click for large version

Physicians are exposed to a wide variety of cases that pique our interest. Cases that make you go home and read just a little bit more. Cases that prompt you to seek out your classmates and colleagues for further discussion, or trigger a call to someone from your past. Residents and students often ask, “Should I write this case up?” Our answer is, “Yes!”

Why do we recommend that you write the case up? Much of medical education is a clinical- or case-based exercise. Clinical cases provide context for the principles being taught. We use real cases to point out the nuance in a presentation of a particular illness or the management of a disease.

In clinical conferences, such as morning report or clinical-pathologic conferences (CPCs), we highlight the choices we make as physicians to provide the best care. Respected physicians and master clinicians at our own institutions often lead these discussions, which form the building blocks for how many of us will practice in our careers.

At grand rounds, the best speakers start with a case. These vignettes grab our attention, making us realize the importance of what the speaker teaches us.

Writing up a vignette will give you a skill set you need. You learn how to select a case, create a “teachable moment,” or hone a series of teaching points. You develop your skills in searching and critically appraising the literature. You become a content expert among your peers. This activity helps you to develop and master the academic skills that will drive your career and will be pivotal in your success.

Follow these eight steps to produce successful clinical vignette submissions:

click for large version

Step 1

Be a good doctor and make the correct diagnosis: Interesting cases will come to you. Don’t chase a zebra on every cough. Don’t send autoimmune panels for every rash. Read about each patient’s case that you see. Use the time to build your clinical acumen and develop your own illness scripts. Through the process of being a thoughtful student of medicine, you will come to distinguish the fascinoma from the merely fleeting infatuation with a diagnosis.

Step 2

Recognize the good case: The best way to recognize a good case is appreciate when it excites people locally. If you present it at morning report or CPC, are you inundated with requests to speak more after the conference has finished? Did it stump your colleagues (usually a pretty bright group)? Do you find that the consultants ask for others in their division to come and see the case? Clinically, did it take the team a while to come to the end diagnosis? If any of these are true, then you should move forward.

Step 3

Perform a literature search: How often does a similar situation arise? Is it 1 in 10,000, 1 in a million, or less? Even a case of 1 in 10,000 can be impactful to read about when you consider how long it may take a physician to see that many patients.

Step 4.

Develop two or three teaching points: Most abstracts for national and regional meetings have a restrictive word limit. When you consider all the information required of a thorough case presentation and adequate discussion, it can seem almost impossible to fit it all in. Start early, at least a month before the deadline if you can, and start big. Determine two or three key teaching points you wish to make. These will serve as your roadmap for the write-up.

Next, write down everything you want to say. Then cut the verbiage and descriptions that are not needed to tell your story. Focus on two or three take-home points. Each fact included or statement made should help to guide the reader to these lessons. As readers and authors, we also like to see prevalence and incidence of disease findings, or how good a test is with specificity and sensitivity values. Make sure the readers know what you want them to learn.

click for large version

Step 5

Keep the case concise, and focus on the discussion: The best write-ups keep the case description short and focused. Avoid trying to tell your readers everything about your case. Highlight what makes your case different without including extraneous information that does not support your teaching points. This leaves more room to focus on your discussion and explain to the reader the importance of your case. The discussion is where you create the “teachable moment” by elaborating on your teaching points.

Step 6

Keep your drafts and proofread your work carefully: The process of writing a clear and concise vignette will take many drafts. To do a great job, plan for at least three or four versions. Through the process of revisiting every word you use, you will start to hone your mastery of the topic; you will see the case in a new way with each draft.

As you do this, keep each edit as a separate file. You will inevitably edit something out early on that you will want to put back in later. Keeping your drafts will make this much easier.

At the final version, proofread carefully! Most reviewers will deduct points for poor grammar and misspellings. If it looks sloppy, then a reader will assume it represents sloppy thoughts.

Step 7

Get feedback: Have others read your work. It is always hard to put your writing out there for critique, particularly when it is such a personal representation of your own clinical thought. Hopefully, you have collaborated with others involved in the case; however, to avoid any “group think” about the work, it is best to have uninvolved individuals (e.g., trusted faculty member, program director, division chief) review your work before submission. The point of these vignettes is to help you develop skills as an author and academician. Since most meetings do not provide any feedback on the review of your submission, outside of “accepted” or “rejected,” it is important to get this from your own institution. It will also heighten your chances of acceptance. Take their suggestions openly, and use them to refine your abstract.

Step 8

Consider the following keys to a poster or oral presentation: The presentation at the meeting should be an expansion on the abstract. Remember, you have described the situation, but now you have the opportunity to use a picture. The old adage that a picture is worth a thousand words really rings true here.

Avoid copying and pasting your text. Concise statements will grab people’s eyes and leave you more space for charts and images. Visuals grab the reader’s eye better than small-font text.

Conclusion

Your first clinical vignette can be a truly great experience. Although it is a lot of hard work, presenting clinical thought is a skill that you must learn. Once you do this, you might find that you have “caught the bug,” and will find yourself well on your way to a role in medical education. You might even start a larger project based on this experience.

Dr. Burger is associate program director of internal medicine residency in the Department of Medicine at Beth Israel Medical Center and assistant dean and assistant professor of medicine at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, both in New York City. Dr. Paesch is a comprehensive care physician in the section of hospital medicine at the University of Chicago, and assistant professor at the University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine. Dr. Miller is director of student programs, associate program director, residency, and associate professor of medicine in the Department of Medicine at Tulane Health Sciences Center in New Orleans.

click for large version

Physicians are exposed to a wide variety of cases that pique our interest. Cases that make you go home and read just a little bit more. Cases that prompt you to seek out your classmates and colleagues for further discussion, or trigger a call to someone from your past. Residents and students often ask, “Should I write this case up?” Our answer is, “Yes!”

Why do we recommend that you write the case up? Much of medical education is a clinical- or case-based exercise. Clinical cases provide context for the principles being taught. We use real cases to point out the nuance in a presentation of a particular illness or the management of a disease.

In clinical conferences, such as morning report or clinical-pathologic conferences (CPCs), we highlight the choices we make as physicians to provide the best care. Respected physicians and master clinicians at our own institutions often lead these discussions, which form the building blocks for how many of us will practice in our careers.

At grand rounds, the best speakers start with a case. These vignettes grab our attention, making us realize the importance of what the speaker teaches us.

Writing up a vignette will give you a skill set you need. You learn how to select a case, create a “teachable moment,” or hone a series of teaching points. You develop your skills in searching and critically appraising the literature. You become a content expert among your peers. This activity helps you to develop and master the academic skills that will drive your career and will be pivotal in your success.

Follow these eight steps to produce successful clinical vignette submissions:

click for large version

Step 1

Be a good doctor and make the correct diagnosis: Interesting cases will come to you. Don’t chase a zebra on every cough. Don’t send autoimmune panels for every rash. Read about each patient’s case that you see. Use the time to build your clinical acumen and develop your own illness scripts. Through the process of being a thoughtful student of medicine, you will come to distinguish the fascinoma from the merely fleeting infatuation with a diagnosis.

Step 2

Recognize the good case: The best way to recognize a good case is appreciate when it excites people locally. If you present it at morning report or CPC, are you inundated with requests to speak more after the conference has finished? Did it stump your colleagues (usually a pretty bright group)? Do you find that the consultants ask for others in their division to come and see the case? Clinically, did it take the team a while to come to the end diagnosis? If any of these are true, then you should move forward.

Step 3

Perform a literature search: How often does a similar situation arise? Is it 1 in 10,000, 1 in a million, or less? Even a case of 1 in 10,000 can be impactful to read about when you consider how long it may take a physician to see that many patients.

Step 4.

Develop two or three teaching points: Most abstracts for national and regional meetings have a restrictive word limit. When you consider all the information required of a thorough case presentation and adequate discussion, it can seem almost impossible to fit it all in. Start early, at least a month before the deadline if you can, and start big. Determine two or three key teaching points you wish to make. These will serve as your roadmap for the write-up.

Next, write down everything you want to say. Then cut the verbiage and descriptions that are not needed to tell your story. Focus on two or three take-home points. Each fact included or statement made should help to guide the reader to these lessons. As readers and authors, we also like to see prevalence and incidence of disease findings, or how good a test is with specificity and sensitivity values. Make sure the readers know what you want them to learn.

click for large version

Step 5

Keep the case concise, and focus on the discussion: The best write-ups keep the case description short and focused. Avoid trying to tell your readers everything about your case. Highlight what makes your case different without including extraneous information that does not support your teaching points. This leaves more room to focus on your discussion and explain to the reader the importance of your case. The discussion is where you create the “teachable moment” by elaborating on your teaching points.

Step 6

Keep your drafts and proofread your work carefully: The process of writing a clear and concise vignette will take many drafts. To do a great job, plan for at least three or four versions. Through the process of revisiting every word you use, you will start to hone your mastery of the topic; you will see the case in a new way with each draft.

As you do this, keep each edit as a separate file. You will inevitably edit something out early on that you will want to put back in later. Keeping your drafts will make this much easier.

At the final version, proofread carefully! Most reviewers will deduct points for poor grammar and misspellings. If it looks sloppy, then a reader will assume it represents sloppy thoughts.

Step 7

Get feedback: Have others read your work. It is always hard to put your writing out there for critique, particularly when it is such a personal representation of your own clinical thought. Hopefully, you have collaborated with others involved in the case; however, to avoid any “group think” about the work, it is best to have uninvolved individuals (e.g., trusted faculty member, program director, division chief) review your work before submission. The point of these vignettes is to help you develop skills as an author and academician. Since most meetings do not provide any feedback on the review of your submission, outside of “accepted” or “rejected,” it is important to get this from your own institution. It will also heighten your chances of acceptance. Take their suggestions openly, and use them to refine your abstract.

Step 8

Consider the following keys to a poster or oral presentation: The presentation at the meeting should be an expansion on the abstract. Remember, you have described the situation, but now you have the opportunity to use a picture. The old adage that a picture is worth a thousand words really rings true here.

Avoid copying and pasting your text. Concise statements will grab people’s eyes and leave you more space for charts and images. Visuals grab the reader’s eye better than small-font text.

Conclusion

Your first clinical vignette can be a truly great experience. Although it is a lot of hard work, presenting clinical thought is a skill that you must learn. Once you do this, you might find that you have “caught the bug,” and will find yourself well on your way to a role in medical education. You might even start a larger project based on this experience.

Dr. Burger is associate program director of internal medicine residency in the Department of Medicine at Beth Israel Medical Center and assistant dean and assistant professor of medicine at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, both in New York City. Dr. Paesch is a comprehensive care physician in the section of hospital medicine at the University of Chicago, and assistant professor at the University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine. Dr. Miller is director of student programs, associate program director, residency, and associate professor of medicine in the Department of Medicine at Tulane Health Sciences Center in New Orleans.

click for large version

Physicians are exposed to a wide variety of cases that pique our interest. Cases that make you go home and read just a little bit more. Cases that prompt you to seek out your classmates and colleagues for further discussion, or trigger a call to someone from your past. Residents and students often ask, “Should I write this case up?” Our answer is, “Yes!”

Why do we recommend that you write the case up? Much of medical education is a clinical- or case-based exercise. Clinical cases provide context for the principles being taught. We use real cases to point out the nuance in a presentation of a particular illness or the management of a disease.

In clinical conferences, such as morning report or clinical-pathologic conferences (CPCs), we highlight the choices we make as physicians to provide the best care. Respected physicians and master clinicians at our own institutions often lead these discussions, which form the building blocks for how many of us will practice in our careers.

At grand rounds, the best speakers start with a case. These vignettes grab our attention, making us realize the importance of what the speaker teaches us.

Writing up a vignette will give you a skill set you need. You learn how to select a case, create a “teachable moment,” or hone a series of teaching points. You develop your skills in searching and critically appraising the literature. You become a content expert among your peers. This activity helps you to develop and master the academic skills that will drive your career and will be pivotal in your success.

Follow these eight steps to produce successful clinical vignette submissions:

click for large version

Step 1

Be a good doctor and make the correct diagnosis: Interesting cases will come to you. Don’t chase a zebra on every cough. Don’t send autoimmune panels for every rash. Read about each patient’s case that you see. Use the time to build your clinical acumen and develop your own illness scripts. Through the process of being a thoughtful student of medicine, you will come to distinguish the fascinoma from the merely fleeting infatuation with a diagnosis.

Step 2

Recognize the good case: The best way to recognize a good case is appreciate when it excites people locally. If you present it at morning report or CPC, are you inundated with requests to speak more after the conference has finished? Did it stump your colleagues (usually a pretty bright group)? Do you find that the consultants ask for others in their division to come and see the case? Clinically, did it take the team a while to come to the end diagnosis? If any of these are true, then you should move forward.

Step 3

Perform a literature search: How often does a similar situation arise? Is it 1 in 10,000, 1 in a million, or less? Even a case of 1 in 10,000 can be impactful to read about when you consider how long it may take a physician to see that many patients.

Step 4.

Develop two or three teaching points: Most abstracts for national and regional meetings have a restrictive word limit. When you consider all the information required of a thorough case presentation and adequate discussion, it can seem almost impossible to fit it all in. Start early, at least a month before the deadline if you can, and start big. Determine two or three key teaching points you wish to make. These will serve as your roadmap for the write-up.

Next, write down everything you want to say. Then cut the verbiage and descriptions that are not needed to tell your story. Focus on two or three take-home points. Each fact included or statement made should help to guide the reader to these lessons. As readers and authors, we also like to see prevalence and incidence of disease findings, or how good a test is with specificity and sensitivity values. Make sure the readers know what you want them to learn.

click for large version

Step 5

Keep the case concise, and focus on the discussion: The best write-ups keep the case description short and focused. Avoid trying to tell your readers everything about your case. Highlight what makes your case different without including extraneous information that does not support your teaching points. This leaves more room to focus on your discussion and explain to the reader the importance of your case. The discussion is where you create the “teachable moment” by elaborating on your teaching points.

Step 6

Keep your drafts and proofread your work carefully: The process of writing a clear and concise vignette will take many drafts. To do a great job, plan for at least three or four versions. Through the process of revisiting every word you use, you will start to hone your mastery of the topic; you will see the case in a new way with each draft.

As you do this, keep each edit as a separate file. You will inevitably edit something out early on that you will want to put back in later. Keeping your drafts will make this much easier.

At the final version, proofread carefully! Most reviewers will deduct points for poor grammar and misspellings. If it looks sloppy, then a reader will assume it represents sloppy thoughts.

Step 7

Get feedback: Have others read your work. It is always hard to put your writing out there for critique, particularly when it is such a personal representation of your own clinical thought. Hopefully, you have collaborated with others involved in the case; however, to avoid any “group think” about the work, it is best to have uninvolved individuals (e.g., trusted faculty member, program director, division chief) review your work before submission. The point of these vignettes is to help you develop skills as an author and academician. Since most meetings do not provide any feedback on the review of your submission, outside of “accepted” or “rejected,” it is important to get this from your own institution. It will also heighten your chances of acceptance. Take their suggestions openly, and use them to refine your abstract.

Step 8

Consider the following keys to a poster or oral presentation: The presentation at the meeting should be an expansion on the abstract. Remember, you have described the situation, but now you have the opportunity to use a picture. The old adage that a picture is worth a thousand words really rings true here.

Avoid copying and pasting your text. Concise statements will grab people’s eyes and leave you more space for charts and images. Visuals grab the reader’s eye better than small-font text.

Conclusion

Your first clinical vignette can be a truly great experience. Although it is a lot of hard work, presenting clinical thought is a skill that you must learn. Once you do this, you might find that you have “caught the bug,” and will find yourself well on your way to a role in medical education. You might even start a larger project based on this experience.

Dr. Burger is associate program director of internal medicine residency in the Department of Medicine at Beth Israel Medical Center and assistant dean and assistant professor of medicine at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, both in New York City. Dr. Paesch is a comprehensive care physician in the section of hospital medicine at the University of Chicago, and assistant professor at the University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine. Dr. Miller is director of student programs, associate program director, residency, and associate professor of medicine in the Department of Medicine at Tulane Health Sciences Center in New Orleans.

Today marks the end of the second week of a three-month experiment we are embarking on to improve team-based care. The main elements of our experiment are two early career hospitalists dedicated to a single nursing unit who are present on the unit throughout the day, structured multidisciplinary rounds, pharmacists doing medication histories to help with medical reconciliation, and a veteran hospitalist serving as a coach, broadly overseeing care coordination and throughput on the unit. (I’m going to focus on multidisciplinary care and leave the coaching part for another day.)

Many have written about and many more have tried to establish unit-based hospitalist models, where a hospitalist is assigned to a single nursing unit. These models often incorporate multidisciplinary rounds, where the hospitalist, case management, social services, physical therapy, and perhaps pharmacy meet each day and review each patient’s progress through the hospitalization. The underlying premise for establishing a unit-based model is that all, or nearly all, of the hospitalist’s patients are located on the nursing unit.

It Can’t Be That Hard

Dedicated units and multidisciplinary rounds are designed to achieve better coordination between the hospitalists and the other members of the hospital team. Most healthcare professionals intuitively support this model; however, many hospitalists have concerns.

To provide the best care for their patients while maintaining career satisfaction, these hospitalists may feel the need for flexibility—the ability to be independent and roam unrestricted through the hallways and departments of the hospital. This goal can be at odds with being limited to a single nursing unit.

For these hospitalists to support the unit-based model, there had better be good reasons for doing so.

Measuring the Effects of Teamwork

Jody Hoffer Gittell, PhD, a professor of management at Brandeis University in Waltham, Mass., has studied relational coordination extensively in healthcare and other service industries. Relational coordination can be defined as “coordinating work through relationships of shared goals, shared knowledge and mutual respect, supported by frequent, timely, accurate, problem-solving communication.”¹

Dr. Gittell has developed a validated questionnaire to be completed by each member of the healthcare team, quantifying their perspective on these dimensions for others on the team. I think of relational coordination as a rigorous way of quantifying teamwork.

In 2008, Dr. Gittell published an observational study with SHM senior vice president Joe Miller and hospitalist leader Adrienne L. Bennett, MD, PhD, conducted at a suburban Boston hospital.² The study looked at relational coordination between members of the hospital team under hospitalist care compared to traditional, PCP-based hospital care. They measured relational coordination by asking the attending physician (hospitalist or PCP providing hospital care), medical resident, floor nurse, case manager, social worker, and therapist (occupational, physical, respiratory, speech) to complete questionnaires about the other team members for a cohort of patients.

The study concluded that relational coordination between other members of the team and the physician was significantly higher for patients treated by hospitalists than for patients treated by traditional PCPs. Further, they found that as relational coordination increased, for patients treated either by hospitalists or PCPs, length of stay, cost, and 30-day readmission rates decreased. I will add that the hospitalists were not unit-based in this study, but were assumed to be more available to the care team than traditional PCPs.

Subsequent studies of multidisciplinary rounds on a “hospitalist unit” conducted by Kevin O’Leary, MD, and colleagues at Northwestern University in Chicago have demonstrated a favorable effect on nurses’ ratings of teamwork and collaboration, as well as the rate of adverse events.^3,4 The former study did not, however, find decreased costs or length of stay.

Keys to Success

Before our current experiment, I’ve had the privilege to witness, both at my home institution and at a number of outside ones, many permutations of multidisciplinary rounds and unit-based hospitalists. I’ve seen failures, some mixed results, and occasional success stories. In all cases, participants seem to agree that it takes extra effort to execute on this model, especially once the initial enthusiasm wanes. So, for these arrangements to succeed over time, including our current experiment, I see the following four factors as critical:

1. Multidisciplinary rounds must be tightly organized, with case manager, nurse, and hospitalist providing input concisely. Average time per patient should not exceed about three minutes. The total time for rounds, no matter how many patients are under discussion, should not exceed one hour.
2. Each team member must be prepared to provide critical information for rounds. For example, hospitalists and nurses should have seen/reviewed their patients, case managers should know expected length of stay and key disposition information, and pharmacists should know medical histories and other pertinent information.
3. The fundamental concern of multidisciplinary rounds—that someone’s time is being wasted (when not talking about that team member’s patient at that moment)—must be mitigated one way or another. Solutions include rotating nurses or hospitalists in and out of rounds, and allowing hospitalists to enter orders and do other discreet multitasking during rounds. Careful attention to showing up for the rounds on time and on cue is crucial.
4. Hospitalist autonomy and need to roam has to be programmed in by allowing them time to get off the unit, see the broader world, and interact with colleagues.

At the conclusion of three months, as a QI project (as opposed to rigorous research), we will measure a number of things, including cost, throughput, patient satisfaction, and team member satisfaction with the model. If you have predictions, please e-mail me. I’ll report our results in a subsequent column.

Dr. Whitcomb is medical director of healthcare quality at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass. He is co-founder and past president of SHM. E-mail him at [email protected].

References

1. Relational Coordination Research Collaborative. Brandeis University website. Available at: http://rcrc.brandeis.edu/about-rc/What%20is%20Relational%20Coordination.html. Accessed September 23, 2013.
2. Gittell JH, Weinberg DB, Bennett AL, Miller JA. Is the doctor in? A relational approach to job design and the coordination of work. Hum Resource Manag J. 2008;47(4):729-755.
3. O’Leary KJ, Haviley C, Slade ME, Shah HM, Lee J, Williams MV. Improving teamwork: impact of structured interdisciplinary rounds on a hospitalist unit. J Hosp Med. 2011;6(2):88-93.
4. O’Leary KJ, Buck R, Fligiel HM, et al. Structured interdisciplinary rounds in a medical teaching unit: improving patient safety. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(7):678-684.

Today marks the end of the second week of a three-month experiment we are embarking on to improve team-based care. The main elements of our experiment are two early career hospitalists dedicated to a single nursing unit who are present on the unit throughout the day, structured multidisciplinary rounds, pharmacists doing medication histories to help with medical reconciliation, and a veteran hospitalist serving as a coach, broadly overseeing care coordination and throughput on the unit. (I’m going to focus on multidisciplinary care and leave the coaching part for another day.)

Many have written about and many more have tried to establish unit-based hospitalist models, where a hospitalist is assigned to a single nursing unit. These models often incorporate multidisciplinary rounds, where the hospitalist, case management, social services, physical therapy, and perhaps pharmacy meet each day and review each patient’s progress through the hospitalization. The underlying premise for establishing a unit-based model is that all, or nearly all, of the hospitalist’s patients are located on the nursing unit.

It Can’t Be That Hard

Dedicated units and multidisciplinary rounds are designed to achieve better coordination between the hospitalists and the other members of the hospital team. Most healthcare professionals intuitively support this model; however, many hospitalists have concerns.

To provide the best care for their patients while maintaining career satisfaction, these hospitalists may feel the need for flexibility—the ability to be independent and roam unrestricted through the hallways and departments of the hospital. This goal can be at odds with being limited to a single nursing unit.

For these hospitalists to support the unit-based model, there had better be good reasons for doing so.

Measuring the Effects of Teamwork

Jody Hoffer Gittell, PhD, a professor of management at Brandeis University in Waltham, Mass., has studied relational coordination extensively in healthcare and other service industries. Relational coordination can be defined as “coordinating work through relationships of shared goals, shared knowledge and mutual respect, supported by frequent, timely, accurate, problem-solving communication.”¹

Dr. Gittell has developed a validated questionnaire to be completed by each member of the healthcare team, quantifying their perspective on these dimensions for others on the team. I think of relational coordination as a rigorous way of quantifying teamwork.

In 2008, Dr. Gittell published an observational study with SHM senior vice president Joe Miller and hospitalist leader Adrienne L. Bennett, MD, PhD, conducted at a suburban Boston hospital.² The study looked at relational coordination between members of the hospital team under hospitalist care compared to traditional, PCP-based hospital care. They measured relational coordination by asking the attending physician (hospitalist or PCP providing hospital care), medical resident, floor nurse, case manager, social worker, and therapist (occupational, physical, respiratory, speech) to complete questionnaires about the other team members for a cohort of patients.

The study concluded that relational coordination between other members of the team and the physician was significantly higher for patients treated by hospitalists than for patients treated by traditional PCPs. Further, they found that as relational coordination increased, for patients treated either by hospitalists or PCPs, length of stay, cost, and 30-day readmission rates decreased. I will add that the hospitalists were not unit-based in this study, but were assumed to be more available to the care team than traditional PCPs.

Subsequent studies of multidisciplinary rounds on a “hospitalist unit” conducted by Kevin O’Leary, MD, and colleagues at Northwestern University in Chicago have demonstrated a favorable effect on nurses’ ratings of teamwork and collaboration, as well as the rate of adverse events.^3,4 The former study did not, however, find decreased costs or length of stay.

Keys to Success

Before our current experiment, I’ve had the privilege to witness, both at my home institution and at a number of outside ones, many permutations of multidisciplinary rounds and unit-based hospitalists. I’ve seen failures, some mixed results, and occasional success stories. In all cases, participants seem to agree that it takes extra effort to execute on this model, especially once the initial enthusiasm wanes. So, for these arrangements to succeed over time, including our current experiment, I see the following four factors as critical:

1. Multidisciplinary rounds must be tightly organized, with case manager, nurse, and hospitalist providing input concisely. Average time per patient should not exceed about three minutes. The total time for rounds, no matter how many patients are under discussion, should not exceed one hour.
2. Each team member must be prepared to provide critical information for rounds. For example, hospitalists and nurses should have seen/reviewed their patients, case managers should know expected length of stay and key disposition information, and pharmacists should know medical histories and other pertinent information.
3. The fundamental concern of multidisciplinary rounds—that someone’s time is being wasted (when not talking about that team member’s patient at that moment)—must be mitigated one way or another. Solutions include rotating nurses or hospitalists in and out of rounds, and allowing hospitalists to enter orders and do other discreet multitasking during rounds. Careful attention to showing up for the rounds on time and on cue is crucial.
4. Hospitalist autonomy and need to roam has to be programmed in by allowing them time to get off the unit, see the broader world, and interact with colleagues.

At the conclusion of three months, as a QI project (as opposed to rigorous research), we will measure a number of things, including cost, throughput, patient satisfaction, and team member satisfaction with the model. If you have predictions, please e-mail me. I’ll report our results in a subsequent column.

Dr. Whitcomb is medical director of healthcare quality at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass. He is co-founder and past president of SHM. E-mail him at [email protected].

References

1. Relational Coordination Research Collaborative. Brandeis University website. Available at: http://rcrc.brandeis.edu/about-rc/What%20is%20Relational%20Coordination.html. Accessed September 23, 2013.
2. Gittell JH, Weinberg DB, Bennett AL, Miller JA. Is the doctor in? A relational approach to job design and the coordination of work. Hum Resource Manag J. 2008;47(4):729-755.
3. O’Leary KJ, Haviley C, Slade ME, Shah HM, Lee J, Williams MV. Improving teamwork: impact of structured interdisciplinary rounds on a hospitalist unit. J Hosp Med. 2011;6(2):88-93.
4. O’Leary KJ, Buck R, Fligiel HM, et al. Structured interdisciplinary rounds in a medical teaching unit: improving patient safety. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(7):678-684.

Today marks the end of the second week of a three-month experiment we are embarking on to improve team-based care. The main elements of our experiment are two early career hospitalists dedicated to a single nursing unit who are present on the unit throughout the day, structured multidisciplinary rounds, pharmacists doing medication histories to help with medical reconciliation, and a veteran hospitalist serving as a coach, broadly overseeing care coordination and throughput on the unit. (I’m going to focus on multidisciplinary care and leave the coaching part for another day.)

Many have written about and many more have tried to establish unit-based hospitalist models, where a hospitalist is assigned to a single nursing unit. These models often incorporate multidisciplinary rounds, where the hospitalist, case management, social services, physical therapy, and perhaps pharmacy meet each day and review each patient’s progress through the hospitalization. The underlying premise for establishing a unit-based model is that all, or nearly all, of the hospitalist’s patients are located on the nursing unit.

It Can’t Be That Hard

Dedicated units and multidisciplinary rounds are designed to achieve better coordination between the hospitalists and the other members of the hospital team. Most healthcare professionals intuitively support this model; however, many hospitalists have concerns.

To provide the best care for their patients while maintaining career satisfaction, these hospitalists may feel the need for flexibility—the ability to be independent and roam unrestricted through the hallways and departments of the hospital. This goal can be at odds with being limited to a single nursing unit.

For these hospitalists to support the unit-based model, there had better be good reasons for doing so.

Measuring the Effects of Teamwork

Jody Hoffer Gittell, PhD, a professor of management at Brandeis University in Waltham, Mass., has studied relational coordination extensively in healthcare and other service industries. Relational coordination can be defined as “coordinating work through relationships of shared goals, shared knowledge and mutual respect, supported by frequent, timely, accurate, problem-solving communication.”¹

Dr. Gittell has developed a validated questionnaire to be completed by each member of the healthcare team, quantifying their perspective on these dimensions for others on the team. I think of relational coordination as a rigorous way of quantifying teamwork.

In 2008, Dr. Gittell published an observational study with SHM senior vice president Joe Miller and hospitalist leader Adrienne L. Bennett, MD, PhD, conducted at a suburban Boston hospital.² The study looked at relational coordination between members of the hospital team under hospitalist care compared to traditional, PCP-based hospital care. They measured relational coordination by asking the attending physician (hospitalist or PCP providing hospital care), medical resident, floor nurse, case manager, social worker, and therapist (occupational, physical, respiratory, speech) to complete questionnaires about the other team members for a cohort of patients.

The study concluded that relational coordination between other members of the team and the physician was significantly higher for patients treated by hospitalists than for patients treated by traditional PCPs. Further, they found that as relational coordination increased, for patients treated either by hospitalists or PCPs, length of stay, cost, and 30-day readmission rates decreased. I will add that the hospitalists were not unit-based in this study, but were assumed to be more available to the care team than traditional PCPs.

Subsequent studies of multidisciplinary rounds on a “hospitalist unit” conducted by Kevin O’Leary, MD, and colleagues at Northwestern University in Chicago have demonstrated a favorable effect on nurses’ ratings of teamwork and collaboration, as well as the rate of adverse events.^3,4 The former study did not, however, find decreased costs or length of stay.

Keys to Success

Before our current experiment, I’ve had the privilege to witness, both at my home institution and at a number of outside ones, many permutations of multidisciplinary rounds and unit-based hospitalists. I’ve seen failures, some mixed results, and occasional success stories. In all cases, participants seem to agree that it takes extra effort to execute on this model, especially once the initial enthusiasm wanes. So, for these arrangements to succeed over time, including our current experiment, I see the following four factors as critical:

1. Multidisciplinary rounds must be tightly organized, with case manager, nurse, and hospitalist providing input concisely. Average time per patient should not exceed about three minutes. The total time for rounds, no matter how many patients are under discussion, should not exceed one hour.
2. Each team member must be prepared to provide critical information for rounds. For example, hospitalists and nurses should have seen/reviewed their patients, case managers should know expected length of stay and key disposition information, and pharmacists should know medical histories and other pertinent information.
3. The fundamental concern of multidisciplinary rounds—that someone’s time is being wasted (when not talking about that team member’s patient at that moment)—must be mitigated one way or another. Solutions include rotating nurses or hospitalists in and out of rounds, and allowing hospitalists to enter orders and do other discreet multitasking during rounds. Careful attention to showing up for the rounds on time and on cue is crucial.
4. Hospitalist autonomy and need to roam has to be programmed in by allowing them time to get off the unit, see the broader world, and interact with colleagues.

At the conclusion of three months, as a QI project (as opposed to rigorous research), we will measure a number of things, including cost, throughput, patient satisfaction, and team member satisfaction with the model. If you have predictions, please e-mail me. I’ll report our results in a subsequent column.

Dr. Whitcomb is medical director of healthcare quality at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass. He is co-founder and past president of SHM. E-mail him at [email protected].

References

1. Relational Coordination Research Collaborative. Brandeis University website. Available at: http://rcrc.brandeis.edu/about-rc/What%20is%20Relational%20Coordination.html. Accessed September 23, 2013.
2. Gittell JH, Weinberg DB, Bennett AL, Miller JA. Is the doctor in? A relational approach to job design and the coordination of work. Hum Resource Manag J. 2008;47(4):729-755.
3. O’Leary KJ, Haviley C, Slade ME, Shah HM, Lee J, Williams MV. Improving teamwork: impact of structured interdisciplinary rounds on a hospitalist unit. J Hosp Med. 2011;6(2):88-93.
4. O’Leary KJ, Buck R, Fligiel HM, et al. Structured interdisciplinary rounds in a medical teaching unit: improving patient safety. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(7):678-684.

If he wasn’t a physician administrator working for one of the largest physician management companies in the country, or a clinical instructor at a medical school, or a pediatric hospitalist picking up shifts at a children’s hospital, Greg Harlan, MD, MPH, would have a very different life.

He says he’d “promote vegetable gardens to kindergartners, hike the West Coast Trail, fight the obesity epidemic, and play lots of golf.”

Oh, yeah, one more: “Give every kid a bicycle.”

It’s quite the altruistic—some might say enviable—list. Instead, Dr. Harlan is hard at work as director of medical affairs at North Hollywood, Calif.-based IPC The Hospitalist Company. He is also a clinical instructor at the University of Southern California Medical School and moonlights as a pediatric hospitalist in Los Angeles.

He says he chose to focus on hospital medicine as a career while working as a young faculty member at the University of Utah.

“I noticed that lots of innovation, experimentation, and energy was coming from the newly formed hospitalist division,” says Dr. Harlan, one of nine new members of Team Hospitalist, The Hospitalist’s volunteer editorial advisory group. “I tried it out and loved it, especially getting to teach the students and residents for intense periods of time.”

At IPC, Dr. Harlan leads company-wide quality improvement (QI) initiatives, coordinates risk reduction activities, and directs the IPC-University of California San Francisco Fellowship for Hospitalist Leaders. He says he has a growing interest in “physician leadership, high-functioning teams, and physician groups’ well-being.”

I am really excited to put some science behind “leadership in medicine” and “optimal teamwork in medicine.” I think there is so much more we can learn and implement.

“I am using my QI background to apply these principles to better understanding how teams and leaders can thrive,” he says.

Question: Why did you choose a career in medicine?

A: Medicine is a cool combination of hard science, psychology, counseling, and teaching. It’s an amazing way to combine multiple passions and get to be involved on a very intimate level with many people.

Q: What do you like most about working as a hospitalist?

A: The focus on improving the system as a whole. Ultimately, the patients benefit, but so do many of the other stakeholders in the processes we touch.

Q: What do you dislike most?

A: It’s tough to take in-house call at night. It’s also hard to step in to many sick patients’ care for a short period of time, especially midway through their hospitalization.

Q: What’s the best advice you ever received?

A: Find the people who actually do the work. This is the concept of going to the front line, to see where the real work is being done. It never ceases to amaze me to find out the difference between what we think is going on and what is actually going on.

Q: What’s the biggest change you’ve seen in HM in your career?

A: Providers are getting squeezed a little more each year. There are growing pressures from many sides, and the providers are feeling “crunched.”

Q: Why is it important for you to continue seeing patients?

A: Feeling the joy and pain of actually providing care for patients is integral to leading the hospitalist movement. By acutely experiencing an electronic health record, or dealing with medication authorizations or handoffs, one stays in the real world of hospital medicine.

Q: What is your biggest professional challenge?

A: Balancing my multiple passions. I love being a teacher and still teach young med students at USC med school (my alma mater). I still enjoy seeing patients, too. I am most excited by a growing interest in leadership and teamwork, but it’s still in its development stage as a career path.

Q: What is your biggest professional reward?

A: Being able to see others flourish. Whether it’s beginning med students, professional colleagues, or administrative staff, I truly beam when someone I’ve helped succeeds.

Q: When you aren’t working, what is important to you?

A: My family, my health, and staying balanced. I am learning the importance of listening to my body, trusting my intuition, and finding true “balance.” It’s not easy, but it’s imperative.

Q: What’s next professionally?

A: I am really excited to put some science behind “leadership in medicine” and “optimal teamwork in medicine.” I think there is so much more we can learn and implement.

Q: What’s the best book you’ve read recently? Why?

A: A few come to mind: “18 Minutes” by Peter Bregman offers some really easy steps to getting organized and focused; “Six Thinking Hats” by Edward de Bono is a great framework for approaching problems and innovations; “The Inner Game of Golf” by W. Timothy Gallwey makes me realize how amazing our bodies and minds truly are.

Q: How many Apple products do you interface with in a given week?

A: I only have an iPhone. Amazing little gadget, but I don’t want to become wedded to it. Maybe I’ll get a MacBook soon.

Q: What’s next in your Netflix queue?

A: We use Netflix mainly for their drama series. I prefer foreign films and documentaries. My wife and I love “Breaking Bad.” My kids and I are working our way through the “Star Wars” episodes.

Richard Quinn is a freelance writer in New Jersey.

If he wasn’t a physician administrator working for one of the largest physician management companies in the country, or a clinical instructor at a medical school, or a pediatric hospitalist picking up shifts at a children’s hospital, Greg Harlan, MD, MPH, would have a very different life.

He says he’d “promote vegetable gardens to kindergartners, hike the West Coast Trail, fight the obesity epidemic, and play lots of golf.”

Oh, yeah, one more: “Give every kid a bicycle.”

It’s quite the altruistic—some might say enviable—list. Instead, Dr. Harlan is hard at work as director of medical affairs at North Hollywood, Calif.-based IPC The Hospitalist Company. He is also a clinical instructor at the University of Southern California Medical School and moonlights as a pediatric hospitalist in Los Angeles.

He says he chose to focus on hospital medicine as a career while working as a young faculty member at the University of Utah.

“I noticed that lots of innovation, experimentation, and energy was coming from the newly formed hospitalist division,” says Dr. Harlan, one of nine new members of Team Hospitalist, The Hospitalist’s volunteer editorial advisory group. “I tried it out and loved it, especially getting to teach the students and residents for intense periods of time.”

At IPC, Dr. Harlan leads company-wide quality improvement (QI) initiatives, coordinates risk reduction activities, and directs the IPC-University of California San Francisco Fellowship for Hospitalist Leaders. He says he has a growing interest in “physician leadership, high-functioning teams, and physician groups’ well-being.”

I am really excited to put some science behind “leadership in medicine” and “optimal teamwork in medicine.” I think there is so much more we can learn and implement.

“I am using my QI background to apply these principles to better understanding how teams and leaders can thrive,” he says.

Question: Why did you choose a career in medicine?

A: Medicine is a cool combination of hard science, psychology, counseling, and teaching. It’s an amazing way to combine multiple passions and get to be involved on a very intimate level with many people.

Q: What do you like most about working as a hospitalist?

A: The focus on improving the system as a whole. Ultimately, the patients benefit, but so do many of the other stakeholders in the processes we touch.

Q: What do you dislike most?

A: It’s tough to take in-house call at night. It’s also hard to step in to many sick patients’ care for a short period of time, especially midway through their hospitalization.

Q: What’s the best advice you ever received?

A: Find the people who actually do the work. This is the concept of going to the front line, to see where the real work is being done. It never ceases to amaze me to find out the difference between what we think is going on and what is actually going on.

Q: What’s the biggest change you’ve seen in HM in your career?

A: Providers are getting squeezed a little more each year. There are growing pressures from many sides, and the providers are feeling “crunched.”

Q: Why is it important for you to continue seeing patients?

A: Feeling the joy and pain of actually providing care for patients is integral to leading the hospitalist movement. By acutely experiencing an electronic health record, or dealing with medication authorizations or handoffs, one stays in the real world of hospital medicine.

Q: What is your biggest professional challenge?

A: Balancing my multiple passions. I love being a teacher and still teach young med students at USC med school (my alma mater). I still enjoy seeing patients, too. I am most excited by a growing interest in leadership and teamwork, but it’s still in its development stage as a career path.

Q: What is your biggest professional reward?

A: Being able to see others flourish. Whether it’s beginning med students, professional colleagues, or administrative staff, I truly beam when someone I’ve helped succeeds.

Q: When you aren’t working, what is important to you?

A: My family, my health, and staying balanced. I am learning the importance of listening to my body, trusting my intuition, and finding true “balance.” It’s not easy, but it’s imperative.

Q: What’s next professionally?

A: I am really excited to put some science behind “leadership in medicine” and “optimal teamwork in medicine.” I think there is so much more we can learn and implement.

Q: What’s the best book you’ve read recently? Why?

A: A few come to mind: “18 Minutes” by Peter Bregman offers some really easy steps to getting organized and focused; “Six Thinking Hats” by Edward de Bono is a great framework for approaching problems and innovations; “The Inner Game of Golf” by W. Timothy Gallwey makes me realize how amazing our bodies and minds truly are.

Q: How many Apple products do you interface with in a given week?

A: I only have an iPhone. Amazing little gadget, but I don’t want to become wedded to it. Maybe I’ll get a MacBook soon.

Q: What’s next in your Netflix queue?

A: We use Netflix mainly for their drama series. I prefer foreign films and documentaries. My wife and I love “Breaking Bad.” My kids and I are working our way through the “Star Wars” episodes.

Richard Quinn is a freelance writer in New Jersey.

If he wasn’t a physician administrator working for one of the largest physician management companies in the country, or a clinical instructor at a medical school, or a pediatric hospitalist picking up shifts at a children’s hospital, Greg Harlan, MD, MPH, would have a very different life.

He says he’d “promote vegetable gardens to kindergartners, hike the West Coast Trail, fight the obesity epidemic, and play lots of golf.”

Oh, yeah, one more: “Give every kid a bicycle.”

It’s quite the altruistic—some might say enviable—list. Instead, Dr. Harlan is hard at work as director of medical affairs at North Hollywood, Calif.-based IPC The Hospitalist Company. He is also a clinical instructor at the University of Southern California Medical School and moonlights as a pediatric hospitalist in Los Angeles.

He says he chose to focus on hospital medicine as a career while working as a young faculty member at the University of Utah.

“I noticed that lots of innovation, experimentation, and energy was coming from the newly formed hospitalist division,” says Dr. Harlan, one of nine new members of Team Hospitalist, The Hospitalist’s volunteer editorial advisory group. “I tried it out and loved it, especially getting to teach the students and residents for intense periods of time.”

At IPC, Dr. Harlan leads company-wide quality improvement (QI) initiatives, coordinates risk reduction activities, and directs the IPC-University of California San Francisco Fellowship for Hospitalist Leaders. He says he has a growing interest in “physician leadership, high-functioning teams, and physician groups’ well-being.”

I am really excited to put some science behind “leadership in medicine” and “optimal teamwork in medicine.” I think there is so much more we can learn and implement.

“I am using my QI background to apply these principles to better understanding how teams and leaders can thrive,” he says.

Question: Why did you choose a career in medicine?

A: Medicine is a cool combination of hard science, psychology, counseling, and teaching. It’s an amazing way to combine multiple passions and get to be involved on a very intimate level with many people.

Q: What do you like most about working as a hospitalist?

A: The focus on improving the system as a whole. Ultimately, the patients benefit, but so do many of the other stakeholders in the processes we touch.

Q: What do you dislike most?

A: It’s tough to take in-house call at night. It’s also hard to step in to many sick patients’ care for a short period of time, especially midway through their hospitalization.

Q: What’s the best advice you ever received?

A: Find the people who actually do the work. This is the concept of going to the front line, to see where the real work is being done. It never ceases to amaze me to find out the difference between what we think is going on and what is actually going on.

Q: What’s the biggest change you’ve seen in HM in your career?

A: Providers are getting squeezed a little more each year. There are growing pressures from many sides, and the providers are feeling “crunched.”

Q: Why is it important for you to continue seeing patients?

A: Feeling the joy and pain of actually providing care for patients is integral to leading the hospitalist movement. By acutely experiencing an electronic health record, or dealing with medication authorizations or handoffs, one stays in the real world of hospital medicine.

Q: What is your biggest professional challenge?

A: Balancing my multiple passions. I love being a teacher and still teach young med students at USC med school (my alma mater). I still enjoy seeing patients, too. I am most excited by a growing interest in leadership and teamwork, but it’s still in its development stage as a career path.

Q: What is your biggest professional reward?

A: Being able to see others flourish. Whether it’s beginning med students, professional colleagues, or administrative staff, I truly beam when someone I’ve helped succeeds.

Q: When you aren’t working, what is important to you?

A: My family, my health, and staying balanced. I am learning the importance of listening to my body, trusting my intuition, and finding true “balance.” It’s not easy, but it’s imperative.

Q: What’s next professionally?

A: I am really excited to put some science behind “leadership in medicine” and “optimal teamwork in medicine.” I think there is so much more we can learn and implement.

Q: What’s the best book you’ve read recently? Why?

A: A few come to mind: “18 Minutes” by Peter Bregman offers some really easy steps to getting organized and focused; “Six Thinking Hats” by Edward de Bono is a great framework for approaching problems and innovations; “The Inner Game of Golf” by W. Timothy Gallwey makes me realize how amazing our bodies and minds truly are.

Q: How many Apple products do you interface with in a given week?

A: I only have an iPhone. Amazing little gadget, but I don’t want to become wedded to it. Maybe I’ll get a MacBook soon.

Q: What’s next in your Netflix queue?

A: We use Netflix mainly for their drama series. I prefer foreign films and documentaries. My wife and I love “Breaking Bad.” My kids and I are working our way through the “Star Wars” episodes.

Richard Quinn is a freelance writer in New Jersey.

Click here to listen to more of our interview with Mike Matray

Click here to listen to more of our interview with Mike Matray

Click here to listen to more of our interview with Mike Matray

As he was completing his residency in 1998, hospitalist Peter J. Kaboli, MD, MS, was undecided about his career direction. He didn’t know whether he wanted a clinical job in which he could pursue “quality improvement projects or a job focused on research.”

He entered the Veterans Affairs (VA) National Quality Scholars Fellowship Program, first offered in 1999, and found that he actually enjoyed both pursuits. As co-director of the Center for Comprehensive Access and Delivery Research and Evaluation (CADRE) for the VA Iowa City Health Care System, Dr. Kaboli has continued to pursue his interest in clinical research, exploring such issues as quality indicators to guide prescription of medicines for older adults and regional differences in prescribing quality among older veterans.^1,2 He credits his time as a fellow as a definitive period in his career growth.

Dr. Kaboli

Dr. Kaboli, who now directs the VAQS Fellowship Program at the Iowa City VAMC, suggests that young hospitalists seeking to focus career directions consider a similar path. In fact, Dr. Kaboli and colleague Greg Ogrinc, MD, MS, senior scholar and director of the VA Quality Scholars (VAQS) Fellowship Program at the White River Junction VA in Vermont, say the VA healthcare system offers several avenues for hospitalists to hone their clinical, research, quality improvement, and leadership skills.

Research Paths

A nearly 15-year history with electronic health records (EHR) and a large population of enrolled beneficiaries make the VA system a rich source of data for understanding systems and improving care, Dr. Ogrinc says.

The VAQS Fellowship Program, offered at eight VA centers nationally, is a 2-year interdisciplinary program that pairs physicians and doctorally prepared nurses. Several sites also provide master’s degree training at an affiliated university. The curriculum is designed to train physicians in new methods of improving the quality and safety of healthcare for veterans and the nation. All eight VAQS centers are affiliated with academic institutions. That’s the case with the program at White River Junction, where VAQS Senior Scholar Dr. Ogrinc also holds dual appointments with Geisel School of Medicine in Hanover, N.H. and The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice in Lebanon, N.H.

Dr. Ogrinc has tracked the VA’s experience with the program since its inception. One summary, published in 2009, notes that one of the strengths of the program is its combination of healthcare improvement curricula with adult learning strategies.³ This, along with mentorship and meaningful projects, serves to prepare physicians to lead improvement initiatives in healthcare quality and safety.

At White River Junction, graduates of the fellowship program follow a wide range of career paths. Dr. Ogrinc says roughly 50% choose to remain with the VA. Wherever fellows land after the program, both Dr. Kaboli and Dr. Ogrinc agree that the two-year delay before going into practice is a worthwhile investment. “The upfront investment in time pays back in the long run,” Dr. Kaboli says.

Additional fellowships offered through the VA include Career Development Awards (akin to the National Institutes of Health career development K awards), often located at VA medical centers designated as Centers of Innovation. They supply research infrastructure and access to data. Some of the centers offering VAQS and patient safety fellowships are co-located with Veterans Engineering Resource Centers, so that cross-fertilization with experts in organizational engineering makes for an additional “rich learning environment,” notes Dr. Ogrinc.

Clinical Path

Like all U.S. healthcare systems, the VA is expanding its use of hospitalists.

“There are great opportunities for hospitalists in the VA as salaried physicians, with very reasonable work hours and an excellent electronic medical record,” Dr. Kaboli says.

Dr. Ogrinc points out that residency programs do not always prepare hospitalists for the administrative, system improvement, and organizational responsibilities that often fall under hospitalist purview. “Committee and improvement work can often be seen as bothersome by some,” he says, “especially if they don’t have the opportunity to learn the skills and methods to make their organizations work better from a patient outcome standpoint.”

In addition, either experiencing a fellowship program or simply working in a salaried position with the VA “can round out your skill set, make you a better hospitalist overall, and put you in a position to be a leader as a hospitalist in a practice,” Dr. Ogrinc says.

Dr. Kaboli agrees.

“The future of healthcare reform in this country is embracing the model of the accountable care organization,” he says. “The VA system, with capitated payment, salaried physicians, and comprehensive integrated care, is arguably the largest ACO [accountable care organization] in the country.”

Gretchen Henkel is a freelance writer in California.

Resources for VA Research Programs

Eight VA medical centers participate in the National Quality Scholars Fellowship Program: Greater Los Angeles, Atlanta, Birmingham, Cleveland, Iowa City, Nashville, San Francisco, and White River Junction. For more information on application requirements and deadlines, visit www.va.gov and search “National Quality Scholars Fellowship Program.”

There are three levels of Career Development Awards offered through the VA Office of Research and Development, including biomedical laboratory/clinical sciences and health services. For more information on award categories and submission deadlines, visit www.research.va.gov/funding.

The New England Veterans Engineering Resource Center (www.newengland.va.gov/verc) provides examples of the variety of systems engineering research projects being undertaken by the VA. —Gretchen Henkel

References

1. Lund BC, Steinman MA, Chrischilles EA, Kaboli PJ. Beers criteria as a proxy for inappropriate prescribing of other medications among older adults. Ann Pharmacother. 2011;45:1363-1370.
2. Lund BC, Charlton ME, Steinman MA, Kaboli PJ. Regional differences in prescribing quality among elder veterans and the impact of rural residence. J Rural Health. 2013;29:172-179.
3. Splaine ME, Ogrinc G, Gilman SC, et al. The Department of Veterans Affairs National Quality Scholars Fellowship Program: experience from 10 year of training quality scholars. Acad Med. 2009;84:1741-1748.

As he was completing his residency in 1998, hospitalist Peter J. Kaboli, MD, MS, was undecided about his career direction. He didn’t know whether he wanted a clinical job in which he could pursue “quality improvement projects or a job focused on research.”

He entered the Veterans Affairs (VA) National Quality Scholars Fellowship Program, first offered in 1999, and found that he actually enjoyed both pursuits. As co-director of the Center for Comprehensive Access and Delivery Research and Evaluation (CADRE) for the VA Iowa City Health Care System, Dr. Kaboli has continued to pursue his interest in clinical research, exploring such issues as quality indicators to guide prescription of medicines for older adults and regional differences in prescribing quality among older veterans.^1,2 He credits his time as a fellow as a definitive period in his career growth.

Dr. Kaboli

Dr. Kaboli, who now directs the VAQS Fellowship Program at the Iowa City VAMC, suggests that young hospitalists seeking to focus career directions consider a similar path. In fact, Dr. Kaboli and colleague Greg Ogrinc, MD, MS, senior scholar and director of the VA Quality Scholars (VAQS) Fellowship Program at the White River Junction VA in Vermont, say the VA healthcare system offers several avenues for hospitalists to hone their clinical, research, quality improvement, and leadership skills.

Research Paths

A nearly 15-year history with electronic health records (EHR) and a large population of enrolled beneficiaries make the VA system a rich source of data for understanding systems and improving care, Dr. Ogrinc says.

The VAQS Fellowship Program, offered at eight VA centers nationally, is a 2-year interdisciplinary program that pairs physicians and doctorally prepared nurses. Several sites also provide master’s degree training at an affiliated university. The curriculum is designed to train physicians in new methods of improving the quality and safety of healthcare for veterans and the nation. All eight VAQS centers are affiliated with academic institutions. That’s the case with the program at White River Junction, where VAQS Senior Scholar Dr. Ogrinc also holds dual appointments with Geisel School of Medicine in Hanover, N.H. and The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice in Lebanon, N.H.

Dr. Ogrinc has tracked the VA’s experience with the program since its inception. One summary, published in 2009, notes that one of the strengths of the program is its combination of healthcare improvement curricula with adult learning strategies.³ This, along with mentorship and meaningful projects, serves to prepare physicians to lead improvement initiatives in healthcare quality and safety.

At White River Junction, graduates of the fellowship program follow a wide range of career paths. Dr. Ogrinc says roughly 50% choose to remain with the VA. Wherever fellows land after the program, both Dr. Kaboli and Dr. Ogrinc agree that the two-year delay before going into practice is a worthwhile investment. “The upfront investment in time pays back in the long run,” Dr. Kaboli says.

Additional fellowships offered through the VA include Career Development Awards (akin to the National Institutes of Health career development K awards), often located at VA medical centers designated as Centers of Innovation. They supply research infrastructure and access to data. Some of the centers offering VAQS and patient safety fellowships are co-located with Veterans Engineering Resource Centers, so that cross-fertilization with experts in organizational engineering makes for an additional “rich learning environment,” notes Dr. Ogrinc.

Clinical Path

Like all U.S. healthcare systems, the VA is expanding its use of hospitalists.

“There are great opportunities for hospitalists in the VA as salaried physicians, with very reasonable work hours and an excellent electronic medical record,” Dr. Kaboli says.

Dr. Ogrinc points out that residency programs do not always prepare hospitalists for the administrative, system improvement, and organizational responsibilities that often fall under hospitalist purview. “Committee and improvement work can often be seen as bothersome by some,” he says, “especially if they don’t have the opportunity to learn the skills and methods to make their organizations work better from a patient outcome standpoint.”

In addition, either experiencing a fellowship program or simply working in a salaried position with the VA “can round out your skill set, make you a better hospitalist overall, and put you in a position to be a leader as a hospitalist in a practice,” Dr. Ogrinc says.

Dr. Kaboli agrees.

“The future of healthcare reform in this country is embracing the model of the accountable care organization,” he says. “The VA system, with capitated payment, salaried physicians, and comprehensive integrated care, is arguably the largest ACO [accountable care organization] in the country.”

Gretchen Henkel is a freelance writer in California.

Resources for VA Research Programs

Eight VA medical centers participate in the National Quality Scholars Fellowship Program: Greater Los Angeles, Atlanta, Birmingham, Cleveland, Iowa City, Nashville, San Francisco, and White River Junction. For more information on application requirements and deadlines, visit www.va.gov and search “National Quality Scholars Fellowship Program.”

There are three levels of Career Development Awards offered through the VA Office of Research and Development, including biomedical laboratory/clinical sciences and health services. For more information on award categories and submission deadlines, visit www.research.va.gov/funding.

The New England Veterans Engineering Resource Center (www.newengland.va.gov/verc) provides examples of the variety of systems engineering research projects being undertaken by the VA. —Gretchen Henkel

References

1. Lund BC, Steinman MA, Chrischilles EA, Kaboli PJ. Beers criteria as a proxy for inappropriate prescribing of other medications among older adults. Ann Pharmacother. 2011;45:1363-1370.
2. Lund BC, Charlton ME, Steinman MA, Kaboli PJ. Regional differences in prescribing quality among elder veterans and the impact of rural residence. J Rural Health. 2013;29:172-179.
3. Splaine ME, Ogrinc G, Gilman SC, et al. The Department of Veterans Affairs National Quality Scholars Fellowship Program: experience from 10 year of training quality scholars. Acad Med. 2009;84:1741-1748.

As he was completing his residency in 1998, hospitalist Peter J. Kaboli, MD, MS, was undecided about his career direction. He didn’t know whether he wanted a clinical job in which he could pursue “quality improvement projects or a job focused on research.”

He entered the Veterans Affairs (VA) National Quality Scholars Fellowship Program, first offered in 1999, and found that he actually enjoyed both pursuits. As co-director of the Center for Comprehensive Access and Delivery Research and Evaluation (CADRE) for the VA Iowa City Health Care System, Dr. Kaboli has continued to pursue his interest in clinical research, exploring such issues as quality indicators to guide prescription of medicines for older adults and regional differences in prescribing quality among older veterans.^1,2 He credits his time as a fellow as a definitive period in his career growth.

Dr. Kaboli

Dr. Kaboli, who now directs the VAQS Fellowship Program at the Iowa City VAMC, suggests that young hospitalists seeking to focus career directions consider a similar path. In fact, Dr. Kaboli and colleague Greg Ogrinc, MD, MS, senior scholar and director of the VA Quality Scholars (VAQS) Fellowship Program at the White River Junction VA in Vermont, say the VA healthcare system offers several avenues for hospitalists to hone their clinical, research, quality improvement, and leadership skills.

Research Paths

A nearly 15-year history with electronic health records (EHR) and a large population of enrolled beneficiaries make the VA system a rich source of data for understanding systems and improving care, Dr. Ogrinc says.

The VAQS Fellowship Program, offered at eight VA centers nationally, is a 2-year interdisciplinary program that pairs physicians and doctorally prepared nurses. Several sites also provide master’s degree training at an affiliated university. The curriculum is designed to train physicians in new methods of improving the quality and safety of healthcare for veterans and the nation. All eight VAQS centers are affiliated with academic institutions. That’s the case with the program at White River Junction, where VAQS Senior Scholar Dr. Ogrinc also holds dual appointments with Geisel School of Medicine in Hanover, N.H. and The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice in Lebanon, N.H.

Dr. Ogrinc has tracked the VA’s experience with the program since its inception. One summary, published in 2009, notes that one of the strengths of the program is its combination of healthcare improvement curricula with adult learning strategies.³ This, along with mentorship and meaningful projects, serves to prepare physicians to lead improvement initiatives in healthcare quality and safety.

At White River Junction, graduates of the fellowship program follow a wide range of career paths. Dr. Ogrinc says roughly 50% choose to remain with the VA. Wherever fellows land after the program, both Dr. Kaboli and Dr. Ogrinc agree that the two-year delay before going into practice is a worthwhile investment. “The upfront investment in time pays back in the long run,” Dr. Kaboli says.

Additional fellowships offered through the VA include Career Development Awards (akin to the National Institutes of Health career development K awards), often located at VA medical centers designated as Centers of Innovation. They supply research infrastructure and access to data. Some of the centers offering VAQS and patient safety fellowships are co-located with Veterans Engineering Resource Centers, so that cross-fertilization with experts in organizational engineering makes for an additional “rich learning environment,” notes Dr. Ogrinc.

Clinical Path

Like all U.S. healthcare systems, the VA is expanding its use of hospitalists.

“There are great opportunities for hospitalists in the VA as salaried physicians, with very reasonable work hours and an excellent electronic medical record,” Dr. Kaboli says.

Dr. Ogrinc points out that residency programs do not always prepare hospitalists for the administrative, system improvement, and organizational responsibilities that often fall under hospitalist purview. “Committee and improvement work can often be seen as bothersome by some,” he says, “especially if they don’t have the opportunity to learn the skills and methods to make their organizations work better from a patient outcome standpoint.”

In addition, either experiencing a fellowship program or simply working in a salaried position with the VA “can round out your skill set, make you a better hospitalist overall, and put you in a position to be a leader as a hospitalist in a practice,” Dr. Ogrinc says.

Dr. Kaboli agrees.

“The future of healthcare reform in this country is embracing the model of the accountable care organization,” he says. “The VA system, with capitated payment, salaried physicians, and comprehensive integrated care, is arguably the largest ACO [accountable care organization] in the country.”

Gretchen Henkel is a freelance writer in California.

Resources for VA Research Programs

Eight VA medical centers participate in the National Quality Scholars Fellowship Program: Greater Los Angeles, Atlanta, Birmingham, Cleveland, Iowa City, Nashville, San Francisco, and White River Junction. For more information on application requirements and deadlines, visit www.va.gov and search “National Quality Scholars Fellowship Program.”

There are three levels of Career Development Awards offered through the VA Office of Research and Development, including biomedical laboratory/clinical sciences and health services. For more information on award categories and submission deadlines, visit www.research.va.gov/funding.

The New England Veterans Engineering Resource Center (www.newengland.va.gov/verc) provides examples of the variety of systems engineering research projects being undertaken by the VA. —Gretchen Henkel

References

1. Lund BC, Steinman MA, Chrischilles EA, Kaboli PJ. Beers criteria as a proxy for inappropriate prescribing of other medications among older adults. Ann Pharmacother. 2011;45:1363-1370.
2. Lund BC, Charlton ME, Steinman MA, Kaboli PJ. Regional differences in prescribing quality among elder veterans and the impact of rural residence. J Rural Health. 2013;29:172-179.
3. Splaine ME, Ogrinc G, Gilman SC, et al. The Department of Veterans Affairs National Quality Scholars Fellowship Program: experience from 10 year of training quality scholars. Acad Med. 2009;84:1741-1748.

The recent announcement of a settlement by a physician firm should cause the HM community to pause and take inventory. The settlement “addressed allegations that, between 2004 and 2012, [the firm] knowingly submitted to federal health benefits programs inflated claims on behalf of its hospitalist employees for higher and more expensive levels of service than were documented by hospitalists in patient medical records.”¹

This civil settlement highlights the vigilance being exercised against healthcare fraud and demonstrates the coordinated efforts in place to tackle the issue. To put the weight of this case in perspective, consider the breadth of legal entities involved: the U.S. Department of Justice; the U.S. Attorney’s Office; the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; the U.S. Department of Defense; the U.S. Office of Personnel Management; the U.S. Department of Veterans’ Affairs; and the TRICARE Management Activity Office of General Counsel.¹

The underlying factor in the settlement is a common issue routinely identified by Medicare-initiated review programs such as CERT (Comprehensive Error Rate Testing). CERT selects a stratified, random sample of approximately 40,000 claims submitted to Part A/B Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs) and Durable Medical Equipment MACs (DME MACs) during each reporting period and allows the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to calculate a national improper payment rate and contractor- and service-specific improper payment rates.2 The CERT-determined improper payment rate identifies services that have not satisfied Medicare requirements, but it cannot label a claim fraudulent.²

Incorrect coding errors involving hospitalists are related to inpatient evaluation and management (E/M) services that do not adequately reflect the documentation in the medical record. For example, WPS Medicare identified the following error rates for claims submitted 7/1/11 to 6/30/12: 45% of 99223 (initial hospital care, per day, for the evaluation and management of a patient, which requires these three key components: a comprehensive history, a comprehensive exam, and medical decision-making of high complexity); and 34% of 99233 (subsequent hospital care, per day, for the evaluation and management of a patient, which requires at least two of these three key components: a detailed interval history, a detailed examination, and medical decision-making of high complexity).^3,4 More recent WPS Medicare data in first quarter of FY2013 reveals a continuing problem but an improved error rate.⁵ Novitas Solutions offers additional support of these findings.⁶

Based on efforts that identify improper payments, MACs are encouraged to initiate targeted service-specific prepayment review to prevent improper payments for services identified by CERT or recovery audit contractors (RACs) as problem areas, as well as problem areas identified by their own data analysis.⁷ For this reason, hospitalists may see prepayment requests for documentation by Medicare for services that are most “problematic” (e.g., 99223 and 99233). This occurs when a claim involving these services is submitted to Medicare. The MAC suspends all or part of a claim so that a trained clinician or claims analyst can review the claim and associated documentation in order to make determinations about coverage and payment.⁷ Responding to these requests in a timely manner is crucial in preventing claim denials.

Responding to Requests

When documentation is requested by the payor, take note of the date and the provider for whom the service is requested. Be certain to include all pertinent information in support of the claim. The payor request letter will typically include a generic list of items that should be submitted with the documentation request. Consider these particular items when submitting documentation for targeted services typically provided by hospitalists:

• Initial Hospital Care (99223)

  • Physician notes (including resident, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant notes);
  • Identify any referenced sources of information (e.g., physician referencing a family history documented in the ED record);
  • Dictations, when performed;
  • Admitting orders; and
  • Labs or diagnostic test reports performed on admission.

• Subsequent Hospital Care (99233)

  • Physician notes (including resident, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant notes);
  • Identify multiple encounters/entries recorded on a given date;
  • Physician orders; and
  • Labs or diagnostic test reports performed on the requested date.

Documentation Tips

Because it is the primary communication tool for providers involved in the patient’s care, documentation must be entered in a timely manner and must be decipherable to members of the healthcare team as well as other individuals who may need to review the information (e.g., auditors). Proper credit cannot be given for documentation that is difficult to read.

Information should include historical review of past/interim events, a physical exam, medical decision-making as related to the patient’s progress/response to intervention, and modification of the care plan (as necessary). The reason for the encounter should be evident to support the medical necessity of the service. Because various specialists may participate in patient care, documentation for each provider’s encounter should demonstrate personalized and non-duplicative care.

Each individual provider must exhibit a personal contribution to the case to prevent payors from viewing the documentation as overlapping and indistinguishable from care already provided by another physician. Each entry should be dated and signed with a legible identifier (i.e., signature with a printed name).

The next several articles will address each of the key components (history, exam, and decision-making) and serve as a “documentation refresher” for providers who wish to compare their documentation to current standards.

References

1. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs. Tacoma, Wash., Medical Firm to Pay $14.5 Million to Settle Overbilling Allegations. Available at: www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2013/July/13-civ-758.html. Accessed September 20, 2013.
2. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Comprehensive Error Rate Testing (CERT). Available at: www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Monitoring-Programs/CERT/index.html?redirect=/cert. Accessed September 20, 2013.
3. WPS Medicare, Legacy Part B. Are you billing these evaluation and management (e/m) services correctly? Available at: http://www.wpsmedicare.com/j5macpartb/departments/cert/2011-0912-billemservices.shtml. Accessed September 20, 2013.
4. Abraham M, Ahlman J, Boudreau A, Connelly J, Levreau-Davis, L. Current Procedural Terminology 2013 Professional Edition. Chicago: American Medical Association Press; 2012:15-17.
5. WPS Medicare, Legacy Part B. 1st Qtr. 2013 (Jan. - Mar.) - CERT Error Summary. Available at: http://www.wpsmedicare.com/j5macpartb/departments/cert/2013-1st-quarter-summary.shtml. Accessed September 20, 2013.
6. Novitas Solutions. Analysis of JL Part B Comprehensive Error Rate Testing (CERT) Data - January thru March 2013. Available at: https://www.novitas-solutions.com/cert/errors/2013/b-jan-mar-j12.html. Accessed September 20, 2013.
7. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Medicare Program Integrity Manual, Chapter 3, Section 3.2. Available at: www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/Manuals/downloads/pim83c03.pdf. Accessed September 20, 2013.
8. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Medicare Claims Processing Manual, Chapter 11, Section 40.1.2 Available at: www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/Manuals/Downloads/clm104c11.pdf. Accessed September 20, 2013.

The recent announcement of a settlement by a physician firm should cause the HM community to pause and take inventory. The settlement “addressed allegations that, between 2004 and 2012, [the firm] knowingly submitted to federal health benefits programs inflated claims on behalf of its hospitalist employees for higher and more expensive levels of service than were documented by hospitalists in patient medical records.”¹

This civil settlement highlights the vigilance being exercised against healthcare fraud and demonstrates the coordinated efforts in place to tackle the issue. To put the weight of this case in perspective, consider the breadth of legal entities involved: the U.S. Department of Justice; the U.S. Attorney’s Office; the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; the U.S. Department of Defense; the U.S. Office of Personnel Management; the U.S. Department of Veterans’ Affairs; and the TRICARE Management Activity Office of General Counsel.¹

The underlying factor in the settlement is a common issue routinely identified by Medicare-initiated review programs such as CERT (Comprehensive Error Rate Testing). CERT selects a stratified, random sample of approximately 40,000 claims submitted to Part A/B Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs) and Durable Medical Equipment MACs (DME MACs) during each reporting period and allows the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to calculate a national improper payment rate and contractor- and service-specific improper payment rates.2 The CERT-determined improper payment rate identifies services that have not satisfied Medicare requirements, but it cannot label a claim fraudulent.²

Incorrect coding errors involving hospitalists are related to inpatient evaluation and management (E/M) services that do not adequately reflect the documentation in the medical record. For example, WPS Medicare identified the following error rates for claims submitted 7/1/11 to 6/30/12: 45% of 99223 (initial hospital care, per day, for the evaluation and management of a patient, which requires these three key components: a comprehensive history, a comprehensive exam, and medical decision-making of high complexity); and 34% of 99233 (subsequent hospital care, per day, for the evaluation and management of a patient, which requires at least two of these three key components: a detailed interval history, a detailed examination, and medical decision-making of high complexity).^3,4 More recent WPS Medicare data in first quarter of FY2013 reveals a continuing problem but an improved error rate.⁵ Novitas Solutions offers additional support of these findings.⁶

Based on efforts that identify improper payments, MACs are encouraged to initiate targeted service-specific prepayment review to prevent improper payments for services identified by CERT or recovery audit contractors (RACs) as problem areas, as well as problem areas identified by their own data analysis.⁷ For this reason, hospitalists may see prepayment requests for documentation by Medicare for services that are most “problematic” (e.g., 99223 and 99233). This occurs when a claim involving these services is submitted to Medicare. The MAC suspends all or part of a claim so that a trained clinician or claims analyst can review the claim and associated documentation in order to make determinations about coverage and payment.⁷ Responding to these requests in a timely manner is crucial in preventing claim denials.

Responding to Requests

When documentation is requested by the payor, take note of the date and the provider for whom the service is requested. Be certain to include all pertinent information in support of the claim. The payor request letter will typically include a generic list of items that should be submitted with the documentation request. Consider these particular items when submitting documentation for targeted services typically provided by hospitalists:

• Initial Hospital Care (99223)

  • Physician notes (including resident, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant notes);
  • Identify any referenced sources of information (e.g., physician referencing a family history documented in the ED record);
  • Dictations, when performed;
  • Admitting orders; and
  • Labs or diagnostic test reports performed on admission.

• Subsequent Hospital Care (99233)

  • Physician notes (including resident, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant notes);
  • Identify multiple encounters/entries recorded on a given date;
  • Physician orders; and
  • Labs or diagnostic test reports performed on the requested date.

Documentation Tips

Because it is the primary communication tool for providers involved in the patient’s care, documentation must be entered in a timely manner and must be decipherable to members of the healthcare team as well as other individuals who may need to review the information (e.g., auditors). Proper credit cannot be given for documentation that is difficult to read.

Information should include historical review of past/interim events, a physical exam, medical decision-making as related to the patient’s progress/response to intervention, and modification of the care plan (as necessary). The reason for the encounter should be evident to support the medical necessity of the service. Because various specialists may participate in patient care, documentation for each provider’s encounter should demonstrate personalized and non-duplicative care.

Each individual provider must exhibit a personal contribution to the case to prevent payors from viewing the documentation as overlapping and indistinguishable from care already provided by another physician. Each entry should be dated and signed with a legible identifier (i.e., signature with a printed name).

The next several articles will address each of the key components (history, exam, and decision-making) and serve as a “documentation refresher” for providers who wish to compare their documentation to current standards.

References

1. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs. Tacoma, Wash., Medical Firm to Pay $14.5 Million to Settle Overbilling Allegations. Available at: www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2013/July/13-civ-758.html. Accessed September 20, 2013.
2. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Comprehensive Error Rate Testing (CERT). Available at: www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Monitoring-Programs/CERT/index.html?redirect=/cert. Accessed September 20, 2013.
3. WPS Medicare, Legacy Part B. Are you billing these evaluation and management (e/m) services correctly? Available at: http://www.wpsmedicare.com/j5macpartb/departments/cert/2011-0912-billemservices.shtml. Accessed September 20, 2013.
4. Abraham M, Ahlman J, Boudreau A, Connelly J, Levreau-Davis, L. Current Procedural Terminology 2013 Professional Edition. Chicago: American Medical Association Press; 2012:15-17.
5. WPS Medicare, Legacy Part B. 1st Qtr. 2013 (Jan. - Mar.) - CERT Error Summary. Available at: http://www.wpsmedicare.com/j5macpartb/departments/cert/2013-1st-quarter-summary.shtml. Accessed September 20, 2013.
6. Novitas Solutions. Analysis of JL Part B Comprehensive Error Rate Testing (CERT) Data - January thru March 2013. Available at: https://www.novitas-solutions.com/cert/errors/2013/b-jan-mar-j12.html. Accessed September 20, 2013.
7. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Medicare Program Integrity Manual, Chapter 3, Section 3.2. Available at: www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/Manuals/downloads/pim83c03.pdf. Accessed September 20, 2013.
8. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Medicare Claims Processing Manual, Chapter 11, Section 40.1.2 Available at: www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/Manuals/Downloads/clm104c11.pdf. Accessed September 20, 2013.

The recent announcement of a settlement by a physician firm should cause the HM community to pause and take inventory. The settlement “addressed allegations that, between 2004 and 2012, [the firm] knowingly submitted to federal health benefits programs inflated claims on behalf of its hospitalist employees for higher and more expensive levels of service than were documented by hospitalists in patient medical records.”¹

This civil settlement highlights the vigilance being exercised against healthcare fraud and demonstrates the coordinated efforts in place to tackle the issue. To put the weight of this case in perspective, consider the breadth of legal entities involved: the U.S. Department of Justice; the U.S. Attorney’s Office; the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; the U.S. Department of Defense; the U.S. Office of Personnel Management; the U.S. Department of Veterans’ Affairs; and the TRICARE Management Activity Office of General Counsel.¹

The underlying factor in the settlement is a common issue routinely identified by Medicare-initiated review programs such as CERT (Comprehensive Error Rate Testing). CERT selects a stratified, random sample of approximately 40,000 claims submitted to Part A/B Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs) and Durable Medical Equipment MACs (DME MACs) during each reporting period and allows the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to calculate a national improper payment rate and contractor- and service-specific improper payment rates.2 The CERT-determined improper payment rate identifies services that have not satisfied Medicare requirements, but it cannot label a claim fraudulent.²

Incorrect coding errors involving hospitalists are related to inpatient evaluation and management (E/M) services that do not adequately reflect the documentation in the medical record. For example, WPS Medicare identified the following error rates for claims submitted 7/1/11 to 6/30/12: 45% of 99223 (initial hospital care, per day, for the evaluation and management of a patient, which requires these three key components: a comprehensive history, a comprehensive exam, and medical decision-making of high complexity); and 34% of 99233 (subsequent hospital care, per day, for the evaluation and management of a patient, which requires at least two of these three key components: a detailed interval history, a detailed examination, and medical decision-making of high complexity).^3,4 More recent WPS Medicare data in first quarter of FY2013 reveals a continuing problem but an improved error rate.⁵ Novitas Solutions offers additional support of these findings.⁶

Based on efforts that identify improper payments, MACs are encouraged to initiate targeted service-specific prepayment review to prevent improper payments for services identified by CERT or recovery audit contractors (RACs) as problem areas, as well as problem areas identified by their own data analysis.⁷ For this reason, hospitalists may see prepayment requests for documentation by Medicare for services that are most “problematic” (e.g., 99223 and 99233). This occurs when a claim involving these services is submitted to Medicare. The MAC suspends all or part of a claim so that a trained clinician or claims analyst can review the claim and associated documentation in order to make determinations about coverage and payment.⁷ Responding to these requests in a timely manner is crucial in preventing claim denials.

Responding to Requests

When documentation is requested by the payor, take note of the date and the provider for whom the service is requested. Be certain to include all pertinent information in support of the claim. The payor request letter will typically include a generic list of items that should be submitted with the documentation request. Consider these particular items when submitting documentation for targeted services typically provided by hospitalists:

• Initial Hospital Care (99223)

  • Physician notes (including resident, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant notes);
  • Identify any referenced sources of information (e.g., physician referencing a family history documented in the ED record);
  • Dictations, when performed;
  • Admitting orders; and
  • Labs or diagnostic test reports performed on admission.

• Subsequent Hospital Care (99233)

  • Physician notes (including resident, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant notes);
  • Identify multiple encounters/entries recorded on a given date;
  • Physician orders; and
  • Labs or diagnostic test reports performed on the requested date.

Documentation Tips

Because it is the primary communication tool for providers involved in the patient’s care, documentation must be entered in a timely manner and must be decipherable to members of the healthcare team as well as other individuals who may need to review the information (e.g., auditors). Proper credit cannot be given for documentation that is difficult to read.

Information should include historical review of past/interim events, a physical exam, medical decision-making as related to the patient’s progress/response to intervention, and modification of the care plan (as necessary). The reason for the encounter should be evident to support the medical necessity of the service. Because various specialists may participate in patient care, documentation for each provider’s encounter should demonstrate personalized and non-duplicative care.

Each individual provider must exhibit a personal contribution to the case to prevent payors from viewing the documentation as overlapping and indistinguishable from care already provided by another physician. Each entry should be dated and signed with a legible identifier (i.e., signature with a printed name).

The next several articles will address each of the key components (history, exam, and decision-making) and serve as a “documentation refresher” for providers who wish to compare their documentation to current standards.

References

1. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs. Tacoma, Wash., Medical Firm to Pay $14.5 Million to Settle Overbilling Allegations. Available at: www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2013/July/13-civ-758.html. Accessed September 20, 2013.
2. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Comprehensive Error Rate Testing (CERT). Available at: www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Monitoring-Programs/CERT/index.html?redirect=/cert. Accessed September 20, 2013.
3. WPS Medicare, Legacy Part B. Are you billing these evaluation and management (e/m) services correctly? Available at: http://www.wpsmedicare.com/j5macpartb/departments/cert/2011-0912-billemservices.shtml. Accessed September 20, 2013.
4. Abraham M, Ahlman J, Boudreau A, Connelly J, Levreau-Davis, L. Current Procedural Terminology 2013 Professional Edition. Chicago: American Medical Association Press; 2012:15-17.
5. WPS Medicare, Legacy Part B. 1st Qtr. 2013 (Jan. - Mar.) - CERT Error Summary. Available at: http://www.wpsmedicare.com/j5macpartb/departments/cert/2013-1st-quarter-summary.shtml. Accessed September 20, 2013.
6. Novitas Solutions. Analysis of JL Part B Comprehensive Error Rate Testing (CERT) Data - January thru March 2013. Available at: https://www.novitas-solutions.com/cert/errors/2013/b-jan-mar-j12.html. Accessed September 20, 2013.
7. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Medicare Program Integrity Manual, Chapter 3, Section 3.2. Available at: www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/Manuals/downloads/pim83c03.pdf. Accessed September 20, 2013.
8. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Medicare Claims Processing Manual, Chapter 11, Section 40.1.2 Available at: www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/Manuals/Downloads/clm104c11.pdf. Accessed September 20, 2013.

67

Number in minutes of publicly reported “door-to-balloon” times for heart attack patients who underwent primary percutaneous coronary interventions in U.S. hospitals in 2009, according to a new study in the New England Journal of Medicine.¹ Average time in 2005 was 83 minutes. Current guidelines recommend door-to-balloon of 90 minutes or less.

The 30-day mortality rates for studied patients, however, were unchanged over the same time period, suggesting that additional strategies are needed to reduce in-hospital mortality in this population.

Reference

1. Menees DS, Peterson ED, Wang Y, et al. Door-to-balloon time and mortality among patients undergoing primary PCI. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:901-909.

67

Number in minutes of publicly reported “door-to-balloon” times for heart attack patients who underwent primary percutaneous coronary interventions in U.S. hospitals in 2009, according to a new study in the New England Journal of Medicine.¹ Average time in 2005 was 83 minutes. Current guidelines recommend door-to-balloon of 90 minutes or less.

The 30-day mortality rates for studied patients, however, were unchanged over the same time period, suggesting that additional strategies are needed to reduce in-hospital mortality in this population.

Reference

1. Menees DS, Peterson ED, Wang Y, et al. Door-to-balloon time and mortality among patients undergoing primary PCI. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:901-909.

67

Number in minutes of publicly reported “door-to-balloon” times for heart attack patients who underwent primary percutaneous coronary interventions in U.S. hospitals in 2009, according to a new study in the New England Journal of Medicine.¹ Average time in 2005 was 83 minutes. Current guidelines recommend door-to-balloon of 90 minutes or less.

The 30-day mortality rates for studied patients, however, were unchanged over the same time period, suggesting that additional strategies are needed to reduce in-hospital mortality in this population.

Reference

1. Menees DS, Peterson ED, Wang Y, et al. Door-to-balloon time and mortality among patients undergoing primary PCI. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:901-909.

Two Research, Hospital Innovations, and Clinical Vignettes (RIV) scientific posters presented at HM13 shed new light on the opportunities and challenges of hospitalist-run post-discharge clinics, which a growing number of hospitals have adopted in an attempt to smooth care transitions and prevent rehospitalizations.

The Denver VA Medical Center (VAMC) started its post-discharge clinic, located on a floor above its medicine wards, in 2003. Open two afternoons, the clinic sees up to 16 patients a week. Discharging housestaff are paged to meet their patients in the clinic as part of required afternoon activities, explains the poster’s lead author, Robert Burke, MD, a hospitalist at the VAMC and assistant professor of medicine at affiliated University of Colorado. Every patient is seen by a rotating, supervising hospitalist attending.

The clinic is able to see patients for their first post-discharge clinical encounter within five days on average, much sooner than either urgent care clinics (9.4 days) or primary care physicians (13.7 days).

However, data presented at HM13 found no reduction in readmissions for the VA clinic’s patients.¹ Dr. Burke suggests that this finding reflects the challenges of connecting patients to their PCPs after the clinic visit. “Also, it’s not a full, multidisciplinary clinic—just housestaff and attendings,” he says. “The patients we see in the clinic are very ill.”

A second poster from the same team presented data from a national survey of hospitalists’ attitudes regarding post-discharge clinics.² Three-quarters of 228 respondents believed that these clinics would reduce ED visits, but only 38% said that hospitalists should be seeing patients after discharge, and about 75% said doing so should require additional compensation for the physician.

“In my experience, I find it very valuable to see patients post-discharge as part of the larger continuum of care,” Dr. Burke says.

Larry Beresford is a freelance writer in San Francisco.

References

1. Burke RE, Prochazka AV. A VA hospitalist-run post-discharge clinic: patient outcomes and lessons learned [abstracts]. J Hosp Med. 2013;8 Suppl 1:691.
2. Ryan PP, Stickrath C, Burke RE. Post-discharge clinics: attitudes and experiences of hospitalists [abstracts]. J Hosp Med. 2013;8 Suppl 1:693.

Two Research, Hospital Innovations, and Clinical Vignettes (RIV) scientific posters presented at HM13 shed new light on the opportunities and challenges of hospitalist-run post-discharge clinics, which a growing number of hospitals have adopted in an attempt to smooth care transitions and prevent rehospitalizations.

The Denver VA Medical Center (VAMC) started its post-discharge clinic, located on a floor above its medicine wards, in 2003. Open two afternoons, the clinic sees up to 16 patients a week. Discharging housestaff are paged to meet their patients in the clinic as part of required afternoon activities, explains the poster’s lead author, Robert Burke, MD, a hospitalist at the VAMC and assistant professor of medicine at affiliated University of Colorado. Every patient is seen by a rotating, supervising hospitalist attending.

The clinic is able to see patients for their first post-discharge clinical encounter within five days on average, much sooner than either urgent care clinics (9.4 days) or primary care physicians (13.7 days).

However, data presented at HM13 found no reduction in readmissions for the VA clinic’s patients.¹ Dr. Burke suggests that this finding reflects the challenges of connecting patients to their PCPs after the clinic visit. “Also, it’s not a full, multidisciplinary clinic—just housestaff and attendings,” he says. “The patients we see in the clinic are very ill.”

A second poster from the same team presented data from a national survey of hospitalists’ attitudes regarding post-discharge clinics.² Three-quarters of 228 respondents believed that these clinics would reduce ED visits, but only 38% said that hospitalists should be seeing patients after discharge, and about 75% said doing so should require additional compensation for the physician.

“In my experience, I find it very valuable to see patients post-discharge as part of the larger continuum of care,” Dr. Burke says.

Larry Beresford is a freelance writer in San Francisco.

References

1. Burke RE, Prochazka AV. A VA hospitalist-run post-discharge clinic: patient outcomes and lessons learned [abstracts]. J Hosp Med. 2013;8 Suppl 1:691.
2. Ryan PP, Stickrath C, Burke RE. Post-discharge clinics: attitudes and experiences of hospitalists [abstracts]. J Hosp Med. 2013;8 Suppl 1:693.

Two Research, Hospital Innovations, and Clinical Vignettes (RIV) scientific posters presented at HM13 shed new light on the opportunities and challenges of hospitalist-run post-discharge clinics, which a growing number of hospitals have adopted in an attempt to smooth care transitions and prevent rehospitalizations.

The Denver VA Medical Center (VAMC) started its post-discharge clinic, located on a floor above its medicine wards, in 2003. Open two afternoons, the clinic sees up to 16 patients a week. Discharging housestaff are paged to meet their patients in the clinic as part of required afternoon activities, explains the poster’s lead author, Robert Burke, MD, a hospitalist at the VAMC and assistant professor of medicine at affiliated University of Colorado. Every patient is seen by a rotating, supervising hospitalist attending.

The clinic is able to see patients for their first post-discharge clinical encounter within five days on average, much sooner than either urgent care clinics (9.4 days) or primary care physicians (13.7 days).

However, data presented at HM13 found no reduction in readmissions for the VA clinic’s patients.¹ Dr. Burke suggests that this finding reflects the challenges of connecting patients to their PCPs after the clinic visit. “Also, it’s not a full, multidisciplinary clinic—just housestaff and attendings,” he says. “The patients we see in the clinic are very ill.”

A second poster from the same team presented data from a national survey of hospitalists’ attitudes regarding post-discharge clinics.² Three-quarters of 228 respondents believed that these clinics would reduce ED visits, but only 38% said that hospitalists should be seeing patients after discharge, and about 75% said doing so should require additional compensation for the physician.

“In my experience, I find it very valuable to see patients post-discharge as part of the larger continuum of care,” Dr. Burke says.

Larry Beresford is a freelance writer in San Francisco.

References

1. Burke RE, Prochazka AV. A VA hospitalist-run post-discharge clinic: patient outcomes and lessons learned [abstracts]. J Hosp Med. 2013;8 Suppl 1:691.
2. Ryan PP, Stickrath C, Burke RE. Post-discharge clinics: attitudes and experiences of hospitalists [abstracts]. J Hosp Med. 2013;8 Suppl 1:693.

A recent study in The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety describes unit-based Patient Safety Leadership WalkRounds conducted on six pilot units at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) and how they have helped clinical leaders identify and address safety concerns.¹ The WalkRound team, made up of at least one senior executive, a patient safety officer, and the manager of each unit, engages frontline staff in safety assessments and concerns.

The concept was developed by Allan Frankel, MD, director of patient safety at Partners Healthcare System in Boston, to increase awareness of safety issues by all clinicians, make safety a high priority for senior leadership, and act on the safety information collected from frontline staff.

At CHOP, the WalkRounds led to improved nurse-physician relationships, workflow, and medical safety, and uncovered previously unidentified safety concerns.

Reference

1.Taylor AM, Chuo J, Figueroa-Altmann A, DiTaranto S, Shaw KN. Using four-phased unit-based patient safety walkrounds to uncover correctable system flaws. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2013;39:396-403.

A recent study in The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety describes unit-based Patient Safety Leadership WalkRounds conducted on six pilot units at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) and how they have helped clinical leaders identify and address safety concerns.¹ The WalkRound team, made up of at least one senior executive, a patient safety officer, and the manager of each unit, engages frontline staff in safety assessments and concerns.

The concept was developed by Allan Frankel, MD, director of patient safety at Partners Healthcare System in Boston, to increase awareness of safety issues by all clinicians, make safety a high priority for senior leadership, and act on the safety information collected from frontline staff.

At CHOP, the WalkRounds led to improved nurse-physician relationships, workflow, and medical safety, and uncovered previously unidentified safety concerns.

Reference

1.Taylor AM, Chuo J, Figueroa-Altmann A, DiTaranto S, Shaw KN. Using four-phased unit-based patient safety walkrounds to uncover correctable system flaws. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2013;39:396-403.

A recent study in The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety describes unit-based Patient Safety Leadership WalkRounds conducted on six pilot units at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) and how they have helped clinical leaders identify and address safety concerns.¹ The WalkRound team, made up of at least one senior executive, a patient safety officer, and the manager of each unit, engages frontline staff in safety assessments and concerns.

The concept was developed by Allan Frankel, MD, director of patient safety at Partners Healthcare System in Boston, to increase awareness of safety issues by all clinicians, make safety a high priority for senior leadership, and act on the safety information collected from frontline staff.

At CHOP, the WalkRounds led to improved nurse-physician relationships, workflow, and medical safety, and uncovered previously unidentified safety concerns.

Reference

1.Taylor AM, Chuo J, Figueroa-Altmann A, DiTaranto S, Shaw KN. Using four-phased unit-based patient safety walkrounds to uncover correctable system flaws. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2013;39:396-403.

A University of California at San Francisco (UCSF) quality initiative targeting waste and overuse of healthcare resources plans to focus on four of five questionable treatments identified by the Society of Hospital Medicine for the ABIM Foundation’s Choosing Wisely campaign. The UCSF Division of Hospital Medicine’s High Value Care Committee grew out of efforts to operationalize a curriculum for teaching medical trainees about the actual costs of treatments they commonly order. UCSF hospitalist Christopher Moriates, MD, developed the curriculum when he was a resident.

The committee brings together physicians, who have historically focused on quality improvement, and finance administrators, who focus on cost reduction. Together they are pursuing performance improvement projects serving both goals, Dr. Moriates says. The committee identified six waste targets initially and has already reduced the use of ionized calcium blood tests, formerly administered to numerous patients at UCSF Medical Center whether they needed it or not, and the unnecessary use of nebulizers, by more than half.

“When the Choosing Wisely list came out, it fit with what we were doing, although I wasn’t sure that these things were problems for us,” Dr. Moriates explains.

The data, however, show that UCSF was significantly better than its peers for only one of the five treatments on the list: utilization of Foley catheters and corresponding rates of catheter-related urinary tract infections. The committee is focused on more judicious, evidence-based ordering of the other Choosing Wisely treatments: medications for stress ulcer prophylaxis, blood transfusions, continuous telemetry monitoring outside of the ICU, and certain lab tests.

Dr. Moriates recommends the Choosing Wisely list for other hospitals and hospitalists starting to tackle unnecessary medical treatments and tests. Data is essential to these efforts, he says, stressing the need to consider not just utilization rates but actual dollars spent.

“That shouldn’t be a major hurdle, given hospital information technology, but often it is,” he says, adding that waste initiatives are more successful when they are led by frontline champions, rather than just assigned by the department’s chair.

Read more about Dr. Moriates’ waste control efforts in HealthLeaders Media, and learn about another waste reduction strategy called the Teaching Value Project at www.teachingvalue.org.¹

^Reference

1. Clark C. How hospital practices are trimmed at UCSF. HealthLeaders Media. August 8, 2013. Available at: http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/content/QUA-295035/How-Hospital-Practices-are-Trimmed-at-UCSF##. Accessed September 21, 2013.

A University of California at San Francisco (UCSF) quality initiative targeting waste and overuse of healthcare resources plans to focus on four of five questionable treatments identified by the Society of Hospital Medicine for the ABIM Foundation’s Choosing Wisely campaign. The UCSF Division of Hospital Medicine’s High Value Care Committee grew out of efforts to operationalize a curriculum for teaching medical trainees about the actual costs of treatments they commonly order. UCSF hospitalist Christopher Moriates, MD, developed the curriculum when he was a resident.

The committee brings together physicians, who have historically focused on quality improvement, and finance administrators, who focus on cost reduction. Together they are pursuing performance improvement projects serving both goals, Dr. Moriates says. The committee identified six waste targets initially and has already reduced the use of ionized calcium blood tests, formerly administered to numerous patients at UCSF Medical Center whether they needed it or not, and the unnecessary use of nebulizers, by more than half.

“When the Choosing Wisely list came out, it fit with what we were doing, although I wasn’t sure that these things were problems for us,” Dr. Moriates explains.

The data, however, show that UCSF was significantly better than its peers for only one of the five treatments on the list: utilization of Foley catheters and corresponding rates of catheter-related urinary tract infections. The committee is focused on more judicious, evidence-based ordering of the other Choosing Wisely treatments: medications for stress ulcer prophylaxis, blood transfusions, continuous telemetry monitoring outside of the ICU, and certain lab tests.

Dr. Moriates recommends the Choosing Wisely list for other hospitals and hospitalists starting to tackle unnecessary medical treatments and tests. Data is essential to these efforts, he says, stressing the need to consider not just utilization rates but actual dollars spent.

“That shouldn’t be a major hurdle, given hospital information technology, but often it is,” he says, adding that waste initiatives are more successful when they are led by frontline champions, rather than just assigned by the department’s chair.

Read more about Dr. Moriates’ waste control efforts in HealthLeaders Media, and learn about another waste reduction strategy called the Teaching Value Project at www.teachingvalue.org.¹

^Reference

1. Clark C. How hospital practices are trimmed at UCSF. HealthLeaders Media. August 8, 2013. Available at: http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/content/QUA-295035/How-Hospital-Practices-are-Trimmed-at-UCSF##. Accessed September 21, 2013.

A University of California at San Francisco (UCSF) quality initiative targeting waste and overuse of healthcare resources plans to focus on four of five questionable treatments identified by the Society of Hospital Medicine for the ABIM Foundation’s Choosing Wisely campaign. The UCSF Division of Hospital Medicine’s High Value Care Committee grew out of efforts to operationalize a curriculum for teaching medical trainees about the actual costs of treatments they commonly order. UCSF hospitalist Christopher Moriates, MD, developed the curriculum when he was a resident.

The committee brings together physicians, who have historically focused on quality improvement, and finance administrators, who focus on cost reduction. Together they are pursuing performance improvement projects serving both goals, Dr. Moriates says. The committee identified six waste targets initially and has already reduced the use of ionized calcium blood tests, formerly administered to numerous patients at UCSF Medical Center whether they needed it or not, and the unnecessary use of nebulizers, by more than half.

“When the Choosing Wisely list came out, it fit with what we were doing, although I wasn’t sure that these things were problems for us,” Dr. Moriates explains.

The data, however, show that UCSF was significantly better than its peers for only one of the five treatments on the list: utilization of Foley catheters and corresponding rates of catheter-related urinary tract infections. The committee is focused on more judicious, evidence-based ordering of the other Choosing Wisely treatments: medications for stress ulcer prophylaxis, blood transfusions, continuous telemetry monitoring outside of the ICU, and certain lab tests.

Dr. Moriates recommends the Choosing Wisely list for other hospitals and hospitalists starting to tackle unnecessary medical treatments and tests. Data is essential to these efforts, he says, stressing the need to consider not just utilization rates but actual dollars spent.

“That shouldn’t be a major hurdle, given hospital information technology, but often it is,” he says, adding that waste initiatives are more successful when they are led by frontline champions, rather than just assigned by the department’s chair.

Read more about Dr. Moriates’ waste control efforts in HealthLeaders Media, and learn about another waste reduction strategy called the Teaching Value Project at www.teachingvalue.org.¹

^Reference

1. Clark C. How hospital practices are trimmed at UCSF. HealthLeaders Media. August 8, 2013. Available at: http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/content/QUA-295035/How-Hospital-Practices-are-Trimmed-at-UCSF##. Accessed September 21, 2013.