGs, large hospitalist management companies, and academic programs. We spent a portion of the meeting discussing what grade we as a group would give the whole specialty of hospital medicine on each of the 10 “principles.” Essentially, we generated a report card for the U.S. hospitalist movement.

This wasn’t a rigorous scientific exercise; instead, it was a robust and thought-provoking discussion around what grade to assign. Opinions regarding the appropriate grade varied significantly, but a common theme was that our specialty really “owns” the importance of pursuing many or most of the principles listed in the article and is devoting time and resources to them even if many individual HMGs might have a long way to go to perform optimally.

For example, meeting attendees thought our field has for a long time worked diligently to “support care coordination across the care continuum” (Principle 6). No one thought that all HMGs do this optimally, but the consensus was that most HMGs have invested effort to do it well. And most were concerned that many HMGs still lack “adequate resources” (Principle 3) and sufficiently “engaged hospitalists” (Principle 2)—and that the former contributes to the latter.

The opinion of the hospitalist leaders who happened to attend the meeting where this conversation took place doesn’t represent the final word on how our specialty is performing, but I think all involved found value in having the conversation, hearing different perspectives about what we’re doing well and where we should focus energy and resources to improve.

Grading Your HM Group

You might want to do something similar within your own group, but make it more relevant by grading how your own practice performs on each of the 10 principles. You could do this on your own just to stimulate your thinking, or you could have each member of your HMG generate a report card of your group’s performance—then discuss where there is agreement or disagreement within the group.

You could structure this sort of individual or group assessment simply as an exercise to generate ideas and conversation about the practice, or your group could take a more formal approach and use it as part of a planning process to determine future practice management-related goals. I know of some groups that scheduled strategic planning meetings specifically to discuss which of the elements to make a priority.

Discussion Document for Leadership

In addition to using the article to generate conversation among hospitalists within your group, it can be a really valuable tool in guiding conversations with hospital leaders and the entity that employs the hospitalists. For example, you could use the article to generate or update the job description of the lead hospitalist or practice manager. Or during annual budgeting for the hospitalist practice, the guide could be used as a checklist to think about whether there are important areas that would benefit from more resources.

Of course, there is a risk that hospital leaders or those who employ the hospitalists could use the article primarily to criticize a hospitalist group and its leader for not already having excellent performance on every one of the principles and characteristics listed. That would be pretty unfortunate; there probably isn’t a single group that performs well on every domain, and the real value of the article is to “be aspirational, helping to raise the bar” for each HMG and our specialty as a whole.

And, as discussed in the article, an HMG doesn’t need to be a stellar performer on all 47 characteristics to be effective. Some of the characteristics listed in the article may not apply to all groups, so all involved in the management of any individual HMG should think about whether to set some aside when assessing their own group.

Where to Go from Here

The article is based on expert opinion, with the help of many more people than those listed as author, and I’m hopeful it will stimulate researchers to study some of these principles and characteristics. For many reasons, we will probably never have robust data, but I’d be happy for whatever we can get.

There is a pretty good chance that the evolution in the work we do and the nature of the hospital setting mean that the principles and characteristics may need to be revised periodically. I would love to know how they might be different in 10 or 20 years.

Dr. Nelson has been a practicing hospitalist since 1988. He is co-founder and past president of SHM, and principal in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants. He is co-director for SHM’s “Best Practices in Managing a Hospital Medicine Program” course. Write to him at [email protected].

Dr. Nelson

Dr. Nelson

I hope you’re already familiar with “The Key Principles and Characteristics of an Effective Hospital Medicine Group: An Assessment Guide for Hospitals and Hospitalists” [www.hospitalmedicine.org/keychar] and have spent at least a few minutes reviewing the list of 10 “principles” and 47 “characteristics” thought to be associated with effective hospital medicine groups (HMGs). (Full disclosure: I was one of the authors of the article published in February 2014 in the Journal of Hospital Medicine.) Most of us are very busy, so the temptation might be high to set the article aside and risk forgetting it. But I hope many in our field, both clinicians and administrators, will look at it more carefully. There are a number of ways you could use the guide to stimulate thinking or change in your practice.

Grading Our Specialty

I just returned from a meeting of about 10 hospitalist leaders from different organizations around the country. Attendees represented the diversity of our field, including hospital-employed HMGs, large hospitalist management companies, and academic programs. We spent a portion of the meeting discussing what grade we as a group would give the whole specialty of hospital medicine on each of the 10 “principles.” Essentially, we generated a report card for the U.S. hospitalist movement.

This wasn’t a rigorous scientific exercise; instead, it was a robust and thought-provoking discussion around what grade to assign. Opinions regarding the appropriate grade varied significantly, but a common theme was that our specialty really “owns” the importance of pursuing many or most of the principles listed in the article and is devoting time and resources to them even if many individual HMGs might have a long way to go to perform optimally.

For example, meeting attendees thought our field has for a long time worked diligently to “support care coordination across the care continuum” (Principle 6). No one thought that all HMGs do this optimally, but the consensus was that most HMGs have invested effort to do it well. And most were concerned that many HMGs still lack “adequate resources” (Principle 3) and sufficiently “engaged hospitalists” (Principle 2)—and that the former contributes to the latter.

The opinion of the hospitalist leaders who happened to attend the meeting where this conversation took place doesn’t represent the final word on how our specialty is performing, but I think all involved found value in having the conversation, hearing different perspectives about what we’re doing well and where we should focus energy and resources to improve.

Grading Your HM Group

You might want to do something similar within your own group, but make it more relevant by grading how your own practice performs on each of the 10 principles. You could do this on your own just to stimulate your thinking, or you could have each member of your HMG generate a report card of your group’s performance—then discuss where there is agreement or disagreement within the group.

You could structure this sort of individual or group assessment simply as an exercise to generate ideas and conversation about the practice, or your group could take a more formal approach and use it as part of a planning process to determine future practice management-related goals. I know of some groups that scheduled strategic planning meetings specifically to discuss which of the elements to make a priority.

Discussion Document for Leadership

In addition to using the article to generate conversation among hospitalists within your group, it can be a really valuable tool in guiding conversations with hospital leaders and the entity that employs the hospitalists. For example, you could use the article to generate or update the job description of the lead hospitalist or practice manager. Or during annual budgeting for the hospitalist practice, the guide could be used as a checklist to think about whether there are important areas that would benefit from more resources.

Of course, there is a risk that hospital leaders or those who employ the hospitalists could use the article primarily to criticize a hospitalist group and its leader for not already having excellent performance on every one of the principles and characteristics listed. That would be pretty unfortunate; there probably isn’t a single group that performs well on every domain, and the real value of the article is to “be aspirational, helping to raise the bar” for each HMG and our specialty as a whole.

And, as discussed in the article, an HMG doesn’t need to be a stellar performer on all 47 characteristics to be effective. Some of the characteristics listed in the article may not apply to all groups, so all involved in the management of any individual HMG should think about whether to set some aside when assessing their own group.

Where to Go from Here

The article is based on expert opinion, with the help of many more people than those listed as author, and I’m hopeful it will stimulate researchers to study some of these principles and characteristics. For many reasons, we will probably never have robust data, but I’d be happy for whatever we can get.

There is a pretty good chance that the evolution in the work we do and the nature of the hospital setting mean that the principles and characteristics may need to be revised periodically. I would love to know how they might be different in 10 or 20 years.

Dr. Nelson has been a practicing hospitalist since 1988. He is co-founder and past president of SHM, and principal in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants. He is co-director for SHM’s “Best Practices in Managing a Hospital Medicine Program” course. Write to him at [email protected].

Dr. Nelson

Dr. Nelson

I hope you’re already familiar with “The Key Principles and Characteristics of an Effective Hospital Medicine Group: An Assessment Guide for Hospitals and Hospitalists” [www.hospitalmedicine.org/keychar] and have spent at least a few minutes reviewing the list of 10 “principles” and 47 “characteristics” thought to be associated with effective hospital medicine groups (HMGs). (Full disclosure: I was one of the authors of the article published in February 2014 in the Journal of Hospital Medicine.) Most of us are very busy, so the temptation might be high to set the article aside and risk forgetting it. But I hope many in our field, both clinicians and administrators, will look at it more carefully. There are a number of ways you could use the guide to stimulate thinking or change in your practice.

Grading Our Specialty

I just returned from a meeting of about 10 hospitalist leaders from different organizations around the country. Attendees represented the diversity of our field, including hospital-employed HMGs, large hospitalist management companies, and academic programs. We spent a portion of the meeting discussing what grade we as a group would give the whole specialty of hospital medicine on each of the 10 “principles.” Essentially, we generated a report card for the U.S. hospitalist movement.

This wasn’t a rigorous scientific exercise; instead, it was a robust and thought-provoking discussion around what grade to assign. Opinions regarding the appropriate grade varied significantly, but a common theme was that our specialty really “owns” the importance of pursuing many or most of the principles listed in the article and is devoting time and resources to them even if many individual HMGs might have a long way to go to perform optimally.

For example, meeting attendees thought our field has for a long time worked diligently to “support care coordination across the care continuum” (Principle 6). No one thought that all HMGs do this optimally, but the consensus was that most HMGs have invested effort to do it well. And most were concerned that many HMGs still lack “adequate resources” (Principle 3) and sufficiently “engaged hospitalists” (Principle 2)—and that the former contributes to the latter.

The opinion of the hospitalist leaders who happened to attend the meeting where this conversation took place doesn’t represent the final word on how our specialty is performing, but I think all involved found value in having the conversation, hearing different perspectives about what we’re doing well and where we should focus energy and resources to improve.

Grading Your HM Group

You might want to do something similar within your own group, but make it more relevant by grading how your own practice performs on each of the 10 principles. You could do this on your own just to stimulate your thinking, or you could have each member of your HMG generate a report card of your group’s performance—then discuss where there is agreement or disagreement within the group.

You could structure this sort of individual or group assessment simply as an exercise to generate ideas and conversation about the practice, or your group could take a more formal approach and use it as part of a planning process to determine future practice management-related goals. I know of some groups that scheduled strategic planning meetings specifically to discuss which of the elements to make a priority.

Discussion Document for Leadership

In addition to using the article to generate conversation among hospitalists within your group, it can be a really valuable tool in guiding conversations with hospital leaders and the entity that employs the hospitalists. For example, you could use the article to generate or update the job description of the lead hospitalist or practice manager. Or during annual budgeting for the hospitalist practice, the guide could be used as a checklist to think about whether there are important areas that would benefit from more resources.

Of course, there is a risk that hospital leaders or those who employ the hospitalists could use the article primarily to criticize a hospitalist group and its leader for not already having excellent performance on every one of the principles and characteristics listed. That would be pretty unfortunate; there probably isn’t a single group that performs well on every domain, and the real value of the article is to “be aspirational, helping to raise the bar” for each HMG and our specialty as a whole.

And, as discussed in the article, an HMG doesn’t need to be a stellar performer on all 47 characteristics to be effective. Some of the characteristics listed in the article may not apply to all groups, so all involved in the management of any individual HMG should think about whether to set some aside when assessing their own group.

Where to Go from Here

The article is based on expert opinion, with the help of many more people than those listed as author, and I’m hopeful it will stimulate researchers to study some of these principles and characteristics. For many reasons, we will probably never have robust data, but I’d be happy for whatever we can get.

There is a pretty good chance that the evolution in the work we do and the nature of the hospital setting mean that the principles and characteristics may need to be revised periodically. I would love to know how they might be different in 10 or 20 years.

Dr. Nelson has been a practicing hospitalist since 1988. He is co-founder and past president of SHM, and principal in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants. He is co-director for SHM’s “Best Practices in Managing a Hospital Medicine Program” course. Write to him at [email protected].

Dr. LaChance

Editor’s note: Together with SHM’s Physicians In Training Committee, The Hospitalist is publishing articles that can help guide medical students and residents to careers as hospitalists. This profile is intended to give perspective on one of the many career options in the HM movement. Please share this with the students and residents you know.

Chris LaChance, MD, attended medical school at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) and in 2003 completed his residency at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass. He’s been a hospitalist ever since. In 2011, he became an academic hospitalist and now spends most of his time working with residents. He plans a lifelong career in hospital medicine.

Colleagues at Baystate voted Dr. LaChance the 2011 Hospitalist of the Year. He’s received numerous resident teaching awards in his career.

Question: What influenced your decision to become a hospitalist?

Answer: I did a rotation in residency where I actually performed the function of a primary care doctor doing inpatient and primary care at the same time. I realized it didn’t allow me to practice in the way I wanted. I really wanted to focus on one aspect. I like the challenge of working in the hospital. I also was exposed to a few people practicing at the time.

Q: What steps in your career do you think were the most significant in leading you to where you are today?

A: My initial job was at a startup program, which didn’t seem to have a lot of buy-in from the docs. They were being taken advantage of; everyone wanted them to be everything to everyone, including the subspecialists and the surgeons. It wasn’t well established, so I left and came back to Baystate, where I trained.

Q: What drew you to teaching?

A: I initially practiced for six years in a nonacademic attending. To be an academic hospitalist, you need a firm base of expertise in the nonacademic side. It helps that I’m able to do the work and help the residents with their efficiency in the teaching aspect. The fact that I was able to spend so much time developing myself as a good clinician made me a better educator.

Now that I have a great deal of practical experience, I think it really enhances my teaching. I enjoy making the residents enthusiastic about the medical literature and applying what they learn to practice. Watching their progression from timid interns to confident, knowledgeable senior residents is particularly rewarding.

Q: I know you have a particular interest in evidence-based medicine and that it is a focus of your teaching. Can you explain why that is?

A: I am encouraging the residents to focus on practical, high-yield articles and to utilize technology to allow diagnoses that are effective in expanding their knowledge. Practice guidelines, review articles, and resources—reading for general knowledge and understanding has been lost for some. I am trying to make a culture change to bring this back to residents.

Q: Do you see this as a sustainable career? What makes it sustainable?

A: I think the fact that I have so many different roles keeps it interesting and fresh—and the fact that things are constantly changing. Being a hospitalist in a larger institution allows for those variant roles. I’m not the type of person who likes to do the same thing day after day. I like that I’m not confined to one space during the course of the day, and I don’t have to be confined to a timeline.

Q: How has the practice of hospital medicine changed since you began?

A: Patients and families have become much more accepting of hospital medicine; they know their PCP won’t be coming in. For the most part, they are aware of hospitalists and [are] expecting us.

Q: Would you recommend hospital medicine as a career choice for a student or resident? Is there any specific advice you would provide them?

A: I would recommend it. I certainly find it worthwhile. The person who does well needs to be accepting of some uncertainty. [You] need to work well with other people, and you need some level of humility. If someone really likes spending time reading and being current and having lots of roles, it’s a good choice.

Q: Can you tell me about a patient encounter or teaching moment that stands out to you?

A: I had a patient who was on comfort measures only. I developed a good relationship with his wife. I was able to spend a lot of time with them and was able to help them with end-of-life decision-making. I was actually present when he took his last breath. I saw him open his eyes and look at his wife one last time and then he passed away.

He was unresponsive and on supplemental oxygen. I talked to his wife and said, “Let’s take it off, it’s not doing anything.” I knew it would be quick after that. It also gave her some measure of control. She wanted to be there. We took the oxygen off, and I sat in the corner. She talked to him, [and] he opened his eyes and gave her a quick smile and died.

Q: What are your major interests outside of the hospital, and how do you ensure you have time to do them?

A: I have five children, which takes a lot of my time. One of the nice benefits of HM is that it’s shift work, so there’s a defined amount of time that I’m working. I also try to be as efficient as I can at work so that I don’t need to work at home. As far as my interests at home, it’s time with the kids. Summer water sports are what we enjoy, so I try and take my vacations during the summer.

Q: What do you see as the future of hospital medicine?

A: Hospital medicine is here to stay. When I first started, there were questions as to whether HM would stick around. I think there are going to be more and more roles for hospitalists, and probably hospitalists that define certain areas of practice, especially in large institutions. I think subspecialist and surgery co-management will be developed further.

Q: Can you think of an HM “myth” that you feel your own experience has proven wrong?

A: There’s a common misperception that you don’t have continuity and don’t get to know patients. I have to say, every day when I’m walking in the hall, I have a patient I’ve cared for in the past call out to me and want to update me. I think [when you are] rounding on a daily basis on these patients, you get a few years’ worth of PCP visits. It’s a really concentrated interaction.

Dr. Bryson is a hospitalist, medical director of teaching services, and associate program director for internal medicine residency at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass. She is also an assistant professor of medicine at Tufts University.

Dr. LaChance

Editor’s note: Together with SHM’s Physicians In Training Committee, The Hospitalist is publishing articles that can help guide medical students and residents to careers as hospitalists. This profile is intended to give perspective on one of the many career options in the HM movement. Please share this with the students and residents you know.

Chris LaChance, MD, attended medical school at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) and in 2003 completed his residency at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass. He’s been a hospitalist ever since. In 2011, he became an academic hospitalist and now spends most of his time working with residents. He plans a lifelong career in hospital medicine.

Colleagues at Baystate voted Dr. LaChance the 2011 Hospitalist of the Year. He’s received numerous resident teaching awards in his career.

Question: What influenced your decision to become a hospitalist?

Answer: I did a rotation in residency where I actually performed the function of a primary care doctor doing inpatient and primary care at the same time. I realized it didn’t allow me to practice in the way I wanted. I really wanted to focus on one aspect. I like the challenge of working in the hospital. I also was exposed to a few people practicing at the time.

Q: What steps in your career do you think were the most significant in leading you to where you are today?

A: My initial job was at a startup program, which didn’t seem to have a lot of buy-in from the docs. They were being taken advantage of; everyone wanted them to be everything to everyone, including the subspecialists and the surgeons. It wasn’t well established, so I left and came back to Baystate, where I trained.

Q: What drew you to teaching?

A: I initially practiced for six years in a nonacademic attending. To be an academic hospitalist, you need a firm base of expertise in the nonacademic side. It helps that I’m able to do the work and help the residents with their efficiency in the teaching aspect. The fact that I was able to spend so much time developing myself as a good clinician made me a better educator.

Now that I have a great deal of practical experience, I think it really enhances my teaching. I enjoy making the residents enthusiastic about the medical literature and applying what they learn to practice. Watching their progression from timid interns to confident, knowledgeable senior residents is particularly rewarding.

Q: I know you have a particular interest in evidence-based medicine and that it is a focus of your teaching. Can you explain why that is?

A: I am encouraging the residents to focus on practical, high-yield articles and to utilize technology to allow diagnoses that are effective in expanding their knowledge. Practice guidelines, review articles, and resources—reading for general knowledge and understanding has been lost for some. I am trying to make a culture change to bring this back to residents.

Q: Do you see this as a sustainable career? What makes it sustainable?

A: I think the fact that I have so many different roles keeps it interesting and fresh—and the fact that things are constantly changing. Being a hospitalist in a larger institution allows for those variant roles. I’m not the type of person who likes to do the same thing day after day. I like that I’m not confined to one space during the course of the day, and I don’t have to be confined to a timeline.

Q: How has the practice of hospital medicine changed since you began?

A: Patients and families have become much more accepting of hospital medicine; they know their PCP won’t be coming in. For the most part, they are aware of hospitalists and [are] expecting us.

Q: Would you recommend hospital medicine as a career choice for a student or resident? Is there any specific advice you would provide them?

A: I would recommend it. I certainly find it worthwhile. The person who does well needs to be accepting of some uncertainty. [You] need to work well with other people, and you need some level of humility. If someone really likes spending time reading and being current and having lots of roles, it’s a good choice.

Q: Can you tell me about a patient encounter or teaching moment that stands out to you?

A: I had a patient who was on comfort measures only. I developed a good relationship with his wife. I was able to spend a lot of time with them and was able to help them with end-of-life decision-making. I was actually present when he took his last breath. I saw him open his eyes and look at his wife one last time and then he passed away.

He was unresponsive and on supplemental oxygen. I talked to his wife and said, “Let’s take it off, it’s not doing anything.” I knew it would be quick after that. It also gave her some measure of control. She wanted to be there. We took the oxygen off, and I sat in the corner. She talked to him, [and] he opened his eyes and gave her a quick smile and died.

Q: What are your major interests outside of the hospital, and how do you ensure you have time to do them?

A: I have five children, which takes a lot of my time. One of the nice benefits of HM is that it’s shift work, so there’s a defined amount of time that I’m working. I also try to be as efficient as I can at work so that I don’t need to work at home. As far as my interests at home, it’s time with the kids. Summer water sports are what we enjoy, so I try and take my vacations during the summer.

Q: What do you see as the future of hospital medicine?

A: Hospital medicine is here to stay. When I first started, there were questions as to whether HM would stick around. I think there are going to be more and more roles for hospitalists, and probably hospitalists that define certain areas of practice, especially in large institutions. I think subspecialist and surgery co-management will be developed further.

Q: Can you think of an HM “myth” that you feel your own experience has proven wrong?

A: There’s a common misperception that you don’t have continuity and don’t get to know patients. I have to say, every day when I’m walking in the hall, I have a patient I’ve cared for in the past call out to me and want to update me. I think [when you are] rounding on a daily basis on these patients, you get a few years’ worth of PCP visits. It’s a really concentrated interaction.

Dr. Bryson is a hospitalist, medical director of teaching services, and associate program director for internal medicine residency at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass. She is also an assistant professor of medicine at Tufts University.

Dr. LaChance

Editor’s note: Together with SHM’s Physicians In Training Committee, The Hospitalist is publishing articles that can help guide medical students and residents to careers as hospitalists. This profile is intended to give perspective on one of the many career options in the HM movement. Please share this with the students and residents you know.

Chris LaChance, MD, attended medical school at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) and in 2003 completed his residency at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass. He’s been a hospitalist ever since. In 2011, he became an academic hospitalist and now spends most of his time working with residents. He plans a lifelong career in hospital medicine.

Colleagues at Baystate voted Dr. LaChance the 2011 Hospitalist of the Year. He’s received numerous resident teaching awards in his career.

Question: What influenced your decision to become a hospitalist?

Answer: I did a rotation in residency where I actually performed the function of a primary care doctor doing inpatient and primary care at the same time. I realized it didn’t allow me to practice in the way I wanted. I really wanted to focus on one aspect. I like the challenge of working in the hospital. I also was exposed to a few people practicing at the time.

Q: What steps in your career do you think were the most significant in leading you to where you are today?

A: My initial job was at a startup program, which didn’t seem to have a lot of buy-in from the docs. They were being taken advantage of; everyone wanted them to be everything to everyone, including the subspecialists and the surgeons. It wasn’t well established, so I left and came back to Baystate, where I trained.

Q: What drew you to teaching?

A: I initially practiced for six years in a nonacademic attending. To be an academic hospitalist, you need a firm base of expertise in the nonacademic side. It helps that I’m able to do the work and help the residents with their efficiency in the teaching aspect. The fact that I was able to spend so much time developing myself as a good clinician made me a better educator.

Now that I have a great deal of practical experience, I think it really enhances my teaching. I enjoy making the residents enthusiastic about the medical literature and applying what they learn to practice. Watching their progression from timid interns to confident, knowledgeable senior residents is particularly rewarding.

Q: I know you have a particular interest in evidence-based medicine and that it is a focus of your teaching. Can you explain why that is?

A: I am encouraging the residents to focus on practical, high-yield articles and to utilize technology to allow diagnoses that are effective in expanding their knowledge. Practice guidelines, review articles, and resources—reading for general knowledge and understanding has been lost for some. I am trying to make a culture change to bring this back to residents.

Q: Do you see this as a sustainable career? What makes it sustainable?

A: I think the fact that I have so many different roles keeps it interesting and fresh—and the fact that things are constantly changing. Being a hospitalist in a larger institution allows for those variant roles. I’m not the type of person who likes to do the same thing day after day. I like that I’m not confined to one space during the course of the day, and I don’t have to be confined to a timeline.

Q: How has the practice of hospital medicine changed since you began?

A: Patients and families have become much more accepting of hospital medicine; they know their PCP won’t be coming in. For the most part, they are aware of hospitalists and [are] expecting us.

Q: Would you recommend hospital medicine as a career choice for a student or resident? Is there any specific advice you would provide them?

A: I would recommend it. I certainly find it worthwhile. The person who does well needs to be accepting of some uncertainty. [You] need to work well with other people, and you need some level of humility. If someone really likes spending time reading and being current and having lots of roles, it’s a good choice.

Q: Can you tell me about a patient encounter or teaching moment that stands out to you?

A: I had a patient who was on comfort measures only. I developed a good relationship with his wife. I was able to spend a lot of time with them and was able to help them with end-of-life decision-making. I was actually present when he took his last breath. I saw him open his eyes and look at his wife one last time and then he passed away.

He was unresponsive and on supplemental oxygen. I talked to his wife and said, “Let’s take it off, it’s not doing anything.” I knew it would be quick after that. It also gave her some measure of control. She wanted to be there. We took the oxygen off, and I sat in the corner. She talked to him, [and] he opened his eyes and gave her a quick smile and died.

Q: What are your major interests outside of the hospital, and how do you ensure you have time to do them?

A: I have five children, which takes a lot of my time. One of the nice benefits of HM is that it’s shift work, so there’s a defined amount of time that I’m working. I also try to be as efficient as I can at work so that I don’t need to work at home. As far as my interests at home, it’s time with the kids. Summer water sports are what we enjoy, so I try and take my vacations during the summer.

Q: What do you see as the future of hospital medicine?

A: Hospital medicine is here to stay. When I first started, there were questions as to whether HM would stick around. I think there are going to be more and more roles for hospitalists, and probably hospitalists that define certain areas of practice, especially in large institutions. I think subspecialist and surgery co-management will be developed further.

Q: Can you think of an HM “myth” that you feel your own experience has proven wrong?

A: There’s a common misperception that you don’t have continuity and don’t get to know patients. I have to say, every day when I’m walking in the hall, I have a patient I’ve cared for in the past call out to me and want to update me. I think [when you are] rounding on a daily basis on these patients, you get a few years’ worth of PCP visits. It’s a really concentrated interaction.

Dr. Bryson is a hospitalist, medical director of teaching services, and associate program director for internal medicine residency at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass. She is also an assistant professor of medicine at Tufts University.

Twice in the past four months, Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM) member Ann Sheehy, MD, MS, FHM, found herself on Capitol Hill, testifying before Congressional committees focused on the U.S. healthcare system.

A physician at the University of Wisconsin (UW) School of Medicine and Public Health and a member of SHM’s Public Policy Committee, Dr. Sheehy was invited to speak about issues related to Medicare’s two-midnight rule, patient observation status, and the Recovery Audit Contractor (RAC) program.

These issues are “so important, and I am passionate about it,” Dr. Sheehy says. “I saw what was happening to patients and it just did not make any sense at all.”

Medicare’s two-midnight rule classifies most patients who stay in the hospital fewer than two midnights as outpatient or under observation. Observation status leaves patients on the hook for the costs of any chronic condition medications they receive in the hospital; additionally, patients under observation or considered outpatient are not eligible for skilled nursing facility (SNF) coverage.

SHM actively supports the Improving Access to Medicare Coverage Act, a bipartisan bill sponsored by Rep. Joe Courtney (D-CT) aimed at ensuring Medicare beneficiaries classified as under observation are considered inpatient for the purposes of accessing SNF care, even if their stay spanned fewer than two midnights.

At the Congressional hearings (watch video of the testimony at www.c-span.org/video/?319488-1/medicare-hospital-coverage committee and http://www.aging.senate.gov/hearings/admitted-or-not-the-impact-of-medicare-observation-status-on-seniors), Dr. Sheehy used her experience at UW Hospital and findings she and colleagues published in JAMA Internal Medicine to build a backstory around the issues. Based on the transcript of the testimony, Dr. Sheehy told the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Health: “Because of our clinical work and extensive experience in the hospital setting, hospitalists have a firsthand view of what observation care looks like to patients, physicians, and hospitals.”

She argues in her testimony that observation status harms the patient-physician relationship and does not make clinical sense.

For instance, the time of day a patient gets sick can impact their designation under the two-midnight rule. In one 2013 JAMA Internal Medicine publication [http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1731964], Dr. Sheehy and colleagues found nearly half of UW Hospital patients would have been assigned observation status rather than inpatient under the two-midnight rule by virtue of the time they arrived at the hospital.

Additionally, Dr. Sheehy addressed the issue of the private contractors, or RACs, which were established under the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 to audit patient records for appropriate hospital status. Dr. Sheehy, in her testimony, said the RACs are aggressive and nontransparent in their audits. Additionally, the RACs are paid a percentage of the money they recover on Medicare’s behalf but are not held financially accountable for decisions that are subsequently appealed and overturned.

Nationally, roughly 40% of RAC audits are appealed, and 70% of these are overturned. Dr. Sheehy told the Congressional committee that at UW Hospital from Oct. 1, 2012 through Sept. 30, 2013, RAC audits determined that 21% of 299 patient charts had received improper payments. The hospital appealed 58 of the 63 audit decisions and had won each of them as of mid-May 2014.

Dr. Sheehy believes changes to the auditing programs enforcing observation rule compliance are necessary for the success of any observation reform, whether it comes through legislation or regulation. In her testimony closing, Dr. Sheehy told the House committee the two-midnight rule is not the answer to the need for observation status change. Medicare policy, she said, “should be aligned with clinical realities and should also be rooted in allowing physicians to provide the care patients need.”

In addition to addressing the arbitrary time cutoff, Dr. Sheehy made the case that the two-midnight rule puts short-stay, acutely ill patients at a disadvantage, may add cost and waste to the healthcare system, and is challenging for providers, who must estimate patient time of stay upon patient hospitalization.

But, Dr. Sheehy believes meaningful change is possible and hopes her testimony is helpful in the endeavor.

“Our understanding is that [Ways and Means committee members] were going to draft legislation out of the hearing, and we hope we have comprehensively addressed [patient] observation and the auditing programs that enforce it,” she says. “Hopefully, we provided the backstory and evidence for a comprehensive bill everyone can get behind.”

For SHM, Dr. Sheehy’s testimony demonstrates that hospitalists are taking leadership when it comes to critical issues that impact patients, physicians, and hospitals.

“The hearings shows the strength of hospital medicine as a specialty and a movement in healthcare: Hospitalists and SHM are not standing on the sidelines when it comes to flawed Medicare policies such as the two-midnight rule and observation care in general,” says SHM President Burke Kealey, MD, SFHM, medical director of hospital specialties at HealthPartners Medical Group in St. Paul, Minn. “These policy discussions are critical to the care our patients receive. Congress is clearly interested in listening to the hospitalist perspective. Dr. Sheehy represented the nation’s 44,000 hospitalists with the expertise, confidence, and compassion that are hallmarks of the specialty.”

Kelly April Tyrrell is a freelance writer in Wisconsin.

Twice in the past four months, Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM) member Ann Sheehy, MD, MS, FHM, found herself on Capitol Hill, testifying before Congressional committees focused on the U.S. healthcare system.

A physician at the University of Wisconsin (UW) School of Medicine and Public Health and a member of SHM’s Public Policy Committee, Dr. Sheehy was invited to speak about issues related to Medicare’s two-midnight rule, patient observation status, and the Recovery Audit Contractor (RAC) program.

These issues are “so important, and I am passionate about it,” Dr. Sheehy says. “I saw what was happening to patients and it just did not make any sense at all.”

Medicare’s two-midnight rule classifies most patients who stay in the hospital fewer than two midnights as outpatient or under observation. Observation status leaves patients on the hook for the costs of any chronic condition medications they receive in the hospital; additionally, patients under observation or considered outpatient are not eligible for skilled nursing facility (SNF) coverage.

SHM actively supports the Improving Access to Medicare Coverage Act, a bipartisan bill sponsored by Rep. Joe Courtney (D-CT) aimed at ensuring Medicare beneficiaries classified as under observation are considered inpatient for the purposes of accessing SNF care, even if their stay spanned fewer than two midnights.

At the Congressional hearings (watch video of the testimony at www.c-span.org/video/?319488-1/medicare-hospital-coverage committee and http://www.aging.senate.gov/hearings/admitted-or-not-the-impact-of-medicare-observation-status-on-seniors), Dr. Sheehy used her experience at UW Hospital and findings she and colleagues published in JAMA Internal Medicine to build a backstory around the issues. Based on the transcript of the testimony, Dr. Sheehy told the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Health: “Because of our clinical work and extensive experience in the hospital setting, hospitalists have a firsthand view of what observation care looks like to patients, physicians, and hospitals.”

She argues in her testimony that observation status harms the patient-physician relationship and does not make clinical sense.

For instance, the time of day a patient gets sick can impact their designation under the two-midnight rule. In one 2013 JAMA Internal Medicine publication [http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1731964], Dr. Sheehy and colleagues found nearly half of UW Hospital patients would have been assigned observation status rather than inpatient under the two-midnight rule by virtue of the time they arrived at the hospital.

Additionally, Dr. Sheehy addressed the issue of the private contractors, or RACs, which were established under the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 to audit patient records for appropriate hospital status. Dr. Sheehy, in her testimony, said the RACs are aggressive and nontransparent in their audits. Additionally, the RACs are paid a percentage of the money they recover on Medicare’s behalf but are not held financially accountable for decisions that are subsequently appealed and overturned.

Nationally, roughly 40% of RAC audits are appealed, and 70% of these are overturned. Dr. Sheehy told the Congressional committee that at UW Hospital from Oct. 1, 2012 through Sept. 30, 2013, RAC audits determined that 21% of 299 patient charts had received improper payments. The hospital appealed 58 of the 63 audit decisions and had won each of them as of mid-May 2014.

Dr. Sheehy believes changes to the auditing programs enforcing observation rule compliance are necessary for the success of any observation reform, whether it comes through legislation or regulation. In her testimony closing, Dr. Sheehy told the House committee the two-midnight rule is not the answer to the need for observation status change. Medicare policy, she said, “should be aligned with clinical realities and should also be rooted in allowing physicians to provide the care patients need.”

In addition to addressing the arbitrary time cutoff, Dr. Sheehy made the case that the two-midnight rule puts short-stay, acutely ill patients at a disadvantage, may add cost and waste to the healthcare system, and is challenging for providers, who must estimate patient time of stay upon patient hospitalization.

But, Dr. Sheehy believes meaningful change is possible and hopes her testimony is helpful in the endeavor.

“Our understanding is that [Ways and Means committee members] were going to draft legislation out of the hearing, and we hope we have comprehensively addressed [patient] observation and the auditing programs that enforce it,” she says. “Hopefully, we provided the backstory and evidence for a comprehensive bill everyone can get behind.”

For SHM, Dr. Sheehy’s testimony demonstrates that hospitalists are taking leadership when it comes to critical issues that impact patients, physicians, and hospitals.

“The hearings shows the strength of hospital medicine as a specialty and a movement in healthcare: Hospitalists and SHM are not standing on the sidelines when it comes to flawed Medicare policies such as the two-midnight rule and observation care in general,” says SHM President Burke Kealey, MD, SFHM, medical director of hospital specialties at HealthPartners Medical Group in St. Paul, Minn. “These policy discussions are critical to the care our patients receive. Congress is clearly interested in listening to the hospitalist perspective. Dr. Sheehy represented the nation’s 44,000 hospitalists with the expertise, confidence, and compassion that are hallmarks of the specialty.”

Kelly April Tyrrell is a freelance writer in Wisconsin.

Twice in the past four months, Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM) member Ann Sheehy, MD, MS, FHM, found herself on Capitol Hill, testifying before Congressional committees focused on the U.S. healthcare system.

A physician at the University of Wisconsin (UW) School of Medicine and Public Health and a member of SHM’s Public Policy Committee, Dr. Sheehy was invited to speak about issues related to Medicare’s two-midnight rule, patient observation status, and the Recovery Audit Contractor (RAC) program.

These issues are “so important, and I am passionate about it,” Dr. Sheehy says. “I saw what was happening to patients and it just did not make any sense at all.”

Medicare’s two-midnight rule classifies most patients who stay in the hospital fewer than two midnights as outpatient or under observation. Observation status leaves patients on the hook for the costs of any chronic condition medications they receive in the hospital; additionally, patients under observation or considered outpatient are not eligible for skilled nursing facility (SNF) coverage.

SHM actively supports the Improving Access to Medicare Coverage Act, a bipartisan bill sponsored by Rep. Joe Courtney (D-CT) aimed at ensuring Medicare beneficiaries classified as under observation are considered inpatient for the purposes of accessing SNF care, even if their stay spanned fewer than two midnights.

At the Congressional hearings (watch video of the testimony at www.c-span.org/video/?319488-1/medicare-hospital-coverage committee and http://www.aging.senate.gov/hearings/admitted-or-not-the-impact-of-medicare-observation-status-on-seniors), Dr. Sheehy used her experience at UW Hospital and findings she and colleagues published in JAMA Internal Medicine to build a backstory around the issues. Based on the transcript of the testimony, Dr. Sheehy told the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Health: “Because of our clinical work and extensive experience in the hospital setting, hospitalists have a firsthand view of what observation care looks like to patients, physicians, and hospitals.”

She argues in her testimony that observation status harms the patient-physician relationship and does not make clinical sense.

For instance, the time of day a patient gets sick can impact their designation under the two-midnight rule. In one 2013 JAMA Internal Medicine publication [http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1731964], Dr. Sheehy and colleagues found nearly half of UW Hospital patients would have been assigned observation status rather than inpatient under the two-midnight rule by virtue of the time they arrived at the hospital.

Additionally, Dr. Sheehy addressed the issue of the private contractors, or RACs, which were established under the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 to audit patient records for appropriate hospital status. Dr. Sheehy, in her testimony, said the RACs are aggressive and nontransparent in their audits. Additionally, the RACs are paid a percentage of the money they recover on Medicare’s behalf but are not held financially accountable for decisions that are subsequently appealed and overturned.

Nationally, roughly 40% of RAC audits are appealed, and 70% of these are overturned. Dr. Sheehy told the Congressional committee that at UW Hospital from Oct. 1, 2012 through Sept. 30, 2013, RAC audits determined that 21% of 299 patient charts had received improper payments. The hospital appealed 58 of the 63 audit decisions and had won each of them as of mid-May 2014.

Dr. Sheehy believes changes to the auditing programs enforcing observation rule compliance are necessary for the success of any observation reform, whether it comes through legislation or regulation. In her testimony closing, Dr. Sheehy told the House committee the two-midnight rule is not the answer to the need for observation status change. Medicare policy, she said, “should be aligned with clinical realities and should also be rooted in allowing physicians to provide the care patients need.”

In addition to addressing the arbitrary time cutoff, Dr. Sheehy made the case that the two-midnight rule puts short-stay, acutely ill patients at a disadvantage, may add cost and waste to the healthcare system, and is challenging for providers, who must estimate patient time of stay upon patient hospitalization.

But, Dr. Sheehy believes meaningful change is possible and hopes her testimony is helpful in the endeavor.

“Our understanding is that [Ways and Means committee members] were going to draft legislation out of the hearing, and we hope we have comprehensively addressed [patient] observation and the auditing programs that enforce it,” she says. “Hopefully, we provided the backstory and evidence for a comprehensive bill everyone can get behind.”

For SHM, Dr. Sheehy’s testimony demonstrates that hospitalists are taking leadership when it comes to critical issues that impact patients, physicians, and hospitals.

“The hearings shows the strength of hospital medicine as a specialty and a movement in healthcare: Hospitalists and SHM are not standing on the sidelines when it comes to flawed Medicare policies such as the two-midnight rule and observation care in general,” says SHM President Burke Kealey, MD, SFHM, medical director of hospital specialties at HealthPartners Medical Group in St. Paul, Minn. “These policy discussions are critical to the care our patients receive. Congress is clearly interested in listening to the hospitalist perspective. Dr. Sheehy represented the nation’s 44,000 hospitalists with the expertise, confidence, and compassion that are hallmarks of the specialty.”

Kelly April Tyrrell is a freelance writer in Wisconsin.

Case

A 77-year-old woman with a history of stroke five months prior, bileaflet aortic valve prosthesis, hypertension, and insulin-dependent diabetes is admitted for laparoscopy with lysis of adhesions. The patient stopped her warfarin 10 days prior to admission and initiated enoxaparin five days later. When should the enoxaparin be discontinued?

Intra-operatively, the surgeon converted the case to an open laparotomy for a bowel resection with re-anastomosis; post-operatively, when should the hospitalist reinitiate warfarin and enoxaparin?

Background

Many patients receive chronic oral anticoagulant therapy to minimize their long-term risk of thromboembolic disease. Hospitalists and outpatient providers often care for such patients who need to undergo a medical procedure or operation. The risk of bleeding associated with the medical procedure necessitates an interruption in the patient’s chronic oral anticoagulant therapy. In this scenario, providers are faced with several therapeutic decisions:

• How soon before the procedure should patients stop taking oral anticoagulant?
• During the period of time when the patient is not taking chronic oral anticoagulant, should the patient receive parenteral bridging anticoagulant therapy?
• After the procedure, when should patients restart chronic oral anticoagulant therapy?

‘Bridge’ anticoagulant therapy is the administration of a short-acting parenteral anticoagulant during the peri-operative period, when the patient is not taking chronic oral anticoagulant.¹ The intent of bridge anticoagulant therapy is to minimize both the risk of thromboembolic events and the risk of bleeding during the peri-operative period. Bridging anticoagulant therapy is appropriate for some but not all patients undergoing medical procedures.

The Data

When to discontinue warfarin? Warfarin, the most commonly prescribed oral anticoagulant, achieves its therapeutic effects by antagonizing the actions of endogenous vitamin K-dependent coagulation factors. The decision on when to stop warfarin prior to surgery is dependent on the regeneration time of coagulation factors following the discontinuation of warfarin therapy. Although warfarin’s half-life is typically 36-42 hours, its therapeutic effects typically last up to five days in healthy subjects and often longer in elderly patients.²

Current guidelines recommend the discontinuation of warfarin at least five days prior to surgery (Grade 1C recommendation).³ Despite this recommendation, approximately 7% of patients will still have an international normalized ratio (INR) >1.5 after not taking warfarin for five days.⁴ For this reason, the guidelines recommend that all patients have their INR checked on the day of surgery. For those patients with an INR of 1.5 to 1.9 on the day prior to surgery, there is evidence to show that administration of 1 mg of vitamin K will lower the INR to 1.4 in greater than 90% of cases.⁵

Assessment of peri-procedural thrombotic risk. Knowledge of a patient’s past medical history is critical in helping providers stratify the patient’s peri-procedural thrombotic risk. According to the 2012 American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) guidelines, a history of atrial fibrillation (Afib), mechanical heart valve(s), and previous VTE are independent risk factors for peri-procedural thrombotic events.³ Hospitalists may risk-stratify their patients based on the anticipated annualized rate of thrombosis or embolization: <5%, 5%-10%, or >15% for the respective low, medium, and high-risk groups.⁶

Patients with Afib history. For these patients, the CHADS2 score helps to stratify the risk of peri-procedural thrombosis. Low risk is defined as a CHADS2 score of zero to two, assuming that the two points were not scored for transient ischemic attack (TIA) or cerebrovascular accident (CVA). Any patient with a TIA or CVA within the previous three months is automatically considered high risk. Medium risk is a score of three or four.

In addition to the aforementioned TIA or CVA within the prior three months, high-risk patients also include those with a CHADS2 score of five or six or any patient with a history of rheumatic heart disease.³ Patients with CHADS2 scores less than five but with a TIA or CVA greater than three months in the past are high risk.⁷

Presence of mechanical heart valve(s). For patients with a mechanical heart valve, knowledge of the valve type and location is essential to assist hospitalists in stratifying the risk of peri-procedural thrombosis. The current ACCP guidelines consider patients with bileaflet aortic valve prostheses without additional risk factors for stroke or atrial fibrillation to be low risk.³

The guidelines define the following characteristics as medium risk for patients: the presence of a bileaflet valve with additional risk factors for stroke such as atrial fibrillation, age greater than 75, prior CVA (more than six months prior), hypertension, diabetes mellitus, or congestive heart failure.

Patients at high risk include those with aortic valve prosthesis with a caged-ball or tilting disc, patients with mitral valve prosthesis, and those with a mechanical valve with CVA or TIA during the prior six months.⁷

History of previous VTE. For these patients, the duration of time that has passed since their last VTE event is an important factor in helping to stratify their risk for peri-procedural thrombosis. Hospitalists should consider patients low risk if they had VTE more than one year prior to the procedure.

Medium-risk patients are those with VTE events in the preceding three to twelve months, those with recurrent VTE, those with active cancer who have received cancer therapy within six months, or patients with non-severe thrombophilias (e.g. heterogenous factor V Leiden or prothrombin gene mutation).

Hospitalists should identify high-risk patients as those with VTE that has occurred within three months or those with severe thrombophilias such as Protein C or S deficiency, antithrombin III deficiency, or antiphospholipid antibody syndrome.

Assessment of procedure-related thrombotic risk. The type of anticipated procedure itself conveys peri-procedural thrombotic risk. For example, heart valve replacement, carotid endarterectomy, or other major vascular surgeries automatically stratify patients in the high-risk category, regardless of underlying medication condition.

Assessment of bleeding risk. Hospitalists must identify any preexisting bleeding risk factors (i.e., hemophilias or thrombocytopenia) in addition to the post-procedural bleeding risks. Risk factors for increased post-procedural bleeding include: major surgery with extensive tissue injury, procedures involving highly vascularized organs, removal of large colonic polyps, urological procedures, placement of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator/pacemakers, and procedures at sites where minor bleeding would be clinically devastating, such as the brain or spine.³

Thus, communication with the proceduralist or surgeon regarding the anticipated bleeding risk is vital.

Should the patient receive bridging anticoagulation? Patients considered high risk for peri-procedural thrombosis should receive peri-procedural bridging anticoagulation therapy, while those considered low risk should not. For patients with a moderate peri-procedural risk of thrombosis, hospitalists should base the decision on individual and anticipated pre-surgical/procedural thrombotic risks.

Recent evidence suggests that bridging anticoagulation should be avoided in patients undergoing procedures with high bleeding risk who are not at high thromboembolic risk.⁸

Selection and pre-operative discontinuation of bridging medication. Current ACCP guidelines only support the use of unfractionated heparin (UFH) or low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) as bridging anticoagulants.³ Evidence supports the use of either intravenous UFH (goal aPTT 1.5 to two times control aPTT) or enoxaparin (1 mg/kg BID or 1.5 mg/kg once daily).⁹ UFH is preferred over LMWH in patients with chronic kidney disease stage IV or V due to a more predictable pharmacokinetic profile.

Clinicians should initiate a bridge when a patient’s INR falls to less than 2.0 and discontinue the UFH bridge four to six hours prior to the procedure.¹⁰ The recent update to the guidelines now states that LMWH should be discontinued 24, instead of 12, hours prior to the procedure.³

When to restart UHF or LMWH bridge post-procedure. The type of procedure being performed dictates when bridging anticoagulation should resume. In patients who have undergone surgeries that involve high bleeding risk, LMWH should not be administered until 48-72 hours post-surgery (Grade 2C evidence).³ For those patients undergoing surgeries with low bleeding risk, bridging should be resumed approximately 24 hours after the procedure.

Of note, enoxaparin administered in one single daily dose, as compared to divided doses, is associated with a greater risk of post-operative bleeding. UFH bridging should resume post-operatively without a bolus dose at 24 hours in low-risk bleeding cases or 48-72 hours in high-risk bleeding cases (Grade 2C evidence).³

On occasion, unanticipated adjustments to surgical cases—or complications—change the previously determined post-operative bleeding risk. In these instances, the hospitalist and surgeon/proceduralist should review the case and reassess the bleeding risk prior to employing bridging anticoagulation protocols.

When to restart long-term vitamin K antagonists (VKA) post-procedure. In most instances, regardless of pre-operative bleeding risk stratification, the resumption of VKA may occur once post-operative hemostasis has been achieved and the patient has been instructed to resume eating by the proceduralist or surgeon. This most often occurs on the calendar day following surgery, because it takes approximately five days for an INR to achieve therapeutic levels.

Back to the Case

The patient’s history of prosthetic valve with stroke within the preceding six months stratified her to a high thrombotic risk category. Given the high risk of thrombosis, the decision was made to bridge with LMWH. The hospitalist discontinued LMWH 24 hours prior to surgery, and INR was checked on the morning of the procedure.

Although the patient underwent the operation without significant bleeding, the adjustment from an exploratory laparoscopy to an open laparotomy increased her post-operative bleeding risk from medium to high. Therefore, bridging anticoagulation with LMWH was resumed no sooner than 48 hours after the operation. Her warfarin was restarted on the day following surgery, once she resumed her diet.

Bottom Line

Hospitalists must understand both the pre- and post-procedure thrombotic risks, as well as the pre- and post-procedural bleeding risks, when determining the selection and logistics of initiation and cessation of antithrombotic bridging for inpatients.

Drs. McCormick, Carbo, and Li are hospitalists at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. Dr. Kerbel is a hospitalist at the University of California Los Angeles.

References

1. BRIDGE Study Investigators. Bridging anticoagulation: is it needed when warfarin is interrupted around the time of a surgery or procedure? Circulation. 2012;125(12):e496-498.
2. Ansell J, Hirsh J, Hylek E, Jacobson A, Crowther M, Palareti G. Pharmacology and management of the vitamin K antagonists: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th Edition). Chest. 2008;133(6 Suppl):160S-198S.
3. Douketis JD, Spyropoulos AC, Spencer FA, et al. Perioperative management of antithrombotic therapy: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest. 2012;141(2 Suppl):e326S-350S.
4. Kovacs MJ, Kearon C, Rodger M, et al. Single-arm study of bridging therapy with low-molecular-weight heparin for patients at risk of arterial embolism who require temporary interruption of warfarin. Circulation. 2004;110(12):1658-1663.
5. Woods K, Douketis JD, Kathirgamanathan K, Yi Q, Crowther MA. Low-dose oral vitamin K to normalize the international normalized ratio prior to surgery in patients who require temporary interruption of warfarin. J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2007;24(2):93-97.
6. Ortel TL. Perioperative management of patients on chronic antithrombotic therapy. Blood. 2012;120(24):4699-4705.
7. Kaatz S, Douketis JD, Zhou H, Gage BF, White RH. Risk of stroke after surgery in patients with and without chronic atrial fibrillation. J Thromb Haemost. 2010;8(5):884-890.
8. Siegal D, Yudin J, Kaatz S, Douketis JD, Lim W, Spyropoulos AC. Periprocedural heparin bridging in patients receiving vitamin K antagonists: systematic review and meta-analysis of bleeding and thromboembolic rates. Circulation. 2012;126(13):1630-1639.
9. Lee AY, Levine MN, Baker RI, et al. Low-molecular-weight heparin versus a coumarin for the prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003;349(2):146-153.
10. Hirsh J, Raschke R. Heparin and low-molecular-weight heparin: the Seventh ACCP Conference on Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy. Chest. 2004;126(3 Suppl):188S-203S.

Case

A 77-year-old woman with a history of stroke five months prior, bileaflet aortic valve prosthesis, hypertension, and insulin-dependent diabetes is admitted for laparoscopy with lysis of adhesions. The patient stopped her warfarin 10 days prior to admission and initiated enoxaparin five days later. When should the enoxaparin be discontinued?

Intra-operatively, the surgeon converted the case to an open laparotomy for a bowel resection with re-anastomosis; post-operatively, when should the hospitalist reinitiate warfarin and enoxaparin?

Background

Many patients receive chronic oral anticoagulant therapy to minimize their long-term risk of thromboembolic disease. Hospitalists and outpatient providers often care for such patients who need to undergo a medical procedure or operation. The risk of bleeding associated with the medical procedure necessitates an interruption in the patient’s chronic oral anticoagulant therapy. In this scenario, providers are faced with several therapeutic decisions:

• How soon before the procedure should patients stop taking oral anticoagulant?
• During the period of time when the patient is not taking chronic oral anticoagulant, should the patient receive parenteral bridging anticoagulant therapy?
• After the procedure, when should patients restart chronic oral anticoagulant therapy?

‘Bridge’ anticoagulant therapy is the administration of a short-acting parenteral anticoagulant during the peri-operative period, when the patient is not taking chronic oral anticoagulant.¹ The intent of bridge anticoagulant therapy is to minimize both the risk of thromboembolic events and the risk of bleeding during the peri-operative period. Bridging anticoagulant therapy is appropriate for some but not all patients undergoing medical procedures.

The Data

When to discontinue warfarin? Warfarin, the most commonly prescribed oral anticoagulant, achieves its therapeutic effects by antagonizing the actions of endogenous vitamin K-dependent coagulation factors. The decision on when to stop warfarin prior to surgery is dependent on the regeneration time of coagulation factors following the discontinuation of warfarin therapy. Although warfarin’s half-life is typically 36-42 hours, its therapeutic effects typically last up to five days in healthy subjects and often longer in elderly patients.²

Current guidelines recommend the discontinuation of warfarin at least five days prior to surgery (Grade 1C recommendation).³ Despite this recommendation, approximately 7% of patients will still have an international normalized ratio (INR) >1.5 after not taking warfarin for five days.⁴ For this reason, the guidelines recommend that all patients have their INR checked on the day of surgery. For those patients with an INR of 1.5 to 1.9 on the day prior to surgery, there is evidence to show that administration of 1 mg of vitamin K will lower the INR to 1.4 in greater than 90% of cases.⁵

Assessment of peri-procedural thrombotic risk. Knowledge of a patient’s past medical history is critical in helping providers stratify the patient’s peri-procedural thrombotic risk. According to the 2012 American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) guidelines, a history of atrial fibrillation (Afib), mechanical heart valve(s), and previous VTE are independent risk factors for peri-procedural thrombotic events.³ Hospitalists may risk-stratify their patients based on the anticipated annualized rate of thrombosis or embolization: <5%, 5%-10%, or >15% for the respective low, medium, and high-risk groups.⁶

Patients with Afib history. For these patients, the CHADS2 score helps to stratify the risk of peri-procedural thrombosis. Low risk is defined as a CHADS2 score of zero to two, assuming that the two points were not scored for transient ischemic attack (TIA) or cerebrovascular accident (CVA). Any patient with a TIA or CVA within the previous three months is automatically considered high risk. Medium risk is a score of three or four.

In addition to the aforementioned TIA or CVA within the prior three months, high-risk patients also include those with a CHADS2 score of five or six or any patient with a history of rheumatic heart disease.³ Patients with CHADS2 scores less than five but with a TIA or CVA greater than three months in the past are high risk.⁷

Presence of mechanical heart valve(s). For patients with a mechanical heart valve, knowledge of the valve type and location is essential to assist hospitalists in stratifying the risk of peri-procedural thrombosis. The current ACCP guidelines consider patients with bileaflet aortic valve prostheses without additional risk factors for stroke or atrial fibrillation to be low risk.³

The guidelines define the following characteristics as medium risk for patients: the presence of a bileaflet valve with additional risk factors for stroke such as atrial fibrillation, age greater than 75, prior CVA (more than six months prior), hypertension, diabetes mellitus, or congestive heart failure.

Patients at high risk include those with aortic valve prosthesis with a caged-ball or tilting disc, patients with mitral valve prosthesis, and those with a mechanical valve with CVA or TIA during the prior six months.⁷

History of previous VTE. For these patients, the duration of time that has passed since their last VTE event is an important factor in helping to stratify their risk for peri-procedural thrombosis. Hospitalists should consider patients low risk if they had VTE more than one year prior to the procedure.

Medium-risk patients are those with VTE events in the preceding three to twelve months, those with recurrent VTE, those with active cancer who have received cancer therapy within six months, or patients with non-severe thrombophilias (e.g. heterogenous factor V Leiden or prothrombin gene mutation).

Hospitalists should identify high-risk patients as those with VTE that has occurred within three months or those with severe thrombophilias such as Protein C or S deficiency, antithrombin III deficiency, or antiphospholipid antibody syndrome.

Assessment of procedure-related thrombotic risk. The type of anticipated procedure itself conveys peri-procedural thrombotic risk. For example, heart valve replacement, carotid endarterectomy, or other major vascular surgeries automatically stratify patients in the high-risk category, regardless of underlying medication condition.

Assessment of bleeding risk. Hospitalists must identify any preexisting bleeding risk factors (i.e., hemophilias or thrombocytopenia) in addition to the post-procedural bleeding risks. Risk factors for increased post-procedural bleeding include: major surgery with extensive tissue injury, procedures involving highly vascularized organs, removal of large colonic polyps, urological procedures, placement of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator/pacemakers, and procedures at sites where minor bleeding would be clinically devastating, such as the brain or spine.³

Thus, communication with the proceduralist or surgeon regarding the anticipated bleeding risk is vital.

Should the patient receive bridging anticoagulation? Patients considered high risk for peri-procedural thrombosis should receive peri-procedural bridging anticoagulation therapy, while those considered low risk should not. For patients with a moderate peri-procedural risk of thrombosis, hospitalists should base the decision on individual and anticipated pre-surgical/procedural thrombotic risks.

Recent evidence suggests that bridging anticoagulation should be avoided in patients undergoing procedures with high bleeding risk who are not at high thromboembolic risk.⁸

Selection and pre-operative discontinuation of bridging medication. Current ACCP guidelines only support the use of unfractionated heparin (UFH) or low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) as bridging anticoagulants.³ Evidence supports the use of either intravenous UFH (goal aPTT 1.5 to two times control aPTT) or enoxaparin (1 mg/kg BID or 1.5 mg/kg once daily).⁹ UFH is preferred over LMWH in patients with chronic kidney disease stage IV or V due to a more predictable pharmacokinetic profile.

Clinicians should initiate a bridge when a patient’s INR falls to less than 2.0 and discontinue the UFH bridge four to six hours prior to the procedure.¹⁰ The recent update to the guidelines now states that LMWH should be discontinued 24, instead of 12, hours prior to the procedure.³

When to restart UHF or LMWH bridge post-procedure. The type of procedure being performed dictates when bridging anticoagulation should resume. In patients who have undergone surgeries that involve high bleeding risk, LMWH should not be administered until 48-72 hours post-surgery (Grade 2C evidence).³ For those patients undergoing surgeries with low bleeding risk, bridging should be resumed approximately 24 hours after the procedure.

Of note, enoxaparin administered in one single daily dose, as compared to divided doses, is associated with a greater risk of post-operative bleeding. UFH bridging should resume post-operatively without a bolus dose at 24 hours in low-risk bleeding cases or 48-72 hours in high-risk bleeding cases (Grade 2C evidence).³

On occasion, unanticipated adjustments to surgical cases—or complications—change the previously determined post-operative bleeding risk. In these instances, the hospitalist and surgeon/proceduralist should review the case and reassess the bleeding risk prior to employing bridging anticoagulation protocols.

When to restart long-term vitamin K antagonists (VKA) post-procedure. In most instances, regardless of pre-operative bleeding risk stratification, the resumption of VKA may occur once post-operative hemostasis has been achieved and the patient has been instructed to resume eating by the proceduralist or surgeon. This most often occurs on the calendar day following surgery, because it takes approximately five days for an INR to achieve therapeutic levels.

Back to the Case

The patient’s history of prosthetic valve with stroke within the preceding six months stratified her to a high thrombotic risk category. Given the high risk of thrombosis, the decision was made to bridge with LMWH. The hospitalist discontinued LMWH 24 hours prior to surgery, and INR was checked on the morning of the procedure.

Although the patient underwent the operation without significant bleeding, the adjustment from an exploratory laparoscopy to an open laparotomy increased her post-operative bleeding risk from medium to high. Therefore, bridging anticoagulation with LMWH was resumed no sooner than 48 hours after the operation. Her warfarin was restarted on the day following surgery, once she resumed her diet.

Bottom Line

Hospitalists must understand both the pre- and post-procedure thrombotic risks, as well as the pre- and post-procedural bleeding risks, when determining the selection and logistics of initiation and cessation of antithrombotic bridging for inpatients.

Drs. McCormick, Carbo, and Li are hospitalists at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. Dr. Kerbel is a hospitalist at the University of California Los Angeles.

References

1. BRIDGE Study Investigators. Bridging anticoagulation: is it needed when warfarin is interrupted around the time of a surgery or procedure? Circulation. 2012;125(12):e496-498.
2. Ansell J, Hirsh J, Hylek E, Jacobson A, Crowther M, Palareti G. Pharmacology and management of the vitamin K antagonists: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th Edition). Chest. 2008;133(6 Suppl):160S-198S.
3. Douketis JD, Spyropoulos AC, Spencer FA, et al. Perioperative management of antithrombotic therapy: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest. 2012;141(2 Suppl):e326S-350S.
4. Kovacs MJ, Kearon C, Rodger M, et al. Single-arm study of bridging therapy with low-molecular-weight heparin for patients at risk of arterial embolism who require temporary interruption of warfarin. Circulation. 2004;110(12):1658-1663.
5. Woods K, Douketis JD, Kathirgamanathan K, Yi Q, Crowther MA. Low-dose oral vitamin K to normalize the international normalized ratio prior to surgery in patients who require temporary interruption of warfarin. J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2007;24(2):93-97.
6. Ortel TL. Perioperative management of patients on chronic antithrombotic therapy. Blood. 2012;120(24):4699-4705.
7. Kaatz S, Douketis JD, Zhou H, Gage BF, White RH. Risk of stroke after surgery in patients with and without chronic atrial fibrillation. J Thromb Haemost. 2010;8(5):884-890.
8. Siegal D, Yudin J, Kaatz S, Douketis JD, Lim W, Spyropoulos AC. Periprocedural heparin bridging in patients receiving vitamin K antagonists: systematic review and meta-analysis of bleeding and thromboembolic rates. Circulation. 2012;126(13):1630-1639.
9. Lee AY, Levine MN, Baker RI, et al. Low-molecular-weight heparin versus a coumarin for the prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003;349(2):146-153.
10. Hirsh J, Raschke R. Heparin and low-molecular-weight heparin: the Seventh ACCP Conference on Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy. Chest. 2004;126(3 Suppl):188S-203S.

Case

A 77-year-old woman with a history of stroke five months prior, bileaflet aortic valve prosthesis, hypertension, and insulin-dependent diabetes is admitted for laparoscopy with lysis of adhesions. The patient stopped her warfarin 10 days prior to admission and initiated enoxaparin five days later. When should the enoxaparin be discontinued?

Intra-operatively, the surgeon converted the case to an open laparotomy for a bowel resection with re-anastomosis; post-operatively, when should the hospitalist reinitiate warfarin and enoxaparin?

Background

Many patients receive chronic oral anticoagulant therapy to minimize their long-term risk of thromboembolic disease. Hospitalists and outpatient providers often care for such patients who need to undergo a medical procedure or operation. The risk of bleeding associated with the medical procedure necessitates an interruption in the patient’s chronic oral anticoagulant therapy. In this scenario, providers are faced with several therapeutic decisions:

• How soon before the procedure should patients stop taking oral anticoagulant?
• During the period of time when the patient is not taking chronic oral anticoagulant, should the patient receive parenteral bridging anticoagulant therapy?
• After the procedure, when should patients restart chronic oral anticoagulant therapy?

‘Bridge’ anticoagulant therapy is the administration of a short-acting parenteral anticoagulant during the peri-operative period, when the patient is not taking chronic oral anticoagulant.¹ The intent of bridge anticoagulant therapy is to minimize both the risk of thromboembolic events and the risk of bleeding during the peri-operative period. Bridging anticoagulant therapy is appropriate for some but not all patients undergoing medical procedures.

The Data

When to discontinue warfarin? Warfarin, the most commonly prescribed oral anticoagulant, achieves its therapeutic effects by antagonizing the actions of endogenous vitamin K-dependent coagulation factors. The decision on when to stop warfarin prior to surgery is dependent on the regeneration time of coagulation factors following the discontinuation of warfarin therapy. Although warfarin’s half-life is typically 36-42 hours, its therapeutic effects typically last up to five days in healthy subjects and often longer in elderly patients.²

Current guidelines recommend the discontinuation of warfarin at least five days prior to surgery (Grade 1C recommendation).³ Despite this recommendation, approximately 7% of patients will still have an international normalized ratio (INR) >1.5 after not taking warfarin for five days.⁴ For this reason, the guidelines recommend that all patients have their INR checked on the day of surgery. For those patients with an INR of 1.5 to 1.9 on the day prior to surgery, there is evidence to show that administration of 1 mg of vitamin K will lower the INR to 1.4 in greater than 90% of cases.⁵

Assessment of peri-procedural thrombotic risk. Knowledge of a patient’s past medical history is critical in helping providers stratify the patient’s peri-procedural thrombotic risk. According to the 2012 American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) guidelines, a history of atrial fibrillation (Afib), mechanical heart valve(s), and previous VTE are independent risk factors for peri-procedural thrombotic events.³ Hospitalists may risk-stratify their patients based on the anticipated annualized rate of thrombosis or embolization: <5%, 5%-10%, or >15% for the respective low, medium, and high-risk groups.⁶

Patients with Afib history. For these patients, the CHADS2 score helps to stratify the risk of peri-procedural thrombosis. Low risk is defined as a CHADS2 score of zero to two, assuming that the two points were not scored for transient ischemic attack (TIA) or cerebrovascular accident (CVA). Any patient with a TIA or CVA within the previous three months is automatically considered high risk. Medium risk is a score of three or four.

In addition to the aforementioned TIA or CVA within the prior three months, high-risk patients also include those with a CHADS2 score of five or six or any patient with a history of rheumatic heart disease.³ Patients with CHADS2 scores less than five but with a TIA or CVA greater than three months in the past are high risk.⁷

Presence of mechanical heart valve(s). For patients with a mechanical heart valve, knowledge of the valve type and location is essential to assist hospitalists in stratifying the risk of peri-procedural thrombosis. The current ACCP guidelines consider patients with bileaflet aortic valve prostheses without additional risk factors for stroke or atrial fibrillation to be low risk.³

The guidelines define the following characteristics as medium risk for patients: the presence of a bileaflet valve with additional risk factors for stroke such as atrial fibrillation, age greater than 75, prior CVA (more than six months prior), hypertension, diabetes mellitus, or congestive heart failure.

Patients at high risk include those with aortic valve prosthesis with a caged-ball or tilting disc, patients with mitral valve prosthesis, and those with a mechanical valve with CVA or TIA during the prior six months.⁷

History of previous VTE. For these patients, the duration of time that has passed since their last VTE event is an important factor in helping to stratify their risk for peri-procedural thrombosis. Hospitalists should consider patients low risk if they had VTE more than one year prior to the procedure.

Medium-risk patients are those with VTE events in the preceding three to twelve months, those with recurrent VTE, those with active cancer who have received cancer therapy within six months, or patients with non-severe thrombophilias (e.g. heterogenous factor V Leiden or prothrombin gene mutation).

Hospitalists should identify high-risk patients as those with VTE that has occurred within three months or those with severe thrombophilias such as Protein C or S deficiency, antithrombin III deficiency, or antiphospholipid antibody syndrome.

Assessment of procedure-related thrombotic risk. The type of anticipated procedure itself conveys peri-procedural thrombotic risk. For example, heart valve replacement, carotid endarterectomy, or other major vascular surgeries automatically stratify patients in the high-risk category, regardless of underlying medication condition.

Assessment of bleeding risk. Hospitalists must identify any preexisting bleeding risk factors (i.e., hemophilias or thrombocytopenia) in addition to the post-procedural bleeding risks. Risk factors for increased post-procedural bleeding include: major surgery with extensive tissue injury, procedures involving highly vascularized organs, removal of large colonic polyps, urological procedures, placement of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator/pacemakers, and procedures at sites where minor bleeding would be clinically devastating, such as the brain or spine.³

Thus, communication with the proceduralist or surgeon regarding the anticipated bleeding risk is vital.

Should the patient receive bridging anticoagulation? Patients considered high risk for peri-procedural thrombosis should receive peri-procedural bridging anticoagulation therapy, while those considered low risk should not. For patients with a moderate peri-procedural risk of thrombosis, hospitalists should base the decision on individual and anticipated pre-surgical/procedural thrombotic risks.

Recent evidence suggests that bridging anticoagulation should be avoided in patients undergoing procedures with high bleeding risk who are not at high thromboembolic risk.⁸

Selection and pre-operative discontinuation of bridging medication. Current ACCP guidelines only support the use of unfractionated heparin (UFH) or low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) as bridging anticoagulants.³ Evidence supports the use of either intravenous UFH (goal aPTT 1.5 to two times control aPTT) or enoxaparin (1 mg/kg BID or 1.5 mg/kg once daily).⁹ UFH is preferred over LMWH in patients with chronic kidney disease stage IV or V due to a more predictable pharmacokinetic profile.

Clinicians should initiate a bridge when a patient’s INR falls to less than 2.0 and discontinue the UFH bridge four to six hours prior to the procedure.¹⁰ The recent update to the guidelines now states that LMWH should be discontinued 24, instead of 12, hours prior to the procedure.³

When to restart UHF or LMWH bridge post-procedure. The type of procedure being performed dictates when bridging anticoagulation should resume. In patients who have undergone surgeries that involve high bleeding risk, LMWH should not be administered until 48-72 hours post-surgery (Grade 2C evidence).³ For those patients undergoing surgeries with low bleeding risk, bridging should be resumed approximately 24 hours after the procedure.

Of note, enoxaparin administered in one single daily dose, as compared to divided doses, is associated with a greater risk of post-operative bleeding. UFH bridging should resume post-operatively without a bolus dose at 24 hours in low-risk bleeding cases or 48-72 hours in high-risk bleeding cases (Grade 2C evidence).³

On occasion, unanticipated adjustments to surgical cases—or complications—change the previously determined post-operative bleeding risk. In these instances, the hospitalist and surgeon/proceduralist should review the case and reassess the bleeding risk prior to employing bridging anticoagulation protocols.

When to restart long-term vitamin K antagonists (VKA) post-procedure. In most instances, regardless of pre-operative bleeding risk stratification, the resumption of VKA may occur once post-operative hemostasis has been achieved and the patient has been instructed to resume eating by the proceduralist or surgeon. This most often occurs on the calendar day following surgery, because it takes approximately five days for an INR to achieve therapeutic levels.

Back to the Case

The patient’s history of prosthetic valve with stroke within the preceding six months stratified her to a high thrombotic risk category. Given the high risk of thrombosis, the decision was made to bridge with LMWH. The hospitalist discontinued LMWH 24 hours prior to surgery, and INR was checked on the morning of the procedure.

Although the patient underwent the operation without significant bleeding, the adjustment from an exploratory laparoscopy to an open laparotomy increased her post-operative bleeding risk from medium to high. Therefore, bridging anticoagulation with LMWH was resumed no sooner than 48 hours after the operation. Her warfarin was restarted on the day following surgery, once she resumed her diet.

Bottom Line

Hospitalists must understand both the pre- and post-procedure thrombotic risks, as well as the pre- and post-procedural bleeding risks, when determining the selection and logistics of initiation and cessation of antithrombotic bridging for inpatients.

Drs. McCormick, Carbo, and Li are hospitalists at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston. Dr. Kerbel is a hospitalist at the University of California Los Angeles.

References

1. BRIDGE Study Investigators. Bridging anticoagulation: is it needed when warfarin is interrupted around the time of a surgery or procedure? Circulation. 2012;125(12):e496-498.
2. Ansell J, Hirsh J, Hylek E, Jacobson A, Crowther M, Palareti G. Pharmacology and management of the vitamin K antagonists: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th Edition). Chest. 2008;133(6 Suppl):160S-198S.
3. Douketis JD, Spyropoulos AC, Spencer FA, et al. Perioperative management of antithrombotic therapy: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest. 2012;141(2 Suppl):e326S-350S.
4. Kovacs MJ, Kearon C, Rodger M, et al. Single-arm study of bridging therapy with low-molecular-weight heparin for patients at risk of arterial embolism who require temporary interruption of warfarin. Circulation. 2004;110(12):1658-1663.
5. Woods K, Douketis JD, Kathirgamanathan K, Yi Q, Crowther MA. Low-dose oral vitamin K to normalize the international normalized ratio prior to surgery in patients who require temporary interruption of warfarin. J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2007;24(2):93-97.
6. Ortel TL. Perioperative management of patients on chronic antithrombotic therapy. Blood. 2012;120(24):4699-4705.
7. Kaatz S, Douketis JD, Zhou H, Gage BF, White RH. Risk of stroke after surgery in patients with and without chronic atrial fibrillation. J Thromb Haemost. 2010;8(5):884-890.
8. Siegal D, Yudin J, Kaatz S, Douketis JD, Lim W, Spyropoulos AC. Periprocedural heparin bridging in patients receiving vitamin K antagonists: systematic review and meta-analysis of bleeding and thromboembolic rates. Circulation. 2012;126(13):1630-1639.
9. Lee AY, Levine MN, Baker RI, et al. Low-molecular-weight heparin versus a coumarin for the prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003;349(2):146-153.
10. Hirsh J, Raschke R. Heparin and low-molecular-weight heparin: the Seventh ACCP Conference on Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy. Chest. 2004;126(3 Suppl):188S-203S.

Weijen Chang, MD, SFHM, FAAP

Clinical question: Are clinical outcomes for dexamethasone equivalent to currently recommended corticosteroids for the treatment of children with mild to moderate asthma exacerbations?

Background: National and international guidelines uniformly agree that administration of a systemic corticosteroid is appropriate for children hospitalized with mild to moderate asthma exacerbations. Based on available literature, a 2007 update to an expert panel report developed by the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program recommended prednisone, methylprednisolone, or prednisolone at 1-2 mg/kg daily in two divided doses (maximum 60 mg/day).

Recent small studies have begun to examine the use of dexamethasone in acute asthma exacerbations. The longer half-life of dexamethasone enables shorter treatment regimens, which can improve compliance. Additionally, its taste is considered superior compared to currently recommended corticosteroids.

Study designs: Two meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCT).

Setting: Six RCTs published between 1997 and 2008.

Synopsis: Both groups searched Medline for RCTs using the search terms “dexamethasone” and “asthma”; additional search terms included “decadron” and “status asthmaticus.” Limiting the search to a pediatric population was achieved by either using appropriate medical subject heading terms or by using an age limiter of ≤18 years of age.

Both groups performed meta-analyses of clinical outcomes, including rates of revisit to a healthcare provider and symptomatic improvement. Adverse effects, specifically vomiting, also underwent meta-analysis by both groups.

Interestingly, both groups analyzed the same six studies, and all six studies were in the ED setting. The dexamethasone regimens in the analyzed studies included single-dose intramuscular (0.3-1.7 mg/kg), single-dose oral (0.6 mg/kg), or two-dose (0.6 mg/kg/day given once daily) oral regimens. These were compared to three- or five-day regimens of prednisone or prednisolone. Not surprisingly, both groups reached similar conclusions.

Regarding symptomatic improvement and revisit rates, there was no significant difference between dexamethasone and prednisone/prednisolone groups. Vomiting was less likely in the dexamethasone groups overall.

Bottom line: Meta-analyses of small RCTs examining dexamethasone in the treatment of acute asthma exacerbations show that it is equivalent to prednisone/prednisolone in symptomatic improvement and risk of revisit, and possibly superior with regard to the risk of vomiting.

Citations: Meyer JS, Riese J, Biondi E. Is dexamethasone an effective alternative to oral prednisone in the treatment of pediatric asthma exacerbations? Hosp Pediatr. 2014;4(3):172-180. Keeney GE, Gray MP, Morrison AK. Dexamethasone for acute asthma exacerbations in children: a meta-analysis. Pediatrics. 2014;133(3):493-499.

Reviewed by Pediatric Editor Weijen Chang, MD, SFHM, FAAP, associate clinical professor of medicine and pediatrics at the University of California at San Diego School of Medicine, and a hospitalist at both UCSD Medical Center and Rady Children’s Hospital.

Weijen Chang, MD, SFHM, FAAP

Clinical question: Are clinical outcomes for dexamethasone equivalent to currently recommended corticosteroids for the treatment of children with mild to moderate asthma exacerbations?

Background: National and international guidelines uniformly agree that administration of a systemic corticosteroid is appropriate for children hospitalized with mild to moderate asthma exacerbations. Based on available literature, a 2007 update to an expert panel report developed by the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program recommended prednisone, methylprednisolone, or prednisolone at 1-2 mg/kg daily in two divided doses (maximum 60 mg/day).

Recent small studies have begun to examine the use of dexamethasone in acute asthma exacerbations. The longer half-life of dexamethasone enables shorter treatment regimens, which can improve compliance. Additionally, its taste is considered superior compared to currently recommended corticosteroids.

Study designs: Two meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCT).

Setting: Six RCTs published between 1997 and 2008.

Synopsis: Both groups searched Medline for RCTs using the search terms “dexamethasone” and “asthma”; additional search terms included “decadron” and “status asthmaticus.” Limiting the search to a pediatric population was achieved by either using appropriate medical subject heading terms or by using an age limiter of ≤18 years of age.

Both groups performed meta-analyses of clinical outcomes, including rates of revisit to a healthcare provider and symptomatic improvement. Adverse effects, specifically vomiting, also underwent meta-analysis by both groups.

Interestingly, both groups analyzed the same six studies, and all six studies were in the ED setting. The dexamethasone regimens in the analyzed studies included single-dose intramuscular (0.3-1.7 mg/kg), single-dose oral (0.6 mg/kg), or two-dose (0.6 mg/kg/day given once daily) oral regimens. These were compared to three- or five-day regimens of prednisone or prednisolone. Not surprisingly, both groups reached similar conclusions.

Regarding symptomatic improvement and revisit rates, there was no significant difference between dexamethasone and prednisone/prednisolone groups. Vomiting was less likely in the dexamethasone groups overall.

Bottom line: Meta-analyses of small RCTs examining dexamethasone in the treatment of acute asthma exacerbations show that it is equivalent to prednisone/prednisolone in symptomatic improvement and risk of revisit, and possibly superior with regard to the risk of vomiting.

Citations: Meyer JS, Riese J, Biondi E. Is dexamethasone an effective alternative to oral prednisone in the treatment of pediatric asthma exacerbations? Hosp Pediatr. 2014;4(3):172-180. Keeney GE, Gray MP, Morrison AK. Dexamethasone for acute asthma exacerbations in children: a meta-analysis. Pediatrics. 2014;133(3):493-499.

Reviewed by Pediatric Editor Weijen Chang, MD, SFHM, FAAP, associate clinical professor of medicine and pediatrics at the University of California at San Diego School of Medicine, and a hospitalist at both UCSD Medical Center and Rady Children’s Hospital.

Weijen Chang, MD, SFHM, FAAP

Clinical question: Are clinical outcomes for dexamethasone equivalent to currently recommended corticosteroids for the treatment of children with mild to moderate asthma exacerbations?

Background: National and international guidelines uniformly agree that administration of a systemic corticosteroid is appropriate for children hospitalized with mild to moderate asthma exacerbations. Based on available literature, a 2007 update to an expert panel report developed by the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program recommended prednisone, methylprednisolone, or prednisolone at 1-2 mg/kg daily in two divided doses (maximum 60 mg/day).

Recent small studies have begun to examine the use of dexamethasone in acute asthma exacerbations. The longer half-life of dexamethasone enables shorter treatment regimens, which can improve compliance. Additionally, its taste is considered superior compared to currently recommended corticosteroids.

Study designs: Two meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCT).

Setting: Six RCTs published between 1997 and 2008.

Synopsis: Both groups searched Medline for RCTs using the search terms “dexamethasone” and “asthma”; additional search terms included “decadron” and “status asthmaticus.” Limiting the search to a pediatric population was achieved by either using appropriate medical subject heading terms or by using an age limiter of ≤18 years of age.

Both groups performed meta-analyses of clinical outcomes, including rates of revisit to a healthcare provider and symptomatic improvement. Adverse effects, specifically vomiting, also underwent meta-analysis by both groups.

Interestingly, both groups analyzed the same six studies, and all six studies were in the ED setting. The dexamethasone regimens in the analyzed studies included single-dose intramuscular (0.3-1.7 mg/kg), single-dose oral (0.6 mg/kg), or two-dose (0.6 mg/kg/day given once daily) oral regimens. These were compared to three- or five-day regimens of prednisone or prednisolone. Not surprisingly, both groups reached similar conclusions.

Regarding symptomatic improvement and revisit rates, there was no significant difference between dexamethasone and prednisone/prednisolone groups. Vomiting was less likely in the dexamethasone groups overall.

Bottom line: Meta-analyses of small RCTs examining dexamethasone in the treatment of acute asthma exacerbations show that it is equivalent to prednisone/prednisolone in symptomatic improvement and risk of revisit, and possibly superior with regard to the risk of vomiting.

Citations: Meyer JS, Riese J, Biondi E. Is dexamethasone an effective alternative to oral prednisone in the treatment of pediatric asthma exacerbations? Hosp Pediatr. 2014;4(3):172-180. Keeney GE, Gray MP, Morrison AK. Dexamethasone for acute asthma exacerbations in children: a meta-analysis. Pediatrics. 2014;133(3):493-499.

Reviewed by Pediatric Editor Weijen Chang, MD, SFHM, FAAP, associate clinical professor of medicine and pediatrics at the University of California at San Diego School of Medicine, and a hospitalist at both UCSD Medical Center and Rady Children’s Hospital.

Clinical question: Does targeting a higher mean arterial pressure (MAP) in patients with septic shock lead to decreased mortality compared with targeting a more typical MAP range?

Background: The ideal blood pressure target for patients with septic shock is not currently known. There is some clinical evidence that patients with chronic arterial hypertension may require higher blood pressure to sustain kidney function.

Study design: Multicenter, randomized, stratified, open-label clinical trial.

Setting: ICUs at 29 centers in France

Synopsis: Researchers randomized 776 patients with septic shock to receive vasopressor treatment to maintain a MAP of 80-85 mmHg (high-target group) or 65-70 mmHg (low-target group). There was no significant difference between groups in the primary outcome of death at 28 days (HR in the high target group 1.07; 95% CI 0.84-1.38; P=0.57).

In patients with chronic arterial hypertension, those who were randomized to the high-target group had a reduced risk of doubling of plasma creatinine or need for renal-replacement therapy from days one to seven. Patients in the high-target group received larger amounts of vasopressors and for a longer period of time. There was no difference between the groups in the overall incidence of serious adverse events, though significantly more patients in the high-target group (6.7%) developed new onset atrial fibrillation compared with those in the low-target group (2.8%).

Bottom line: Mortality at 28 days was not significantly different in patients with septic shock who were randomized to a higher MAP target compared to patients who had a lower MAP target; this lower target encompasses the 65 mmHg target that is listed in the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines.

Citation: Asfar P, Meziani F, Hamel JF, et al. High versus low blood-pressure target in patients with septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(17):1583-1593.

Clinical question: Does targeting a higher mean arterial pressure (MAP) in patients with septic shock lead to decreased mortality compared with targeting a more typical MAP range?

Background: The ideal blood pressure target for patients with septic shock is not currently known. There is some clinical evidence that patients with chronic arterial hypertension may require higher blood pressure to sustain kidney function.

Study design: Multicenter, randomized, stratified, open-label clinical trial.

Setting: ICUs at 29 centers in France

Synopsis: Researchers randomized 776 patients with septic shock to receive vasopressor treatment to maintain a MAP of 80-85 mmHg (high-target group) or 65-70 mmHg (low-target group). There was no significant difference between groups in the primary outcome of death at 28 days (HR in the high target group 1.07; 95% CI 0.84-1.38; P=0.57).

In patients with chronic arterial hypertension, those who were randomized to the high-target group had a reduced risk of doubling of plasma creatinine or need for renal-replacement therapy from days one to seven. Patients in the high-target group received larger amounts of vasopressors and for a longer period of time. There was no difference between the groups in the overall incidence of serious adverse events, though significantly more patients in the high-target group (6.7%) developed new onset atrial fibrillation compared with those in the low-target group (2.8%).

Bottom line: Mortality at 28 days was not significantly different in patients with septic shock who were randomized to a higher MAP target compared to patients who had a lower MAP target; this lower target encompasses the 65 mmHg target that is listed in the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines.

Citation: Asfar P, Meziani F, Hamel JF, et al. High versus low blood-pressure target in patients with septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(17):1583-1593.

Clinical question: Does targeting a higher mean arterial pressure (MAP) in patients with septic shock lead to decreased mortality compared with targeting a more typical MAP range?

Background: The ideal blood pressure target for patients with septic shock is not currently known. There is some clinical evidence that patients with chronic arterial hypertension may require higher blood pressure to sustain kidney function.

Study design: Multicenter, randomized, stratified, open-label clinical trial.

Setting: ICUs at 29 centers in France

Synopsis: Researchers randomized 776 patients with septic shock to receive vasopressor treatment to maintain a MAP of 80-85 mmHg (high-target group) or 65-70 mmHg (low-target group). There was no significant difference between groups in the primary outcome of death at 28 days (HR in the high target group 1.07; 95% CI 0.84-1.38; P=0.57).

In patients with chronic arterial hypertension, those who were randomized to the high-target group had a reduced risk of doubling of plasma creatinine or need for renal-replacement therapy from days one to seven. Patients in the high-target group received larger amounts of vasopressors and for a longer period of time. There was no difference between the groups in the overall incidence of serious adverse events, though significantly more patients in the high-target group (6.7%) developed new onset atrial fibrillation compared with those in the low-target group (2.8%).

Bottom line: Mortality at 28 days was not significantly different in patients with septic shock who were randomized to a higher MAP target compared to patients who had a lower MAP target; this lower target encompasses the 65 mmHg target that is listed in the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines.

Citation: Asfar P, Meziani F, Hamel JF, et al. High versus low blood-pressure target in patients with septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(17):1583-1593.

Clinical question: Do different thresholds for red blood cell (RBC) transfusion influence the risk of infection, and does leukocyte reduction also influence the risk of infection?

Background: RBC transfusion is a common and costly medical intervention performed across U.S. hospitals. Scientists suspect that RBC transfusion may have immunomodulatory properties and may affect a patient’s risk of acquiring various infections.

Study design: Meta-analysis and systematic review.

Setting: International adult, pediatric, obstetric medical and surgical wards, and ICUs.

Synopsis: Eighteen studies performed were included in the meta-analysis of published randomized trials comparing restrictive to liberal RBC transfusion strategies in which infectious outcomes were reported. Patient enrollment spanned from 1994 to 2012. Six of the trials included pediatric patients. For adult patients, the restrictive RBC transfusion threshold ranged from 6.4–9.7 g/dL, while the liberal target ranged from 9-11.3 g/dL in included trials.

The overall pooled risk ratio for the association of restrictive vs. liberal transfusion threshold with infection was 0.99 (95% CI, 0.78-0.99; P=0.033). A decreased risk of infection with the use of a restrictive transfusion compared with a liberal threshold persisted in studies of leukocyte-reduced blood products.

Bottom line: Restrictive RBC transfusion thresholds are associated with a decreased risk of acquiring healthcare-associated infections compared with liberal transfusion thresholds.

Citation: Rohde JM, Dimcheff DE, Blumberg N, et al. Health care-associated infection after red blood cell transfusion: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2014;311(13):1317-1326.

Clinical question: Do different thresholds for red blood cell (RBC) transfusion influence the risk of infection, and does leukocyte reduction also influence the risk of infection?

Background: RBC transfusion is a common and costly medical intervention performed across U.S. hospitals. Scientists suspect that RBC transfusion may have immunomodulatory properties and may affect a patient’s risk of acquiring various infections.

Study design: Meta-analysis and systematic review.

Setting: International adult, pediatric, obstetric medical and surgical wards, and ICUs.

Synopsis: Eighteen studies performed were included in the meta-analysis of published randomized trials comparing restrictive to liberal RBC transfusion strategies in which infectious outcomes were reported. Patient enrollment spanned from 1994 to 2012. Six of the trials included pediatric patients. For adult patients, the restrictive RBC transfusion threshold ranged from 6.4–9.7 g/dL, while the liberal target ranged from 9-11.3 g/dL in included trials.

The overall pooled risk ratio for the association of restrictive vs. liberal transfusion threshold with infection was 0.99 (95% CI, 0.78-0.99; P=0.033). A decreased risk of infection with the use of a restrictive transfusion compared with a liberal threshold persisted in studies of leukocyte-reduced blood products.

Bottom line: Restrictive RBC transfusion thresholds are associated with a decreased risk of acquiring healthcare-associated infections compared with liberal transfusion thresholds.

Citation: Rohde JM, Dimcheff DE, Blumberg N, et al. Health care-associated infection after red blood cell transfusion: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2014;311(13):1317-1326.

Clinical question: Do different thresholds for red blood cell (RBC) transfusion influence the risk of infection, and does leukocyte reduction also influence the risk of infection?

Background: RBC transfusion is a common and costly medical intervention performed across U.S. hospitals. Scientists suspect that RBC transfusion may have immunomodulatory properties and may affect a patient’s risk of acquiring various infections.

Study design: Meta-analysis and systematic review.

Setting: International adult, pediatric, obstetric medical and surgical wards, and ICUs.

Synopsis: Eighteen studies performed were included in the meta-analysis of published randomized trials comparing restrictive to liberal RBC transfusion strategies in which infectious outcomes were reported. Patient enrollment spanned from 1994 to 2012. Six of the trials included pediatric patients. For adult patients, the restrictive RBC transfusion threshold ranged from 6.4–9.7 g/dL, while the liberal target ranged from 9-11.3 g/dL in included trials.

The overall pooled risk ratio for the association of restrictive vs. liberal transfusion threshold with infection was 0.99 (95% CI, 0.78-0.99; P=0.033). A decreased risk of infection with the use of a restrictive transfusion compared with a liberal threshold persisted in studies of leukocyte-reduced blood products.

Bottom line: Restrictive RBC transfusion thresholds are associated with a decreased risk of acquiring healthcare-associated infections compared with liberal transfusion thresholds.

Citation: Rohde JM, Dimcheff DE, Blumberg N, et al. Health care-associated infection after red blood cell transfusion: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2014;311(13):1317-1326.

Clinical question: Are CT scans of the head diagnostically helpful in hospitalized patients with delirium?

Background: Studies have investigated the use of head CT scans for the evaluation of delirium in the ED, but there is scant information about the utility of head CT scans in the assessment of the hospitalized patient with delirium.

Study design: Retrospective medical record review.

Setting: Large academic medical center in Massachusetts.

Synopsis: This study was designed to assess whether head CT scans obtained on patients without a history of head trauma, fall, known intracranial process, or new neurologic deficit were useful in the workup of delirium. During a two-year period, 1,714 CT scans of the head were performed, and 398 listed the indication for the scan as “delirium, altered mental status, confusion, encephalopathy, somnolence, or unresponsiveness.” Patients with the risk factors of trauma, fall, new neurologic deficit, and known intracranial process were excluded, and 220 patients’ records were reviewed.

Only six head CT scans (2.7%) revealed an acute intracranial process. Many chronic findings were noted, such as atrophy, small vessel ischemic disease, and old stroke. The authors found that the diagnostic utility was low for a head CT scan in a patient with delirium but noted no risk factors. There may be a subset of patients in whom the diagnostic yield is higher, such as those on anticoagulation or more obtunded patients.

Bottom line: In delirious inpatients without a history of head trauma, fall, known intracranial process, or new neurologic deficit, head CT scan has low diagnostic utility.

Citation: Theisen-Toupal J, Breu AC, Mattison ML, Arnaout R. Diagnostic yield of head computed tomography for the hospitalized medical patient with delirium [published online ahead of print April 15, 2014]. J Hosp Med.

Clinical question: Are CT scans of the head diagnostically helpful in hospitalized patients with delirium?

Background: Studies have investigated the use of head CT scans for the evaluation of delirium in the ED, but there is scant information about the utility of head CT scans in the assessment of the hospitalized patient with delirium.

Study design: Retrospective medical record review.

Setting: Large academic medical center in Massachusetts.

Synopsis: This study was designed to assess whether head CT scans obtained on patients without a history of head trauma, fall, known intracranial process, or new neurologic deficit were useful in the workup of delirium. During a two-year period, 1,714 CT scans of the head were performed, and 398 listed the indication for the scan as “delirium, altered mental status, confusion, encephalopathy, somnolence, or unresponsiveness.” Patients with the risk factors of trauma, fall, new neurologic deficit, and known intracranial process were excluded, and 220 patients’ records were reviewed.

Only six head CT scans (2.7%) revealed an acute intracranial process. Many chronic findings were noted, such as atrophy, small vessel ischemic disease, and old stroke. The authors found that the diagnostic utility was low for a head CT scan in a patient with delirium but noted no risk factors. There may be a subset of patients in whom the diagnostic yield is higher, such as those on anticoagulation or more obtunded patients.

Bottom line: In delirious inpatients without a history of head trauma, fall, known intracranial process, or new neurologic deficit, head CT scan has low diagnostic utility.

Citation: Theisen-Toupal J, Breu AC, Mattison ML, Arnaout R. Diagnostic yield of head computed tomography for the hospitalized medical patient with delirium [published online ahead of print April 15, 2014]. J Hosp Med.

Clinical question: Are CT scans of the head diagnostically helpful in hospitalized patients with delirium?

Background: Studies have investigated the use of head CT scans for the evaluation of delirium in the ED, but there is scant information about the utility of head CT scans in the assessment of the hospitalized patient with delirium.

Study design: Retrospective medical record review.

Setting: Large academic medical center in Massachusetts.

Synopsis: This study was designed to assess whether head CT scans obtained on patients without a history of head trauma, fall, known intracranial process, or new neurologic deficit were useful in the workup of delirium. During a two-year period, 1,714 CT scans of the head were performed, and 398 listed the indication for the scan as “delirium, altered mental status, confusion, encephalopathy, somnolence, or unresponsiveness.” Patients with the risk factors of trauma, fall, new neurologic deficit, and known intracranial process were excluded, and 220 patients’ records were reviewed.

Only six head CT scans (2.7%) revealed an acute intracranial process. Many chronic findings were noted, such as atrophy, small vessel ischemic disease, and old stroke. The authors found that the diagnostic utility was low for a head CT scan in a patient with delirium but noted no risk factors. There may be a subset of patients in whom the diagnostic yield is higher, such as those on anticoagulation or more obtunded patients.

Bottom line: In delirious inpatients without a history of head trauma, fall, known intracranial process, or new neurologic deficit, head CT scan has low diagnostic utility.

Citation: Theisen-Toupal J, Breu AC, Mattison ML, Arnaout R. Diagnostic yield of head computed tomography for the hospitalized medical patient with delirium [published online ahead of print April 15, 2014]. J Hosp Med.

Clinical question: Does an increased hospitalist workload lead to increased costs, longer lengths of stay, and worse medical outcomes?

Background: There is evidence that increased resident physician workloads contribute to adverse medical outcomes, but this has not been assessed in the hospital medicine setting. In a recent national survey of hospitalists, almost half reported that they had managed workloads that felt “unsafe.”

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Academic community health system in Delaware.

Synopsis: This study examined the effect of hospital occupancy and hospitalist workloads, using both daily relative value units (RVUs) and hospitalists’ daily patient census, on length of stay (LOS), hospital costs, inpatient mortality, activation of rapid response system (a proxy measure for decompensation), and 30-day readmission rates. Authors reviewed 20,241 hospitalizations and found that when hospitalist daily censuses exceeded 15 patients (or RVU of 25), length of stay increased “exponentially.” Increased workloads were not associated with worsening medical outcomes or diminished patient satisfaction scores.

The authors caution that the significantly increased costs and LOS at higher patient censuses raise concerns that hospital policies that incentivize productivity may “undermine larger system efforts targeting efficiency and costs of care.” They also suggest that hospitalist groups’ staffing approaches need to accommodate fluctuations in hospital occupancy.

Bottom line: When a hospitalist’s workload exceeds a census of 15 patients, the length of stay and cost may increase dramatically.

Article Reference: Elliott DJ, Young RS, Brice J, Aguiar R, Kolm P. Effect of hospitalist workload on the quality and efficiency of care. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(5):786-793.

Clinical question: Does an increased hospitalist workload lead to increased costs, longer lengths of stay, and worse medical outcomes?

Background: There is evidence that increased resident physician workloads contribute to adverse medical outcomes, but this has not been assessed in the hospital medicine setting. In a recent national survey of hospitalists, almost half reported that they had managed workloads that felt “unsafe.”

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Academic community health system in Delaware.

Synopsis: This study examined the effect of hospital occupancy and hospitalist workloads, using both daily relative value units (RVUs) and hospitalists’ daily patient census, on length of stay (LOS), hospital costs, inpatient mortality, activation of rapid response system (a proxy measure for decompensation), and 30-day readmission rates. Authors reviewed 20,241 hospitalizations and found that when hospitalist daily censuses exceeded 15 patients (or RVU of 25), length of stay increased “exponentially.” Increased workloads were not associated with worsening medical outcomes or diminished patient satisfaction scores.

The authors caution that the significantly increased costs and LOS at higher patient censuses raise concerns that hospital policies that incentivize productivity may “undermine larger system efforts targeting efficiency and costs of care.” They also suggest that hospitalist groups’ staffing approaches need to accommodate fluctuations in hospital occupancy.

Bottom line: When a hospitalist’s workload exceeds a census of 15 patients, the length of stay and cost may increase dramatically.

Article Reference: Elliott DJ, Young RS, Brice J, Aguiar R, Kolm P. Effect of hospitalist workload on the quality and efficiency of care. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(5):786-793.

Clinical question: Does an increased hospitalist workload lead to increased costs, longer lengths of stay, and worse medical outcomes?

Background: There is evidence that increased resident physician workloads contribute to adverse medical outcomes, but this has not been assessed in the hospital medicine setting. In a recent national survey of hospitalists, almost half reported that they had managed workloads that felt “unsafe.”

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Academic community health system in Delaware.

Synopsis: This study examined the effect of hospital occupancy and hospitalist workloads, using both daily relative value units (RVUs) and hospitalists’ daily patient census, on length of stay (LOS), hospital costs, inpatient mortality, activation of rapid response system (a proxy measure for decompensation), and 30-day readmission rates. Authors reviewed 20,241 hospitalizations and found that when hospitalist daily censuses exceeded 15 patients (or RVU of 25), length of stay increased “exponentially.” Increased workloads were not associated with worsening medical outcomes or diminished patient satisfaction scores.

The authors caution that the significantly increased costs and LOS at higher patient censuses raise concerns that hospital policies that incentivize productivity may “undermine larger system efforts targeting efficiency and costs of care.” They also suggest that hospitalist groups’ staffing approaches need to accommodate fluctuations in hospital occupancy.

Bottom line: When a hospitalist’s workload exceeds a census of 15 patients, the length of stay and cost may increase dramatically.

Article Reference: Elliott DJ, Young RS, Brice J, Aguiar R, Kolm P. Effect of hospitalist workload on the quality and efficiency of care. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(5):786-793.

Clinical question: In patients at risk for vascular complications undergoing noncardiac surgery, do the benefits of aspirin outweigh the risks?

Background: Aspirin has been shown to reduce the rate of myocardial infarction (MI) and major vascular events in patients not undergoing surgery. The benefits of initiating or continuing aspirin in patients undergoing surgery, balanced by the potential increase in bleeding risk, have not been widely studied.

Study design: International randomized placebo-controlled trial with a 2-by-2 factorial design.

Setting: One hundred thirty-five hospitals in 23 countries, from 2010-2013.

Synopsis: The study enrolled 10,010 patients, with a mean age of 68.6 years. Inclusion criteria were age >45 years old and risk for vascular complications, defined as a history of coronary artery disease, peripheral vascular disease, or cerebrovascular accident; major vascular surgery; or at least three of the following: age >70, congestive heart failure, transient ischemic attack, hypertension, diabetes mellitus type 2, creatinine >2 mg/dL, recent smoking, undergoing major surgery, or urgent/emergent surgery.

Groups were stratified by current use of aspirin and then assigned to aspirin or placebo; patients on aspirin held it a median of seven days before surgery. Those in the active group received 200 mg of aspirin pre-operatively. Patients not previously on aspirin then continued aspirin at 100 mg/day for 30 days; those on aspirin previously received 100 mg/day for seven days and then resumed their prior dose.

No difference was found in the primary outcome of death or non-fatal MI at 30 days, but aspirin was noted to increase the risk of major bleeding (4.6% vs. 3.8%, P=0.04), most commonly occurring at the surgical site (78.3%) and the GI tract (9.3%). Because major bleeding can be associated with peri-operative MI, this may have counteracted the cardiovascular benefits of aspirin.

Bottom line: Peri-operative administration of aspirin to patients at risk for vascular complications undergoing noncardiac surgery does not decrease the risk of peri-operative death or MI and may increase the risk of post-operative bleeding.

Citation: Devereaux PJ, Mrkobrada M, Sessler DI, et al. POISE-2 Investigators. Aspirin in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(16):1494-1503.

Clinical question: In patients at risk for vascular complications undergoing noncardiac surgery, do the benefits of aspirin outweigh the risks?

Background: Aspirin has been shown to reduce the rate of myocardial infarction (MI) and major vascular events in patients not undergoing surgery. The benefits of initiating or continuing aspirin in patients undergoing surgery, balanced by the potential increase in bleeding risk, have not been widely studied.

Study design: International randomized placebo-controlled trial with a 2-by-2 factorial design.

Setting: One hundred thirty-five hospitals in 23 countries, from 2010-2013.

Synopsis: The study enrolled 10,010 patients, with a mean age of 68.6 years. Inclusion criteria were age >45 years old and risk for vascular complications, defined as a history of coronary artery disease, peripheral vascular disease, or cerebrovascular accident; major vascular surgery; or at least three of the following: age >70, congestive heart failure, transient ischemic attack, hypertension, diabetes mellitus type 2, creatinine >2 mg/dL, recent smoking, undergoing major surgery, or urgent/emergent surgery.

Groups were stratified by current use of aspirin and then assigned to aspirin or placebo; patients on aspirin held it a median of seven days before surgery. Those in the active group received 200 mg of aspirin pre-operatively. Patients not previously on aspirin then continued aspirin at 100 mg/day for 30 days; those on aspirin previously received 100 mg/day for seven days and then resumed their prior dose.

No difference was found in the primary outcome of death or non-fatal MI at 30 days, but aspirin was noted to increase the risk of major bleeding (4.6% vs. 3.8%, P=0.04), most commonly occurring at the surgical site (78.3%) and the GI tract (9.3%). Because major bleeding can be associated with peri-operative MI, this may have counteracted the cardiovascular benefits of aspirin.

Bottom line: Peri-operative administration of aspirin to patients at risk for vascular complications undergoing noncardiac surgery does not decrease the risk of peri-operative death or MI and may increase the risk of post-operative bleeding.

Citation: Devereaux PJ, Mrkobrada M, Sessler DI, et al. POISE-2 Investigators. Aspirin in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(16):1494-1503.

Clinical question: In patients at risk for vascular complications undergoing noncardiac surgery, do the benefits of aspirin outweigh the risks?

Background: Aspirin has been shown to reduce the rate of myocardial infarction (MI) and major vascular events in patients not undergoing surgery. The benefits of initiating or continuing aspirin in patients undergoing surgery, balanced by the potential increase in bleeding risk, have not been widely studied.

Study design: International randomized placebo-controlled trial with a 2-by-2 factorial design.

Setting: One hundred thirty-five hospitals in 23 countries, from 2010-2013.

Synopsis: The study enrolled 10,010 patients, with a mean age of 68.6 years. Inclusion criteria were age >45 years old and risk for vascular complications, defined as a history of coronary artery disease, peripheral vascular disease, or cerebrovascular accident; major vascular surgery; or at least three of the following: age >70, congestive heart failure, transient ischemic attack, hypertension, diabetes mellitus type 2, creatinine >2 mg/dL, recent smoking, undergoing major surgery, or urgent/emergent surgery.

Groups were stratified by current use of aspirin and then assigned to aspirin or placebo; patients on aspirin held it a median of seven days before surgery. Those in the active group received 200 mg of aspirin pre-operatively. Patients not previously on aspirin then continued aspirin at 100 mg/day for 30 days; those on aspirin previously received 100 mg/day for seven days and then resumed their prior dose.

No difference was found in the primary outcome of death or non-fatal MI at 30 days, but aspirin was noted to increase the risk of major bleeding (4.6% vs. 3.8%, P=0.04), most commonly occurring at the surgical site (78.3%) and the GI tract (9.3%). Because major bleeding can be associated with peri-operative MI, this may have counteracted the cardiovascular benefits of aspirin.

Bottom line: Peri-operative administration of aspirin to patients at risk for vascular complications undergoing noncardiac surgery does not decrease the risk of peri-operative death or MI and may increase the risk of post-operative bleeding.

Citation: Devereaux PJ, Mrkobrada M, Sessler DI, et al. POISE-2 Investigators. Aspirin in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(16):1494-1503.