The query came from the audience: “But isn’t comanagement really about us becoming the surgeon’s waterboy?” Encouraged by the chortling crowd, he furthered, “I mean, think about it: How much more demeaning can it get than to be the admit-ologist and discharge-ologist for the surgeon? They make all the coin and we just follow after them picking up their jock straps.”

Slack-jawed, I mustered what was, under the circumstances, a rather confident “Umm … ?”

This comment, from a talk I gave a couple of years ago at an SHM annual meeting about comanagement, took me a bit by surprise. Not because of the sentiment; that I get. It’s easy to feel that the comanagement we do suffices only to sate the surgeon at the hospitalist’s expense. Rather, I was taken aback because of its indication of the distance with which we’ve missed the comanagement bull’s-eye.

New Comanagement Data

A recent article regarding the comanagement of neurosurgical patients drudged this oratorical memory from its peaceful cerebral resting place between the 1982 Milwaukee Brewers’ starting outfield (Ogilvie, Thomas, Moore), my wife’s least favorite Beatle (Ringo), and the number of macaroni noodles my grade-school friend Mike could stuff into his nostril and cough up through his mouth (nine with aspiration, five without). In the paper, Auerbach et al report a retrospective, before-and-after study of 7,596 patients admitted to the neurosurgery service at the University of California at San Francisco Medical Center.¹ The authors compared administrative, financial, and survey data for 4,203 patients before a hospitalist-neurosurgery comanagement arrangement to 3,393 patients after the program implementation—by far the largest trial of hospitalist comanagement to date.

They found:

• Shockingly, surgeons (“hospitalists make it easier for me to do my job”) and nurses (“I can easily and promptly reach a physician”) liked having us around.
• Curiously, patients were rather indifferent (measured via patient satisfaction indicators) to our presence.
• The cost of care decreased by about $1,500 per patient after the intercalation of hospitalists—this despite the fact that the length of stay was unchanged before and after model implementation.
• Unfortunately, such traditional markers of quality as mortality and readmission rate remained stubbornly unchanged.
• Encouragingly, nontraditional-but-likely-important indicators of quality (e.g. nursing and physician perception of improvements in care provision) were achieved.

Perspective

This study adds significantly to our understanding of the comanagement model. The finding of costs savings is as expected (nearly all studies of hospitalist programs have shown cost savings) as it is unexpected (prior studies of comanagement models reported no cost savings).² Likewise, the lack of improvement of hard quality endpoints (mortality and readmission rates) is consistent with most studies of hospitalist programs, including a previous report of comanagement of orthopedic patients that showed improvements only in minor complications, such as rates of electrolyte abnormalities, while improvement in the softer quality endpoints—nursing and surgeon satisfaction and perceptions of quality—is consistent with most reports and conventional wisdom.²

Within hours of publication, the blogs were throbbing with discussion of what this meant for the field of hospital medicine. Did this prove comanagement to be the godsend many believe (perceptions of improved quality), the complete farce that many believe (no evidence of mortality benefit), or was this just further confirmation that hospitalists are really nothing more than cost reduction-ists?

My opinion? This is just the comanagement MacGuffin.

MacGuffin Explained

Fans of film will know that the MacGuffin is a Hitchcockian plot device that uses a meaningless but often mysterious and intriguing element to drive the plot. So while everyone, it seems, is concerned with the MacGuffin, the MacGuffin exists only to help the story unfold. Think of the “government secrets” driving the plot in Hitchcock’s North by Northwest, or “unobtainium” in the movie Avatar. In both cases, the MacGuffin preoccupied the cast (they had to have it, or defend it), but in the end, the MacGuffin was insignificant except to move the plot forward.

 

In much the same way, the debate about whether the shared-care model of surgical patients is a good thing is comanagment’s MacGuffin; it definitely drives the plot but ultimately it misses the point. The real comanagement story—indeed, the story of the whole of hospital medicine—is our need to fundamentally improve outcomes through systems improvements. The true benefit of comanagement is not in one doctor (hospitalist) taking over the medical care of another doctor (surgeon). That will only slightly improve outcomes of the medical issues at which the hospitalist is more expert (e.g. minor electrolyte disorders). Meanwhile, this model continues to allow the same harms that the underlying unsafe hospital system imparts. The comanagement model itself won’t fix this. Rather, the model simply acts as a mechanism for us to accomplish our desired goals of system redesign.

Put another way, I am better at internal-medicine care than a neurosurgeon is. As such, I have no doubt that if I manage the medical issues of neurosurgical patients, I will do it better. However, this system of hospitalist provision of internal-medicine care can ultimately only lead to the type of marginal, not meaningful, improvements these comanagement studies have shown.

The real potential for the comanagement model comes when I take off my internal-medicine hat (diabetes care, electrolyte management, etc.) and put on my HM hat (ability to execute systematic quality and process improvements that result in safer systems that effect ALL patients, ALL the time, and is not dependent on the individual provider to do the right thing).

In doing this, the MacGuffin—the comanagement model that cohorts a lot of patients in the hands of a relatively few hospitalists—affords us the opportunity to truly advance the patient-safety plot by building better systems, the type of systems that ensure that every patient systematically gets appropriate VTE prophylaxis, avoids medication errors, has unnecessary urinary and central venous catheters removed, avoids pressure ulcers, doesn’t fall or get delirious, and has expert transitions of care. I have no doubt that if we achieved these kinds of interventions, rather than just managing patients’ medical issues, we’d see the kind of profound changes the comanagement model can offer.

MacGuffin or not, comanagement is likely here to stay. The challenge, then, is to find a way in which these care arrangements can go beyond scut to systematically and comprehensively improve the flawed systems of care that envelop our surgical patients.

Doing this will vastly improve patient outcomes, add significant value to the care we provide, and clearly signal to the surgeon that it’s time to bring us the water bottle. TH

Dr. Glasheen is physician editor of The Hospitalist. He is associate professor of medicine at the University of Colorado Denver, where he serves as director of the Hospital Medicine Program and the Hospitalist Training Program, and as associate program director of the Internal Medicine Residency Program.

References

1. Auerbach AD, Wachter RM, Cheng HQ, et al. Comanagement of surgical patients between neurosurgeons and hospitalists. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(22):2004-2010.
2. Huddleston JM, Long KH, Naessens JM, et al. Medical and surgical comanagement after elective hip and knee arthroplasty: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141(1):28-38.

The query came from the audience: “But isn’t comanagement really about us becoming the surgeon’s waterboy?” Encouraged by the chortling crowd, he furthered, “I mean, think about it: How much more demeaning can it get than to be the admit-ologist and discharge-ologist for the surgeon? They make all the coin and we just follow after them picking up their jock straps.”

Slack-jawed, I mustered what was, under the circumstances, a rather confident “Umm … ?”

This comment, from a talk I gave a couple of years ago at an SHM annual meeting about comanagement, took me a bit by surprise. Not because of the sentiment; that I get. It’s easy to feel that the comanagement we do suffices only to sate the surgeon at the hospitalist’s expense. Rather, I was taken aback because of its indication of the distance with which we’ve missed the comanagement bull’s-eye.

New Comanagement Data

A recent article regarding the comanagement of neurosurgical patients drudged this oratorical memory from its peaceful cerebral resting place between the 1982 Milwaukee Brewers’ starting outfield (Ogilvie, Thomas, Moore), my wife’s least favorite Beatle (Ringo), and the number of macaroni noodles my grade-school friend Mike could stuff into his nostril and cough up through his mouth (nine with aspiration, five without). In the paper, Auerbach et al report a retrospective, before-and-after study of 7,596 patients admitted to the neurosurgery service at the University of California at San Francisco Medical Center.¹ The authors compared administrative, financial, and survey data for 4,203 patients before a hospitalist-neurosurgery comanagement arrangement to 3,393 patients after the program implementation—by far the largest trial of hospitalist comanagement to date.

They found:

• Shockingly, surgeons (“hospitalists make it easier for me to do my job”) and nurses (“I can easily and promptly reach a physician”) liked having us around.
• Curiously, patients were rather indifferent (measured via patient satisfaction indicators) to our presence.
• The cost of care decreased by about $1,500 per patient after the intercalation of hospitalists—this despite the fact that the length of stay was unchanged before and after model implementation.
• Unfortunately, such traditional markers of quality as mortality and readmission rate remained stubbornly unchanged.
• Encouragingly, nontraditional-but-likely-important indicators of quality (e.g. nursing and physician perception of improvements in care provision) were achieved.

Perspective

This study adds significantly to our understanding of the comanagement model. The finding of costs savings is as expected (nearly all studies of hospitalist programs have shown cost savings) as it is unexpected (prior studies of comanagement models reported no cost savings).² Likewise, the lack of improvement of hard quality endpoints (mortality and readmission rates) is consistent with most studies of hospitalist programs, including a previous report of comanagement of orthopedic patients that showed improvements only in minor complications, such as rates of electrolyte abnormalities, while improvement in the softer quality endpoints—nursing and surgeon satisfaction and perceptions of quality—is consistent with most reports and conventional wisdom.²

Within hours of publication, the blogs were throbbing with discussion of what this meant for the field of hospital medicine. Did this prove comanagement to be the godsend many believe (perceptions of improved quality), the complete farce that many believe (no evidence of mortality benefit), or was this just further confirmation that hospitalists are really nothing more than cost reduction-ists?

My opinion? This is just the comanagement MacGuffin.

MacGuffin Explained

Fans of film will know that the MacGuffin is a Hitchcockian plot device that uses a meaningless but often mysterious and intriguing element to drive the plot. So while everyone, it seems, is concerned with the MacGuffin, the MacGuffin exists only to help the story unfold. Think of the “government secrets” driving the plot in Hitchcock’s North by Northwest, or “unobtainium” in the movie Avatar. In both cases, the MacGuffin preoccupied the cast (they had to have it, or defend it), but in the end, the MacGuffin was insignificant except to move the plot forward.

 

In much the same way, the debate about whether the shared-care model of surgical patients is a good thing is comanagment’s MacGuffin; it definitely drives the plot but ultimately it misses the point. The real comanagement story—indeed, the story of the whole of hospital medicine—is our need to fundamentally improve outcomes through systems improvements. The true benefit of comanagement is not in one doctor (hospitalist) taking over the medical care of another doctor (surgeon). That will only slightly improve outcomes of the medical issues at which the hospitalist is more expert (e.g. minor electrolyte disorders). Meanwhile, this model continues to allow the same harms that the underlying unsafe hospital system imparts. The comanagement model itself won’t fix this. Rather, the model simply acts as a mechanism for us to accomplish our desired goals of system redesign.

Put another way, I am better at internal-medicine care than a neurosurgeon is. As such, I have no doubt that if I manage the medical issues of neurosurgical patients, I will do it better. However, this system of hospitalist provision of internal-medicine care can ultimately only lead to the type of marginal, not meaningful, improvements these comanagement studies have shown.

The real potential for the comanagement model comes when I take off my internal-medicine hat (diabetes care, electrolyte management, etc.) and put on my HM hat (ability to execute systematic quality and process improvements that result in safer systems that effect ALL patients, ALL the time, and is not dependent on the individual provider to do the right thing).

In doing this, the MacGuffin—the comanagement model that cohorts a lot of patients in the hands of a relatively few hospitalists—affords us the opportunity to truly advance the patient-safety plot by building better systems, the type of systems that ensure that every patient systematically gets appropriate VTE prophylaxis, avoids medication errors, has unnecessary urinary and central venous catheters removed, avoids pressure ulcers, doesn’t fall or get delirious, and has expert transitions of care. I have no doubt that if we achieved these kinds of interventions, rather than just managing patients’ medical issues, we’d see the kind of profound changes the comanagement model can offer.

MacGuffin or not, comanagement is likely here to stay. The challenge, then, is to find a way in which these care arrangements can go beyond scut to systematically and comprehensively improve the flawed systems of care that envelop our surgical patients.

Doing this will vastly improve patient outcomes, add significant value to the care we provide, and clearly signal to the surgeon that it’s time to bring us the water bottle. TH

Dr. Glasheen is physician editor of The Hospitalist. He is associate professor of medicine at the University of Colorado Denver, where he serves as director of the Hospital Medicine Program and the Hospitalist Training Program, and as associate program director of the Internal Medicine Residency Program.

References

1. Auerbach AD, Wachter RM, Cheng HQ, et al. Comanagement of surgical patients between neurosurgeons and hospitalists. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(22):2004-2010.
2. Huddleston JM, Long KH, Naessens JM, et al. Medical and surgical comanagement after elective hip and knee arthroplasty: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141(1):28-38.

The query came from the audience: “But isn’t comanagement really about us becoming the surgeon’s waterboy?” Encouraged by the chortling crowd, he furthered, “I mean, think about it: How much more demeaning can it get than to be the admit-ologist and discharge-ologist for the surgeon? They make all the coin and we just follow after them picking up their jock straps.”

Slack-jawed, I mustered what was, under the circumstances, a rather confident “Umm … ?”

This comment, from a talk I gave a couple of years ago at an SHM annual meeting about comanagement, took me a bit by surprise. Not because of the sentiment; that I get. It’s easy to feel that the comanagement we do suffices only to sate the surgeon at the hospitalist’s expense. Rather, I was taken aback because of its indication of the distance with which we’ve missed the comanagement bull’s-eye.

New Comanagement Data

A recent article regarding the comanagement of neurosurgical patients drudged this oratorical memory from its peaceful cerebral resting place between the 1982 Milwaukee Brewers’ starting outfield (Ogilvie, Thomas, Moore), my wife’s least favorite Beatle (Ringo), and the number of macaroni noodles my grade-school friend Mike could stuff into his nostril and cough up through his mouth (nine with aspiration, five without). In the paper, Auerbach et al report a retrospective, before-and-after study of 7,596 patients admitted to the neurosurgery service at the University of California at San Francisco Medical Center.¹ The authors compared administrative, financial, and survey data for 4,203 patients before a hospitalist-neurosurgery comanagement arrangement to 3,393 patients after the program implementation—by far the largest trial of hospitalist comanagement to date.

They found:

• Shockingly, surgeons (“hospitalists make it easier for me to do my job”) and nurses (“I can easily and promptly reach a physician”) liked having us around.
• Curiously, patients were rather indifferent (measured via patient satisfaction indicators) to our presence.
• The cost of care decreased by about $1,500 per patient after the intercalation of hospitalists—this despite the fact that the length of stay was unchanged before and after model implementation.
• Unfortunately, such traditional markers of quality as mortality and readmission rate remained stubbornly unchanged.
• Encouragingly, nontraditional-but-likely-important indicators of quality (e.g. nursing and physician perception of improvements in care provision) were achieved.

Perspective

This study adds significantly to our understanding of the comanagement model. The finding of costs savings is as expected (nearly all studies of hospitalist programs have shown cost savings) as it is unexpected (prior studies of comanagement models reported no cost savings).² Likewise, the lack of improvement of hard quality endpoints (mortality and readmission rates) is consistent with most studies of hospitalist programs, including a previous report of comanagement of orthopedic patients that showed improvements only in minor complications, such as rates of electrolyte abnormalities, while improvement in the softer quality endpoints—nursing and surgeon satisfaction and perceptions of quality—is consistent with most reports and conventional wisdom.²

Within hours of publication, the blogs were throbbing with discussion of what this meant for the field of hospital medicine. Did this prove comanagement to be the godsend many believe (perceptions of improved quality), the complete farce that many believe (no evidence of mortality benefit), or was this just further confirmation that hospitalists are really nothing more than cost reduction-ists?

My opinion? This is just the comanagement MacGuffin.

MacGuffin Explained

Fans of film will know that the MacGuffin is a Hitchcockian plot device that uses a meaningless but often mysterious and intriguing element to drive the plot. So while everyone, it seems, is concerned with the MacGuffin, the MacGuffin exists only to help the story unfold. Think of the “government secrets” driving the plot in Hitchcock’s North by Northwest, or “unobtainium” in the movie Avatar. In both cases, the MacGuffin preoccupied the cast (they had to have it, or defend it), but in the end, the MacGuffin was insignificant except to move the plot forward.

 

In much the same way, the debate about whether the shared-care model of surgical patients is a good thing is comanagment’s MacGuffin; it definitely drives the plot but ultimately it misses the point. The real comanagement story—indeed, the story of the whole of hospital medicine—is our need to fundamentally improve outcomes through systems improvements. The true benefit of comanagement is not in one doctor (hospitalist) taking over the medical care of another doctor (surgeon). That will only slightly improve outcomes of the medical issues at which the hospitalist is more expert (e.g. minor electrolyte disorders). Meanwhile, this model continues to allow the same harms that the underlying unsafe hospital system imparts. The comanagement model itself won’t fix this. Rather, the model simply acts as a mechanism for us to accomplish our desired goals of system redesign.

Put another way, I am better at internal-medicine care than a neurosurgeon is. As such, I have no doubt that if I manage the medical issues of neurosurgical patients, I will do it better. However, this system of hospitalist provision of internal-medicine care can ultimately only lead to the type of marginal, not meaningful, improvements these comanagement studies have shown.

The real potential for the comanagement model comes when I take off my internal-medicine hat (diabetes care, electrolyte management, etc.) and put on my HM hat (ability to execute systematic quality and process improvements that result in safer systems that effect ALL patients, ALL the time, and is not dependent on the individual provider to do the right thing).

In doing this, the MacGuffin—the comanagement model that cohorts a lot of patients in the hands of a relatively few hospitalists—affords us the opportunity to truly advance the patient-safety plot by building better systems, the type of systems that ensure that every patient systematically gets appropriate VTE prophylaxis, avoids medication errors, has unnecessary urinary and central venous catheters removed, avoids pressure ulcers, doesn’t fall or get delirious, and has expert transitions of care. I have no doubt that if we achieved these kinds of interventions, rather than just managing patients’ medical issues, we’d see the kind of profound changes the comanagement model can offer.

MacGuffin or not, comanagement is likely here to stay. The challenge, then, is to find a way in which these care arrangements can go beyond scut to systematically and comprehensively improve the flawed systems of care that envelop our surgical patients.

Doing this will vastly improve patient outcomes, add significant value to the care we provide, and clearly signal to the surgeon that it’s time to bring us the water bottle. TH

Dr. Glasheen is physician editor of The Hospitalist. He is associate professor of medicine at the University of Colorado Denver, where he serves as director of the Hospital Medicine Program and the Hospitalist Training Program, and as associate program director of the Internal Medicine Residency Program.

References

1. Auerbach AD, Wachter RM, Cheng HQ, et al. Comanagement of surgical patients between neurosurgeons and hospitalists. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(22):2004-2010.
2. Huddleston JM, Long KH, Naessens JM, et al. Medical and surgical comanagement after elective hip and knee arthroplasty: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141(1):28-38.

I like to ask laypeople what they think “hospitalist” means. For years, I was confident that they had never heard the term, but now my question is more often met with an accurate response.

A hotel desk clerk in 1998 actually made one of the cleverest guesses I’ve ever heard. For the whole day, she and her colleagues had in front of them a sign that read “Hospitalist Meeting in the Ballroom,” which got them talking about what in the world a hospitalist is. Seeing from my badge that I was attending that meeting, she asked me what the term meant, but she first gamely provided her best guess: “Someone who makes lists of hospitals.”

There seems to be no end to the number of healthcare-related nouns and verbs to which someone attaches the suffix “ist.” Some days I request so many consults that I’m just a “referralist” (one who refers patients; surely this is a term we can do without). But don’t let the headline of this column confuse you: I really am addressing the lists used to determine which doctor to refer patients to.

Hospitalist Referrals

The first of two common referral lists for hospitalists is a directory of primary-care physicians (PCPs) and clinics, as well as some other providers that refer patients to the hospitalist. Nearly all hospitalist groups maintain such a list, and they might apply a variety of terms such as “subscriber” (which refers to hospitalists) and “nonsubscriber” physicians.

Because most HM groups care for patients who come from all or nearly all of the PCPs in an area, it is often simpler to just create a short list of those providers who don’t refer to the hospitalists. In many hospitals, there are just four or five providers on that list. ED providers are the ones who most often access this list. When visiting other hospitals, I often see a paper copy of the list taped up at the provider workstations in the ED.

Consult Who?

The other, and much less common, type of referral list governs which doctors the hospitalists are to consult. There are two strategies that come up when thinking about this kind of list.

Do what the ED doctors do. ED physicians typically are constrained by the list of on-call physicians for each specialty, and are to always consult that doctor rather than another. For example, the ED doctor is required to consult Dr. Taylor for any patient in need of a general surgeon and doesn’t have a prior relationship with one. Tomorrow, the ED doctor is required to consult Dr. Simon. Dr. Taylor and Dr. Simon are to be contacted because they are the ones on call for the ED those days. Even if the ED doctor would rather consult Dr. Simon today (maybe she is more able, affable, and available than Dr. Taylor), that isn’t an option, because it is Dr. Taylor’s name on the ED on-call roster today.

Each PCP creates a referral list for hospitalists to follow. New hospitalist practices often agree to follow the consulting patterns of each referring PCP. This can increase PCP acceptance of the HM model, and after all, the GI doctor consulted by the hospitalist during the few days in the hospital is the same one who will be working with the PCP when the patient has outpatient issues requiring GI specialty care. This usually means that the hospitalist carries a list of each PCP, and which GI doctor, orthopedist, etc., that particular PCP likes to consult. When the hospitalist needs an ortho consult, she first verifies the PCP this patient sees, then pulls out the list to see the orthopedist(s) that PCP prefers.

 

In most settings, either form of a mandated referral list is a poor system for hospitalists and is best avoided. Instead, the hospitalists should be free to deviate from the ED call list as they see fit. And while they should be attentive to the consulting preferences of each PCP, it is best not to promise the PCPs that their preference will always be followed. Providing the hospitalists this latitude means they can tailor the choice of consultant to the patient’s needs and the level of service (i.e. able, affable, available) each provides. And, at least in theory, when there are competing providers in a given specialty, they will have an incentive to provide better service to the hospitalist as a way of ensuring future referrals.

Practical Considerations

Even though I think it is optimal for hospitalists to have a lot of latitude in which doctors they consult, there are some practical considerations to keep in mind. For example, if the patient’s PCP is in a group that also has surgeons, it will be best to call one of them, and not a competing surgeon, when the patient has surgical needs. And the hospitalists as a group should usually make some effort to avoid never consulting a particular provider or group, as that could lead the “blackballed” doctor or group to complain enough that the medical staff or hospital leadership might force the hospitalists to follow the ED call roster when choosing referrals.

The number of physicians seeking hospital employment, which is steadily increasing these days, will in many settings increase sensitivities around referral patterns. For example, if your hospital has had three competing general surgery groups and one chooses to become hospital-employed, then the other two groups are likely to worry a lot that the hospitalists might be directed by the hospital to preferentially refer to the newly employed surgeons. Even if your hospitalist group has never had any sort of encouragement to do this, it could be very hard to convince the non-hospital-employed surgeons of this. This could become such a sensitive issue that it might be necessary to carefully track the number of referrals to each surgical group.

And to prevent arguments like “You just consult us on the bad or uninsured patients,” you might also need to track the nature of the patient’s problem and insurance status, and whether the referral led to a procedure. The best approach will be to try to prevent these sorts of things from coming up by maintaining good communication and relations with other physician groups and thinking deliberately about your referral patterns. TH

Dr. Nelson has been a practicing hospitalist since 1988 and is co-founder and past president of SHM. He is a principal in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants, a national hospitalist practice management consulting firm (www.nelsonflores.com). He is course co-director and faculty for SHM’s “Best Practices in Managing a Hospital Medicine Program.” This column represents his views and is not intended to reflect an official position of SHM.

I like to ask laypeople what they think “hospitalist” means. For years, I was confident that they had never heard the term, but now my question is more often met with an accurate response.

A hotel desk clerk in 1998 actually made one of the cleverest guesses I’ve ever heard. For the whole day, she and her colleagues had in front of them a sign that read “Hospitalist Meeting in the Ballroom,” which got them talking about what in the world a hospitalist is. Seeing from my badge that I was attending that meeting, she asked me what the term meant, but she first gamely provided her best guess: “Someone who makes lists of hospitals.”

There seems to be no end to the number of healthcare-related nouns and verbs to which someone attaches the suffix “ist.” Some days I request so many consults that I’m just a “referralist” (one who refers patients; surely this is a term we can do without). But don’t let the headline of this column confuse you: I really am addressing the lists used to determine which doctor to refer patients to.

Hospitalist Referrals

The first of two common referral lists for hospitalists is a directory of primary-care physicians (PCPs) and clinics, as well as some other providers that refer patients to the hospitalist. Nearly all hospitalist groups maintain such a list, and they might apply a variety of terms such as “subscriber” (which refers to hospitalists) and “nonsubscriber” physicians.

Because most HM groups care for patients who come from all or nearly all of the PCPs in an area, it is often simpler to just create a short list of those providers who don’t refer to the hospitalists. In many hospitals, there are just four or five providers on that list. ED providers are the ones who most often access this list. When visiting other hospitals, I often see a paper copy of the list taped up at the provider workstations in the ED.

Consult Who?

The other, and much less common, type of referral list governs which doctors the hospitalists are to consult. There are two strategies that come up when thinking about this kind of list.

Do what the ED doctors do. ED physicians typically are constrained by the list of on-call physicians for each specialty, and are to always consult that doctor rather than another. For example, the ED doctor is required to consult Dr. Taylor for any patient in need of a general surgeon and doesn’t have a prior relationship with one. Tomorrow, the ED doctor is required to consult Dr. Simon. Dr. Taylor and Dr. Simon are to be contacted because they are the ones on call for the ED those days. Even if the ED doctor would rather consult Dr. Simon today (maybe she is more able, affable, and available than Dr. Taylor), that isn’t an option, because it is Dr. Taylor’s name on the ED on-call roster today.

Each PCP creates a referral list for hospitalists to follow. New hospitalist practices often agree to follow the consulting patterns of each referring PCP. This can increase PCP acceptance of the HM model, and after all, the GI doctor consulted by the hospitalist during the few days in the hospital is the same one who will be working with the PCP when the patient has outpatient issues requiring GI specialty care. This usually means that the hospitalist carries a list of each PCP, and which GI doctor, orthopedist, etc., that particular PCP likes to consult. When the hospitalist needs an ortho consult, she first verifies the PCP this patient sees, then pulls out the list to see the orthopedist(s) that PCP prefers.

 

In most settings, either form of a mandated referral list is a poor system for hospitalists and is best avoided. Instead, the hospitalists should be free to deviate from the ED call list as they see fit. And while they should be attentive to the consulting preferences of each PCP, it is best not to promise the PCPs that their preference will always be followed. Providing the hospitalists this latitude means they can tailor the choice of consultant to the patient’s needs and the level of service (i.e. able, affable, available) each provides. And, at least in theory, when there are competing providers in a given specialty, they will have an incentive to provide better service to the hospitalist as a way of ensuring future referrals.

Practical Considerations

Even though I think it is optimal for hospitalists to have a lot of latitude in which doctors they consult, there are some practical considerations to keep in mind. For example, if the patient’s PCP is in a group that also has surgeons, it will be best to call one of them, and not a competing surgeon, when the patient has surgical needs. And the hospitalists as a group should usually make some effort to avoid never consulting a particular provider or group, as that could lead the “blackballed” doctor or group to complain enough that the medical staff or hospital leadership might force the hospitalists to follow the ED call roster when choosing referrals.

The number of physicians seeking hospital employment, which is steadily increasing these days, will in many settings increase sensitivities around referral patterns. For example, if your hospital has had three competing general surgery groups and one chooses to become hospital-employed, then the other two groups are likely to worry a lot that the hospitalists might be directed by the hospital to preferentially refer to the newly employed surgeons. Even if your hospitalist group has never had any sort of encouragement to do this, it could be very hard to convince the non-hospital-employed surgeons of this. This could become such a sensitive issue that it might be necessary to carefully track the number of referrals to each surgical group.

And to prevent arguments like “You just consult us on the bad or uninsured patients,” you might also need to track the nature of the patient’s problem and insurance status, and whether the referral led to a procedure. The best approach will be to try to prevent these sorts of things from coming up by maintaining good communication and relations with other physician groups and thinking deliberately about your referral patterns. TH

Dr. Nelson has been a practicing hospitalist since 1988 and is co-founder and past president of SHM. He is a principal in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants, a national hospitalist practice management consulting firm (www.nelsonflores.com). He is course co-director and faculty for SHM’s “Best Practices in Managing a Hospital Medicine Program.” This column represents his views and is not intended to reflect an official position of SHM.

I like to ask laypeople what they think “hospitalist” means. For years, I was confident that they had never heard the term, but now my question is more often met with an accurate response.

A hotel desk clerk in 1998 actually made one of the cleverest guesses I’ve ever heard. For the whole day, she and her colleagues had in front of them a sign that read “Hospitalist Meeting in the Ballroom,” which got them talking about what in the world a hospitalist is. Seeing from my badge that I was attending that meeting, she asked me what the term meant, but she first gamely provided her best guess: “Someone who makes lists of hospitals.”

There seems to be no end to the number of healthcare-related nouns and verbs to which someone attaches the suffix “ist.” Some days I request so many consults that I’m just a “referralist” (one who refers patients; surely this is a term we can do without). But don’t let the headline of this column confuse you: I really am addressing the lists used to determine which doctor to refer patients to.

Hospitalist Referrals

The first of two common referral lists for hospitalists is a directory of primary-care physicians (PCPs) and clinics, as well as some other providers that refer patients to the hospitalist. Nearly all hospitalist groups maintain such a list, and they might apply a variety of terms such as “subscriber” (which refers to hospitalists) and “nonsubscriber” physicians.

Because most HM groups care for patients who come from all or nearly all of the PCPs in an area, it is often simpler to just create a short list of those providers who don’t refer to the hospitalists. In many hospitals, there are just four or five providers on that list. ED providers are the ones who most often access this list. When visiting other hospitals, I often see a paper copy of the list taped up at the provider workstations in the ED.

Consult Who?

The other, and much less common, type of referral list governs which doctors the hospitalists are to consult. There are two strategies that come up when thinking about this kind of list.

Do what the ED doctors do. ED physicians typically are constrained by the list of on-call physicians for each specialty, and are to always consult that doctor rather than another. For example, the ED doctor is required to consult Dr. Taylor for any patient in need of a general surgeon and doesn’t have a prior relationship with one. Tomorrow, the ED doctor is required to consult Dr. Simon. Dr. Taylor and Dr. Simon are to be contacted because they are the ones on call for the ED those days. Even if the ED doctor would rather consult Dr. Simon today (maybe she is more able, affable, and available than Dr. Taylor), that isn’t an option, because it is Dr. Taylor’s name on the ED on-call roster today.

Each PCP creates a referral list for hospitalists to follow. New hospitalist practices often agree to follow the consulting patterns of each referring PCP. This can increase PCP acceptance of the HM model, and after all, the GI doctor consulted by the hospitalist during the few days in the hospital is the same one who will be working with the PCP when the patient has outpatient issues requiring GI specialty care. This usually means that the hospitalist carries a list of each PCP, and which GI doctor, orthopedist, etc., that particular PCP likes to consult. When the hospitalist needs an ortho consult, she first verifies the PCP this patient sees, then pulls out the list to see the orthopedist(s) that PCP prefers.

 

In most settings, either form of a mandated referral list is a poor system for hospitalists and is best avoided. Instead, the hospitalists should be free to deviate from the ED call list as they see fit. And while they should be attentive to the consulting preferences of each PCP, it is best not to promise the PCPs that their preference will always be followed. Providing the hospitalists this latitude means they can tailor the choice of consultant to the patient’s needs and the level of service (i.e. able, affable, available) each provides. And, at least in theory, when there are competing providers in a given specialty, they will have an incentive to provide better service to the hospitalist as a way of ensuring future referrals.

Practical Considerations

Even though I think it is optimal for hospitalists to have a lot of latitude in which doctors they consult, there are some practical considerations to keep in mind. For example, if the patient’s PCP is in a group that also has surgeons, it will be best to call one of them, and not a competing surgeon, when the patient has surgical needs. And the hospitalists as a group should usually make some effort to avoid never consulting a particular provider or group, as that could lead the “blackballed” doctor or group to complain enough that the medical staff or hospital leadership might force the hospitalists to follow the ED call roster when choosing referrals.

The number of physicians seeking hospital employment, which is steadily increasing these days, will in many settings increase sensitivities around referral patterns. For example, if your hospital has had three competing general surgery groups and one chooses to become hospital-employed, then the other two groups are likely to worry a lot that the hospitalists might be directed by the hospital to preferentially refer to the newly employed surgeons. Even if your hospitalist group has never had any sort of encouragement to do this, it could be very hard to convince the non-hospital-employed surgeons of this. This could become such a sensitive issue that it might be necessary to carefully track the number of referrals to each surgical group.

And to prevent arguments like “You just consult us on the bad or uninsured patients,” you might also need to track the nature of the patient’s problem and insurance status, and whether the referral led to a procedure. The best approach will be to try to prevent these sorts of things from coming up by maintaining good communication and relations with other physician groups and thinking deliberately about your referral patterns. TH

Dr. Nelson has been a practicing hospitalist since 1988 and is co-founder and past president of SHM. He is a principal in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants, a national hospitalist practice management consulting firm (www.nelsonflores.com). He is course co-director and faculty for SHM’s “Best Practices in Managing a Hospital Medicine Program.” This column represents his views and is not intended to reflect an official position of SHM.

I heard that there are new resident work-hour rules that preclude interns from spending the night in the hospital. Tell me this isn’t true! I am an old-timer.

Thad Horton, MD

St. Louis

Dr. Hospitalist responds: On Sept. 26, 2010, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) approved new resident duty-hours and supervision standards; the new rules go into effect July 1. ACGME accredits more than 8,800 medical residency programs in the U.S. in more than 130 specialties and subspecialties. More than 111,000 residents and fellows train in these programs annually. ACGME first instituted duty-hour regulations in 2003; those led to a dramatic decrease in resident work-hours.

Basically, the highlights of the new rules are:

• Residents are limited to 80 hours weekly, averaged over a four-week period, and inclusive of all in-house call activities and moonlighting;
• Residents must be allowed one day free of duty every week (at-home call cannot be assigned on these free days);
• PGY-1 residents cannot work more than 16 hours daily, and residents beyond their PGY-1 year cannot work more than 24 hours daily;
• Residents must have at least eight hours off between shifts, and residents who work a 24-hour shift must have a minimum of 14 hours off before starting another shift;
• Residents cannot work more than six consecutive nights as night float; and
• Residents cannot be scheduled for in-house call more frequently than every third night.

I have not seen any specific prohibition on interns working overnight in the hospital. However, the new rules restrict interns to working no more than 16 hours daily, so that will mean interns who stay overnight in the hospital, until 7 or 8 a.m., cannot begin that overnight shift until 3 or 4 p.m. the day before. That means programs planning to keep their interns in-house overnight will have to be creative in their scheduling.

The demand for innovative scheduling won’t be the only implication of these new regulations. A number of forces have driven the rapid expansion of HM over the past decade. We have seen the development of sizable hospitalist programs at a number of teaching hospitals across the country. Hospitalists at teaching hospitals are not only supervising the care provided by residents, but they are also caring for patients without resident involvement. Since the original ACGME duty-hours cutback in 2002, we have seen the development and expansion of hospitalist-staffed, non-resident-covered medical services at most teaching hospitals across the country. Any further restriction in resident work-hours likely will result in the need to hire additional hospitalists to care for patients.

Virtually all HM programs require financial support to make ends meet. The most recent SHM/MGMA compensation and productivity survey found that the average hospitalist full-time equivalent (FTE) requires a little more than $100,000 of support annually. Regardless of the employer, much of that support comes from the hospital. So it appears that hospitals with teaching programs will end up footing the bill for the new resident regulations. I expect HM programs at teaching hospitals will face pushback from hospital administrators, but hiring additional hospitalists is a cost-effective proposition—and not complying with the ACGME rules is not an option, unless your program wants to risk losing its accreditation.

If you are a hospitalist program leader at a teaching hospital, I encourage you to plan accordingly and discuss the impact of these revisions in duty-hours with your teaching program director and your hospital administration.

 

 

Communication, Comfort Zone Key to Managing Hypertensive Emergencies

I just saw a patient in our urgent-care clinic sent from an ophthalmologist’s office with newly diagnosed retinal hemorrhages in both eyes and repeated BPs of 170/115. She had no history of hypertension (HTN) and no other symptoms. Does this qualify as an emergency? I couldn’t find any literature in this regard. My sense was it was an emergency, as her vision seemed to be at risk, so I sent her to the ED for IV meds in a controlled environment. Did I overreact?

Dennis Swanson, MD

Grand Rapids, Mich.

Dr. Hospitalist responds: Thank you for your question. There are numerous potential causes of retinal hemorrhages. Aside from trauma, we most commonly see retinal hemorrhages in patients with diabetic retinopathy and/or HTN. As you know, the retina is the only part of the vasculature that we can visualize noninvasively. This is a good example of why it is always important for providers to perform a fundoscopy on every patient with newly discovered HTN.

Retinal hemorrhage is one of several ocular diseases directly related to HTN. Based on your description, it sounds as if the ophthalmologist discovered the retinal hemorrhages and sent the patient to you, given the concern that uncontrolled HTN was the cause of the hemorrhages. You stated that you sent the patient to the ED because you were concerned the patient’s vision “seemed to be at risk.” Most retinal hemorrhages are asymptomatic unless the macular is affected, in which case the patient experiences a change in their visual acuity. Progressive microvascular changes in the retina can cause a loss of visual acuity. Aside from addressing the underlying problem causing the hemorrhages, laser surgery is the typical treatment of retinal hemorrhages. The laser seals off the abnormally bleeding vessels in the retina.

It would be useful to know about any communication that occurred between you and the ophthalmologist. I imagine the ophthalmologist was going to perform laser surgery but sent the patient to the hospital to address the HTN. If you did not feel comfortable managing the patient’s HTN in the urgent-care clinic, you did the right thing by sending the patient to the ED. It also is important to note that patients with hypertensive retinopathy often have other microvascular diseases, including in the kidneys. This patient should be evaluated for any evidence of proteinuria, which can suggest progressive microvascular renal disease, also as a result of uncontrolled HTN. TH

I heard that there are new resident work-hour rules that preclude interns from spending the night in the hospital. Tell me this isn’t true! I am an old-timer.

Thad Horton, MD

St. Louis

Dr. Hospitalist responds: On Sept. 26, 2010, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) approved new resident duty-hours and supervision standards; the new rules go into effect July 1. ACGME accredits more than 8,800 medical residency programs in the U.S. in more than 130 specialties and subspecialties. More than 111,000 residents and fellows train in these programs annually. ACGME first instituted duty-hour regulations in 2003; those led to a dramatic decrease in resident work-hours.

Basically, the highlights of the new rules are:

• Residents are limited to 80 hours weekly, averaged over a four-week period, and inclusive of all in-house call activities and moonlighting;
• Residents must be allowed one day free of duty every week (at-home call cannot be assigned on these free days);
• PGY-1 residents cannot work more than 16 hours daily, and residents beyond their PGY-1 year cannot work more than 24 hours daily;
• Residents must have at least eight hours off between shifts, and residents who work a 24-hour shift must have a minimum of 14 hours off before starting another shift;
• Residents cannot work more than six consecutive nights as night float; and
• Residents cannot be scheduled for in-house call more frequently than every third night.

I have not seen any specific prohibition on interns working overnight in the hospital. However, the new rules restrict interns to working no more than 16 hours daily, so that will mean interns who stay overnight in the hospital, until 7 or 8 a.m., cannot begin that overnight shift until 3 or 4 p.m. the day before. That means programs planning to keep their interns in-house overnight will have to be creative in their scheduling.

The demand for innovative scheduling won’t be the only implication of these new regulations. A number of forces have driven the rapid expansion of HM over the past decade. We have seen the development of sizable hospitalist programs at a number of teaching hospitals across the country. Hospitalists at teaching hospitals are not only supervising the care provided by residents, but they are also caring for patients without resident involvement. Since the original ACGME duty-hours cutback in 2002, we have seen the development and expansion of hospitalist-staffed, non-resident-covered medical services at most teaching hospitals across the country. Any further restriction in resident work-hours likely will result in the need to hire additional hospitalists to care for patients.

Virtually all HM programs require financial support to make ends meet. The most recent SHM/MGMA compensation and productivity survey found that the average hospitalist full-time equivalent (FTE) requires a little more than $100,000 of support annually. Regardless of the employer, much of that support comes from the hospital. So it appears that hospitals with teaching programs will end up footing the bill for the new resident regulations. I expect HM programs at teaching hospitals will face pushback from hospital administrators, but hiring additional hospitalists is a cost-effective proposition—and not complying with the ACGME rules is not an option, unless your program wants to risk losing its accreditation.

If you are a hospitalist program leader at a teaching hospital, I encourage you to plan accordingly and discuss the impact of these revisions in duty-hours with your teaching program director and your hospital administration.

 

 

Communication, Comfort Zone Key to Managing Hypertensive Emergencies

I just saw a patient in our urgent-care clinic sent from an ophthalmologist’s office with newly diagnosed retinal hemorrhages in both eyes and repeated BPs of 170/115. She had no history of hypertension (HTN) and no other symptoms. Does this qualify as an emergency? I couldn’t find any literature in this regard. My sense was it was an emergency, as her vision seemed to be at risk, so I sent her to the ED for IV meds in a controlled environment. Did I overreact?

Dennis Swanson, MD

Grand Rapids, Mich.

Dr. Hospitalist responds: Thank you for your question. There are numerous potential causes of retinal hemorrhages. Aside from trauma, we most commonly see retinal hemorrhages in patients with diabetic retinopathy and/or HTN. As you know, the retina is the only part of the vasculature that we can visualize noninvasively. This is a good example of why it is always important for providers to perform a fundoscopy on every patient with newly discovered HTN.

Retinal hemorrhage is one of several ocular diseases directly related to HTN. Based on your description, it sounds as if the ophthalmologist discovered the retinal hemorrhages and sent the patient to you, given the concern that uncontrolled HTN was the cause of the hemorrhages. You stated that you sent the patient to the ED because you were concerned the patient’s vision “seemed to be at risk.” Most retinal hemorrhages are asymptomatic unless the macular is affected, in which case the patient experiences a change in their visual acuity. Progressive microvascular changes in the retina can cause a loss of visual acuity. Aside from addressing the underlying problem causing the hemorrhages, laser surgery is the typical treatment of retinal hemorrhages. The laser seals off the abnormally bleeding vessels in the retina.

It would be useful to know about any communication that occurred between you and the ophthalmologist. I imagine the ophthalmologist was going to perform laser surgery but sent the patient to the hospital to address the HTN. If you did not feel comfortable managing the patient’s HTN in the urgent-care clinic, you did the right thing by sending the patient to the ED. It also is important to note that patients with hypertensive retinopathy often have other microvascular diseases, including in the kidneys. This patient should be evaluated for any evidence of proteinuria, which can suggest progressive microvascular renal disease, also as a result of uncontrolled HTN. TH

I heard that there are new resident work-hour rules that preclude interns from spending the night in the hospital. Tell me this isn’t true! I am an old-timer.

Thad Horton, MD

St. Louis

Dr. Hospitalist responds: On Sept. 26, 2010, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) approved new resident duty-hours and supervision standards; the new rules go into effect July 1. ACGME accredits more than 8,800 medical residency programs in the U.S. in more than 130 specialties and subspecialties. More than 111,000 residents and fellows train in these programs annually. ACGME first instituted duty-hour regulations in 2003; those led to a dramatic decrease in resident work-hours.

Basically, the highlights of the new rules are:

• Residents are limited to 80 hours weekly, averaged over a four-week period, and inclusive of all in-house call activities and moonlighting;
• Residents must be allowed one day free of duty every week (at-home call cannot be assigned on these free days);
• PGY-1 residents cannot work more than 16 hours daily, and residents beyond their PGY-1 year cannot work more than 24 hours daily;
• Residents must have at least eight hours off between shifts, and residents who work a 24-hour shift must have a minimum of 14 hours off before starting another shift;
• Residents cannot work more than six consecutive nights as night float; and
• Residents cannot be scheduled for in-house call more frequently than every third night.

I have not seen any specific prohibition on interns working overnight in the hospital. However, the new rules restrict interns to working no more than 16 hours daily, so that will mean interns who stay overnight in the hospital, until 7 or 8 a.m., cannot begin that overnight shift until 3 or 4 p.m. the day before. That means programs planning to keep their interns in-house overnight will have to be creative in their scheduling.

The demand for innovative scheduling won’t be the only implication of these new regulations. A number of forces have driven the rapid expansion of HM over the past decade. We have seen the development of sizable hospitalist programs at a number of teaching hospitals across the country. Hospitalists at teaching hospitals are not only supervising the care provided by residents, but they are also caring for patients without resident involvement. Since the original ACGME duty-hours cutback in 2002, we have seen the development and expansion of hospitalist-staffed, non-resident-covered medical services at most teaching hospitals across the country. Any further restriction in resident work-hours likely will result in the need to hire additional hospitalists to care for patients.

Virtually all HM programs require financial support to make ends meet. The most recent SHM/MGMA compensation and productivity survey found that the average hospitalist full-time equivalent (FTE) requires a little more than $100,000 of support annually. Regardless of the employer, much of that support comes from the hospital. So it appears that hospitals with teaching programs will end up footing the bill for the new resident regulations. I expect HM programs at teaching hospitals will face pushback from hospital administrators, but hiring additional hospitalists is a cost-effective proposition—and not complying with the ACGME rules is not an option, unless your program wants to risk losing its accreditation.

If you are a hospitalist program leader at a teaching hospital, I encourage you to plan accordingly and discuss the impact of these revisions in duty-hours with your teaching program director and your hospital administration.

 

 

Communication, Comfort Zone Key to Managing Hypertensive Emergencies

I just saw a patient in our urgent-care clinic sent from an ophthalmologist’s office with newly diagnosed retinal hemorrhages in both eyes and repeated BPs of 170/115. She had no history of hypertension (HTN) and no other symptoms. Does this qualify as an emergency? I couldn’t find any literature in this regard. My sense was it was an emergency, as her vision seemed to be at risk, so I sent her to the ED for IV meds in a controlled environment. Did I overreact?

Dennis Swanson, MD

Grand Rapids, Mich.

Dr. Hospitalist responds: Thank you for your question. There are numerous potential causes of retinal hemorrhages. Aside from trauma, we most commonly see retinal hemorrhages in patients with diabetic retinopathy and/or HTN. As you know, the retina is the only part of the vasculature that we can visualize noninvasively. This is a good example of why it is always important for providers to perform a fundoscopy on every patient with newly discovered HTN.

Retinal hemorrhage is one of several ocular diseases directly related to HTN. Based on your description, it sounds as if the ophthalmologist discovered the retinal hemorrhages and sent the patient to you, given the concern that uncontrolled HTN was the cause of the hemorrhages. You stated that you sent the patient to the ED because you were concerned the patient’s vision “seemed to be at risk.” Most retinal hemorrhages are asymptomatic unless the macular is affected, in which case the patient experiences a change in their visual acuity. Progressive microvascular changes in the retina can cause a loss of visual acuity. Aside from addressing the underlying problem causing the hemorrhages, laser surgery is the typical treatment of retinal hemorrhages. The laser seals off the abnormally bleeding vessels in the retina.

It would be useful to know about any communication that occurred between you and the ophthalmologist. I imagine the ophthalmologist was going to perform laser surgery but sent the patient to the hospital to address the HTN. If you did not feel comfortable managing the patient’s HTN in the urgent-care clinic, you did the right thing by sending the patient to the ED. It also is important to note that patients with hypertensive retinopathy often have other microvascular diseases, including in the kidneys. This patient should be evaluated for any evidence of proteinuria, which can suggest progressive microvascular renal disease, also as a result of uncontrolled HTN. TH

Listen to Stephen Jencks, MD, MPH, discuss why the issue of hospital readmissions has caught the attention of doctors and professional societies.

Listen to veteran hospitalist Bradley Sherman, MD, FHM, chairman of the Department of Medicine at Glen Cove Hospital, part of the North Shore/LIJ Health System in New York, talk about what you can do both now and over the next year to help your institutions decrease readmission rates.

 

Listen to Stephen Jencks, MD, MPH, discuss why the issue of hospital readmissions has caught the attention of doctors and professional societies.

Listen to veteran hospitalist Bradley Sherman, MD, FHM, chairman of the Department of Medicine at Glen Cove Hospital, part of the North Shore/LIJ Health System in New York, talk about what you can do both now and over the next year to help your institutions decrease readmission rates.

 

Listen to Stephen Jencks, MD, MPH, discuss why the issue of hospital readmissions has caught the attention of doctors and professional societies.

Listen to veteran hospitalist Bradley Sherman, MD, FHM, chairman of the Department of Medicine at Glen Cove Hospital, part of the North Shore/LIJ Health System in New York, talk about what you can do both now and over the next year to help your institutions decrease readmission rates.

 

Which patients are you most likely to see again? It’s a particularly vexing question for hospitalists amid the heightened focus on lowering hospital readmissions, and one that several recent studies have sought to address.

One Journal of Hospital Medicine analysis of more than 10,300 admissions found that unplanned rehospitalizations within 30 days of discharge were far more likely for African-American patients and those on high-risk medications like narcotics and corticosteroids.¹ Patients with such chronic conditions as cancer, renal failure, and congestive heart failure also were at increased risk.

A second, smaller study of 142 inpatients who had been hospitalized within the preceding six months found that chronic disease, depression, and being underweight or obese all predicted a higher risk of another readmission within the next six months.²

And a third report in the Journal of Urban Health examined more than 36,000 Medicare patients admitted to urban public hospitals to assess which were most likely to return within the following year. Chronic medical conditions, substance abuse, and homelessness all contributed to increased odds.³

Most efforts aimed at reducing rehospitalizations, such as SHM’s Project BOOST, include a risk assessment that can point to potential trouble spots for individual patients. For certain populations, research has highlighted socioeconomic and racial disparities in access to healthcare that likely lead to unnecessary hospitalizations. But it’s one thing to identify the factors associated with higher rates, and quite another to actively manage them, especially when many crop up well beyond a hospital’s walls. Anxiety over these contributing factors is steadily building in anticipation of Medicare penalties for excessively high readmission rates set to begin in 2012.

“Whenever there is a program that has financial incentives, people always get concerned that they have patients who are somehow different,” says Lakshmi Halasyamani, MD, SFHM, SHM board member and vice president for medical affairs at Saint Joseph Mercy Health System in Ann Arbor, Mich. “Inherent in that assumption is: more difficult to manage or sicker or more complicated.”

Stephen Jencks, MD, MPH, an independent healthcare safety and quality consultant based in Baltimore, says he’s heard the same complaint for three decades. “It’s what we call the 'Lake Wobegon effect': All of our patients are sicker than average.

“I think it’s just a really poor way to go about what is a very human sort of question,” he adds. “If Mrs. Jones is back in the hospital because she didn’t understand the discharge instructions, the question is not ‘Does my population have more literacy problems than somebody else’s population of patients?’ The question is ‘What can we do for Mrs. Jones so she can understand this stuff?’ ” (For help communicating with patients, check out SHM's on-demand webinar, "Implementing Teach Back as a System-Wide Patient Communication Strategy.")

Healthcare experts say it’s not difficult to find challenges unique to particular urban areas or populations. Florida Hospital Association President Bruce Rueben, MBA, says many Floridians speak English as a second language, making clear communication critical. The state also has one of the highest percentages of elderly residents and is in a funding crisis that has required providers to do more with less. But instead of worrying about exceptions or anomalies, Rueben says, focusing on the best overall readmission-reducing approaches will help ensure that all patients are being treated and discharged effectively.

 

What about dealing with specific conditions? Paul McGann, MD, deputy chief medical officer at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), says good evidence exists for the effectiveness of interventions aimed at diseases ranging from congestive heart failure and cancer to chronic obstructive lung disease, ulcers, and stroke. But data from Medicare’s Care Transitions Program, he says, suggest that even if all hospitals pursued the dozens of disease-specific interventions collectively implemented by the program’s participants, they still wouldn’t address more than about half of the causes of readmission. Based on that finding, he says, project leaders have insisted on an all-cause focus.

Dr. Halasyamani says it’s only natural to sometimes focus on the exception rather than the rule. “And we’ve all had those experiences where, boy, you feel like you’ve done everything you can and the patient still comes back,” she says. “But having said that, we also have opportunities where we haven’t done everything that we can and the patient comes back. So I think we need to focus on that first, rather than say, ‘Well, this isn’t fixable based on all of the patient-level issues.’”

Rachel George, MD, MBA, FHM, regional medical director and vice president of operations for West Cogent Healthcare Inc., says it all comes down to perspective. “Instead of looking at what’s the percentage that we can’t deal with,” she says, “let’s look at the patient population that we can affect.”

Bryn Nelson is a freelance medical writer based in Seattle.

References

1. Allaudeen N, Vidyarthi A, Maselli J, Auerbach A. Redefining readmission risk factors for general medicine patients. J Hosp Med. 2011;6(2):54-60.

2. Mudge AM, Kasper KM, Clair, A, et al. Recurrent readmissions in medical patients: a prospective study. J Hosp Med. 2011;6(2):61-67.

3. Raven, MC, Billings, JC, Goldfrank LR, Manheimer ED, Gourevitch MN. Medicaid patients at high risk for frequent hospital admission: real-time identification and remediable risks. J Urb Health. 2009;86(2):230-241.

Which patients are you most likely to see again? It’s a particularly vexing question for hospitalists amid the heightened focus on lowering hospital readmissions, and one that several recent studies have sought to address.

One Journal of Hospital Medicine analysis of more than 10,300 admissions found that unplanned rehospitalizations within 30 days of discharge were far more likely for African-American patients and those on high-risk medications like narcotics and corticosteroids.¹ Patients with such chronic conditions as cancer, renal failure, and congestive heart failure also were at increased risk.

A second, smaller study of 142 inpatients who had been hospitalized within the preceding six months found that chronic disease, depression, and being underweight or obese all predicted a higher risk of another readmission within the next six months.²

And a third report in the Journal of Urban Health examined more than 36,000 Medicare patients admitted to urban public hospitals to assess which were most likely to return within the following year. Chronic medical conditions, substance abuse, and homelessness all contributed to increased odds.³

Most efforts aimed at reducing rehospitalizations, such as SHM’s Project BOOST, include a risk assessment that can point to potential trouble spots for individual patients. For certain populations, research has highlighted socioeconomic and racial disparities in access to healthcare that likely lead to unnecessary hospitalizations. But it’s one thing to identify the factors associated with higher rates, and quite another to actively manage them, especially when many crop up well beyond a hospital’s walls. Anxiety over these contributing factors is steadily building in anticipation of Medicare penalties for excessively high readmission rates set to begin in 2012.

“Whenever there is a program that has financial incentives, people always get concerned that they have patients who are somehow different,” says Lakshmi Halasyamani, MD, SFHM, SHM board member and vice president for medical affairs at Saint Joseph Mercy Health System in Ann Arbor, Mich. “Inherent in that assumption is: more difficult to manage or sicker or more complicated.”

Stephen Jencks, MD, MPH, an independent healthcare safety and quality consultant based in Baltimore, says he’s heard the same complaint for three decades. “It’s what we call the 'Lake Wobegon effect': All of our patients are sicker than average.

“I think it’s just a really poor way to go about what is a very human sort of question,” he adds. “If Mrs. Jones is back in the hospital because she didn’t understand the discharge instructions, the question is not ‘Does my population have more literacy problems than somebody else’s population of patients?’ The question is ‘What can we do for Mrs. Jones so she can understand this stuff?’ ” (For help communicating with patients, check out SHM's on-demand webinar, "Implementing Teach Back as a System-Wide Patient Communication Strategy.")

Healthcare experts say it’s not difficult to find challenges unique to particular urban areas or populations. Florida Hospital Association President Bruce Rueben, MBA, says many Floridians speak English as a second language, making clear communication critical. The state also has one of the highest percentages of elderly residents and is in a funding crisis that has required providers to do more with less. But instead of worrying about exceptions or anomalies, Rueben says, focusing on the best overall readmission-reducing approaches will help ensure that all patients are being treated and discharged effectively.

 

What about dealing with specific conditions? Paul McGann, MD, deputy chief medical officer at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), says good evidence exists for the effectiveness of interventions aimed at diseases ranging from congestive heart failure and cancer to chronic obstructive lung disease, ulcers, and stroke. But data from Medicare’s Care Transitions Program, he says, suggest that even if all hospitals pursued the dozens of disease-specific interventions collectively implemented by the program’s participants, they still wouldn’t address more than about half of the causes of readmission. Based on that finding, he says, project leaders have insisted on an all-cause focus.

Dr. Halasyamani says it’s only natural to sometimes focus on the exception rather than the rule. “And we’ve all had those experiences where, boy, you feel like you’ve done everything you can and the patient still comes back,” she says. “But having said that, we also have opportunities where we haven’t done everything that we can and the patient comes back. So I think we need to focus on that first, rather than say, ‘Well, this isn’t fixable based on all of the patient-level issues.’”

Rachel George, MD, MBA, FHM, regional medical director and vice president of operations for West Cogent Healthcare Inc., says it all comes down to perspective. “Instead of looking at what’s the percentage that we can’t deal with,” she says, “let’s look at the patient population that we can affect.”

Bryn Nelson is a freelance medical writer based in Seattle.

References

1. Allaudeen N, Vidyarthi A, Maselli J, Auerbach A. Redefining readmission risk factors for general medicine patients. J Hosp Med. 2011;6(2):54-60.

2. Mudge AM, Kasper KM, Clair, A, et al. Recurrent readmissions in medical patients: a prospective study. J Hosp Med. 2011;6(2):61-67.

3. Raven, MC, Billings, JC, Goldfrank LR, Manheimer ED, Gourevitch MN. Medicaid patients at high risk for frequent hospital admission: real-time identification and remediable risks. J Urb Health. 2009;86(2):230-241.

Which patients are you most likely to see again? It’s a particularly vexing question for hospitalists amid the heightened focus on lowering hospital readmissions, and one that several recent studies have sought to address.

One Journal of Hospital Medicine analysis of more than 10,300 admissions found that unplanned rehospitalizations within 30 days of discharge were far more likely for African-American patients and those on high-risk medications like narcotics and corticosteroids.¹ Patients with such chronic conditions as cancer, renal failure, and congestive heart failure also were at increased risk.

A second, smaller study of 142 inpatients who had been hospitalized within the preceding six months found that chronic disease, depression, and being underweight or obese all predicted a higher risk of another readmission within the next six months.²

And a third report in the Journal of Urban Health examined more than 36,000 Medicare patients admitted to urban public hospitals to assess which were most likely to return within the following year. Chronic medical conditions, substance abuse, and homelessness all contributed to increased odds.³

Most efforts aimed at reducing rehospitalizations, such as SHM’s Project BOOST, include a risk assessment that can point to potential trouble spots for individual patients. For certain populations, research has highlighted socioeconomic and racial disparities in access to healthcare that likely lead to unnecessary hospitalizations. But it’s one thing to identify the factors associated with higher rates, and quite another to actively manage them, especially when many crop up well beyond a hospital’s walls. Anxiety over these contributing factors is steadily building in anticipation of Medicare penalties for excessively high readmission rates set to begin in 2012.

“Whenever there is a program that has financial incentives, people always get concerned that they have patients who are somehow different,” says Lakshmi Halasyamani, MD, SFHM, SHM board member and vice president for medical affairs at Saint Joseph Mercy Health System in Ann Arbor, Mich. “Inherent in that assumption is: more difficult to manage or sicker or more complicated.”

Stephen Jencks, MD, MPH, an independent healthcare safety and quality consultant based in Baltimore, says he’s heard the same complaint for three decades. “It’s what we call the 'Lake Wobegon effect': All of our patients are sicker than average.

“I think it’s just a really poor way to go about what is a very human sort of question,” he adds. “If Mrs. Jones is back in the hospital because she didn’t understand the discharge instructions, the question is not ‘Does my population have more literacy problems than somebody else’s population of patients?’ The question is ‘What can we do for Mrs. Jones so she can understand this stuff?’ ” (For help communicating with patients, check out SHM's on-demand webinar, "Implementing Teach Back as a System-Wide Patient Communication Strategy.")

Healthcare experts say it’s not difficult to find challenges unique to particular urban areas or populations. Florida Hospital Association President Bruce Rueben, MBA, says many Floridians speak English as a second language, making clear communication critical. The state also has one of the highest percentages of elderly residents and is in a funding crisis that has required providers to do more with less. But instead of worrying about exceptions or anomalies, Rueben says, focusing on the best overall readmission-reducing approaches will help ensure that all patients are being treated and discharged effectively.

 

What about dealing with specific conditions? Paul McGann, MD, deputy chief medical officer at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), says good evidence exists for the effectiveness of interventions aimed at diseases ranging from congestive heart failure and cancer to chronic obstructive lung disease, ulcers, and stroke. But data from Medicare’s Care Transitions Program, he says, suggest that even if all hospitals pursued the dozens of disease-specific interventions collectively implemented by the program’s participants, they still wouldn’t address more than about half of the causes of readmission. Based on that finding, he says, project leaders have insisted on an all-cause focus.

Dr. Halasyamani says it’s only natural to sometimes focus on the exception rather than the rule. “And we’ve all had those experiences where, boy, you feel like you’ve done everything you can and the patient still comes back,” she says. “But having said that, we also have opportunities where we haven’t done everything that we can and the patient comes back. So I think we need to focus on that first, rather than say, ‘Well, this isn’t fixable based on all of the patient-level issues.’”

Rachel George, MD, MBA, FHM, regional medical director and vice president of operations for West Cogent Healthcare Inc., says it all comes down to perspective. “Instead of looking at what’s the percentage that we can’t deal with,” she says, “let’s look at the patient population that we can affect.”

Bryn Nelson is a freelance medical writer based in Seattle.

References

1. Allaudeen N, Vidyarthi A, Maselli J, Auerbach A. Redefining readmission risk factors for general medicine patients. J Hosp Med. 2011;6(2):54-60.

2. Mudge AM, Kasper KM, Clair, A, et al. Recurrent readmissions in medical patients: a prospective study. J Hosp Med. 2011;6(2):61-67.

3. Raven, MC, Billings, JC, Goldfrank LR, Manheimer ED, Gourevitch MN. Medicaid patients at high risk for frequent hospital admission: real-time identification and remediable risks. J Urb Health. 2009;86(2):230-241.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a first-line maintenance indication for rituximab in advanced follicular lymphoma, according to an announcement by Genentech and Biogen Idec.

The indication specifies that maintenance rituximab (Rituxan) may be used in patients with advanced follicular lymphoma who responded to induction treatment with rituximab plus chemotherapy. The European Commission approved the same indication in October 2010, according to the January 28 announcement.

The application for a maintenance rituximab treatment was supported by results of the phase III PRIMA study, a randomized international trial conducted by the Groupe d’Etude des Lymphomes de l’Adulte (GELA). The trial in 1,217 patients with advanced follicular lymphoma not previously treated showed that two years of maintenance therapy cut their risk of relapse in half compared with observation

GELA, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC)’s adult lymphoma study group, had reported the progression-free survival rate among 505 patients randomized to maintenance with rituximab (Rituxan in the United States, MabThera in Europe) was 82% at 2 years vs. 66% for 513 patients randomized to observation only (hazard ratio 0.50, stratified log-rank, P less than .0001). Rituximab maintenance reduced by 39% the need for patients to be started on new antilymphoma therapies (HR 0.61, P less than .0003), according to GELA’s presentation at the American Society for Clinical Oncology’s 2010 annual meeting.

All patients in the trial received rituximab in their induction regimens: 75% had R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone); 22% R-CVP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone), and 3% R-FCM (rituximab plus fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and mitoxantrone). Patients randomized to maintenance rituximab received it for 2 years as a single agent.

Investigators said rituximab maintenance was generally well tolerated, with grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurring in 22% of patients. The most common were infections in 37% of patients on maintenance and 22% of those on observation. Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia and low white blood cell count each occurred in about 4% of patients on maintenance rituximab.

The trial was sponsored by Roche, which markets rituximab outside the United States and is the parent company of Genentech.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a first-line maintenance indication for rituximab in advanced follicular lymphoma, according to an announcement by Genentech and Biogen Idec.

The indication specifies that maintenance rituximab (Rituxan) may be used in patients with advanced follicular lymphoma who responded to induction treatment with rituximab plus chemotherapy. The European Commission approved the same indication in October 2010, according to the January 28 announcement.

The application for a maintenance rituximab treatment was supported by results of the phase III PRIMA study, a randomized international trial conducted by the Groupe d’Etude des Lymphomes de l’Adulte (GELA). The trial in 1,217 patients with advanced follicular lymphoma not previously treated showed that two years of maintenance therapy cut their risk of relapse in half compared with observation

GELA, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC)’s adult lymphoma study group, had reported the progression-free survival rate among 505 patients randomized to maintenance with rituximab (Rituxan in the United States, MabThera in Europe) was 82% at 2 years vs. 66% for 513 patients randomized to observation only (hazard ratio 0.50, stratified log-rank, P less than .0001). Rituximab maintenance reduced by 39% the need for patients to be started on new antilymphoma therapies (HR 0.61, P less than .0003), according to GELA’s presentation at the American Society for Clinical Oncology’s 2010 annual meeting.

All patients in the trial received rituximab in their induction regimens: 75% had R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone); 22% R-CVP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone), and 3% R-FCM (rituximab plus fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and mitoxantrone). Patients randomized to maintenance rituximab received it for 2 years as a single agent.

Investigators said rituximab maintenance was generally well tolerated, with grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurring in 22% of patients. The most common were infections in 37% of patients on maintenance and 22% of those on observation. Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia and low white blood cell count each occurred in about 4% of patients on maintenance rituximab.

The trial was sponsored by Roche, which markets rituximab outside the United States and is the parent company of Genentech.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a first-line maintenance indication for rituximab in advanced follicular lymphoma, according to an announcement by Genentech and Biogen Idec.

The indication specifies that maintenance rituximab (Rituxan) may be used in patients with advanced follicular lymphoma who responded to induction treatment with rituximab plus chemotherapy. The European Commission approved the same indication in October 2010, according to the January 28 announcement.

The application for a maintenance rituximab treatment was supported by results of the phase III PRIMA study, a randomized international trial conducted by the Groupe d’Etude des Lymphomes de l’Adulte (GELA). The trial in 1,217 patients with advanced follicular lymphoma not previously treated showed that two years of maintenance therapy cut their risk of relapse in half compared with observation

GELA, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC)’s adult lymphoma study group, had reported the progression-free survival rate among 505 patients randomized to maintenance with rituximab (Rituxan in the United States, MabThera in Europe) was 82% at 2 years vs. 66% for 513 patients randomized to observation only (hazard ratio 0.50, stratified log-rank, P less than .0001). Rituximab maintenance reduced by 39% the need for patients to be started on new antilymphoma therapies (HR 0.61, P less than .0003), according to GELA’s presentation at the American Society for Clinical Oncology’s 2010 annual meeting.

All patients in the trial received rituximab in their induction regimens: 75% had R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone); 22% R-CVP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone), and 3% R-FCM (rituximab plus fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and mitoxantrone). Patients randomized to maintenance rituximab received it for 2 years as a single agent.

Investigators said rituximab maintenance was generally well tolerated, with grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurring in 22% of patients. The most common were infections in 37% of patients on maintenance and 22% of those on observation. Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia and low white blood cell count each occurred in about 4% of patients on maintenance rituximab.

The trial was sponsored by Roche, which markets rituximab outside the United States and is the parent company of Genentech.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a first-line maintenance indication for rituximab in advanced follicular lymphoma, according to an announcement by Genentech and Biogen Idec.

The indication specifies that maintenance rituximab (Rituxan) may be used in patients with advanced follicular lymphoma who responded to induction treatment with rituximab plus chemotherapy. The European Commission approved the same indication in October 2010, according to the January 28 announcement.

The application for a maintenance rituximab treatment was supported by results of the phase III PRIMA study, a randomized international trial conducted by the Groupe d’Etude des Lymphomes de l’Adulte (GELA). The trial in 1,217 patients with advanced follicular lymphoma not previously treated showed that two years of maintenance therapy cut their risk of relapse in half compared with observation

GELA, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC)’s adult lymphoma study group, had reported the progression-free survival rate among 505 patients randomized to maintenance with rituximab (Rituxan in the United States, MabThera in Europe) was 82% at 2 years vs. 66% for 513 patients randomized to observation only (hazard ratio 0.50, stratified log-rank, P less than .0001). Rituximab maintenance reduced by 39% the need for patients to be started on new antilymphoma therapies (HR 0.61, P less than .0003), according to GELA’s presentation at the American Society for Clinical Oncology’s 2010 annual meeting.

All patients in the trial received rituximab in their induction regimens: 75% had R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone); 22% R-CVP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone), and 3% R-FCM (rituximab plus fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and mitoxantrone). Patients randomized to maintenance rituximab received it for 2 years as a single agent.

Investigators said rituximab maintenance was generally well tolerated, with grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurring in 22% of patients. The most common were infections in 37% of patients on maintenance and 22% of those on observation. Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia and low white blood cell count each occurred in about 4% of patients on maintenance rituximab.

The trial was sponsored by Roche, which markets rituximab outside the United States and is the parent company of Genentech.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a first-line maintenance indication for rituximab in advanced follicular lymphoma, according to an announcement by Genentech and Biogen Idec.

The indication specifies that maintenance rituximab (Rituxan) may be used in patients with advanced follicular lymphoma who responded to induction treatment with rituximab plus chemotherapy. The European Commission approved the same indication in October 2010, according to the January 28 announcement.

The application for a maintenance rituximab treatment was supported by results of the phase III PRIMA study, a randomized international trial conducted by the Groupe d’Etude des Lymphomes de l’Adulte (GELA). The trial in 1,217 patients with advanced follicular lymphoma not previously treated showed that two years of maintenance therapy cut their risk of relapse in half compared with observation

GELA, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC)’s adult lymphoma study group, had reported the progression-free survival rate among 505 patients randomized to maintenance with rituximab (Rituxan in the United States, MabThera in Europe) was 82% at 2 years vs. 66% for 513 patients randomized to observation only (hazard ratio 0.50, stratified log-rank, P less than .0001). Rituximab maintenance reduced by 39% the need for patients to be started on new antilymphoma therapies (HR 0.61, P less than .0003), according to GELA’s presentation at the American Society for Clinical Oncology’s 2010 annual meeting.

All patients in the trial received rituximab in their induction regimens: 75% had R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone); 22% R-CVP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone), and 3% R-FCM (rituximab plus fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and mitoxantrone). Patients randomized to maintenance rituximab received it for 2 years as a single agent.

Investigators said rituximab maintenance was generally well tolerated, with grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurring in 22% of patients. The most common were infections in 37% of patients on maintenance and 22% of those on observation. Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia and low white blood cell count each occurred in about 4% of patients on maintenance rituximab.

The trial was sponsored by Roche, which markets rituximab outside the United States and is the parent company of Genentech.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a first-line maintenance indication for rituximab in advanced follicular lymphoma, according to an announcement by Genentech and Biogen Idec.

The indication specifies that maintenance rituximab (Rituxan) may be used in patients with advanced follicular lymphoma who responded to induction treatment with rituximab plus chemotherapy. The European Commission approved the same indication in October 2010, according to the January 28 announcement.

The application for a maintenance rituximab treatment was supported by results of the phase III PRIMA study, a randomized international trial conducted by the Groupe d’Etude des Lymphomes de l’Adulte (GELA). The trial in 1,217 patients with advanced follicular lymphoma not previously treated showed that two years of maintenance therapy cut their risk of relapse in half compared with observation

GELA, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC)’s adult lymphoma study group, had reported the progression-free survival rate among 505 patients randomized to maintenance with rituximab (Rituxan in the United States, MabThera in Europe) was 82% at 2 years vs. 66% for 513 patients randomized to observation only (hazard ratio 0.50, stratified log-rank, P less than .0001). Rituximab maintenance reduced by 39% the need for patients to be started on new antilymphoma therapies (HR 0.61, P less than .0003), according to GELA’s presentation at the American Society for Clinical Oncology’s 2010 annual meeting.

All patients in the trial received rituximab in their induction regimens: 75% had R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone); 22% R-CVP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone), and 3% R-FCM (rituximab plus fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and mitoxantrone). Patients randomized to maintenance rituximab received it for 2 years as a single agent.

Investigators said rituximab maintenance was generally well tolerated, with grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurring in 22% of patients. The most common were infections in 37% of patients on maintenance and 22% of those on observation. Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia and low white blood cell count each occurred in about 4% of patients on maintenance rituximab.

The trial was sponsored by Roche, which markets rituximab outside the United States and is the parent company of Genentech.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a first-line maintenance indication for rituximab in advanced follicular lymphoma, according to an announcement by Genentech and Biogen Idec.

The indication specifies that maintenance rituximab (Rituxan) may be used in patients with advanced follicular lymphoma who responded to induction treatment with rituximab plus chemotherapy. The European Commission approved the same indication in October 2010, according to the January 28 announcement.

The application for a maintenance rituximab treatment was supported by results of the phase III PRIMA study, a randomized international trial conducted by the Groupe d’Etude des Lymphomes de l’Adulte (GELA). The trial in 1,217 patients with advanced follicular lymphoma not previously treated showed that two years of maintenance therapy cut their risk of relapse in half compared with observation

GELA, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC)’s adult lymphoma study group, had reported the progression-free survival rate among 505 patients randomized to maintenance with rituximab (Rituxan in the United States, MabThera in Europe) was 82% at 2 years vs. 66% for 513 patients randomized to observation only (hazard ratio 0.50, stratified log-rank, P less than .0001). Rituximab maintenance reduced by 39% the need for patients to be started on new antilymphoma therapies (HR 0.61, P less than .0003), according to GELA’s presentation at the American Society for Clinical Oncology’s 2010 annual meeting.

All patients in the trial received rituximab in their induction regimens: 75% had R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone); 22% R-CVP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone), and 3% R-FCM (rituximab plus fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and mitoxantrone). Patients randomized to maintenance rituximab received it for 2 years as a single agent.

Investigators said rituximab maintenance was generally well tolerated, with grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurring in 22% of patients. The most common were infections in 37% of patients on maintenance and 22% of those on observation. Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia and low white blood cell count each occurred in about 4% of patients on maintenance rituximab.

The trial was sponsored by Roche, which markets rituximab outside the United States and is the parent company of Genentech.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a first-line maintenance indication for rituximab in advanced follicular lymphoma, according to an announcement by Genentech and Biogen Idec.

The indication specifies that maintenance rituximab (Rituxan) may be used in patients with advanced follicular lymphoma who responded to induction treatment with rituximab plus chemotherapy. The European Commission approved the same indication in October 2010, according to the January 28 announcement.

The application for a maintenance rituximab treatment was supported by results of the phase III PRIMA study, a randomized international trial conducted by the Groupe d’Etude des Lymphomes de l’Adulte (GELA). The trial in 1,217 patients with advanced follicular lymphoma not previously treated showed that two years of maintenance therapy cut their risk of relapse in half compared with observation

GELA, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC)’s adult lymphoma study group, had reported the progression-free survival rate among 505 patients randomized to maintenance with rituximab (Rituxan in the United States, MabThera in Europe) was 82% at 2 years vs. 66% for 513 patients randomized to observation only (hazard ratio 0.50, stratified log-rank, P less than .0001). Rituximab maintenance reduced by 39% the need for patients to be started on new antilymphoma therapies (HR 0.61, P less than .0003), according to GELA’s presentation at the American Society for Clinical Oncology’s 2010 annual meeting.

All patients in the trial received rituximab in their induction regimens: 75% had R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone); 22% R-CVP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone), and 3% R-FCM (rituximab plus fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and mitoxantrone). Patients randomized to maintenance rituximab received it for 2 years as a single agent.

Investigators said rituximab maintenance was generally well tolerated, with grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurring in 22% of patients. The most common were infections in 37% of patients on maintenance and 22% of those on observation. Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia and low white blood cell count each occurred in about 4% of patients on maintenance rituximab.

The trial was sponsored by Roche, which markets rituximab outside the United States and is the parent company of Genentech.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a first-line maintenance indication for rituximab in advanced follicular lymphoma, according to an announcement by Genentech and Biogen Idec.

The indication specifies that maintenance rituximab (Rituxan) may be used in patients with advanced follicular lymphoma who responded to induction treatment with rituximab plus chemotherapy. The European Commission approved the same indication in October 2010, according to the January 28 announcement.

The application for a maintenance rituximab treatment was supported by results of the phase III PRIMA study, a randomized international trial conducted by the Groupe d’Etude des Lymphomes de l’Adulte (GELA). The trial in 1,217 patients with advanced follicular lymphoma not previously treated showed that two years of maintenance therapy cut their risk of relapse in half compared with observation

GELA, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC)’s adult lymphoma study group, had reported the progression-free survival rate among 505 patients randomized to maintenance with rituximab (Rituxan in the United States, MabThera in Europe) was 82% at 2 years vs. 66% for 513 patients randomized to observation only (hazard ratio 0.50, stratified log-rank, P less than .0001). Rituximab maintenance reduced by 39% the need for patients to be started on new antilymphoma therapies (HR 0.61, P less than .0003), according to GELA’s presentation at the American Society for Clinical Oncology’s 2010 annual meeting.

All patients in the trial received rituximab in their induction regimens: 75% had R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone); 22% R-CVP (rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone), and 3% R-FCM (rituximab plus fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and mitoxantrone). Patients randomized to maintenance rituximab received it for 2 years as a single agent.

Investigators said rituximab maintenance was generally well tolerated, with grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurring in 22% of patients. The most common were infections in 37% of patients on maintenance and 22% of those on observation. Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia and low white blood cell count each occurred in about 4% of patients on maintenance rituximab.

The trial was sponsored by Roche, which markets rituximab outside the United States and is the parent company of Genentech.

In treating cardiovascular risk factors, we keep making our targets more aggressive. Epidemiologic data have established a link between high blood pressure (and high blood sugar) and a variety of bad outcomes. Since we now have many drugs to lower blood pressure and blood glucose, it would seem that aggressive treatment goals should be both achievable and beneficial.

But some have long suspected too-aggressive treatment would have an adverse effect—the so called “J curve” seen when drug effect is plotted against adverse outcome. The validity of this concept at the extreme is obvious: excessive hypotension or hypoglycemia is not clinically tolerated. So where is the cutoff between benefit and complications, where treatment becomes too aggressive and causes complications that outweigh the benefits?

In this issue of the Journal, Dr. Edward J. Filippone and colleagues discuss the treatment of hypertension with proposed aggressive but seemingly reasonable blood pressure targets. Surprisingly, interventional trials have not jibed with observational data that suggest a beneficial continuous relationship between blood-pressure-lowering within the physiologic range and cardiac outcomes. Potential explanations for this are many. Organs differ in their response to blood-pressure-lowering. The brain, despite considerable autoregulatory circulatory control, benefits from lowered blood pressure with reduced stroke frequency. The heart, uniquely dependent on diastolic flow for perfusion, can be compromised with aggressive lowering of the diastolic pressure, ie, to below 85 mm Hg, although lowering the systolic pressure may be beneficial. Specific drugs may have beneficial or detrimental effects, particularly in combinations needed to control blood pressure in patients with stiff arteries and multiple comorbidities.

In the clinic, attention to the individual’s physiology and clinical response to therapy needs to be paramount in our mind as we determine treatment targets—possibly a source of dissonance, as we are held accountable to external agencies for our practice performance in a depersonalized manner.

Proposed aggressive blood pressure targets remain contentious, but a far greater problem is that we are still not successfully treating hypertension to even a conservative target. In a recent analysis of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey database from 2003 to 2006, only about 44% of treated hypertensive patients were appropriately controlled.¹ As a community of physicians, we have a way to go before we hit the J point.

In treating cardiovascular risk factors, we keep making our targets more aggressive. Epidemiologic data have established a link between high blood pressure (and high blood sugar) and a variety of bad outcomes. Since we now have many drugs to lower blood pressure and blood glucose, it would seem that aggressive treatment goals should be both achievable and beneficial.

But some have long suspected too-aggressive treatment would have an adverse effect—the so called “J curve” seen when drug effect is plotted against adverse outcome. The validity of this concept at the extreme is obvious: excessive hypotension or hypoglycemia is not clinically tolerated. So where is the cutoff between benefit and complications, where treatment becomes too aggressive and causes complications that outweigh the benefits?

In this issue of the Journal, Dr. Edward J. Filippone and colleagues discuss the treatment of hypertension with proposed aggressive but seemingly reasonable blood pressure targets. Surprisingly, interventional trials have not jibed with observational data that suggest a beneficial continuous relationship between blood-pressure-lowering within the physiologic range and cardiac outcomes. Potential explanations for this are many. Organs differ in their response to blood-pressure-lowering. The brain, despite considerable autoregulatory circulatory control, benefits from lowered blood pressure with reduced stroke frequency. The heart, uniquely dependent on diastolic flow for perfusion, can be compromised with aggressive lowering of the diastolic pressure, ie, to below 85 mm Hg, although lowering the systolic pressure may be beneficial. Specific drugs may have beneficial or detrimental effects, particularly in combinations needed to control blood pressure in patients with stiff arteries and multiple comorbidities.

In the clinic, attention to the individual’s physiology and clinical response to therapy needs to be paramount in our mind as we determine treatment targets—possibly a source of dissonance, as we are held accountable to external agencies for our practice performance in a depersonalized manner.

Proposed aggressive blood pressure targets remain contentious, but a far greater problem is that we are still not successfully treating hypertension to even a conservative target. In a recent analysis of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey database from 2003 to 2006, only about 44% of treated hypertensive patients were appropriately controlled.¹ As a community of physicians, we have a way to go before we hit the J point.

In treating cardiovascular risk factors, we keep making our targets more aggressive. Epidemiologic data have established a link between high blood pressure (and high blood sugar) and a variety of bad outcomes. Since we now have many drugs to lower blood pressure and blood glucose, it would seem that aggressive treatment goals should be both achievable and beneficial.

But some have long suspected too-aggressive treatment would have an adverse effect—the so called “J curve” seen when drug effect is plotted against adverse outcome. The validity of this concept at the extreme is obvious: excessive hypotension or hypoglycemia is not clinically tolerated. So where is the cutoff between benefit and complications, where treatment becomes too aggressive and causes complications that outweigh the benefits?

In this issue of the Journal, Dr. Edward J. Filippone and colleagues discuss the treatment of hypertension with proposed aggressive but seemingly reasonable blood pressure targets. Surprisingly, interventional trials have not jibed with observational data that suggest a beneficial continuous relationship between blood-pressure-lowering within the physiologic range and cardiac outcomes. Potential explanations for this are many. Organs differ in their response to blood-pressure-lowering. The brain, despite considerable autoregulatory circulatory control, benefits from lowered blood pressure with reduced stroke frequency. The heart, uniquely dependent on diastolic flow for perfusion, can be compromised with aggressive lowering of the diastolic pressure, ie, to below 85 mm Hg, although lowering the systolic pressure may be beneficial. Specific drugs may have beneficial or detrimental effects, particularly in combinations needed to control blood pressure in patients with stiff arteries and multiple comorbidities.

In the clinic, attention to the individual’s physiology and clinical response to therapy needs to be paramount in our mind as we determine treatment targets—possibly a source of dissonance, as we are held accountable to external agencies for our practice performance in a depersonalized manner.

Proposed aggressive blood pressure targets remain contentious, but a far greater problem is that we are still not successfully treating hypertension to even a conservative target. In a recent analysis of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey database from 2003 to 2006, only about 44% of treated hypertensive patients were appropriately controlled.¹ As a community of physicians, we have a way to go before we hit the J point.