Clinical

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), which includes deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), continues to be a major cause of morbidity and mortality among hospitalized patients. Although it is well-known that anticoagulation therapy is effective in the prevention and treatment of VTE events, these agents are some of the highest-risk medications a hospitalist will prescribe given the danger of major bleeding. With the recent approval of several newer anticoagulants, it is important for the practicing hospitalist to be comfortable initiating, maintaining, and stopping these agents in a wide variety of patient populations.

Guideline Updates

In February 2016, an update to the ninth edition of the antithrombotic guideline from the American College of Chest Physician (ACCP) was published and included updated recommendations on 12 topics in addition to three new topics. This 10th-edition guideline update is referred to as AT10.1

One of the most notable changes in the updated guideline is the recommended choice of anticoagulant in patients with acute DVT or PE without cancer. Now, the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, or edoxaban are recommended over warfarin. Although this is a weak recommendation based on moderate-quality evidence (grade 2B), this is the first time that warfarin is not considered first-line therapy. It should be emphasized that none of the four FDA-approved DOACs are preferred over another, and they should be avoided in patients who are pregnant or have severe renal disease. In patients with DVT or PE and cancer, low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is still the preferred medication. If LMWH is not prescribed, AT10 does not have a preference for either a DOAC or warfarin for patients with cancer.

When it comes to duration of anticoagulation following a VTE event, the updated guideline continues to recommend three months for a provoked VTE event, with consideration for lifelong anticoagulation for an unprovoked event for patients at low or moderate bleeding risk. However, it now suggests that the recurrence risk factors of male sex and a positive D-dimer measured one month after stopping anticoagulant therapy should be taken into consideration when deciding whether extended anticoagulation is indicated.

AT10 also includes new recommendations concerning the role of aspirin for extended VTE treatment. Interestingly, the 2008 ACCP guideline gave a strong recommendation against the use of aspirin for VTE management in any patient population. In the 2012 guideline, the role of aspirin was not addressed for VTE treatment. Now, AT10 states that low-dose aspirin can be used in patients who stop anticoagulant therapy for treatment of an unprovoked proximal DVT or PE as an extended therapy (grade 2B). The significant change in this recommendation stems from two recent randomized trials that compared aspirin with placebo for the prevention of VTE recurrence in patients who have completed a course of anticoagulation for a first unprovoked proximal DVT or PE.2,3 Although the guideline doesn’t consider aspirin to be a reasonable alternative to anticoagulation for patients who require extended therapy and are agreeable to continue, for patients who have decided to stop anticoagulation, aspirin appears to reduce recurrent VTE by approximately one-third, with no significant increased risk of bleeding.

Another significant change in AT10 is the recommendation against the routine use of compression stockings to prevent postthrombotic syndrome (PTS). This change was influenced by a recent multicenter randomized trial showing that elastic compression stockings did not prevent PTS after an acute proximal DVT.4 The guideline authors remark that this recommendation focuses on the prevention of the chronic complications of PTS rather than treatment of the symptoms. Thus, for patients with acute or chronic leg pain or swelling from DVT, compression stockings may be justified.

A topic that was not addressed in the previous guideline was whether patients with a subsegmental PE should be treated. The guideline now suggests that patients with only subsegmental PE and no ultrasound-proven proximal DVT of the legs should undergo “clinical surveillance” rather than anticoagulation (grade 2C). Exceptions include patients at high risk for recurrent VTE (e.g., hospitalization, reduced mobility, active cancer, or irreversible VTE risk factors) and those with a low cardiopulmonary reserve or marked symptoms thought to be from PE. AT10 also states that patient preferences regarding anticoagulation treatment as well as the patient’s risk of bleeding should be taken into consideration. If the decision is made to not prescribe anticoagulation for subsegmental PE, patients should be advised to seek reevaluation if their symptoms persist or worsen.

The 2012 guideline included a new recommendation that patients with low-risk PE (typically defined by a low Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index [PESI] score) could be discharged “early” from the hospital. This recommendation has now been modified to state that patients with low-risk PE may be treated entirely at home. It is worth noting that outpatient management of low-risk PE has become much less complicated if using a DOAC, particularly rivaroxaban and apixaban as neither require initial treatment with parenteral anticoagulation.

AT10 has not changed the recommendation for which patients should receive thrombolytic therapy for treatment of PE. It recommends systemic thrombolytic therapy for patients with acute PE associated with hypotension (defined as systolic blood pressure less than 90 mmHg for 15 minutes) who are not at high risk for bleeding (grade 2B). Likewise, for patients with acute PE not associated with hypotension, the guideline recommends against systemic thrombolytics (grade 1B). If thrombolytics are implemented, AT10 favors systemic administration over catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) due to the higher-quality evidence available. However, the authors state that CDT may be preferred for patients at higher risk of bleeding and when local expertise is available. Lastly, catheter-assisted thrombus removal should be considered in patients with acute PE and hypotension who have a high bleeding risk, who have failed systemic thrombolytics, or who are in shock and likely to die before systemic thrombolytics become therapeutic.

Although no prospective trials have evaluated the management of patients with recurrent VTE events while on anticoagulation therapy, AT10 offers some guidance. After ensuring the patient truly had a recurrent VTE event while on therapeutic warfarin or compliant with a DOAC, the authors suggest switching to LMWH for at least one month (grade 2C). Furthermore, for patients who have a recurrent VTE event while compliant on long-term LMWH, the guideline suggests increasing the dose of LMWH by about one-quarter to one-third (grade 2C).

Guideline Analysis

It is important to note that of the 54 recommendations included in the complete guideline update, only 20 were strong recommendations (grade 1), and none were based on high-quality evidence (level A). It is obvious that more research is needed in this field. Regardless, the ACCP antithrombotic guideline remains the authoritative source in VTE management and has a strong influence on practice behavior. With the recent addition of several newer anticoagulants, AT10 is particularly useful in helping providers understand when and when not to use them. The authors indicate that future iterations will be continually updated, describing them as “living guidelines.” The format of AT10 was designed to facilitate this method with the goal of having discrete topics discussed as new evidence becomes available.

Hospital Medicine Takeaways

Despite the lack of randomized and prospective clinical trials, the updated recommendations from AT10 provide important information on challenging VTE issues that the hospitalist can apply to most patients most of the time. Important updates include:

• Prescribe DOACs as first-line agents for the treatment of acute VTE in patients without cancer.
• Use aspirin for the prevention of recurrent VTE in patients who stop anticoagulation for treatment of an unprovoked DVT or PE.
• Avoid compression stockings for the sole purpose of preventing postthrombotic syndrome.
• Do not admit patients with low-risk PE (as determined by the PESI score) to the hospital but rather treat them entirely at home.

Lastly, it is important to remember that VTE treatment decisions need to be individualized based on the clinical, imaging, and biochemical features of your patient.

Paul J. Grant, MD, SFHM, is assistant professor of medicine and director of perioperative and consultative medicine within the Department of Internal Medicine at the University of Michigan Health System in Ann Arbor.

References

1. Kearon C, Akl EA, Ornelas J, et al. Antithrombotic therapy for VTE disease: CHEST guideline and expert panel report. Chest. 2016;149(2):315-352.
2. Brighton TA, Eikelboom JW, Mann K, et al. Low-dose aspirin for preventing recurrent venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(21):1979-1987.
3. Becattini C, Agnelli G, Schenone A, et al. Aspirin for preventing the recurrence of venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(21):1959-1967.
4. Kahn SR, Shapiro S, Wells PS, et al. Compression stockings to prevent post-thrombotic syndrome: a randomised placebo controlled trial. Lancet. 2014;383(9920):880-888.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), which includes deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), continues to be a major cause of morbidity and mortality among hospitalized patients. Although it is well-known that anticoagulation therapy is effective in the prevention and treatment of VTE events, these agents are some of the highest-risk medications a hospitalist will prescribe given the danger of major bleeding. With the recent approval of several newer anticoagulants, it is important for the practicing hospitalist to be comfortable initiating, maintaining, and stopping these agents in a wide variety of patient populations.

Guideline Updates

In February 2016, an update to the ninth edition of the antithrombotic guideline from the American College of Chest Physician (ACCP) was published and included updated recommendations on 12 topics in addition to three new topics. This 10th-edition guideline update is referred to as AT10.1

One of the most notable changes in the updated guideline is the recommended choice of anticoagulant in patients with acute DVT or PE without cancer. Now, the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, or edoxaban are recommended over warfarin. Although this is a weak recommendation based on moderate-quality evidence (grade 2B), this is the first time that warfarin is not considered first-line therapy. It should be emphasized that none of the four FDA-approved DOACs are preferred over another, and they should be avoided in patients who are pregnant or have severe renal disease. In patients with DVT or PE and cancer, low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is still the preferred medication. If LMWH is not prescribed, AT10 does not have a preference for either a DOAC or warfarin for patients with cancer.

When it comes to duration of anticoagulation following a VTE event, the updated guideline continues to recommend three months for a provoked VTE event, with consideration for lifelong anticoagulation for an unprovoked event for patients at low or moderate bleeding risk. However, it now suggests that the recurrence risk factors of male sex and a positive D-dimer measured one month after stopping anticoagulant therapy should be taken into consideration when deciding whether extended anticoagulation is indicated.

AT10 also includes new recommendations concerning the role of aspirin for extended VTE treatment. Interestingly, the 2008 ACCP guideline gave a strong recommendation against the use of aspirin for VTE management in any patient population. In the 2012 guideline, the role of aspirin was not addressed for VTE treatment. Now, AT10 states that low-dose aspirin can be used in patients who stop anticoagulant therapy for treatment of an unprovoked proximal DVT or PE as an extended therapy (grade 2B). The significant change in this recommendation stems from two recent randomized trials that compared aspirin with placebo for the prevention of VTE recurrence in patients who have completed a course of anticoagulation for a first unprovoked proximal DVT or PE.2,3 Although the guideline doesn’t consider aspirin to be a reasonable alternative to anticoagulation for patients who require extended therapy and are agreeable to continue, for patients who have decided to stop anticoagulation, aspirin appears to reduce recurrent VTE by approximately one-third, with no significant increased risk of bleeding.

Another significant change in AT10 is the recommendation against the routine use of compression stockings to prevent postthrombotic syndrome (PTS). This change was influenced by a recent multicenter randomized trial showing that elastic compression stockings did not prevent PTS after an acute proximal DVT.4 The guideline authors remark that this recommendation focuses on the prevention of the chronic complications of PTS rather than treatment of the symptoms. Thus, for patients with acute or chronic leg pain or swelling from DVT, compression stockings may be justified.

A topic that was not addressed in the previous guideline was whether patients with a subsegmental PE should be treated. The guideline now suggests that patients with only subsegmental PE and no ultrasound-proven proximal DVT of the legs should undergo “clinical surveillance” rather than anticoagulation (grade 2C). Exceptions include patients at high risk for recurrent VTE (e.g., hospitalization, reduced mobility, active cancer, or irreversible VTE risk factors) and those with a low cardiopulmonary reserve or marked symptoms thought to be from PE. AT10 also states that patient preferences regarding anticoagulation treatment as well as the patient’s risk of bleeding should be taken into consideration. If the decision is made to not prescribe anticoagulation for subsegmental PE, patients should be advised to seek reevaluation if their symptoms persist or worsen.

The 2012 guideline included a new recommendation that patients with low-risk PE (typically defined by a low Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index [PESI] score) could be discharged “early” from the hospital. This recommendation has now been modified to state that patients with low-risk PE may be treated entirely at home. It is worth noting that outpatient management of low-risk PE has become much less complicated if using a DOAC, particularly rivaroxaban and apixaban as neither require initial treatment with parenteral anticoagulation.

AT10 has not changed the recommendation for which patients should receive thrombolytic therapy for treatment of PE. It recommends systemic thrombolytic therapy for patients with acute PE associated with hypotension (defined as systolic blood pressure less than 90 mmHg for 15 minutes) who are not at high risk for bleeding (grade 2B). Likewise, for patients with acute PE not associated with hypotension, the guideline recommends against systemic thrombolytics (grade 1B). If thrombolytics are implemented, AT10 favors systemic administration over catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) due to the higher-quality evidence available. However, the authors state that CDT may be preferred for patients at higher risk of bleeding and when local expertise is available. Lastly, catheter-assisted thrombus removal should be considered in patients with acute PE and hypotension who have a high bleeding risk, who have failed systemic thrombolytics, or who are in shock and likely to die before systemic thrombolytics become therapeutic.

Although no prospective trials have evaluated the management of patients with recurrent VTE events while on anticoagulation therapy, AT10 offers some guidance. After ensuring the patient truly had a recurrent VTE event while on therapeutic warfarin or compliant with a DOAC, the authors suggest switching to LMWH for at least one month (grade 2C). Furthermore, for patients who have a recurrent VTE event while compliant on long-term LMWH, the guideline suggests increasing the dose of LMWH by about one-quarter to one-third (grade 2C).

Guideline Analysis

It is important to note that of the 54 recommendations included in the complete guideline update, only 20 were strong recommendations (grade 1), and none were based on high-quality evidence (level A). It is obvious that more research is needed in this field. Regardless, the ACCP antithrombotic guideline remains the authoritative source in VTE management and has a strong influence on practice behavior. With the recent addition of several newer anticoagulants, AT10 is particularly useful in helping providers understand when and when not to use them. The authors indicate that future iterations will be continually updated, describing them as “living guidelines.” The format of AT10 was designed to facilitate this method with the goal of having discrete topics discussed as new evidence becomes available.

Hospital Medicine Takeaways

Despite the lack of randomized and prospective clinical trials, the updated recommendations from AT10 provide important information on challenging VTE issues that the hospitalist can apply to most patients most of the time. Important updates include:

• Prescribe DOACs as first-line agents for the treatment of acute VTE in patients without cancer.
• Use aspirin for the prevention of recurrent VTE in patients who stop anticoagulation for treatment of an unprovoked DVT or PE.
• Avoid compression stockings for the sole purpose of preventing postthrombotic syndrome.
• Do not admit patients with low-risk PE (as determined by the PESI score) to the hospital but rather treat them entirely at home.

Lastly, it is important to remember that VTE treatment decisions need to be individualized based on the clinical, imaging, and biochemical features of your patient.

Paul J. Grant, MD, SFHM, is assistant professor of medicine and director of perioperative and consultative medicine within the Department of Internal Medicine at the University of Michigan Health System in Ann Arbor.

References

1. Kearon C, Akl EA, Ornelas J, et al. Antithrombotic therapy for VTE disease: CHEST guideline and expert panel report. Chest. 2016;149(2):315-352.
2. Brighton TA, Eikelboom JW, Mann K, et al. Low-dose aspirin for preventing recurrent venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(21):1979-1987.
3. Becattini C, Agnelli G, Schenone A, et al. Aspirin for preventing the recurrence of venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(21):1959-1967.
4. Kahn SR, Shapiro S, Wells PS, et al. Compression stockings to prevent post-thrombotic syndrome: a randomised placebo controlled trial. Lancet. 2014;383(9920):880-888.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), which includes deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), continues to be a major cause of morbidity and mortality among hospitalized patients. Although it is well-known that anticoagulation therapy is effective in the prevention and treatment of VTE events, these agents are some of the highest-risk medications a hospitalist will prescribe given the danger of major bleeding. With the recent approval of several newer anticoagulants, it is important for the practicing hospitalist to be comfortable initiating, maintaining, and stopping these agents in a wide variety of patient populations.

Guideline Updates

In February 2016, an update to the ninth edition of the antithrombotic guideline from the American College of Chest Physician (ACCP) was published and included updated recommendations on 12 topics in addition to three new topics. This 10th-edition guideline update is referred to as AT10.1

One of the most notable changes in the updated guideline is the recommended choice of anticoagulant in patients with acute DVT or PE without cancer. Now, the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, or edoxaban are recommended over warfarin. Although this is a weak recommendation based on moderate-quality evidence (grade 2B), this is the first time that warfarin is not considered first-line therapy. It should be emphasized that none of the four FDA-approved DOACs are preferred over another, and they should be avoided in patients who are pregnant or have severe renal disease. In patients with DVT or PE and cancer, low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is still the preferred medication. If LMWH is not prescribed, AT10 does not have a preference for either a DOAC or warfarin for patients with cancer.

When it comes to duration of anticoagulation following a VTE event, the updated guideline continues to recommend three months for a provoked VTE event, with consideration for lifelong anticoagulation for an unprovoked event for patients at low or moderate bleeding risk. However, it now suggests that the recurrence risk factors of male sex and a positive D-dimer measured one month after stopping anticoagulant therapy should be taken into consideration when deciding whether extended anticoagulation is indicated.

AT10 also includes new recommendations concerning the role of aspirin for extended VTE treatment. Interestingly, the 2008 ACCP guideline gave a strong recommendation against the use of aspirin for VTE management in any patient population. In the 2012 guideline, the role of aspirin was not addressed for VTE treatment. Now, AT10 states that low-dose aspirin can be used in patients who stop anticoagulant therapy for treatment of an unprovoked proximal DVT or PE as an extended therapy (grade 2B). The significant change in this recommendation stems from two recent randomized trials that compared aspirin with placebo for the prevention of VTE recurrence in patients who have completed a course of anticoagulation for a first unprovoked proximal DVT or PE.2,3 Although the guideline doesn’t consider aspirin to be a reasonable alternative to anticoagulation for patients who require extended therapy and are agreeable to continue, for patients who have decided to stop anticoagulation, aspirin appears to reduce recurrent VTE by approximately one-third, with no significant increased risk of bleeding.

Another significant change in AT10 is the recommendation against the routine use of compression stockings to prevent postthrombotic syndrome (PTS). This change was influenced by a recent multicenter randomized trial showing that elastic compression stockings did not prevent PTS after an acute proximal DVT.4 The guideline authors remark that this recommendation focuses on the prevention of the chronic complications of PTS rather than treatment of the symptoms. Thus, for patients with acute or chronic leg pain or swelling from DVT, compression stockings may be justified.

A topic that was not addressed in the previous guideline was whether patients with a subsegmental PE should be treated. The guideline now suggests that patients with only subsegmental PE and no ultrasound-proven proximal DVT of the legs should undergo “clinical surveillance” rather than anticoagulation (grade 2C). Exceptions include patients at high risk for recurrent VTE (e.g., hospitalization, reduced mobility, active cancer, or irreversible VTE risk factors) and those with a low cardiopulmonary reserve or marked symptoms thought to be from PE. AT10 also states that patient preferences regarding anticoagulation treatment as well as the patient’s risk of bleeding should be taken into consideration. If the decision is made to not prescribe anticoagulation for subsegmental PE, patients should be advised to seek reevaluation if their symptoms persist or worsen.

The 2012 guideline included a new recommendation that patients with low-risk PE (typically defined by a low Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index [PESI] score) could be discharged “early” from the hospital. This recommendation has now been modified to state that patients with low-risk PE may be treated entirely at home. It is worth noting that outpatient management of low-risk PE has become much less complicated if using a DOAC, particularly rivaroxaban and apixaban as neither require initial treatment with parenteral anticoagulation.

AT10 has not changed the recommendation for which patients should receive thrombolytic therapy for treatment of PE. It recommends systemic thrombolytic therapy for patients with acute PE associated with hypotension (defined as systolic blood pressure less than 90 mmHg for 15 minutes) who are not at high risk for bleeding (grade 2B). Likewise, for patients with acute PE not associated with hypotension, the guideline recommends against systemic thrombolytics (grade 1B). If thrombolytics are implemented, AT10 favors systemic administration over catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) due to the higher-quality evidence available. However, the authors state that CDT may be preferred for patients at higher risk of bleeding and when local expertise is available. Lastly, catheter-assisted thrombus removal should be considered in patients with acute PE and hypotension who have a high bleeding risk, who have failed systemic thrombolytics, or who are in shock and likely to die before systemic thrombolytics become therapeutic.

Although no prospective trials have evaluated the management of patients with recurrent VTE events while on anticoagulation therapy, AT10 offers some guidance. After ensuring the patient truly had a recurrent VTE event while on therapeutic warfarin or compliant with a DOAC, the authors suggest switching to LMWH for at least one month (grade 2C). Furthermore, for patients who have a recurrent VTE event while compliant on long-term LMWH, the guideline suggests increasing the dose of LMWH by about one-quarter to one-third (grade 2C).

Guideline Analysis

It is important to note that of the 54 recommendations included in the complete guideline update, only 20 were strong recommendations (grade 1), and none were based on high-quality evidence (level A). It is obvious that more research is needed in this field. Regardless, the ACCP antithrombotic guideline remains the authoritative source in VTE management and has a strong influence on practice behavior. With the recent addition of several newer anticoagulants, AT10 is particularly useful in helping providers understand when and when not to use them. The authors indicate that future iterations will be continually updated, describing them as “living guidelines.” The format of AT10 was designed to facilitate this method with the goal of having discrete topics discussed as new evidence becomes available.

Hospital Medicine Takeaways

Despite the lack of randomized and prospective clinical trials, the updated recommendations from AT10 provide important information on challenging VTE issues that the hospitalist can apply to most patients most of the time. Important updates include:

• Prescribe DOACs as first-line agents for the treatment of acute VTE in patients without cancer.
• Use aspirin for the prevention of recurrent VTE in patients who stop anticoagulation for treatment of an unprovoked DVT or PE.
• Avoid compression stockings for the sole purpose of preventing postthrombotic syndrome.
• Do not admit patients with low-risk PE (as determined by the PESI score) to the hospital but rather treat them entirely at home.

Lastly, it is important to remember that VTE treatment decisions need to be individualized based on the clinical, imaging, and biochemical features of your patient.

Paul J. Grant, MD, SFHM, is assistant professor of medicine and director of perioperative and consultative medicine within the Department of Internal Medicine at the University of Michigan Health System in Ann Arbor.

References

1. Kearon C, Akl EA, Ornelas J, et al. Antithrombotic therapy for VTE disease: CHEST guideline and expert panel report. Chest. 2016;149(2):315-352.
2. Brighton TA, Eikelboom JW, Mann K, et al. Low-dose aspirin for preventing recurrent venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(21):1979-1987.
3. Becattini C, Agnelli G, Schenone A, et al. Aspirin for preventing the recurrence of venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(21):1959-1967.
4. Kahn SR, Shapiro S, Wells PS, et al. Compression stockings to prevent post-thrombotic syndrome: a randomised placebo controlled trial. Lancet. 2014;383(9920):880-888.

Acute kidney injury is common in children and young adults admitted to ICUs, and cannot always be identified by plasma creatinine level alone, according to the authors of a study presented at the meeting sponsored by the American Society of Nephrology.

The Assessment of Worldwide Acute Kidney Injury, Renal Angina, and Epidemiology (AWARE) study was a prospective, international, observational study in 4,683 patients aged 3 months to 25 years, recruited from 32 pediatric ICUs over the course of 3 months.

Hemera Technologies/Thinkstock

Acute kidney injury is common in children and young adults admitted to ICUs, and cannot always be identified by plasma creatinine level alone, according to the authors of a study presented at the meeting sponsored by the American Society of Nephrology.

The Assessment of Worldwide Acute Kidney Injury, Renal Angina, and Epidemiology (AWARE) study was a prospective, international, observational study in 4,683 patients aged 3 months to 25 years, recruited from 32 pediatric ICUs over the course of 3 months.

Hemera Technologies/Thinkstock

Acute kidney injury is common in children and young adults admitted to ICUs, and cannot always be identified by plasma creatinine level alone, according to the authors of a study presented at the meeting sponsored by the American Society of Nephrology.

The Assessment of Worldwide Acute Kidney Injury, Renal Angina, and Epidemiology (AWARE) study was a prospective, international, observational study in 4,683 patients aged 3 months to 25 years, recruited from 32 pediatric ICUs over the course of 3 months.

Hemera Technologies/Thinkstock

At Bay Area Medical Center in Marinette, Wis., the time had come to start talking about an elderly woman’s end-of-life care.

Her hospitalist thought that those discussions should take place with the patient present, but the woman’s family felt otherwise and made this known to the hospitalist, who stood his ground.

Eventually, the family told a nurse that they wanted to fire the physician. But the only other hospitalist on shift didn’t want to take the patient.

As case managers and hospital administrators tried to wrap their heads around the situation, it became clear: They didn’t really know what to do.

Could the patient fire a physician? Was the second physician obligated to take what he knew from the outset would be a difficult case? What if nobody wanted to take care of this patient?

“There was no black-and-white to this,” says Robin Dequaine, director of medical staff services at the hospital, who was involved in the case.

Some “difficult patient” scenarios are fairly straightforward. A patient is violent? Enact your security measures. An addict wants narcotics? Don’t give them.

But there are other situations that enter murkier territory: What if a patient makes inappropriate or abusive remarks? How much should a hospitalist put up with? What if a patient’s request for treatment might not be the hospitalist’s first choice but could be seen as reasonable? Is the patient’s request accommodated? And what about those firings?

Hospitalists, administrators, and patient advocates say these tense situations with patients involving firings, or would-be firings, while not a daily occurrence, are actually fairly common.¹ Getting to the root of the problem is essential. And as with so much in healthcare, good communication is the absolute crux of it all, they say.

“These are almost all communication issues,” says John Bulger, DO, MBA, FACP, SFHM, chief medical officer at Geisinger Health Plan in Danville, Pa., who has had a long career as a hospitalist and administrator handling and trying to resolve these situations. “They’re all [about] the way the hospitalist and the team is relating to the patient.”

Jackie O’Doherty, a private patient advocate who practices in New Jersey and New York across a gamut of hospital types, has a similar view.

“For me, the biggest problem, period, against hospitalists, doctors, everybody in the hospital, is communication—the lack of it,” she says. “Their communication skills are really poor.”

Patients accustomed to choice in the outpatient setting might not handle it well when they don’t have an established relationship with their hospitalist, says John Vazquez, MD, associate director for the Emory University School of Medicine’s Division of Hospital Medicine in Atlanta.

But the system, he says, “does not allow for, unfortunately, that much patient choice.”

End-of-life Discussion at a Small Hospital

Dequaine says the staff at Bay Area Medical Center was caught flat-footed with the case of the family not wanting end-of-life care discussed with their elderly mother.

“The doctor felt very confident that he was in a position that he could have that discussion in front of the patient,” she says.

At the 99-bed center, there were just two hospitalists, who were also employees of the hospital, on shift. And the communication channels involving the medical director of hospital medicine, a case manager, and the chief nursing executive were not well-controlled, Dequaine says.

“It didn’t go up the ladder correctly,” she says. “Too many people got involved, not knowing that somebody else was already involved.”

The second hospitalist at first said he would take the case, but later Dequaine learned that he changed his mind.

“He knew his care would be no different, and we were very, very busy, so they both had a high census already,” Dequaine says.

A third physician reluctantly took over until the issue subsided. And the family still brings the patient to the hospital for care.

Ultimately, the center adopted a new policy that doesn’t guarantee a patient a new doctor, only that the hospital will have frank discussions to try to resolve the issue and then try to arrange for a transfer if the situation can’t be resolved.

“The goal is not to get rid of the patient or to force them to keep the provider,” Dequaine says. “The goal is to resolve it in a mutually satisfactory way.”

A Patient Demands a Contraindicated Medication

A middle-aged woman with Crohn’s disease was hospitalized at Emory with an infection. The woman, worried about her disease flaring, wanted to keep getting her immunosuppressant, but the hospitalist suspended it because she needed to fight off the infection. The patient became upset. At a point when the hospitalist wasn’t in the room, the woman insisted to a nurse that she get her medication. The nurse called a doctor who was on call, but that doctor wouldn’t give the immunosuppressant either.

The patient began to think she wasn’t being listened to. Dr. Vazquez went in to see the patient and apologized for the misunderstanding.

“I went back into the room and explained here’s why I’m doing it: ‘I totally understand where you’re coming from; you don’t want your disease to be out of control. I appreciate that. What I’m worried about is killing you if we give you an immunosuppressant at the wrong time,’” Dr. Vazquez says.

Dr. Vazquez has underscored at his center how important it is for the physicians to be consulted and go back into the room when patients want to fire them, even though the expedient step might be to just bring in a new doctor. At previous centers, he says, it wouldn’t be unusual for the director to get a call from a nurse, who would say, “Yeah, they want to fire this physician, so let me know who’s going to see the patient.”

But simply switching doctors, he cautions, is like saying, “I agree with you we have incompetent doctors here, so we’re going to remove that doctor and I’m going to put a doctor on who actually knows what they’re doing.”

When doctors try to resolve the issues, good things tend to happen, Dr. Vazquez says.

“There’s generally a large amount of appreciation that someone comes back into the room and says, ‘We want to do this right.’”

Of course, there are times when, if tension remains after such discussions, patient care might be better served by a swap. At large centers, that might be possible, Dr. Bulger of Geisinger says.

“If the patient doesn’t tell the doctor something because he or she doesn’t like the doctor, then the doctor’s decisions are made on partial information—that’s the issue,” he says.

O’Doherty, the patient advocate, says that if patients frustrated with poor communication actually fired physicians as often as they would like, there would be more firings.

“Patients don’t like firing the doctors because they don’t want to be the patient who everybody doesn’t like,” she says. “They’re afraid that if they argue or disagree or ask too many questions, that they’re not going to get the care they need. And the family is afraid of that as well, especially in the older population. They think doctors are like God, they hold your life in their hands. So they don’t want to really question doctors.”

She says patients don’t necessarily need a particular finesse or expert bedside manner. In many cases, she says, it’s “just giving the information.”

A Patient Demands Pain Medication

Martin Austin, MD, SFHM, recently cared for a patient with chronic headaches. The patient asked for higher doses of pain medication, insinuating that she might turn to heroin if denied.

“I was trying to make the argument that I kind of disagreed with that but, ‘I respect your opinion,’” says Dr. Austin, medical director at the Gwinnett Medical Center Inpatient Medical Group in Georgia. “We came to a negotiation about how long we would use narcotics acutely until her other acute issues were over, but then we would try to get her away from narcotics.”

A good approach, he says, is to “outline to the patient why you’re doing what you’re doing. We try not to pick battles and give the patient some degree of control if it’s not contraindicated.”

But sometimes there can be no negotiating these kinds of requests, he says.

“Sometimes we’ll just say, ‘Look, it’s not a good thing for you to continue on this medication. You’re showing side effects, you’re sedated. … We think that the risk outweighs the benefit in this case,” he says.

A Patient Feels Left in the Dark

One patient at Emory wanted to fire his hospitalist because he wouldn’t tell him what was on his CT scan.

Dr. Vazquez held a discussion between the patient and the doctor. If not for the seriousness of the patient’s condition (he had tremors and neurological concerns), it would have been almost comical.

The patient had asked, “What’s on my scan?” The patient interpreted the doctor’s response, “It’s negative,” to mean that he wasn’t being told something about the scan.

Dr. Vazquez realized that the patient had felt dismissed.

“He was a sick gentleman,” Dr. Vazquez says. “And what he wanted to hear was, ‘Look, the great news is your CT scan looks good. There’s not an anatomical abnormality. It’s not a tumor. It’s not a big bleed. … That’s great news, but I, as a physician, I am concerned about you. You’re sick. We’ve got to really figure out what’s going on with you.’… He wanted a pat on the back, and that’s all it took.”

After that, the patient no longer wanted to fire the hospitalist.

Verbal Abuse

One case at Gwinnett involves a hospitalist who was quite shy and easily intimidated and was not comfortable with a patient.

“They were struggling with a patient who was very difficult and very angry and a little abusive,” Dr. Austin says. “This doctor was really suffering psychically from this whole thing, and we switched.” Another doctor, who would not be thrown by the situation, took over the case. And Dr. Austin says he had great respect for the first doctor’s request to hand over the case.

“They needed a different personality,” he says. “It worked out beautifully. The patient and the doctor got along much better. The doctor was firm with the patient but respectful, and the other doctor felt relieved. And the [original] doctor is great with patients who need a lot of emotional support, probably better than the other doctor. So that worked out really well.”

It might be a challenge during a busy day, but it’s helpful to step back and see the situation as a whole, Dr. Bulger says. Sometimes, hospitalists can get flustered when patients are not acting rationally. But there’s usually a good reason they’re acting that way, he says.

“The patient is sick. And if it’s the patient’s family, they’re stressed by the fact that the patient’s sick. So you really need to take a step back and understand that.” TH

Thomas R. Collins is a freelance writer based in West Palm Beach, Fla.

Reference

1. Centor R. Can I fire my hospitalist? SGIM Forum. 32(5):112-13.

Physician Communication Often Abysmal, Patient Advocate Says

Hospitalists, no doubt, encounter many challenging patient situations that have a lot to do with inappropriate behavior on the part of patients.

But from patient advocate Jackie O’Doherty’s point of view, many tough situations involving the patient-physician dynamic evolve from hospitalists who seem almost incapable of communicating well.

“I’m not saying they’re bad; their communication is not as great as it should be,” she says. “It has to be just giving the information. People get really frustrated when they’re in the hospital and they don’t know what’s going on.”

O’Doherty, a private patient advocate who represents patients in their efforts to get good healthcare at hospitals in New York and New Jersey, says sometimes the communication gaps are staggering.

For example, she represents a patient who had a heart attack and was transferred to a larger center to have open-heart surgery. The surgery went well, but when a Swan catheter was pulled, a plaque was hit and the man had a stroke. Suddenly, his care became a lot more complicated.

A series of specialists came in to see him. One told him that he would be sitting at home at the dinner table and watching football on Thanksgiving. Others gave him a far less rosy outlook. Some told him to drink water; others said not to.

The patient became frustrated, and O’Doherty demanded a meeting to sort out the mess. Eventually, all five of the patient’s doctors, a social worker, and the director of nursing met.

If the hospitalist is supposed to be a unifying force, that hadn’t happened in that case, O’Doherty says. Such cases, while not the norm, are frequent enough to cause concern.

“They’re the quarterbacks, supposedly, of the whole hospital experience, and I haven’t really seen that happen,” she says.

In another case, a patient getting suspect care—O’Doherty had pictures of the patient with a tracheostomy almost falling out of the bed—got a good response.

“They want to do whatever they can to make this work, and that’s a great response,” she says. “The question is, would that have been the response had I not been there?”

She understands the pressures that hospitalists can feel. And she says the system in which the hospitalist is working can matter as much as the hospitalist’s own communication skills.

“If you have a hospital that’s crazy busy, understaffed, and there’s not time,” she says, “that’s what goes first is the communication.”

At Bay Area Medical Center in Marinette, Wis., the time had come to start talking about an elderly woman’s end-of-life care.

Her hospitalist thought that those discussions should take place with the patient present, but the woman’s family felt otherwise and made this known to the hospitalist, who stood his ground.

Eventually, the family told a nurse that they wanted to fire the physician. But the only other hospitalist on shift didn’t want to take the patient.

As case managers and hospital administrators tried to wrap their heads around the situation, it became clear: They didn’t really know what to do.

Could the patient fire a physician? Was the second physician obligated to take what he knew from the outset would be a difficult case? What if nobody wanted to take care of this patient?

“There was no black-and-white to this,” says Robin Dequaine, director of medical staff services at the hospital, who was involved in the case.

Some “difficult patient” scenarios are fairly straightforward. A patient is violent? Enact your security measures. An addict wants narcotics? Don’t give them.

But there are other situations that enter murkier territory: What if a patient makes inappropriate or abusive remarks? How much should a hospitalist put up with? What if a patient’s request for treatment might not be the hospitalist’s first choice but could be seen as reasonable? Is the patient’s request accommodated? And what about those firings?

Hospitalists, administrators, and patient advocates say these tense situations with patients involving firings, or would-be firings, while not a daily occurrence, are actually fairly common.¹ Getting to the root of the problem is essential. And as with so much in healthcare, good communication is the absolute crux of it all, they say.

“These are almost all communication issues,” says John Bulger, DO, MBA, FACP, SFHM, chief medical officer at Geisinger Health Plan in Danville, Pa., who has had a long career as a hospitalist and administrator handling and trying to resolve these situations. “They’re all [about] the way the hospitalist and the team is relating to the patient.”

Jackie O’Doherty, a private patient advocate who practices in New Jersey and New York across a gamut of hospital types, has a similar view.

“For me, the biggest problem, period, against hospitalists, doctors, everybody in the hospital, is communication—the lack of it,” she says. “Their communication skills are really poor.”

Patients accustomed to choice in the outpatient setting might not handle it well when they don’t have an established relationship with their hospitalist, says John Vazquez, MD, associate director for the Emory University School of Medicine’s Division of Hospital Medicine in Atlanta.

But the system, he says, “does not allow for, unfortunately, that much patient choice.”

End-of-life Discussion at a Small Hospital

Dequaine says the staff at Bay Area Medical Center was caught flat-footed with the case of the family not wanting end-of-life care discussed with their elderly mother.

“The doctor felt very confident that he was in a position that he could have that discussion in front of the patient,” she says.

At the 99-bed center, there were just two hospitalists, who were also employees of the hospital, on shift. And the communication channels involving the medical director of hospital medicine, a case manager, and the chief nursing executive were not well-controlled, Dequaine says.

“It didn’t go up the ladder correctly,” she says. “Too many people got involved, not knowing that somebody else was already involved.”

The second hospitalist at first said he would take the case, but later Dequaine learned that he changed his mind.

“He knew his care would be no different, and we were very, very busy, so they both had a high census already,” Dequaine says.

A third physician reluctantly took over until the issue subsided. And the family still brings the patient to the hospital for care.

Ultimately, the center adopted a new policy that doesn’t guarantee a patient a new doctor, only that the hospital will have frank discussions to try to resolve the issue and then try to arrange for a transfer if the situation can’t be resolved.

“The goal is not to get rid of the patient or to force them to keep the provider,” Dequaine says. “The goal is to resolve it in a mutually satisfactory way.”

A Patient Demands a Contraindicated Medication

A middle-aged woman with Crohn’s disease was hospitalized at Emory with an infection. The woman, worried about her disease flaring, wanted to keep getting her immunosuppressant, but the hospitalist suspended it because she needed to fight off the infection. The patient became upset. At a point when the hospitalist wasn’t in the room, the woman insisted to a nurse that she get her medication. The nurse called a doctor who was on call, but that doctor wouldn’t give the immunosuppressant either.

The patient began to think she wasn’t being listened to. Dr. Vazquez went in to see the patient and apologized for the misunderstanding.

“I went back into the room and explained here’s why I’m doing it: ‘I totally understand where you’re coming from; you don’t want your disease to be out of control. I appreciate that. What I’m worried about is killing you if we give you an immunosuppressant at the wrong time,’” Dr. Vazquez says.

Dr. Vazquez has underscored at his center how important it is for the physicians to be consulted and go back into the room when patients want to fire them, even though the expedient step might be to just bring in a new doctor. At previous centers, he says, it wouldn’t be unusual for the director to get a call from a nurse, who would say, “Yeah, they want to fire this physician, so let me know who’s going to see the patient.”

But simply switching doctors, he cautions, is like saying, “I agree with you we have incompetent doctors here, so we’re going to remove that doctor and I’m going to put a doctor on who actually knows what they’re doing.”

When doctors try to resolve the issues, good things tend to happen, Dr. Vazquez says.

“There’s generally a large amount of appreciation that someone comes back into the room and says, ‘We want to do this right.’”

Of course, there are times when, if tension remains after such discussions, patient care might be better served by a swap. At large centers, that might be possible, Dr. Bulger of Geisinger says.

“If the patient doesn’t tell the doctor something because he or she doesn’t like the doctor, then the doctor’s decisions are made on partial information—that’s the issue,” he says.

O’Doherty, the patient advocate, says that if patients frustrated with poor communication actually fired physicians as often as they would like, there would be more firings.

“Patients don’t like firing the doctors because they don’t want to be the patient who everybody doesn’t like,” she says. “They’re afraid that if they argue or disagree or ask too many questions, that they’re not going to get the care they need. And the family is afraid of that as well, especially in the older population. They think doctors are like God, they hold your life in their hands. So they don’t want to really question doctors.”

She says patients don’t necessarily need a particular finesse or expert bedside manner. In many cases, she says, it’s “just giving the information.”

A Patient Demands Pain Medication

Martin Austin, MD, SFHM, recently cared for a patient with chronic headaches. The patient asked for higher doses of pain medication, insinuating that she might turn to heroin if denied.

“I was trying to make the argument that I kind of disagreed with that but, ‘I respect your opinion,’” says Dr. Austin, medical director at the Gwinnett Medical Center Inpatient Medical Group in Georgia. “We came to a negotiation about how long we would use narcotics acutely until her other acute issues were over, but then we would try to get her away from narcotics.”

A good approach, he says, is to “outline to the patient why you’re doing what you’re doing. We try not to pick battles and give the patient some degree of control if it’s not contraindicated.”

But sometimes there can be no negotiating these kinds of requests, he says.

“Sometimes we’ll just say, ‘Look, it’s not a good thing for you to continue on this medication. You’re showing side effects, you’re sedated. … We think that the risk outweighs the benefit in this case,” he says.

A Patient Feels Left in the Dark

One patient at Emory wanted to fire his hospitalist because he wouldn’t tell him what was on his CT scan.

Dr. Vazquez held a discussion between the patient and the doctor. If not for the seriousness of the patient’s condition (he had tremors and neurological concerns), it would have been almost comical.

The patient had asked, “What’s on my scan?” The patient interpreted the doctor’s response, “It’s negative,” to mean that he wasn’t being told something about the scan.

Dr. Vazquez realized that the patient had felt dismissed.

“He was a sick gentleman,” Dr. Vazquez says. “And what he wanted to hear was, ‘Look, the great news is your CT scan looks good. There’s not an anatomical abnormality. It’s not a tumor. It’s not a big bleed. … That’s great news, but I, as a physician, I am concerned about you. You’re sick. We’ve got to really figure out what’s going on with you.’… He wanted a pat on the back, and that’s all it took.”

After that, the patient no longer wanted to fire the hospitalist.

Verbal Abuse

One case at Gwinnett involves a hospitalist who was quite shy and easily intimidated and was not comfortable with a patient.

“They were struggling with a patient who was very difficult and very angry and a little abusive,” Dr. Austin says. “This doctor was really suffering psychically from this whole thing, and we switched.” Another doctor, who would not be thrown by the situation, took over the case. And Dr. Austin says he had great respect for the first doctor’s request to hand over the case.

“They needed a different personality,” he says. “It worked out beautifully. The patient and the doctor got along much better. The doctor was firm with the patient but respectful, and the other doctor felt relieved. And the [original] doctor is great with patients who need a lot of emotional support, probably better than the other doctor. So that worked out really well.”

It might be a challenge during a busy day, but it’s helpful to step back and see the situation as a whole, Dr. Bulger says. Sometimes, hospitalists can get flustered when patients are not acting rationally. But there’s usually a good reason they’re acting that way, he says.

“The patient is sick. And if it’s the patient’s family, they’re stressed by the fact that the patient’s sick. So you really need to take a step back and understand that.” TH

Thomas R. Collins is a freelance writer based in West Palm Beach, Fla.

Reference

1. Centor R. Can I fire my hospitalist? SGIM Forum. 32(5):112-13.

Physician Communication Often Abysmal, Patient Advocate Says

Hospitalists, no doubt, encounter many challenging patient situations that have a lot to do with inappropriate behavior on the part of patients.

But from patient advocate Jackie O’Doherty’s point of view, many tough situations involving the patient-physician dynamic evolve from hospitalists who seem almost incapable of communicating well.

“I’m not saying they’re bad; their communication is not as great as it should be,” she says. “It has to be just giving the information. People get really frustrated when they’re in the hospital and they don’t know what’s going on.”

O’Doherty, a private patient advocate who represents patients in their efforts to get good healthcare at hospitals in New York and New Jersey, says sometimes the communication gaps are staggering.

For example, she represents a patient who had a heart attack and was transferred to a larger center to have open-heart surgery. The surgery went well, but when a Swan catheter was pulled, a plaque was hit and the man had a stroke. Suddenly, his care became a lot more complicated.

A series of specialists came in to see him. One told him that he would be sitting at home at the dinner table and watching football on Thanksgiving. Others gave him a far less rosy outlook. Some told him to drink water; others said not to.

The patient became frustrated, and O’Doherty demanded a meeting to sort out the mess. Eventually, all five of the patient’s doctors, a social worker, and the director of nursing met.

If the hospitalist is supposed to be a unifying force, that hadn’t happened in that case, O’Doherty says. Such cases, while not the norm, are frequent enough to cause concern.

“They’re the quarterbacks, supposedly, of the whole hospital experience, and I haven’t really seen that happen,” she says.

In another case, a patient getting suspect care—O’Doherty had pictures of the patient with a tracheostomy almost falling out of the bed—got a good response.

“They want to do whatever they can to make this work, and that’s a great response,” she says. “The question is, would that have been the response had I not been there?”

She understands the pressures that hospitalists can feel. And she says the system in which the hospitalist is working can matter as much as the hospitalist’s own communication skills.

“If you have a hospital that’s crazy busy, understaffed, and there’s not time,” she says, “that’s what goes first is the communication.”

At Bay Area Medical Center in Marinette, Wis., the time had come to start talking about an elderly woman’s end-of-life care.

Her hospitalist thought that those discussions should take place with the patient present, but the woman’s family felt otherwise and made this known to the hospitalist, who stood his ground.

Eventually, the family told a nurse that they wanted to fire the physician. But the only other hospitalist on shift didn’t want to take the patient.

As case managers and hospital administrators tried to wrap their heads around the situation, it became clear: They didn’t really know what to do.

Could the patient fire a physician? Was the second physician obligated to take what he knew from the outset would be a difficult case? What if nobody wanted to take care of this patient?

“There was no black-and-white to this,” says Robin Dequaine, director of medical staff services at the hospital, who was involved in the case.

Some “difficult patient” scenarios are fairly straightforward. A patient is violent? Enact your security measures. An addict wants narcotics? Don’t give them.

But there are other situations that enter murkier territory: What if a patient makes inappropriate or abusive remarks? How much should a hospitalist put up with? What if a patient’s request for treatment might not be the hospitalist’s first choice but could be seen as reasonable? Is the patient’s request accommodated? And what about those firings?

Hospitalists, administrators, and patient advocates say these tense situations with patients involving firings, or would-be firings, while not a daily occurrence, are actually fairly common.¹ Getting to the root of the problem is essential. And as with so much in healthcare, good communication is the absolute crux of it all, they say.

“These are almost all communication issues,” says John Bulger, DO, MBA, FACP, SFHM, chief medical officer at Geisinger Health Plan in Danville, Pa., who has had a long career as a hospitalist and administrator handling and trying to resolve these situations. “They’re all [about] the way the hospitalist and the team is relating to the patient.”

Jackie O’Doherty, a private patient advocate who practices in New Jersey and New York across a gamut of hospital types, has a similar view.

“For me, the biggest problem, period, against hospitalists, doctors, everybody in the hospital, is communication—the lack of it,” she says. “Their communication skills are really poor.”

Patients accustomed to choice in the outpatient setting might not handle it well when they don’t have an established relationship with their hospitalist, says John Vazquez, MD, associate director for the Emory University School of Medicine’s Division of Hospital Medicine in Atlanta.

But the system, he says, “does not allow for, unfortunately, that much patient choice.”

End-of-life Discussion at a Small Hospital

Dequaine says the staff at Bay Area Medical Center was caught flat-footed with the case of the family not wanting end-of-life care discussed with their elderly mother.

“The doctor felt very confident that he was in a position that he could have that discussion in front of the patient,” she says.

At the 99-bed center, there were just two hospitalists, who were also employees of the hospital, on shift. And the communication channels involving the medical director of hospital medicine, a case manager, and the chief nursing executive were not well-controlled, Dequaine says.

“It didn’t go up the ladder correctly,” she says. “Too many people got involved, not knowing that somebody else was already involved.”

The second hospitalist at first said he would take the case, but later Dequaine learned that he changed his mind.

“He knew his care would be no different, and we were very, very busy, so they both had a high census already,” Dequaine says.

A third physician reluctantly took over until the issue subsided. And the family still brings the patient to the hospital for care.

Ultimately, the center adopted a new policy that doesn’t guarantee a patient a new doctor, only that the hospital will have frank discussions to try to resolve the issue and then try to arrange for a transfer if the situation can’t be resolved.

“The goal is not to get rid of the patient or to force them to keep the provider,” Dequaine says. “The goal is to resolve it in a mutually satisfactory way.”

A Patient Demands a Contraindicated Medication

A middle-aged woman with Crohn’s disease was hospitalized at Emory with an infection. The woman, worried about her disease flaring, wanted to keep getting her immunosuppressant, but the hospitalist suspended it because she needed to fight off the infection. The patient became upset. At a point when the hospitalist wasn’t in the room, the woman insisted to a nurse that she get her medication. The nurse called a doctor who was on call, but that doctor wouldn’t give the immunosuppressant either.

The patient began to think she wasn’t being listened to. Dr. Vazquez went in to see the patient and apologized for the misunderstanding.

“I went back into the room and explained here’s why I’m doing it: ‘I totally understand where you’re coming from; you don’t want your disease to be out of control. I appreciate that. What I’m worried about is killing you if we give you an immunosuppressant at the wrong time,’” Dr. Vazquez says.

Dr. Vazquez has underscored at his center how important it is for the physicians to be consulted and go back into the room when patients want to fire them, even though the expedient step might be to just bring in a new doctor. At previous centers, he says, it wouldn’t be unusual for the director to get a call from a nurse, who would say, “Yeah, they want to fire this physician, so let me know who’s going to see the patient.”

But simply switching doctors, he cautions, is like saying, “I agree with you we have incompetent doctors here, so we’re going to remove that doctor and I’m going to put a doctor on who actually knows what they’re doing.”

When doctors try to resolve the issues, good things tend to happen, Dr. Vazquez says.

“There’s generally a large amount of appreciation that someone comes back into the room and says, ‘We want to do this right.’”

Of course, there are times when, if tension remains after such discussions, patient care might be better served by a swap. At large centers, that might be possible, Dr. Bulger of Geisinger says.

“If the patient doesn’t tell the doctor something because he or she doesn’t like the doctor, then the doctor’s decisions are made on partial information—that’s the issue,” he says.

O’Doherty, the patient advocate, says that if patients frustrated with poor communication actually fired physicians as often as they would like, there would be more firings.

“Patients don’t like firing the doctors because they don’t want to be the patient who everybody doesn’t like,” she says. “They’re afraid that if they argue or disagree or ask too many questions, that they’re not going to get the care they need. And the family is afraid of that as well, especially in the older population. They think doctors are like God, they hold your life in their hands. So they don’t want to really question doctors.”

She says patients don’t necessarily need a particular finesse or expert bedside manner. In many cases, she says, it’s “just giving the information.”

A Patient Demands Pain Medication

Martin Austin, MD, SFHM, recently cared for a patient with chronic headaches. The patient asked for higher doses of pain medication, insinuating that she might turn to heroin if denied.

“I was trying to make the argument that I kind of disagreed with that but, ‘I respect your opinion,’” says Dr. Austin, medical director at the Gwinnett Medical Center Inpatient Medical Group in Georgia. “We came to a negotiation about how long we would use narcotics acutely until her other acute issues were over, but then we would try to get her away from narcotics.”

A good approach, he says, is to “outline to the patient why you’re doing what you’re doing. We try not to pick battles and give the patient some degree of control if it’s not contraindicated.”

But sometimes there can be no negotiating these kinds of requests, he says.

“Sometimes we’ll just say, ‘Look, it’s not a good thing for you to continue on this medication. You’re showing side effects, you’re sedated. … We think that the risk outweighs the benefit in this case,” he says.

A Patient Feels Left in the Dark

One patient at Emory wanted to fire his hospitalist because he wouldn’t tell him what was on his CT scan.

Dr. Vazquez held a discussion between the patient and the doctor. If not for the seriousness of the patient’s condition (he had tremors and neurological concerns), it would have been almost comical.

The patient had asked, “What’s on my scan?” The patient interpreted the doctor’s response, “It’s negative,” to mean that he wasn’t being told something about the scan.

Dr. Vazquez realized that the patient had felt dismissed.

“He was a sick gentleman,” Dr. Vazquez says. “And what he wanted to hear was, ‘Look, the great news is your CT scan looks good. There’s not an anatomical abnormality. It’s not a tumor. It’s not a big bleed. … That’s great news, but I, as a physician, I am concerned about you. You’re sick. We’ve got to really figure out what’s going on with you.’… He wanted a pat on the back, and that’s all it took.”

After that, the patient no longer wanted to fire the hospitalist.

Verbal Abuse

One case at Gwinnett involves a hospitalist who was quite shy and easily intimidated and was not comfortable with a patient.

“They were struggling with a patient who was very difficult and very angry and a little abusive,” Dr. Austin says. “This doctor was really suffering psychically from this whole thing, and we switched.” Another doctor, who would not be thrown by the situation, took over the case. And Dr. Austin says he had great respect for the first doctor’s request to hand over the case.

“They needed a different personality,” he says. “It worked out beautifully. The patient and the doctor got along much better. The doctor was firm with the patient but respectful, and the other doctor felt relieved. And the [original] doctor is great with patients who need a lot of emotional support, probably better than the other doctor. So that worked out really well.”

It might be a challenge during a busy day, but it’s helpful to step back and see the situation as a whole, Dr. Bulger says. Sometimes, hospitalists can get flustered when patients are not acting rationally. But there’s usually a good reason they’re acting that way, he says.

“The patient is sick. And if it’s the patient’s family, they’re stressed by the fact that the patient’s sick. So you really need to take a step back and understand that.” TH

Thomas R. Collins is a freelance writer based in West Palm Beach, Fla.

Reference

1. Centor R. Can I fire my hospitalist? SGIM Forum. 32(5):112-13.

Physician Communication Often Abysmal, Patient Advocate Says

Hospitalists, no doubt, encounter many challenging patient situations that have a lot to do with inappropriate behavior on the part of patients.

But from patient advocate Jackie O’Doherty’s point of view, many tough situations involving the patient-physician dynamic evolve from hospitalists who seem almost incapable of communicating well.

“I’m not saying they’re bad; their communication is not as great as it should be,” she says. “It has to be just giving the information. People get really frustrated when they’re in the hospital and they don’t know what’s going on.”

O’Doherty, a private patient advocate who represents patients in their efforts to get good healthcare at hospitals in New York and New Jersey, says sometimes the communication gaps are staggering.

For example, she represents a patient who had a heart attack and was transferred to a larger center to have open-heart surgery. The surgery went well, but when a Swan catheter was pulled, a plaque was hit and the man had a stroke. Suddenly, his care became a lot more complicated.

A series of specialists came in to see him. One told him that he would be sitting at home at the dinner table and watching football on Thanksgiving. Others gave him a far less rosy outlook. Some told him to drink water; others said not to.

The patient became frustrated, and O’Doherty demanded a meeting to sort out the mess. Eventually, all five of the patient’s doctors, a social worker, and the director of nursing met.

If the hospitalist is supposed to be a unifying force, that hadn’t happened in that case, O’Doherty says. Such cases, while not the norm, are frequent enough to cause concern.

“They’re the quarterbacks, supposedly, of the whole hospital experience, and I haven’t really seen that happen,” she says.

In another case, a patient getting suspect care—O’Doherty had pictures of the patient with a tracheostomy almost falling out of the bed—got a good response.

“They want to do whatever they can to make this work, and that’s a great response,” she says. “The question is, would that have been the response had I not been there?”

She understands the pressures that hospitalists can feel. And she says the system in which the hospitalist is working can matter as much as the hospitalist’s own communication skills.

“If you have a hospital that’s crazy busy, understaffed, and there’s not time,” she says, “that’s what goes first is the communication.”

Clinical Question: What is the validity of commonly held beliefs regarding serotonin syndrome (SS)?

Background: SS is a potentially life-threatening condition caused by serotonin excess in the central nervous system. The authors tested the validity of four widely accepted tenets about SS: that the Hunter criteria are superior, that the onset of SS is rapid compared to neuroleptic malignant syndrome (NMS), that hyperthermia is common with SS, and that SS can be distinguished from NMS based on medication history.

Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Setting: PubMed and Web of Science.

Synopsis: Researchers identified 299 case reports from 2004 to 2014 in which SS was the most likely diagnosis based on one of three available diagnostic systems. Rhabdomyolysis with creatine kinase >1,500 and ICU treatment were used as proxies for SS severity. The Hunter criteria (the current gold standard) identified fewer overdoses, episodes of rhabdomyolysis, and ICU cases than the Sternbach or Radomski criteria. Combinations of antidepressants with methylene blue, opiates, or linezolid were the most common reasons for ICU admission. Symptom onset was within six hours in only 27.5% of cases. Hyperthermia was present in only 9.2% of patients with SS.

Hospitalists cannot rely on any one set of criteria to diagnose SS. The typical combinations of opiates or linezolid with antidepressants should raise the level of suspicion for SS. Rigidity and rhabdomyolysis occur commonly in both NMS and SS. Hyperthermia and timing of onset are not good indicators to the diagnosis of SS.

Bottom line: A high index of suspicion rather than reliance on classification systems or anecdotal key symptoms is necessary when considering SS.

Citation: Werneke U, Jamshidi F, Taylor DM, Ott M. Conundrums in neurology: diagnosing serotonin syndrome – a meta-analysis of cases. BMC Neurol. 2016;16:97.

Clinical Question: What is the validity of commonly held beliefs regarding serotonin syndrome (SS)?

Background: SS is a potentially life-threatening condition caused by serotonin excess in the central nervous system. The authors tested the validity of four widely accepted tenets about SS: that the Hunter criteria are superior, that the onset of SS is rapid compared to neuroleptic malignant syndrome (NMS), that hyperthermia is common with SS, and that SS can be distinguished from NMS based on medication history.

Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Setting: PubMed and Web of Science.

Synopsis: Researchers identified 299 case reports from 2004 to 2014 in which SS was the most likely diagnosis based on one of three available diagnostic systems. Rhabdomyolysis with creatine kinase >1,500 and ICU treatment were used as proxies for SS severity. The Hunter criteria (the current gold standard) identified fewer overdoses, episodes of rhabdomyolysis, and ICU cases than the Sternbach or Radomski criteria. Combinations of antidepressants with methylene blue, opiates, or linezolid were the most common reasons for ICU admission. Symptom onset was within six hours in only 27.5% of cases. Hyperthermia was present in only 9.2% of patients with SS.

Hospitalists cannot rely on any one set of criteria to diagnose SS. The typical combinations of opiates or linezolid with antidepressants should raise the level of suspicion for SS. Rigidity and rhabdomyolysis occur commonly in both NMS and SS. Hyperthermia and timing of onset are not good indicators to the diagnosis of SS.

Bottom line: A high index of suspicion rather than reliance on classification systems or anecdotal key symptoms is necessary when considering SS.

Citation: Werneke U, Jamshidi F, Taylor DM, Ott M. Conundrums in neurology: diagnosing serotonin syndrome – a meta-analysis of cases. BMC Neurol. 2016;16:97.

Clinical Question: What is the validity of commonly held beliefs regarding serotonin syndrome (SS)?

Background: SS is a potentially life-threatening condition caused by serotonin excess in the central nervous system. The authors tested the validity of four widely accepted tenets about SS: that the Hunter criteria are superior, that the onset of SS is rapid compared to neuroleptic malignant syndrome (NMS), that hyperthermia is common with SS, and that SS can be distinguished from NMS based on medication history.

Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Setting: PubMed and Web of Science.

Synopsis: Researchers identified 299 case reports from 2004 to 2014 in which SS was the most likely diagnosis based on one of three available diagnostic systems. Rhabdomyolysis with creatine kinase >1,500 and ICU treatment were used as proxies for SS severity. The Hunter criteria (the current gold standard) identified fewer overdoses, episodes of rhabdomyolysis, and ICU cases than the Sternbach or Radomski criteria. Combinations of antidepressants with methylene blue, opiates, or linezolid were the most common reasons for ICU admission. Symptom onset was within six hours in only 27.5% of cases. Hyperthermia was present in only 9.2% of patients with SS.

Hospitalists cannot rely on any one set of criteria to diagnose SS. The typical combinations of opiates or linezolid with antidepressants should raise the level of suspicion for SS. Rigidity and rhabdomyolysis occur commonly in both NMS and SS. Hyperthermia and timing of onset are not good indicators to the diagnosis of SS.

Bottom line: A high index of suspicion rather than reliance on classification systems or anecdotal key symptoms is necessary when considering SS.

Citation: Werneke U, Jamshidi F, Taylor DM, Ott M. Conundrums in neurology: diagnosing serotonin syndrome – a meta-analysis of cases. BMC Neurol. 2016;16:97.

Clinical Question: Are there particular groups of patients in which lower transfusion thresholds (transfusion only at lower hemoglobin levels) may be harmful?

Background: Previously published meta-analyses have examined transfusion thresholds for critically ill, surgical, and medical patients. By combining these patients, previous meta-analyses are limited in the identification of intervention effects. A more refined understanding of how transfusion thresholds impact outcomes for a variety of patients in different clinical settings is needed.

Study Design: Context-specific systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

Setting: Adult patients in perioperative, emergency, or intensive-care settings.

Synopsis: Patient information was extracted from 31 randomized clinical trials. The authors found that among 3,465 elderly patients undergoing orthopedic surgery, those given restrictive transfusion strategies had significantly more events reflecting inadequate oxygen supply (relative risk, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.03–1.92). No statistically significant effect from restrictive transfusions was seen in 3,322 patients with cardiovascular disease undergoing cardiac or vascular procedures; 3,590 mixed medical-surgical patients in emergency and intensive-care settings; and 823 patients in a combined group of postpartum women, hematologic malignancy patients, and younger patients with neurologic injury.

The authors argue that even statistically nonsignificant differences in morbidity and mortality should encourage more liberal transfusion; apart from orthopedic surgery patients, this argument is not well-supported by the available data.

Bottom Line: It remains unclear whether restrictive transfusion strategies have a negative impact on certain types of patients, although the authors argue that there may be a trend in that direction. Further study is needed for specific patient populations.

Citation: Hovaguimian F, Myles PS. Restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategy in the perioperative and acute care settings: a context-specific systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Anesthesiology. 2016;125(1):46-61.

Clinical Question: Are there particular groups of patients in which lower transfusion thresholds (transfusion only at lower hemoglobin levels) may be harmful?

Background: Previously published meta-analyses have examined transfusion thresholds for critically ill, surgical, and medical patients. By combining these patients, previous meta-analyses are limited in the identification of intervention effects. A more refined understanding of how transfusion thresholds impact outcomes for a variety of patients in different clinical settings is needed.

Study Design: Context-specific systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

Setting: Adult patients in perioperative, emergency, or intensive-care settings.

Synopsis: Patient information was extracted from 31 randomized clinical trials. The authors found that among 3,465 elderly patients undergoing orthopedic surgery, those given restrictive transfusion strategies had significantly more events reflecting inadequate oxygen supply (relative risk, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.03–1.92). No statistically significant effect from restrictive transfusions was seen in 3,322 patients with cardiovascular disease undergoing cardiac or vascular procedures; 3,590 mixed medical-surgical patients in emergency and intensive-care settings; and 823 patients in a combined group of postpartum women, hematologic malignancy patients, and younger patients with neurologic injury.

The authors argue that even statistically nonsignificant differences in morbidity and mortality should encourage more liberal transfusion; apart from orthopedic surgery patients, this argument is not well-supported by the available data.

Bottom Line: It remains unclear whether restrictive transfusion strategies have a negative impact on certain types of patients, although the authors argue that there may be a trend in that direction. Further study is needed for specific patient populations.

Citation: Hovaguimian F, Myles PS. Restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategy in the perioperative and acute care settings: a context-specific systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Anesthesiology. 2016;125(1):46-61.

Clinical Question: Are there particular groups of patients in which lower transfusion thresholds (transfusion only at lower hemoglobin levels) may be harmful?

Background: Previously published meta-analyses have examined transfusion thresholds for critically ill, surgical, and medical patients. By combining these patients, previous meta-analyses are limited in the identification of intervention effects. A more refined understanding of how transfusion thresholds impact outcomes for a variety of patients in different clinical settings is needed.

Study Design: Context-specific systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

Setting: Adult patients in perioperative, emergency, or intensive-care settings.

Synopsis: Patient information was extracted from 31 randomized clinical trials. The authors found that among 3,465 elderly patients undergoing orthopedic surgery, those given restrictive transfusion strategies had significantly more events reflecting inadequate oxygen supply (relative risk, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.03–1.92). No statistically significant effect from restrictive transfusions was seen in 3,322 patients with cardiovascular disease undergoing cardiac or vascular procedures; 3,590 mixed medical-surgical patients in emergency and intensive-care settings; and 823 patients in a combined group of postpartum women, hematologic malignancy patients, and younger patients with neurologic injury.

The authors argue that even statistically nonsignificant differences in morbidity and mortality should encourage more liberal transfusion; apart from orthopedic surgery patients, this argument is not well-supported by the available data.

Bottom Line: It remains unclear whether restrictive transfusion strategies have a negative impact on certain types of patients, although the authors argue that there may be a trend in that direction. Further study is needed for specific patient populations.

Citation: Hovaguimian F, Myles PS. Restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategy in the perioperative and acute care settings: a context-specific systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Anesthesiology. 2016;125(1):46-61.

Metrics used by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to determine penalties for heart failure hospital readmissions are not associated with quality of care or overall clinical outcomes, according to data presented at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

Ambarish Pandey, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, and his colleagues analyzed data from centers participating in the American Heart Association’s Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure (GWTG-HF) registry linked to Medicare claims from July 2008 to June 2011. Centers were stratified as having low risk-adjusted readmission rates and high risk-adjusted readmission rates based on publicly available data from 2013.

The study included 171 centers with 43,143 patients. Centers were almost evenly split between low- and high-risk–adjusted 30-day readmission rates, with just a few more (51%) falling in the low-risk–adjusted category.

Performance was nearly equal (95.7% for centers with a low risk-adjusted readmission rate vs. 96.5% for those with high risk-adjusted rate) for median adherence to all performance measures, as was the case for median percentage of defect-free care (90.0% vs. 91.1%, respectively) and composite 1-year outcome of death or all-cause readmission rates (median 62.9% vs. 65.3%, respectively). The higher readmission group had higher 1-year all-cause readmission rates (median, 59.1% vs. 54.7%), Dr. Pandey and his colleagues reported in the study that was published simultaneously in JACC: Heart Failure (2016 Nov 15. doi. org/10.1016/j.jchf.2016). One-year mortality rates were lower in the higher readmission group with a trend toward statistical significance (median, 28.2% vs. 31.7%; P = 0.07).

Taken together, the findings suggest the 30-day readmission metrics currently used by CMS to determine readmission penalties are not associated with quality of care or overall clinical outcomes, Dr. Pandey and his colleagues wrote. Results showing higher 30-day readmissions do not necessarily reflect poor quality of care and may be related to other factors.

“These findings question the usefulness of the [hospital readmission reduction program] metric in identifying and penalizing hospitals with low quality of care,” Dr. Pandey wrote, adding that the findings were consistent with previous studies that have demonstrated a lack of association between in-hospital quality of care and 30-day readmission rates.

CMS implemented the federal Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) in 2012 to provide financial incentives for hospitals to reduce readmissions. Under the program, CMS uses claims data to determine whether readmission rates for heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, and pneumonia at eligible hospitals are higher than would be predicted by CMS models. Centers with higher than expected readmission rates face up to a 3% reimbursement penalty.

[email protected]

On Twitter @legal_med

Metrics used by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to determine penalties for heart failure hospital readmissions are not associated with quality of care or overall clinical outcomes, according to data presented at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

Ambarish Pandey, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, and his colleagues analyzed data from centers participating in the American Heart Association’s Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure (GWTG-HF) registry linked to Medicare claims from July 2008 to June 2011. Centers were stratified as having low risk-adjusted readmission rates and high risk-adjusted readmission rates based on publicly available data from 2013.

The study included 171 centers with 43,143 patients. Centers were almost evenly split between low- and high-risk–adjusted 30-day readmission rates, with just a few more (51%) falling in the low-risk–adjusted category.

Performance was nearly equal (95.7% for centers with a low risk-adjusted readmission rate vs. 96.5% for those with high risk-adjusted rate) for median adherence to all performance measures, as was the case for median percentage of defect-free care (90.0% vs. 91.1%, respectively) and composite 1-year outcome of death or all-cause readmission rates (median 62.9% vs. 65.3%, respectively). The higher readmission group had higher 1-year all-cause readmission rates (median, 59.1% vs. 54.7%), Dr. Pandey and his colleagues reported in the study that was published simultaneously in JACC: Heart Failure (2016 Nov 15. doi. org/10.1016/j.jchf.2016). One-year mortality rates were lower in the higher readmission group with a trend toward statistical significance (median, 28.2% vs. 31.7%; P = 0.07).

Taken together, the findings suggest the 30-day readmission metrics currently used by CMS to determine readmission penalties are not associated with quality of care or overall clinical outcomes, Dr. Pandey and his colleagues wrote. Results showing higher 30-day readmissions do not necessarily reflect poor quality of care and may be related to other factors.

“These findings question the usefulness of the [hospital readmission reduction program] metric in identifying and penalizing hospitals with low quality of care,” Dr. Pandey wrote, adding that the findings were consistent with previous studies that have demonstrated a lack of association between in-hospital quality of care and 30-day readmission rates.

CMS implemented the federal Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) in 2012 to provide financial incentives for hospitals to reduce readmissions. Under the program, CMS uses claims data to determine whether readmission rates for heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, and pneumonia at eligible hospitals are higher than would be predicted by CMS models. Centers with higher than expected readmission rates face up to a 3% reimbursement penalty.

[email protected]

On Twitter @legal_med

Metrics used by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to determine penalties for heart failure hospital readmissions are not associated with quality of care or overall clinical outcomes, according to data presented at the annual scientific sessions of the American Heart Association.

Ambarish Pandey, MD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, and his colleagues analyzed data from centers participating in the American Heart Association’s Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure (GWTG-HF) registry linked to Medicare claims from July 2008 to June 2011. Centers were stratified as having low risk-adjusted readmission rates and high risk-adjusted readmission rates based on publicly available data from 2013.

The study included 171 centers with 43,143 patients. Centers were almost evenly split between low- and high-risk–adjusted 30-day readmission rates, with just a few more (51%) falling in the low-risk–adjusted category.

Performance was nearly equal (95.7% for centers with a low risk-adjusted readmission rate vs. 96.5% for those with high risk-adjusted rate) for median adherence to all performance measures, as was the case for median percentage of defect-free care (90.0% vs. 91.1%, respectively) and composite 1-year outcome of death or all-cause readmission rates (median 62.9% vs. 65.3%, respectively). The higher readmission group had higher 1-year all-cause readmission rates (median, 59.1% vs. 54.7%), Dr. Pandey and his colleagues reported in the study that was published simultaneously in JACC: Heart Failure (2016 Nov 15. doi. org/10.1016/j.jchf.2016). One-year mortality rates were lower in the higher readmission group with a trend toward statistical significance (median, 28.2% vs. 31.7%; P = 0.07).

Taken together, the findings suggest the 30-day readmission metrics currently used by CMS to determine readmission penalties are not associated with quality of care or overall clinical outcomes, Dr. Pandey and his colleagues wrote. Results showing higher 30-day readmissions do not necessarily reflect poor quality of care and may be related to other factors.

“These findings question the usefulness of the [hospital readmission reduction program] metric in identifying and penalizing hospitals with low quality of care,” Dr. Pandey wrote, adding that the findings were consistent with previous studies that have demonstrated a lack of association between in-hospital quality of care and 30-day readmission rates.

CMS implemented the federal Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) in 2012 to provide financial incentives for hospitals to reduce readmissions. Under the program, CMS uses claims data to determine whether readmission rates for heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, and pneumonia at eligible hospitals are higher than would be predicted by CMS models. Centers with higher than expected readmission rates face up to a 3% reimbursement penalty.

[email protected]

On Twitter @legal_med

WASHINGTON – Patients with traumatic injuries don’t appear to be at undue risk of sustained opioid use, a large database review has demonstrated.

More than half of the 13,000 patients in the study were discharged on opioids, but they were able to discontinue them fairly rapidly, Muhammad Chaudhary, MD, said at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons. Within 3 months, less than one-third were still using the drugs, and 1 year later, only 1% were still taking an opioid pain medication.

[email protected]

On Twitter @alz_gal

WASHINGTON – Patients with traumatic injuries don’t appear to be at undue risk of sustained opioid use, a large database review has demonstrated.

More than half of the 13,000 patients in the study were discharged on opioids, but they were able to discontinue them fairly rapidly, Muhammad Chaudhary, MD, said at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons. Within 3 months, less than one-third were still using the drugs, and 1 year later, only 1% were still taking an opioid pain medication.

[email protected]

On Twitter @alz_gal

WASHINGTON – Patients with traumatic injuries don’t appear to be at undue risk of sustained opioid use, a large database review has demonstrated.

More than half of the 13,000 patients in the study were discharged on opioids, but they were able to discontinue them fairly rapidly, Muhammad Chaudhary, MD, said at the annual clinical congress of the American College of Surgeons. Within 3 months, less than one-third were still using the drugs, and 1 year later, only 1% were still taking an opioid pain medication.

[email protected]

On Twitter @alz_gal

Clinical Question: What is the incidence of loss of independence (LOI) for older adults after surgery, and is there an association between LOI and readmission or death?

Background: LOI is being increasingly recognized as an important measure of patient-centered care and a potential opportunity for intervention to prevent disablement. This study is the first to examine links between LOI and rates of readmission or death following surgery.

Study Design: Retrospective cohort.

Setting: 26 U.S. hospitals participating in a national quality improvement project.

Synopsis: The authors examined data from 5,077 patients age 65 or older undergoing an inpatient surgical procedure. They examined ability to perform activities of daily living (ADLs), mobility, and living situation before and after surgery, and they defined LOI as a change in one or more of these factors at the time of discharge.

They found that LOI increased with age, with 49.9% of patients ages 65–74, 67.3% of patients ages 75–84, and 83.9% of patients age 85 or older experiencing LOI. The study also showed an association between LOI and negative outcomes, including readmission (odds ratio, 1.7) and death after discharge (odds ratio, 6.7).

Although this study was retrospective, the findings indicate that LOI is strongly correlated with negative short-term outcomes, especially in older populations. LOI related to surgery is a measure that deserves closer attention and greater future study as a potential target for clinical initiatives and intervention.

Bottom Line: LOI (functional ability, mobility, and living situation) after surgery increases with age and is associated with negative short-term outcomes including readmission and death.

Citation: Berian JR, Mohanty S, Ko CY, Rosenthal RA, Robinson TN. Association of loss of independence with readmission and death after discharge in older patients after surgical procedures. JAMA Surg. 2016;151(9):e161689.

Short Take

Transition to New Electronic Health Records Systems Does Not Increase Adverse Outcomes

An observational study comparing 17 hospitals implementing new electronic health records systems with 399 control hospitals showed no difference in the rate of adverse safety events or readmissions following implementation.

Citation: Barnett ML, Mehrotra A, Jena AB. Adverse inpatient outcomes during the transition to a new electronic health record system: observational study. BMJ. 2016;354:i3835.

Clinical Question: What is the incidence of loss of independence (LOI) for older adults after surgery, and is there an association between LOI and readmission or death?

Background: LOI is being increasingly recognized as an important measure of patient-centered care and a potential opportunity for intervention to prevent disablement. This study is the first to examine links between LOI and rates of readmission or death following surgery.

Study Design: Retrospective cohort.

Setting: 26 U.S. hospitals participating in a national quality improvement project.

Synopsis: The authors examined data from 5,077 patients age 65 or older undergoing an inpatient surgical procedure. They examined ability to perform activities of daily living (ADLs), mobility, and living situation before and after surgery, and they defined LOI as a change in one or more of these factors at the time of discharge.

They found that LOI increased with age, with 49.9% of patients ages 65–74, 67.3% of patients ages 75–84, and 83.9% of patients age 85 or older experiencing LOI. The study also showed an association between LOI and negative outcomes, including readmission (odds ratio, 1.7) and death after discharge (odds ratio, 6.7).

Although this study was retrospective, the findings indicate that LOI is strongly correlated with negative short-term outcomes, especially in older populations. LOI related to surgery is a measure that deserves closer attention and greater future study as a potential target for clinical initiatives and intervention.

Bottom Line: LOI (functional ability, mobility, and living situation) after surgery increases with age and is associated with negative short-term outcomes including readmission and death.

Citation: Berian JR, Mohanty S, Ko CY, Rosenthal RA, Robinson TN. Association of loss of independence with readmission and death after discharge in older patients after surgical procedures. JAMA Surg. 2016;151(9):e161689.

Short Take

Transition to New Electronic Health Records Systems Does Not Increase Adverse Outcomes

An observational study comparing 17 hospitals implementing new electronic health records systems with 399 control hospitals showed no difference in the rate of adverse safety events or readmissions following implementation.

Citation: Barnett ML, Mehrotra A, Jena AB. Adverse inpatient outcomes during the transition to a new electronic health record system: observational study. BMJ. 2016;354:i3835.

Clinical Question: What is the incidence of loss of independence (LOI) for older adults after surgery, and is there an association between LOI and readmission or death?

Background: LOI is being increasingly recognized as an important measure of patient-centered care and a potential opportunity for intervention to prevent disablement. This study is the first to examine links between LOI and rates of readmission or death following surgery.

Study Design: Retrospective cohort.

Setting: 26 U.S. hospitals participating in a national quality improvement project.

Synopsis: The authors examined data from 5,077 patients age 65 or older undergoing an inpatient surgical procedure. They examined ability to perform activities of daily living (ADLs), mobility, and living situation before and after surgery, and they defined LOI as a change in one or more of these factors at the time of discharge.

They found that LOI increased with age, with 49.9% of patients ages 65–74, 67.3% of patients ages 75–84, and 83.9% of patients age 85 or older experiencing LOI. The study also showed an association between LOI and negative outcomes, including readmission (odds ratio, 1.7) and death after discharge (odds ratio, 6.7).

Although this study was retrospective, the findings indicate that LOI is strongly correlated with negative short-term outcomes, especially in older populations. LOI related to surgery is a measure that deserves closer attention and greater future study as a potential target for clinical initiatives and intervention.

Bottom Line: LOI (functional ability, mobility, and living situation) after surgery increases with age and is associated with negative short-term outcomes including readmission and death.

Citation: Berian JR, Mohanty S, Ko CY, Rosenthal RA, Robinson TN. Association of loss of independence with readmission and death after discharge in older patients after surgical procedures. JAMA Surg. 2016;151(9):e161689.

Short Take

Transition to New Electronic Health Records Systems Does Not Increase Adverse Outcomes

An observational study comparing 17 hospitals implementing new electronic health records systems with 399 control hospitals showed no difference in the rate of adverse safety events or readmissions following implementation.

Citation: Barnett ML, Mehrotra A, Jena AB. Adverse inpatient outcomes during the transition to a new electronic health record system: observational study. BMJ. 2016;354:i3835.

Clinical Question: What data are available regarding the attitudes toward and the practice of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (PAS)?

Background: Although controversial, euthanasia and PAS are currently legal in the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Colombia, and Canada, while PAS (but not euthanasia) is legal in Switzerland and five states (Oregon, Washington, Montana, Vermont, and California). Knowledge about current practices is limited as only a portion of these jurisdictions have reporting requirements.

Study Design: Literature review with a focus on original data.

Setting: Data from United States, Canada, and Europe.

Synopsis: Published data from 1947 to 2016 were reviewed. U.S. public opinion surveys show a recent decline in support of PAS, from a peak of 75% in 2005 to 64% in 2012. With the exception of the Netherlands and Belgium, physicians in the U.S., Europe, and Australia are less supportive than the general public.

In the U.S., <20% of physicians reported receiving a request for euthanasia or PAS, and <5% complied. Oncologists are most likely to receive a patient request. The typical patient is older, white, insured, well-educated, and enrolled in hospice. Seventy-five percent have cancer, while 15% have neurodegenerative conditions. Loss of autonomy and dignity are common motivators, while <33% of patients cite uncontrolled pain. PAS remains rare, accounting for <0.4% of all deaths. Existing data do not indicate abuse of these practices.

The authors emphasize that existing data are limited and recommend that all countries, not just those where euthanasia and/or PAS are legal, should formally collect information on end-of-life practices.

Bottom Line: Euthanasia and PAS remain relatively rare and primarily involve oncology patients despite increasing legalization.

Citation: Emanuel EJ, Onwuteaka-Philipsen BD, Urwin JW, Cohen J. Attitudes and practices of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in the United States, Canada, and Europe. JAMA. 2016;316(1):79-90.

Short Take

Peer Support for Physicians May Curb Burnout

This perspective piece outlines a program of one-to-one peer outreach for physicians as a way to mitigate stress especially when dealing with adverse events or litigation, but no data are provided.

Citation: Shapiro J, Galowitz P. Peer support for clinicians: a programmatic approach. Acad Med. 2016;91(9):1200-1204.

Clinical Question: What data are available regarding the attitudes toward and the practice of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (PAS)?

Background: Although controversial, euthanasia and PAS are currently legal in the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Colombia, and Canada, while PAS (but not euthanasia) is legal in Switzerland and five states (Oregon, Washington, Montana, Vermont, and California). Knowledge about current practices is limited as only a portion of these jurisdictions have reporting requirements.

Study Design: Literature review with a focus on original data.

Setting: Data from United States, Canada, and Europe.

Synopsis: Published data from 1947 to 2016 were reviewed. U.S. public opinion surveys show a recent decline in support of PAS, from a peak of 75% in 2005 to 64% in 2012. With the exception of the Netherlands and Belgium, physicians in the U.S., Europe, and Australia are less supportive than the general public.

In the U.S., <20% of physicians reported receiving a request for euthanasia or PAS, and <5% complied. Oncologists are most likely to receive a patient request. The typical patient is older, white, insured, well-educated, and enrolled in hospice. Seventy-five percent have cancer, while 15% have neurodegenerative conditions. Loss of autonomy and dignity are common motivators, while <33% of patients cite uncontrolled pain. PAS remains rare, accounting for <0.4% of all deaths. Existing data do not indicate abuse of these practices.

The authors emphasize that existing data are limited and recommend that all countries, not just those where euthanasia and/or PAS are legal, should formally collect information on end-of-life practices.

Bottom Line: Euthanasia and PAS remain relatively rare and primarily involve oncology patients despite increasing legalization.

Citation: Emanuel EJ, Onwuteaka-Philipsen BD, Urwin JW, Cohen J. Attitudes and practices of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in the United States, Canada, and Europe. JAMA. 2016;316(1):79-90.

Short Take

Peer Support for Physicians May Curb Burnout

This perspective piece outlines a program of one-to-one peer outreach for physicians as a way to mitigate stress especially when dealing with adverse events or litigation, but no data are provided.

Citation: Shapiro J, Galowitz P. Peer support for clinicians: a programmatic approach. Acad Med. 2016;91(9):1200-1204.

Clinical Question: What data are available regarding the attitudes toward and the practice of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (PAS)?

Background: Although controversial, euthanasia and PAS are currently legal in the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Colombia, and Canada, while PAS (but not euthanasia) is legal in Switzerland and five states (Oregon, Washington, Montana, Vermont, and California). Knowledge about current practices is limited as only a portion of these jurisdictions have reporting requirements.

Study Design: Literature review with a focus on original data.

Setting: Data from United States, Canada, and Europe.

Synopsis: Published data from 1947 to 2016 were reviewed. U.S. public opinion surveys show a recent decline in support of PAS, from a peak of 75% in 2005 to 64% in 2012. With the exception of the Netherlands and Belgium, physicians in the U.S., Europe, and Australia are less supportive than the general public.

In the U.S., <20% of physicians reported receiving a request for euthanasia or PAS, and <5% complied. Oncologists are most likely to receive a patient request. The typical patient is older, white, insured, well-educated, and enrolled in hospice. Seventy-five percent have cancer, while 15% have neurodegenerative conditions. Loss of autonomy and dignity are common motivators, while <33% of patients cite uncontrolled pain. PAS remains rare, accounting for <0.4% of all deaths. Existing data do not indicate abuse of these practices.

The authors emphasize that existing data are limited and recommend that all countries, not just those where euthanasia and/or PAS are legal, should formally collect information on end-of-life practices.

Bottom Line: Euthanasia and PAS remain relatively rare and primarily involve oncology patients despite increasing legalization.

Citation: Emanuel EJ, Onwuteaka-Philipsen BD, Urwin JW, Cohen J. Attitudes and practices of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in the United States, Canada, and Europe. JAMA. 2016;316(1):79-90.

Short Take

Peer Support for Physicians May Curb Burnout

This perspective piece outlines a program of one-to-one peer outreach for physicians as a way to mitigate stress especially when dealing with adverse events or litigation, but no data are provided.

Citation: Shapiro J, Galowitz P. Peer support for clinicians: a programmatic approach. Acad Med. 2016;91(9):1200-1204.

NEW ORLEANS – Antibiotic shortages reported by the Emerging Infections Network (EIN) in 2011 persist in 2016, according to a web-based follow-up survey of infectious disease physicians.

Of 701 network members who responded to the EIN survey in early 2016, 70% reported needing to modify their antimicrobial choice because of a shortage in the past 2 years. They did so by using broader-spectrum agents (75% of respondents), more costly agents (58%), less effective second-line agents (45%), and more toxic agents (37%), Adi Gundlapalli, MD, PhD, reported at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

In addition, 73% of respondents reported that the shortages affected patient care or outcomes, reported Dr. Gundlapalli of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

The percentage of respondents reporting adverse patient outcomes related to shortages increased from 2011 to 2016 (51% vs.73%), he noted at the combined annual meetings of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the Society of Healthcare Epidemiology of America, the HIV Medicine Association, and the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society.

The top 10 antimicrobials they reported as being in short supply were piperacillin-tazobactam, ampicillin-sulbactam, meropenem, cefotaxime, cefepime, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX), doxycycline, imipenem, acyclovir, and amikacin. TMP-SMX and acyclovir were in short supply at both time points.

The most common ways respondents reported learning about drug shortages were from hospital notification (76%), from a colleague (56%), from a pharmacy that contacted them regarding a prescription for the agent (53%), or from the Food and Drug Administration website or another website on shortages (23%). The most common ways of learning about a shortage changed – from notification after trying to prescribe a drug in 2011, to proactive hospital/system (local) notification in 2016; 71% of respondents said that communications in 2016 were sufficient.

Most respondents (83%) reported that guidelines for dealing with shortages had been developed by an antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP) at their institution.

“This, I think, is one of the highlight results,” said Dr. Gundlapalli, who is also a staff physician at the VA Salt Lake City Health System. “In 2011, we had no specific question or comments received about [ASPs], and here in 2016, 83% of respondents’ institutions had developed guidelines related to drug shortages.”

Respondents also had the opportunity to submit free-text responses, and among the themes that emerged was concern regarding toxicity and adverse outcomes associated with increased use of aminoglycosides because of the shortage of piperacillin-tazobactam. Another – described as a blessing in disguise – was the shortage of meropenem, which led one ASP to “institute restrictions on its use, which have continued,” he said.

“Another theme was ‘simpler agents seem more likely to be in shortage,’ ” Dr. Gundlapalli said, noting ampicillin-sulbactam in 2016 and Pen-G as examples.

“And then, of course, the other theme across the board ... was our new asset,” he said, explaining that some respondents commented on the value of ASP pharmacists and programs to help with drug shortage issues.

The overall theme of this follow-up survey, in the context of prior surveys in 2001 and 2011, is that antibiotic shortages are the “new normal – a way of life,” Dr. Gundlapalli said.

“The concerns do persist, and we feel there is further work to be done here,” he said. He specifically noted that there is a need to inform and educate fellows and colleagues in hospitals, increase awareness generally, improve communication strategies, and conduct detailed studies on adverse effects and outcomes.

“And now, since ASPs are very pervasive ... maybe it’s time to formalize and delineate the role of ASPs in antimicrobial shortages,” he said.

The problem of antibiotic shortages “harkens back to the day when penicillin was recycled in the urine [of soldiers in World War II] to save this very scarce resource ... but that’s a very extreme measure to take,” noted Donald Graham, MD, of the Springfield (Ill.) Clinic, one of the study’s coauthors. “It seems like it’s time for the other federal arm – namely, the Food and Drug Administration – to do something about this.”

Dr. Graham said he believes the problem is in part because of economics, and in part because of “the higher standards that the FDA imposes upon these manufacturing concerns.” These drugs often are low-profit items, and it isn’t always in the financial best interest of a pharmaceutical company to upgrade their facilities.

“But they really have to recognize the importance of having availability of these simple agents,” he said, pleading with any FDA representatives in the audience to “maybe think about some of these very high standards.”

Dr. Gundlapalli reported having no disclosures. Dr. Graham disclosed relationships with Astellas and Theravance Biopharma.

[email protected]

NEW ORLEANS – Antibiotic shortages reported by the Emerging Infections Network (EIN) in 2011 persist in 2016, according to a web-based follow-up survey of infectious disease physicians.

Of 701 network members who responded to the EIN survey in early 2016, 70% reported needing to modify their antimicrobial choice because of a shortage in the past 2 years. They did so by using broader-spectrum agents (75% of respondents), more costly agents (58%), less effective second-line agents (45%), and more toxic agents (37%), Adi Gundlapalli, MD, PhD, reported at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

In addition, 73% of respondents reported that the shortages affected patient care or outcomes, reported Dr. Gundlapalli of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

The percentage of respondents reporting adverse patient outcomes related to shortages increased from 2011 to 2016 (51% vs.73%), he noted at the combined annual meetings of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the Society of Healthcare Epidemiology of America, the HIV Medicine Association, and the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society.

The top 10 antimicrobials they reported as being in short supply were piperacillin-tazobactam, ampicillin-sulbactam, meropenem, cefotaxime, cefepime, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX), doxycycline, imipenem, acyclovir, and amikacin. TMP-SMX and acyclovir were in short supply at both time points.

The most common ways respondents reported learning about drug shortages were from hospital notification (76%), from a colleague (56%), from a pharmacy that contacted them regarding a prescription for the agent (53%), or from the Food and Drug Administration website or another website on shortages (23%). The most common ways of learning about a shortage changed – from notification after trying to prescribe a drug in 2011, to proactive hospital/system (local) notification in 2016; 71% of respondents said that communications in 2016 were sufficient.

Most respondents (83%) reported that guidelines for dealing with shortages had been developed by an antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP) at their institution.

“This, I think, is one of the highlight results,” said Dr. Gundlapalli, who is also a staff physician at the VA Salt Lake City Health System. “In 2011, we had no specific question or comments received about [ASPs], and here in 2016, 83% of respondents’ institutions had developed guidelines related to drug shortages.”

Respondents also had the opportunity to submit free-text responses, and among the themes that emerged was concern regarding toxicity and adverse outcomes associated with increased use of aminoglycosides because of the shortage of piperacillin-tazobactam. Another – described as a blessing in disguise – was the shortage of meropenem, which led one ASP to “institute restrictions on its use, which have continued,” he said.

“Another theme was ‘simpler agents seem more likely to be in shortage,’ ” Dr. Gundlapalli said, noting ampicillin-sulbactam in 2016 and Pen-G as examples.

“And then, of course, the other theme across the board ... was our new asset,” he said, explaining that some respondents commented on the value of ASP pharmacists and programs to help with drug shortage issues.

The overall theme of this follow-up survey, in the context of prior surveys in 2001 and 2011, is that antibiotic shortages are the “new normal – a way of life,” Dr. Gundlapalli said.

“The concerns do persist, and we feel there is further work to be done here,” he said. He specifically noted that there is a need to inform and educate fellows and colleagues in hospitals, increase awareness generally, improve communication strategies, and conduct detailed studies on adverse effects and outcomes.

“And now, since ASPs are very pervasive ... maybe it’s time to formalize and delineate the role of ASPs in antimicrobial shortages,” he said.

The problem of antibiotic shortages “harkens back to the day when penicillin was recycled in the urine [of soldiers in World War II] to save this very scarce resource ... but that’s a very extreme measure to take,” noted Donald Graham, MD, of the Springfield (Ill.) Clinic, one of the study’s coauthors. “It seems like it’s time for the other federal arm – namely, the Food and Drug Administration – to do something about this.”

Dr. Graham said he believes the problem is in part because of economics, and in part because of “the higher standards that the FDA imposes upon these manufacturing concerns.” These drugs often are low-profit items, and it isn’t always in the financial best interest of a pharmaceutical company to upgrade their facilities.

“But they really have to recognize the importance of having availability of these simple agents,” he said, pleading with any FDA representatives in the audience to “maybe think about some of these very high standards.”

Dr. Gundlapalli reported having no disclosures. Dr. Graham disclosed relationships with Astellas and Theravance Biopharma.

[email protected]

NEW ORLEANS – Antibiotic shortages reported by the Emerging Infections Network (EIN) in 2011 persist in 2016, according to a web-based follow-up survey of infectious disease physicians.

Of 701 network members who responded to the EIN survey in early 2016, 70% reported needing to modify their antimicrobial choice because of a shortage in the past 2 years. They did so by using broader-spectrum agents (75% of respondents), more costly agents (58%), less effective second-line agents (45%), and more toxic agents (37%), Adi Gundlapalli, MD, PhD, reported at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

In addition, 73% of respondents reported that the shortages affected patient care or outcomes, reported Dr. Gundlapalli of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

The percentage of respondents reporting adverse patient outcomes related to shortages increased from 2011 to 2016 (51% vs.73%), he noted at the combined annual meetings of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the Society of Healthcare Epidemiology of America, the HIV Medicine Association, and the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society.

The top 10 antimicrobials they reported as being in short supply were piperacillin-tazobactam, ampicillin-sulbactam, meropenem, cefotaxime, cefepime, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX), doxycycline, imipenem, acyclovir, and amikacin. TMP-SMX and acyclovir were in short supply at both time points.

The most common ways respondents reported learning about drug shortages were from hospital notification (76%), from a colleague (56%), from a pharmacy that contacted them regarding a prescription for the agent (53%), or from the Food and Drug Administration website or another website on shortages (23%). The most common ways of learning about a shortage changed – from notification after trying to prescribe a drug in 2011, to proactive hospital/system (local) notification in 2016; 71% of respondents said that communications in 2016 were sufficient.

Most respondents (83%) reported that guidelines for dealing with shortages had been developed by an antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP) at their institution.

“This, I think, is one of the highlight results,” said Dr. Gundlapalli, who is also a staff physician at the VA Salt Lake City Health System. “In 2011, we had no specific question or comments received about [ASPs], and here in 2016, 83% of respondents’ institutions had developed guidelines related to drug shortages.”

Respondents also had the opportunity to submit free-text responses, and among the themes that emerged was concern regarding toxicity and adverse outcomes associated with increased use of aminoglycosides because of the shortage of piperacillin-tazobactam. Another – described as a blessing in disguise – was the shortage of meropenem, which led one ASP to “institute restrictions on its use, which have continued,” he said.

“Another theme was ‘simpler agents seem more likely to be in shortage,’ ” Dr. Gundlapalli said, noting ampicillin-sulbactam in 2016 and Pen-G as examples.

“And then, of course, the other theme across the board ... was our new asset,” he said, explaining that some respondents commented on the value of ASP pharmacists and programs to help with drug shortage issues.

The overall theme of this follow-up survey, in the context of prior surveys in 2001 and 2011, is that antibiotic shortages are the “new normal – a way of life,” Dr. Gundlapalli said.

“The concerns do persist, and we feel there is further work to be done here,” he said. He specifically noted that there is a need to inform and educate fellows and colleagues in hospitals, increase awareness generally, improve communication strategies, and conduct detailed studies on adverse effects and outcomes.

“And now, since ASPs are very pervasive ... maybe it’s time to formalize and delineate the role of ASPs in antimicrobial shortages,” he said.

The problem of antibiotic shortages “harkens back to the day when penicillin was recycled in the urine [of soldiers in World War II] to save this very scarce resource ... but that’s a very extreme measure to take,” noted Donald Graham, MD, of the Springfield (Ill.) Clinic, one of the study’s coauthors. “It seems like it’s time for the other federal arm – namely, the Food and Drug Administration – to do something about this.”

Dr. Graham said he believes the problem is in part because of economics, and in part because of “the higher standards that the FDA imposes upon these manufacturing concerns.” These drugs often are low-profit items, and it isn’t always in the financial best interest of a pharmaceutical company to upgrade their facilities.

“But they really have to recognize the importance of having availability of these simple agents,” he said, pleading with any FDA representatives in the audience to “maybe think about some of these very high standards.”

Dr. Gundlapalli reported having no disclosures. Dr. Graham disclosed relationships with Astellas and Theravance Biopharma.

[email protected]