Clinical

Clinical Question: Does increased fluid administration in patients with sepsis with intermediate lactate levels improve outcomes?

Background: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign bundle, which improves ED mortality, targets patients with hypotension or lactate levels >4 mmol/L. No similar optimal treatment strategy exists for less severe sepsis patients even though such patients are more common in hospitalized populations.

Study Design: Retrospective study of a quality improvement bundle.

Setting: 21 community-based hospitals in the Kaiser Permanente Northern California system.

Synopsis: This study evaluated implementation of a treatment bundle for 18,122 hemodynamically stable sepsis patients presenting to the ED with lactate levels between 2 and 4 mmol/L during the 12 months prior to and after bundle implementation. The bundle included antibiotic administration within three hours, repeated lactate levels within four hours, and 30 mL/kg or ≥2 L of intravenous fluids within three hours of initial lactate result. Patients with kidney disease and/or heart failure were separately evaluated because of the perceived risk of fluid administration.

Treatment after bundle implementation was associated with an adjusted hospital mortality odds ratio of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.66–0.99; P = 0.04). Significant reductions in hospital mortality were observed in patients with heart failure and/or kidney disease (P < 0.01) but not without (P > 0.4). This correlated with increased fluid administration in patients with heart failure and/or kidney disease following bundle implementation. This is not a randomized controlled study, which invites biases and confounding.

Bottom Line: Increased fluid administration improved mortality in patients with kidney disease and heart failure presenting with sepsis.

Reference: Liu V, Morehouse JW, Marelich GP, et al. Multicenter implementation of a treatment bundle for patients with sepsis and intermediate lactate values. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016;193(11):1264-1270.

Short Take

New Framework for Learners’ Clinical Reasoning

A qualitative study involving 37 emergency medicine residents found that clinical reasoning through individual cases progresses from case framing (phase 1) to pattern recognition (phase 2), then self-monitoring (phase 3).

Citation: Adams E, Goyder C, Heneghan C, Brand L, Ajjawi R. Clinical reasoning of junior doctors in emergency medicine: a grounded theory study [published online ahead of print June 23, 2016]. Emerg Med J. doi:10.1136/emermed-2015-205650.

Clinical Question: Does increased fluid administration in patients with sepsis with intermediate lactate levels improve outcomes?

Background: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign bundle, which improves ED mortality, targets patients with hypotension or lactate levels >4 mmol/L. No similar optimal treatment strategy exists for less severe sepsis patients even though such patients are more common in hospitalized populations.

Study Design: Retrospective study of a quality improvement bundle.

Setting: 21 community-based hospitals in the Kaiser Permanente Northern California system.

Synopsis: This study evaluated implementation of a treatment bundle for 18,122 hemodynamically stable sepsis patients presenting to the ED with lactate levels between 2 and 4 mmol/L during the 12 months prior to and after bundle implementation. The bundle included antibiotic administration within three hours, repeated lactate levels within four hours, and 30 mL/kg or ≥2 L of intravenous fluids within three hours of initial lactate result. Patients with kidney disease and/or heart failure were separately evaluated because of the perceived risk of fluid administration.

Treatment after bundle implementation was associated with an adjusted hospital mortality odds ratio of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.66–0.99; P = 0.04). Significant reductions in hospital mortality were observed in patients with heart failure and/or kidney disease (P < 0.01) but not without (P > 0.4). This correlated with increased fluid administration in patients with heart failure and/or kidney disease following bundle implementation. This is not a randomized controlled study, which invites biases and confounding.

Bottom Line: Increased fluid administration improved mortality in patients with kidney disease and heart failure presenting with sepsis.

Reference: Liu V, Morehouse JW, Marelich GP, et al. Multicenter implementation of a treatment bundle for patients with sepsis and intermediate lactate values. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016;193(11):1264-1270.

Short Take

New Framework for Learners’ Clinical Reasoning

A qualitative study involving 37 emergency medicine residents found that clinical reasoning through individual cases progresses from case framing (phase 1) to pattern recognition (phase 2), then self-monitoring (phase 3).

Citation: Adams E, Goyder C, Heneghan C, Brand L, Ajjawi R. Clinical reasoning of junior doctors in emergency medicine: a grounded theory study [published online ahead of print June 23, 2016]. Emerg Med J. doi:10.1136/emermed-2015-205650.

Clinical Question: Does increased fluid administration in patients with sepsis with intermediate lactate levels improve outcomes?

Background: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign bundle, which improves ED mortality, targets patients with hypotension or lactate levels >4 mmol/L. No similar optimal treatment strategy exists for less severe sepsis patients even though such patients are more common in hospitalized populations.

Study Design: Retrospective study of a quality improvement bundle.

Setting: 21 community-based hospitals in the Kaiser Permanente Northern California system.

Synopsis: This study evaluated implementation of a treatment bundle for 18,122 hemodynamically stable sepsis patients presenting to the ED with lactate levels between 2 and 4 mmol/L during the 12 months prior to and after bundle implementation. The bundle included antibiotic administration within three hours, repeated lactate levels within four hours, and 30 mL/kg or ≥2 L of intravenous fluids within three hours of initial lactate result. Patients with kidney disease and/or heart failure were separately evaluated because of the perceived risk of fluid administration.

Treatment after bundle implementation was associated with an adjusted hospital mortality odds ratio of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.66–0.99; P = 0.04). Significant reductions in hospital mortality were observed in patients with heart failure and/or kidney disease (P < 0.01) but not without (P > 0.4). This correlated with increased fluid administration in patients with heart failure and/or kidney disease following bundle implementation. This is not a randomized controlled study, which invites biases and confounding.

Bottom Line: Increased fluid administration improved mortality in patients with kidney disease and heart failure presenting with sepsis.

Reference: Liu V, Morehouse JW, Marelich GP, et al. Multicenter implementation of a treatment bundle for patients with sepsis and intermediate lactate values. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016;193(11):1264-1270.

Short Take

New Framework for Learners’ Clinical Reasoning

A qualitative study involving 37 emergency medicine residents found that clinical reasoning through individual cases progresses from case framing (phase 1) to pattern recognition (phase 2), then self-monitoring (phase 3).

Citation: Adams E, Goyder C, Heneghan C, Brand L, Ajjawi R. Clinical reasoning of junior doctors in emergency medicine: a grounded theory study [published online ahead of print June 23, 2016]. Emerg Med J. doi:10.1136/emermed-2015-205650.

Clinical Question: Can a collaborative quality improvement project improve the quality and efficiency of pediatric hospital discharges?

Background: Transitions of care, including at the time of hospital discharge, are a potential source of risk and can be associated with adverse events including medication errors and preventable readmissions. Some studies have shown that 10–20% of patients had an adverse event after discharge, and half of those were preventable; one adult study found nearly half of the discharged patients had at least one medication error.1,2 Although multiple projects to improve the discharge process have been published in adult literature, few have focused on the pediatric population. In this study, the Children’s Hospital Association (CHA) formed a pediatric quality improvement collaborative across multiple facilities to examine whether shared improvement strategies would affect failures of discharge-related care, parent-reported readiness for discharge, and readmission rates.

Study Design: Multicenter quality improvement collaborative.

Setting: 11 freestanding tertiary-care children’s hospitals in the United States.

Synopsis: Each of the 11 participating sites chose a specific target population, such as patients with sickle cell disease, asthma, or all discharged pediatric patients. Populations were selected at the discretion of the sites. A multidisciplinary expert advisory panel reviewed literature and developed a change package that included being proactive about discharge planning during hospitalization; improving throughput; arranging post-discharge treatment and support; and communicating post-discharge plan with patients, families, and providers. Each site selected elements of the change package to implement based on individual needs and preferences and incorporated via plan-do-study-act cycles during three action periods. Elements that were implemented by most or all sites included family education on diagnosis and discharge plans, use of discharge checklists, improvement of written discharge instructions, post-discharge follow-up phone calls to reinforce discharge instructions, and identifying and obtaining medications. Virtual learning conferences and monthly Web conferences were held for participants in the collaborative, and experienced improvement coaches guided teams through implementation.

The primary aim of the study was to reduce discharge-related care failures by 50% in 12 months. Failures were measured by phone calls to families two to seven days following discharge, and if any problem related to discharge occurred, the discharge was considered a failure (all-or-none measure). Components of this measure included understanding the diagnosis, receiving discharge instructions and education, complying with instructions, receiving necessary equipment, planning for follow-up pending tests, receiving help with appointments, and not requiring a related unplanned medical visit. Other measures evaluated in this study included patient/family readiness for discharge and unplanned readmission rates (72 hours and 30 days).

Overall, the rate of failures of discharge care was 34% at baseline, which decreased to 21% at the end of the collaborative, for a reduction of 40%. Some individual hospitals exceeded this mark as well. Among the hospitals reporting data on family readiness for discharge, there was a statistically significant improvement, with 85% of families at baseline rating readiness in the highest category and 91% in the last quarter of the study. There was no improvement in rates of unplanned readmission, with 72-hour readmission rates steady across the project (0.7% at onset, 1.1% at end of study; P = 0.29) and slight worsening of the 30-day rate (4.5% to 6.3%; P = 0.05).

Potential explanations for the findings related to readmission rates include seasonal variability in readmissions as well as high variability in patients included in the study. For example, one site focused on patients with sickle cell disease, another on patients with asthma, and others included all diagnoses. Overall, unplanned readmission rates were low (around 1% for 72-hour, 5% for 30-day), which is consistent with other pediatric studies.

 

Bottom Line: In this study, institutions using a collaborative approach improved the quality of inpatient discharges by using an intervention bundle in pediatric hospital settings. There was no improvement noted in readmission rates, although these rates were low.

Citation: Wu S, Tyler A, Logsdon T, et al. A quality improvement collaborative to improve the discharge process for hospitalized children. Pediatrics. 2016;138(2). pii:e20143604.

References:

1. Moore C, Wisnivesky J, Williams S, McGinn T. Medical errors related to discontinuity of care from an inpatient to an outpatient setting. J Gen Intern Med. 2003;18(8):646-651.
2. Forster AJ, Clark HD, Menard A, et al. Adverse events among medical patients after discharge from hospital. CMAJ. 2004;170(3):345-349.

Clinical Question: Can a collaborative quality improvement project improve the quality and efficiency of pediatric hospital discharges?

Background: Transitions of care, including at the time of hospital discharge, are a potential source of risk and can be associated with adverse events including medication errors and preventable readmissions. Some studies have shown that 10–20% of patients had an adverse event after discharge, and half of those were preventable; one adult study found nearly half of the discharged patients had at least one medication error.1,2 Although multiple projects to improve the discharge process have been published in adult literature, few have focused on the pediatric population. In this study, the Children’s Hospital Association (CHA) formed a pediatric quality improvement collaborative across multiple facilities to examine whether shared improvement strategies would affect failures of discharge-related care, parent-reported readiness for discharge, and readmission rates.

Study Design: Multicenter quality improvement collaborative.

Setting: 11 freestanding tertiary-care children’s hospitals in the United States.

Synopsis: Each of the 11 participating sites chose a specific target population, such as patients with sickle cell disease, asthma, or all discharged pediatric patients. Populations were selected at the discretion of the sites. A multidisciplinary expert advisory panel reviewed literature and developed a change package that included being proactive about discharge planning during hospitalization; improving throughput; arranging post-discharge treatment and support; and communicating post-discharge plan with patients, families, and providers. Each site selected elements of the change package to implement based on individual needs and preferences and incorporated via plan-do-study-act cycles during three action periods. Elements that were implemented by most or all sites included family education on diagnosis and discharge plans, use of discharge checklists, improvement of written discharge instructions, post-discharge follow-up phone calls to reinforce discharge instructions, and identifying and obtaining medications. Virtual learning conferences and monthly Web conferences were held for participants in the collaborative, and experienced improvement coaches guided teams through implementation.

The primary aim of the study was to reduce discharge-related care failures by 50% in 12 months. Failures were measured by phone calls to families two to seven days following discharge, and if any problem related to discharge occurred, the discharge was considered a failure (all-or-none measure). Components of this measure included understanding the diagnosis, receiving discharge instructions and education, complying with instructions, receiving necessary equipment, planning for follow-up pending tests, receiving help with appointments, and not requiring a related unplanned medical visit. Other measures evaluated in this study included patient/family readiness for discharge and unplanned readmission rates (72 hours and 30 days).

Overall, the rate of failures of discharge care was 34% at baseline, which decreased to 21% at the end of the collaborative, for a reduction of 40%. Some individual hospitals exceeded this mark as well. Among the hospitals reporting data on family readiness for discharge, there was a statistically significant improvement, with 85% of families at baseline rating readiness in the highest category and 91% in the last quarter of the study. There was no improvement in rates of unplanned readmission, with 72-hour readmission rates steady across the project (0.7% at onset, 1.1% at end of study; P = 0.29) and slight worsening of the 30-day rate (4.5% to 6.3%; P = 0.05).

Potential explanations for the findings related to readmission rates include seasonal variability in readmissions as well as high variability in patients included in the study. For example, one site focused on patients with sickle cell disease, another on patients with asthma, and others included all diagnoses. Overall, unplanned readmission rates were low (around 1% for 72-hour, 5% for 30-day), which is consistent with other pediatric studies.

 

Bottom Line: In this study, institutions using a collaborative approach improved the quality of inpatient discharges by using an intervention bundle in pediatric hospital settings. There was no improvement noted in readmission rates, although these rates were low.

Citation: Wu S, Tyler A, Logsdon T, et al. A quality improvement collaborative to improve the discharge process for hospitalized children. Pediatrics. 2016;138(2). pii:e20143604.

References:

1. Moore C, Wisnivesky J, Williams S, McGinn T. Medical errors related to discontinuity of care from an inpatient to an outpatient setting. J Gen Intern Med. 2003;18(8):646-651.
2. Forster AJ, Clark HD, Menard A, et al. Adverse events among medical patients after discharge from hospital. CMAJ. 2004;170(3):345-349.

Clinical Question: Can a collaborative quality improvement project improve the quality and efficiency of pediatric hospital discharges?

Background: Transitions of care, including at the time of hospital discharge, are a potential source of risk and can be associated with adverse events including medication errors and preventable readmissions. Some studies have shown that 10–20% of patients had an adverse event after discharge, and half of those were preventable; one adult study found nearly half of the discharged patients had at least one medication error.1,2 Although multiple projects to improve the discharge process have been published in adult literature, few have focused on the pediatric population. In this study, the Children’s Hospital Association (CHA) formed a pediatric quality improvement collaborative across multiple facilities to examine whether shared improvement strategies would affect failures of discharge-related care, parent-reported readiness for discharge, and readmission rates.

Study Design: Multicenter quality improvement collaborative.

Setting: 11 freestanding tertiary-care children’s hospitals in the United States.

Synopsis: Each of the 11 participating sites chose a specific target population, such as patients with sickle cell disease, asthma, or all discharged pediatric patients. Populations were selected at the discretion of the sites. A multidisciplinary expert advisory panel reviewed literature and developed a change package that included being proactive about discharge planning during hospitalization; improving throughput; arranging post-discharge treatment and support; and communicating post-discharge plan with patients, families, and providers. Each site selected elements of the change package to implement based on individual needs and preferences and incorporated via plan-do-study-act cycles during three action periods. Elements that were implemented by most or all sites included family education on diagnosis and discharge plans, use of discharge checklists, improvement of written discharge instructions, post-discharge follow-up phone calls to reinforce discharge instructions, and identifying and obtaining medications. Virtual learning conferences and monthly Web conferences were held for participants in the collaborative, and experienced improvement coaches guided teams through implementation.

The primary aim of the study was to reduce discharge-related care failures by 50% in 12 months. Failures were measured by phone calls to families two to seven days following discharge, and if any problem related to discharge occurred, the discharge was considered a failure (all-or-none measure). Components of this measure included understanding the diagnosis, receiving discharge instructions and education, complying with instructions, receiving necessary equipment, planning for follow-up pending tests, receiving help with appointments, and not requiring a related unplanned medical visit. Other measures evaluated in this study included patient/family readiness for discharge and unplanned readmission rates (72 hours and 30 days).

Overall, the rate of failures of discharge care was 34% at baseline, which decreased to 21% at the end of the collaborative, for a reduction of 40%. Some individual hospitals exceeded this mark as well. Among the hospitals reporting data on family readiness for discharge, there was a statistically significant improvement, with 85% of families at baseline rating readiness in the highest category and 91% in the last quarter of the study. There was no improvement in rates of unplanned readmission, with 72-hour readmission rates steady across the project (0.7% at onset, 1.1% at end of study; P = 0.29) and slight worsening of the 30-day rate (4.5% to 6.3%; P = 0.05).

Potential explanations for the findings related to readmission rates include seasonal variability in readmissions as well as high variability in patients included in the study. For example, one site focused on patients with sickle cell disease, another on patients with asthma, and others included all diagnoses. Overall, unplanned readmission rates were low (around 1% for 72-hour, 5% for 30-day), which is consistent with other pediatric studies.

 

Bottom Line: In this study, institutions using a collaborative approach improved the quality of inpatient discharges by using an intervention bundle in pediatric hospital settings. There was no improvement noted in readmission rates, although these rates were low.

Citation: Wu S, Tyler A, Logsdon T, et al. A quality improvement collaborative to improve the discharge process for hospitalized children. Pediatrics. 2016;138(2). pii:e20143604.

References:

1. Moore C, Wisnivesky J, Williams S, McGinn T. Medical errors related to discontinuity of care from an inpatient to an outpatient setting. J Gen Intern Med. 2003;18(8):646-651.
2. Forster AJ, Clark HD, Menard A, et al. Adverse events among medical patients after discharge from hospital. CMAJ. 2004;170(3):345-349.

Clinical Question: What is the performance of the Step-by-Step approach to evaluate febrile infants, and how does it compare to other existing criteria?

Background: Multiple studies have been performed to find the best set of criteria to identify febrile infants at low risk for bacterial infection in order to manage them in a less invasive manner. Common criteria used in the United States include Rochester, Philadelphia, and Boston criteria, initially published in the early 1990s. Since that time, management has evolved with the introduction of newer biomarkers such as C-reactive protein (CRP) and procalcitonin (PCT), and epidemiology has changed with immunizations and improvement in intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis.

A new algorithm, Step-by-Step, has been developed by a group of European pediatric emergency physicians and has been shown retrospectively to accurately identify groups of patients according to risk of noninvasive or invasive bacterial infection (IBI). This algorithm uses a sequential approach, evaluating the general appearance, age of the patient, urinalysis, and then other lab findings including CRP, PCT, and absolute neutrophil count (ANC). In this study, the authors sought to validate this algorithm prospectively in a larger multicenter population.

Study Design: Multicenter prospective study.

Setting: 11 European pediatric emergency departments in Spain, Italy, and Switzerland.

Synopsis: This study included infants ≤90 days of age presenting to the pediatric emergency department (PED) between September 2012 and August 2014 with fever without source (defined as temperature ≥38°C measured by thermometer at home or in the PED, with normal physical examination and no respiratory signs or symptoms or diarrheal process). Labs obtained for each patient included urinalysis, urine culture (obtained by bladder catheterization or suprapubic aspiration), white blood cell count, PCT, CRP, and blood culture. Further testing and management were determined by the treating physician and management protocols of each center.

Exclusion criteria included:

• Clear source of fever by history or physical examination.
• No fever in the PED and fever assessed only subjectively by parents prior to presentation without the use of a thermometer.
• Absence of one or more of the above lab tests.
• Refusal of parents to participate.

The study included 2,185 infants. Of these, 504 were diagnosed with bacterial infection, including 87 (3.9%) with IBI (defined as positive blood or cerebrospinal fluid culture) and 417 (19.1%) with non-IBI (409 of which were urinary tract infections). Following the first part of the Step-by-Step approach, which uses general appearance (well-appearing versus ill-appearing), age (older or younger than 21 days), and leukocyturia, identified 79.3% of patients with IBI and 98.5% of non-IBI. Adding the next steps in the approach, with PCT, CRP, and ANC, identified 991 low-risk patients (45.3% of the studied population). In this low-risk group, seven patients were subsequently identified as having IBI (0.7% of this group). Using the Step-by-Step approach led to a negative predictive value (NPV) of 99.3 for identifying IBI, with a negative likelihood ratio (LR) of 0.17.

In evaluation of the seven low-risk patients with IBI, three of these were noted to present to the PED within one hour of onset of fever, and three more patients had fever first detected on arrival in the PED. This short duration of fever, and the lack of time for a rise in biomarkers, is likely why these patients were missed in the initial assessment.

When the Rochester criteria were used for this group of 2,185 patients, 949 patients were identified as low risk, with 1.6% of the low-risk patients found to have IBI, leading to an NPV of 98.3 and negative LR of 0.41. The authors chose to compare their approach to the Rochester criteria because the other commonly used approaches (Boston, Philadelphia) recommend lumbar puncture in all febrile infants while Rochester does not, and more recent literature suggests an individualized approach rather than recommending the test systematically.

 

Limitations included:

• Prevalence of bacterial infection was similar to other European publications but higher than in many studies in the United States, primarily due to an increased rate of UTI. (In this study, the authors used a definition of leukocyturia and culture with ≥10,000 cfu/mL.)
• Band count, although part of the Rochester criteria, was not available in some of the centers and not included in analysis. Inclusion of this lab study could have changed the performance of the Rochester criteria.
• The Step-by-Step approach was not compared to other existing criteria.

Bottom Line: In this study, the Step-by-Step approach was very accurate in identifying febrile infants at low risk for invasive bacterial infection, performing better than the Rochester criteria, and may be helpful in evaluation of infants with fever in the emergency department. A cautious approach is warranted for patients with very short fever duration, as they may be missed by ancillary test results.

Citation: Gomez B, Mintegi S, Bressan S, et al. Validation of the “step-by-step” approach in the management of young febrile infants. Pediatrics. 2016;138(2). pic:e20154381.

---

Carl Galloway, MD, is a hospitalist at Sanford Children’s Hospital in Sioux Falls, S.D.

Clinical Question: What is the performance of the Step-by-Step approach to evaluate febrile infants, and how does it compare to other existing criteria?

Background: Multiple studies have been performed to find the best set of criteria to identify febrile infants at low risk for bacterial infection in order to manage them in a less invasive manner. Common criteria used in the United States include Rochester, Philadelphia, and Boston criteria, initially published in the early 1990s. Since that time, management has evolved with the introduction of newer biomarkers such as C-reactive protein (CRP) and procalcitonin (PCT), and epidemiology has changed with immunizations and improvement in intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis.

A new algorithm, Step-by-Step, has been developed by a group of European pediatric emergency physicians and has been shown retrospectively to accurately identify groups of patients according to risk of noninvasive or invasive bacterial infection (IBI). This algorithm uses a sequential approach, evaluating the general appearance, age of the patient, urinalysis, and then other lab findings including CRP, PCT, and absolute neutrophil count (ANC). In this study, the authors sought to validate this algorithm prospectively in a larger multicenter population.

Study Design: Multicenter prospective study.

Setting: 11 European pediatric emergency departments in Spain, Italy, and Switzerland.

Synopsis: This study included infants ≤90 days of age presenting to the pediatric emergency department (PED) between September 2012 and August 2014 with fever without source (defined as temperature ≥38°C measured by thermometer at home or in the PED, with normal physical examination and no respiratory signs or symptoms or diarrheal process). Labs obtained for each patient included urinalysis, urine culture (obtained by bladder catheterization or suprapubic aspiration), white blood cell count, PCT, CRP, and blood culture. Further testing and management were determined by the treating physician and management protocols of each center.

Exclusion criteria included:

• Clear source of fever by history or physical examination.
• No fever in the PED and fever assessed only subjectively by parents prior to presentation without the use of a thermometer.
• Absence of one or more of the above lab tests.
• Refusal of parents to participate.

The study included 2,185 infants. Of these, 504 were diagnosed with bacterial infection, including 87 (3.9%) with IBI (defined as positive blood or cerebrospinal fluid culture) and 417 (19.1%) with non-IBI (409 of which were urinary tract infections). Following the first part of the Step-by-Step approach, which uses general appearance (well-appearing versus ill-appearing), age (older or younger than 21 days), and leukocyturia, identified 79.3% of patients with IBI and 98.5% of non-IBI. Adding the next steps in the approach, with PCT, CRP, and ANC, identified 991 low-risk patients (45.3% of the studied population). In this low-risk group, seven patients were subsequently identified as having IBI (0.7% of this group). Using the Step-by-Step approach led to a negative predictive value (NPV) of 99.3 for identifying IBI, with a negative likelihood ratio (LR) of 0.17.

In evaluation of the seven low-risk patients with IBI, three of these were noted to present to the PED within one hour of onset of fever, and three more patients had fever first detected on arrival in the PED. This short duration of fever, and the lack of time for a rise in biomarkers, is likely why these patients were missed in the initial assessment.

When the Rochester criteria were used for this group of 2,185 patients, 949 patients were identified as low risk, with 1.6% of the low-risk patients found to have IBI, leading to an NPV of 98.3 and negative LR of 0.41. The authors chose to compare their approach to the Rochester criteria because the other commonly used approaches (Boston, Philadelphia) recommend lumbar puncture in all febrile infants while Rochester does not, and more recent literature suggests an individualized approach rather than recommending the test systematically.

 

Limitations included:

• Prevalence of bacterial infection was similar to other European publications but higher than in many studies in the United States, primarily due to an increased rate of UTI. (In this study, the authors used a definition of leukocyturia and culture with ≥10,000 cfu/mL.)
• Band count, although part of the Rochester criteria, was not available in some of the centers and not included in analysis. Inclusion of this lab study could have changed the performance of the Rochester criteria.
• The Step-by-Step approach was not compared to other existing criteria.

Bottom Line: In this study, the Step-by-Step approach was very accurate in identifying febrile infants at low risk for invasive bacterial infection, performing better than the Rochester criteria, and may be helpful in evaluation of infants with fever in the emergency department. A cautious approach is warranted for patients with very short fever duration, as they may be missed by ancillary test results.

Citation: Gomez B, Mintegi S, Bressan S, et al. Validation of the “step-by-step” approach in the management of young febrile infants. Pediatrics. 2016;138(2). pic:e20154381.

---

Carl Galloway, MD, is a hospitalist at Sanford Children’s Hospital in Sioux Falls, S.D.

Clinical Question: What is the performance of the Step-by-Step approach to evaluate febrile infants, and how does it compare to other existing criteria?

Background: Multiple studies have been performed to find the best set of criteria to identify febrile infants at low risk for bacterial infection in order to manage them in a less invasive manner. Common criteria used in the United States include Rochester, Philadelphia, and Boston criteria, initially published in the early 1990s. Since that time, management has evolved with the introduction of newer biomarkers such as C-reactive protein (CRP) and procalcitonin (PCT), and epidemiology has changed with immunizations and improvement in intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis.

A new algorithm, Step-by-Step, has been developed by a group of European pediatric emergency physicians and has been shown retrospectively to accurately identify groups of patients according to risk of noninvasive or invasive bacterial infection (IBI). This algorithm uses a sequential approach, evaluating the general appearance, age of the patient, urinalysis, and then other lab findings including CRP, PCT, and absolute neutrophil count (ANC). In this study, the authors sought to validate this algorithm prospectively in a larger multicenter population.

Study Design: Multicenter prospective study.

Setting: 11 European pediatric emergency departments in Spain, Italy, and Switzerland.

Synopsis: This study included infants ≤90 days of age presenting to the pediatric emergency department (PED) between September 2012 and August 2014 with fever without source (defined as temperature ≥38°C measured by thermometer at home or in the PED, with normal physical examination and no respiratory signs or symptoms or diarrheal process). Labs obtained for each patient included urinalysis, urine culture (obtained by bladder catheterization or suprapubic aspiration), white blood cell count, PCT, CRP, and blood culture. Further testing and management were determined by the treating physician and management protocols of each center.

Exclusion criteria included:

• Clear source of fever by history or physical examination.
• No fever in the PED and fever assessed only subjectively by parents prior to presentation without the use of a thermometer.
• Absence of one or more of the above lab tests.
• Refusal of parents to participate.

The study included 2,185 infants. Of these, 504 were diagnosed with bacterial infection, including 87 (3.9%) with IBI (defined as positive blood or cerebrospinal fluid culture) and 417 (19.1%) with non-IBI (409 of which were urinary tract infections). Following the first part of the Step-by-Step approach, which uses general appearance (well-appearing versus ill-appearing), age (older or younger than 21 days), and leukocyturia, identified 79.3% of patients with IBI and 98.5% of non-IBI. Adding the next steps in the approach, with PCT, CRP, and ANC, identified 991 low-risk patients (45.3% of the studied population). In this low-risk group, seven patients were subsequently identified as having IBI (0.7% of this group). Using the Step-by-Step approach led to a negative predictive value (NPV) of 99.3 for identifying IBI, with a negative likelihood ratio (LR) of 0.17.

In evaluation of the seven low-risk patients with IBI, three of these were noted to present to the PED within one hour of onset of fever, and three more patients had fever first detected on arrival in the PED. This short duration of fever, and the lack of time for a rise in biomarkers, is likely why these patients were missed in the initial assessment.

When the Rochester criteria were used for this group of 2,185 patients, 949 patients were identified as low risk, with 1.6% of the low-risk patients found to have IBI, leading to an NPV of 98.3 and negative LR of 0.41. The authors chose to compare their approach to the Rochester criteria because the other commonly used approaches (Boston, Philadelphia) recommend lumbar puncture in all febrile infants while Rochester does not, and more recent literature suggests an individualized approach rather than recommending the test systematically.

 

Limitations included:

• Prevalence of bacterial infection was similar to other European publications but higher than in many studies in the United States, primarily due to an increased rate of UTI. (In this study, the authors used a definition of leukocyturia and culture with ≥10,000 cfu/mL.)
• Band count, although part of the Rochester criteria, was not available in some of the centers and not included in analysis. Inclusion of this lab study could have changed the performance of the Rochester criteria.
• The Step-by-Step approach was not compared to other existing criteria.

Bottom Line: In this study, the Step-by-Step approach was very accurate in identifying febrile infants at low risk for invasive bacterial infection, performing better than the Rochester criteria, and may be helpful in evaluation of infants with fever in the emergency department. A cautious approach is warranted for patients with very short fever duration, as they may be missed by ancillary test results.

Citation: Gomez B, Mintegi S, Bressan S, et al. Validation of the “step-by-step” approach in the management of young febrile infants. Pediatrics. 2016;138(2). pic:e20154381.

---

Carl Galloway, MD, is a hospitalist at Sanford Children’s Hospital in Sioux Falls, S.D.

Clinical Question: Is diluted apple juice inferior to apple-flavored electrolyte oral rehydration solution in children with mild dehydration due to acute gastroenteritis?

Background: In the setting of acute gastroenteritis, teaching has classically been that the simple sugars in juice and sports drinks can worsen diarrhea and that they could cause hyponatremia since they are not isotonic. Due to this, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends an electrolyte oral rehydration solution for children with dehydration and acute gastroenteritis. These solutions are more expensive and less palatable than juices. The authors sought to determine if diluted apple juice versus electrolyte oral rehydration fluid decreased the need for IV fluids, hospitalization, return visits, prolonged symptoms, or ongoing dehydration in mildly dehydrated children with acute gastroenteritis.

Study Design: Randomized single-blind non-inferiority prospective trial.

Setting: Single large tertiary-care pediatric emergency room.

Synopsis: Over five years, 3,668 patients were identified. Inclusion criteria were age >6 months or 8 kg of weight; Clinical Dehydration Scale score

Patients were challenged with small aliquots of these solutions and given ondansetron if they vomited. Upon discharge, they were sent home with 2 L of their solution. In the control arm, families were instructed to use this solution to make up for any ongoing losses. In the experimental arm, families were instructed to provide whatever fluids they would prefer. Follow-up was via phone, mail, and in-person reassessments. Patients were considered to have failed treatment if they required hospitalization, IV fluids, or a repeat unscheduled visit to a physician or experienced diarrhea lasting more than seven days or worsening dehydration on follow-up.

In the experimental arm, 16.7% of patients failed treatment (95% CI, 12.8%–21.2%) compared to 25% in the control arm (95% CI, 20.4%–30.1%; P < 0.001 for non-inferiority, P = .006 for superiority). The experimental arm also required IV fluids (2.5% versus 9%) significantly less often, though without a significantly decreased rate of hospitalization. These differences were present primarily in children >24 months old. No difference in the frequency of diarrheal stools was found, and no episodes of significant hyponatremia occurred.

Bottom Line: Giving children with mild dehydration due to acute gastroenteritis diluted apple juice and preferred fluids rather than the currently recommended electrolyte oral rehydration solution leads to decreased treatment failures and decreased need for IV fluids. There was no evidence of worsened diarrhea or significant hyponatremia.

Citation: Freedman SB, Willan AR, Boutis K, Schuh S. Effect of dilute apple juice and preferred fluids vs electrolyte maintenance solution on treatment failure among children with mild gastroenteritis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2016;315(18):1966-1974. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.5352.

---

Dr. Stubblefield is a pediatric hospitalist at Nemours/Alfred I. Dupont Hospital for Children in Wilmington, Del., and assistant professor of pediatrics at Thomas Jefferson Medical College in Philadelphia.

Clinical Question: Is diluted apple juice inferior to apple-flavored electrolyte oral rehydration solution in children with mild dehydration due to acute gastroenteritis?

Background: In the setting of acute gastroenteritis, teaching has classically been that the simple sugars in juice and sports drinks can worsen diarrhea and that they could cause hyponatremia since they are not isotonic. Due to this, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends an electrolyte oral rehydration solution for children with dehydration and acute gastroenteritis. These solutions are more expensive and less palatable than juices. The authors sought to determine if diluted apple juice versus electrolyte oral rehydration fluid decreased the need for IV fluids, hospitalization, return visits, prolonged symptoms, or ongoing dehydration in mildly dehydrated children with acute gastroenteritis.

Study Design: Randomized single-blind non-inferiority prospective trial.

Setting: Single large tertiary-care pediatric emergency room.

Synopsis: Over five years, 3,668 patients were identified. Inclusion criteria were age >6 months or 8 kg of weight; Clinical Dehydration Scale score

Patients were challenged with small aliquots of these solutions and given ondansetron if they vomited. Upon discharge, they were sent home with 2 L of their solution. In the control arm, families were instructed to use this solution to make up for any ongoing losses. In the experimental arm, families were instructed to provide whatever fluids they would prefer. Follow-up was via phone, mail, and in-person reassessments. Patients were considered to have failed treatment if they required hospitalization, IV fluids, or a repeat unscheduled visit to a physician or experienced diarrhea lasting more than seven days or worsening dehydration on follow-up.

In the experimental arm, 16.7% of patients failed treatment (95% CI, 12.8%–21.2%) compared to 25% in the control arm (95% CI, 20.4%–30.1%; P < 0.001 for non-inferiority, P = .006 for superiority). The experimental arm also required IV fluids (2.5% versus 9%) significantly less often, though without a significantly decreased rate of hospitalization. These differences were present primarily in children >24 months old. No difference in the frequency of diarrheal stools was found, and no episodes of significant hyponatremia occurred.

Bottom Line: Giving children with mild dehydration due to acute gastroenteritis diluted apple juice and preferred fluids rather than the currently recommended electrolyte oral rehydration solution leads to decreased treatment failures and decreased need for IV fluids. There was no evidence of worsened diarrhea or significant hyponatremia.

Citation: Freedman SB, Willan AR, Boutis K, Schuh S. Effect of dilute apple juice and preferred fluids vs electrolyte maintenance solution on treatment failure among children with mild gastroenteritis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2016;315(18):1966-1974. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.5352.

---

Dr. Stubblefield is a pediatric hospitalist at Nemours/Alfred I. Dupont Hospital for Children in Wilmington, Del., and assistant professor of pediatrics at Thomas Jefferson Medical College in Philadelphia.

Clinical Question: Is diluted apple juice inferior to apple-flavored electrolyte oral rehydration solution in children with mild dehydration due to acute gastroenteritis?

Background: In the setting of acute gastroenteritis, teaching has classically been that the simple sugars in juice and sports drinks can worsen diarrhea and that they could cause hyponatremia since they are not isotonic. Due to this, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends an electrolyte oral rehydration solution for children with dehydration and acute gastroenteritis. These solutions are more expensive and less palatable than juices. The authors sought to determine if diluted apple juice versus electrolyte oral rehydration fluid decreased the need for IV fluids, hospitalization, return visits, prolonged symptoms, or ongoing dehydration in mildly dehydrated children with acute gastroenteritis.

Study Design: Randomized single-blind non-inferiority prospective trial.

Setting: Single large tertiary-care pediatric emergency room.

Synopsis: Over five years, 3,668 patients were identified. Inclusion criteria were age >6 months or 8 kg of weight; Clinical Dehydration Scale score

Patients were challenged with small aliquots of these solutions and given ondansetron if they vomited. Upon discharge, they were sent home with 2 L of their solution. In the control arm, families were instructed to use this solution to make up for any ongoing losses. In the experimental arm, families were instructed to provide whatever fluids they would prefer. Follow-up was via phone, mail, and in-person reassessments. Patients were considered to have failed treatment if they required hospitalization, IV fluids, or a repeat unscheduled visit to a physician or experienced diarrhea lasting more than seven days or worsening dehydration on follow-up.

In the experimental arm, 16.7% of patients failed treatment (95% CI, 12.8%–21.2%) compared to 25% in the control arm (95% CI, 20.4%–30.1%; P < 0.001 for non-inferiority, P = .006 for superiority). The experimental arm also required IV fluids (2.5% versus 9%) significantly less often, though without a significantly decreased rate of hospitalization. These differences were present primarily in children >24 months old. No difference in the frequency of diarrheal stools was found, and no episodes of significant hyponatremia occurred.

Bottom Line: Giving children with mild dehydration due to acute gastroenteritis diluted apple juice and preferred fluids rather than the currently recommended electrolyte oral rehydration solution leads to decreased treatment failures and decreased need for IV fluids. There was no evidence of worsened diarrhea or significant hyponatremia.

Citation: Freedman SB, Willan AR, Boutis K, Schuh S. Effect of dilute apple juice and preferred fluids vs electrolyte maintenance solution on treatment failure among children with mild gastroenteritis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2016;315(18):1966-1974. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.5352.

---

Dr. Stubblefield is a pediatric hospitalist at Nemours/Alfred I. Dupont Hospital for Children in Wilmington, Del., and assistant professor of pediatrics at Thomas Jefferson Medical College in Philadelphia.

Clinical Question: Which oral anticoagulants are safest and most effective in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation?

Background: Use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) has been increasing since their introduction and widespread marketing. While dosing is a challenge for warfarin, certain medical conditions limit the use of DOACs. Choosing the optimal oral anticoagulant is challenging with the increasing complexity of patients.

Study Design: Nationwide observational cohort study.

Setting: Three national Danish databases, from August 2011 to October 2015.

Synopsis: Authors reviewed data from 61,678 patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation who were new to oral anticoagulants. The study compared the efficacy, safety, and patient characteristics of DOACs and warfarin. Ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, and death were evaluated separately and as a composite measure of efficacy. Any bleeding, intracranial bleeding, and major bleeding were measured as safety outcomes. DOACs patients were younger and had lower CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED scores. No significant difference in risk of ischemic stroke was identified between DOACs and warfarin. Rivaroxaban was associated with lower rates of ischemic stroke and systemic embolism but had bleeding rates that were similar to warfarin. Any bleeding and major bleeding rates were lowest for dabigatran and apixaban. All-cause mortality was lowest in the dabigatran group and highest in the warfarin group.

Limitations were the retrospective, observational study design, with an average follow-up of only 1.9 years.

Bottom Line: All DOACs appear to be safer and more effective alternatives to warfarin. Oral anticoagulant selection needs to be based on individual patient clinical profile.

Citation: Larsen TB, Skjoth F, Nielsen PB, Kjaeldgaard JN, Lip GY. Comparative effectiveness and safety of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants and warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation: propensity weighted nationwide cohort study. BMJ. 2016;353:i3189.

Short Take

Mortality and Long-Acting Opiates

This retrospective cohort study raises questions about the safety of long-acting opioids for chronic noncancer pain. When compared with anticonvulsants or antidepressants, the adjusted hazard ratio was 1.64 for total mortality.

Citation: Ray W, Chung CP, Murray KT, Hall K, Stein CM. Prescription of long-acting opioids and mortality in patients with chronic noncancer pain. JAMA. 2016;315(22):2415-2423.

Clinical Question: Which oral anticoagulants are safest and most effective in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation?

Background: Use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) has been increasing since their introduction and widespread marketing. While dosing is a challenge for warfarin, certain medical conditions limit the use of DOACs. Choosing the optimal oral anticoagulant is challenging with the increasing complexity of patients.

Study Design: Nationwide observational cohort study.

Setting: Three national Danish databases, from August 2011 to October 2015.

Synopsis: Authors reviewed data from 61,678 patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation who were new to oral anticoagulants. The study compared the efficacy, safety, and patient characteristics of DOACs and warfarin. Ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, and death were evaluated separately and as a composite measure of efficacy. Any bleeding, intracranial bleeding, and major bleeding were measured as safety outcomes. DOACs patients were younger and had lower CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED scores. No significant difference in risk of ischemic stroke was identified between DOACs and warfarin. Rivaroxaban was associated with lower rates of ischemic stroke and systemic embolism but had bleeding rates that were similar to warfarin. Any bleeding and major bleeding rates were lowest for dabigatran and apixaban. All-cause mortality was lowest in the dabigatran group and highest in the warfarin group.

Limitations were the retrospective, observational study design, with an average follow-up of only 1.9 years.

Bottom Line: All DOACs appear to be safer and more effective alternatives to warfarin. Oral anticoagulant selection needs to be based on individual patient clinical profile.

Citation: Larsen TB, Skjoth F, Nielsen PB, Kjaeldgaard JN, Lip GY. Comparative effectiveness and safety of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants and warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation: propensity weighted nationwide cohort study. BMJ. 2016;353:i3189.

Short Take

Mortality and Long-Acting Opiates

This retrospective cohort study raises questions about the safety of long-acting opioids for chronic noncancer pain. When compared with anticonvulsants or antidepressants, the adjusted hazard ratio was 1.64 for total mortality.

Citation: Ray W, Chung CP, Murray KT, Hall K, Stein CM. Prescription of long-acting opioids and mortality in patients with chronic noncancer pain. JAMA. 2016;315(22):2415-2423.

Clinical Question: Which oral anticoagulants are safest and most effective in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation?

Background: Use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) has been increasing since their introduction and widespread marketing. While dosing is a challenge for warfarin, certain medical conditions limit the use of DOACs. Choosing the optimal oral anticoagulant is challenging with the increasing complexity of patients.

Study Design: Nationwide observational cohort study.

Setting: Three national Danish databases, from August 2011 to October 2015.

Synopsis: Authors reviewed data from 61,678 patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation who were new to oral anticoagulants. The study compared the efficacy, safety, and patient characteristics of DOACs and warfarin. Ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, and death were evaluated separately and as a composite measure of efficacy. Any bleeding, intracranial bleeding, and major bleeding were measured as safety outcomes. DOACs patients were younger and had lower CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED scores. No significant difference in risk of ischemic stroke was identified between DOACs and warfarin. Rivaroxaban was associated with lower rates of ischemic stroke and systemic embolism but had bleeding rates that were similar to warfarin. Any bleeding and major bleeding rates were lowest for dabigatran and apixaban. All-cause mortality was lowest in the dabigatran group and highest in the warfarin group.

Limitations were the retrospective, observational study design, with an average follow-up of only 1.9 years.

Bottom Line: All DOACs appear to be safer and more effective alternatives to warfarin. Oral anticoagulant selection needs to be based on individual patient clinical profile.

Citation: Larsen TB, Skjoth F, Nielsen PB, Kjaeldgaard JN, Lip GY. Comparative effectiveness and safety of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants and warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation: propensity weighted nationwide cohort study. BMJ. 2016;353:i3189.

Short Take

Mortality and Long-Acting Opiates

This retrospective cohort study raises questions about the safety of long-acting opioids for chronic noncancer pain. When compared with anticonvulsants or antidepressants, the adjusted hazard ratio was 1.64 for total mortality.

Citation: Ray W, Chung CP, Murray KT, Hall K, Stein CM. Prescription of long-acting opioids and mortality in patients with chronic noncancer pain. JAMA. 2016;315(22):2415-2423.

Clinical Question: Does naloxone co-prescription for patients on long-term opioids for pain prevent opioid-related adverse events?

Background: Unintentional opioid overdose is a major public health issue. Studies have shown that provision of naloxone to at-risk patients reduces mortality and improves survival. The CDC recommends considering naloxone prescription in high-risk patients. This study focused on patient education and prescription habits of providers rather than just making naloxone available.

Study Design: Non-randomized interventional study.

Setting: Six safety-net primary-care clinics in San Francisco.

Synopsis: The authors identified 1,985 adults on long-term opioid treatment, of which 759 were prescribed naloxone. Providers were encouraged to prescribe naloxone along with opioids. Patients were educated about use of the intranasal naloxone device. Outcomes included opioid-related emergency department visits and prescribed dosage. They noted that patients on a higher dose of opioids and with opioid-related ED visits in the prior 12 months were more likely to be prescribed naloxone. When compared to patients who were not prescribed naloxone, patients who received naloxone had 47% fewer ED visits per month in the first six months and 63% fewer ED visits over 12 months. Limitations include lack of randomization and being a single-center study.

Hospitalists can prioritize patients and consider providing naloxone prescription to reduce ED visits and perhaps readmissions. Further studies are needed focusing on patients who get discharged from the hospital.

Bottom Line: Naloxone prescription in patients on long-term opioid treatment may prevent opioid-related ED visits.

Citation: Coffin PO, Behar E, Rowe C, et al. Nonrandomized intervention study of naloxone coprescription for primary care patients receiving long-term opioid therapy for pain. Ann Intern Med. 2016;165(4):245-252.

Short Take

Mortality and Long-Acting Opiates

This retrospective cohort study raises questions about the safety of long-acting opioids for chronic noncancer pain. When compared with anticonvulsants or antidepressants, the adjusted hazard ratio was 1.64 for total mortality.

Citation: Ray W, Chung CP, Murray KT, Hall K, Stein CM. Prescription of long-acting opioids and mortality in patients with chronic noncancer pain. JAMA. 2016;315(22):2415-2423.

Clinical Question: Does naloxone co-prescription for patients on long-term opioids for pain prevent opioid-related adverse events?

Background: Unintentional opioid overdose is a major public health issue. Studies have shown that provision of naloxone to at-risk patients reduces mortality and improves survival. The CDC recommends considering naloxone prescription in high-risk patients. This study focused on patient education and prescription habits of providers rather than just making naloxone available.

Study Design: Non-randomized interventional study.

Setting: Six safety-net primary-care clinics in San Francisco.

Synopsis: The authors identified 1,985 adults on long-term opioid treatment, of which 759 were prescribed naloxone. Providers were encouraged to prescribe naloxone along with opioids. Patients were educated about use of the intranasal naloxone device. Outcomes included opioid-related emergency department visits and prescribed dosage. They noted that patients on a higher dose of opioids and with opioid-related ED visits in the prior 12 months were more likely to be prescribed naloxone. When compared to patients who were not prescribed naloxone, patients who received naloxone had 47% fewer ED visits per month in the first six months and 63% fewer ED visits over 12 months. Limitations include lack of randomization and being a single-center study.

Hospitalists can prioritize patients and consider providing naloxone prescription to reduce ED visits and perhaps readmissions. Further studies are needed focusing on patients who get discharged from the hospital.

Bottom Line: Naloxone prescription in patients on long-term opioid treatment may prevent opioid-related ED visits.

Citation: Coffin PO, Behar E, Rowe C, et al. Nonrandomized intervention study of naloxone coprescription for primary care patients receiving long-term opioid therapy for pain. Ann Intern Med. 2016;165(4):245-252.

Short Take

Mortality and Long-Acting Opiates

This retrospective cohort study raises questions about the safety of long-acting opioids for chronic noncancer pain. When compared with anticonvulsants or antidepressants, the adjusted hazard ratio was 1.64 for total mortality.

Citation: Ray W, Chung CP, Murray KT, Hall K, Stein CM. Prescription of long-acting opioids and mortality in patients with chronic noncancer pain. JAMA. 2016;315(22):2415-2423.

Clinical Question: Does naloxone co-prescription for patients on long-term opioids for pain prevent opioid-related adverse events?

Background: Unintentional opioid overdose is a major public health issue. Studies have shown that provision of naloxone to at-risk patients reduces mortality and improves survival. The CDC recommends considering naloxone prescription in high-risk patients. This study focused on patient education and prescription habits of providers rather than just making naloxone available.

Study Design: Non-randomized interventional study.

Setting: Six safety-net primary-care clinics in San Francisco.

Synopsis: The authors identified 1,985 adults on long-term opioid treatment, of which 759 were prescribed naloxone. Providers were encouraged to prescribe naloxone along with opioids. Patients were educated about use of the intranasal naloxone device. Outcomes included opioid-related emergency department visits and prescribed dosage. They noted that patients on a higher dose of opioids and with opioid-related ED visits in the prior 12 months were more likely to be prescribed naloxone. When compared to patients who were not prescribed naloxone, patients who received naloxone had 47% fewer ED visits per month in the first six months and 63% fewer ED visits over 12 months. Limitations include lack of randomization and being a single-center study.

Hospitalists can prioritize patients and consider providing naloxone prescription to reduce ED visits and perhaps readmissions. Further studies are needed focusing on patients who get discharged from the hospital.

Bottom Line: Naloxone prescription in patients on long-term opioid treatment may prevent opioid-related ED visits.

Citation: Coffin PO, Behar E, Rowe C, et al. Nonrandomized intervention study of naloxone coprescription for primary care patients receiving long-term opioid therapy for pain. Ann Intern Med. 2016;165(4):245-252.

Short Take

Mortality and Long-Acting Opiates

This retrospective cohort study raises questions about the safety of long-acting opioids for chronic noncancer pain. When compared with anticonvulsants or antidepressants, the adjusted hazard ratio was 1.64 for total mortality.

Citation: Ray W, Chung CP, Murray KT, Hall K, Stein CM. Prescription of long-acting opioids and mortality in patients with chronic noncancer pain. JAMA. 2016;315(22):2415-2423.

The Joint Council of Pediatric Hospital Medicine (JCPHM), successor to the Strategic Planning (STP) Committee, recently recommended submitting a petition for two-year pediatric hospital medicine (PHM) fellowship certification to the American Board of Pediatrics (ABP), which was completed in 2014. In December 2015, the ABP Board of Directors voted to (1) approve the proposal for a two-year PHM fellowship incorporating scholarly activity with the provision that entrustable professional activities (EPAs) be used as the framework for assessing competencies and (2) not require those who achieve and maintain PHM certification to maintain general pediatrics certification. The proposal for certification of a two-year PHM fellowship will now be submitted to the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS). Concerns regarding the formal certification of PHM as an ABMS-recognized subspecialty have been raised by many stakeholders, including community pediatric hospitalists, pediatric residency program directors, and med-peds physicians.

We feel that the “first, do no harm” guiding principle seems to have been forgotten by the ABP as it attempts to formalize the training of pediatric hospitalists. In December 2015, the ABP voted in favor of a two-year ACGME-accredited PHM fellowship. The intent was to “assure the best care of hospitalized children,” “assure the public,” “accelerate improvements and innovation in quality improvement,” and “raise the level of care of all hospitalized children by establishing best practices in clinical care.” To be clear, these goals are shared by all of us (although there is no indication that the public is seeking additional assurance). Prior to launching broad-scale, time-intensive, and financially costly initiatives, we should ensure that our efforts would achieve—rather than obstruct—their intended aims. In addition to a lack of evidence supporting that subspecialty certification will advance our path toward achieving these goals, there are numerous reasons a required PHM fellowship is unnecessary and potentially even harmful to the hospitalist workforce. The negative unintended consequences need to be weighed heavily.

We have found no data to support that children would receive inferior inpatient care from pediatric hospitalists due to lack of formal certification. Hospital medicine physicians are paving the way in quality improvement, high-value care, medical education, palliative care, and global health, supported in part through training in various non-accredited hospital medicine fellowships. There is nothing stopping pediatric hospitalists from establishing and disseminating best practices in clinical care. Hospitalists are already making strides in providing high-quality care at low costs, as demonstrated by the abundant PHM scholarly work described in the ABP application to the ABMS. The alleged problem of needing to build trust within the community is yet to be demonstrated, as we have leaders at local, regional, and national levels. The chief medical officer of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is a hospitalist as is our surgeon general. Hospital medicine is the fastest-growing specialty in the history of medicine,1 and we should seek to propel rather than fetter our future colleagues.

Below are our reasons for opposing this formal certification.

We already have a fellowship system.

As we all know, advanced training opportunities already exist for those interested in pursuing extra research and quality improvement training. Similar to other pediatric subspecialty fellowships, these PHM fellowships are undersubscribed (20% of PHM fellowships did not fill in 2016),2 with the majority of graduating pediatric residents transitioning to hospitalists opting not to pursue fellowship training. We should continue to let graduating pediatric residents vote with their feet without the undue influence of subspecialty certification.

Subspecialization has opportunity costs that may reduce the PHM pipeline.

Even if we assume an adequate number of fellowship programs could be developed and funded, our fear is that the decision to turn PHM into an accredited subspecialty could paradoxically reduce the pipeline of inpatient providers. Residency is already a three- to four-year endeavor (pediatrics and med-peds) that is poorly compensated and time-intensive. In the absence of evidence supporting the value of additional training, tacking on another two years seems unreasonable in the face of the student loan debt crisis, reduced compensation, and lost time for career advancement. These are significant opportunity costs. While most specialties lead to a significant pay raise to compensate for the added training time, pediatrics remains the lowest-paid physician specialty.3 Should PHM follow the trend of most pediatric subspecialties, pursuit of fellowship training would be a negative financial decision for residency graduates.4 For the health system, increasing debt-to-income ratios runs the risk of creating a medical education bubble market.5

 

More than 25% of med-peds graduates pursue careers in hospital medicine, a percentage that continues to grow, accounting for more than 100 new hospitalists per year.6 As a result, med-peds-trained hospitalists constitute more than 10% of the pediatric hospitalist workforce.6 Requiring PHM fellowship training may reduce this crucial pipeline of practitioners. In a 2014 unpublished survey of 225 med-peds practitioners, 78% of residents and 96% of attendings responded that they would not consider pursuing an ACGME-accredited PHM fellowship.7 This is compounded by a lack of parity with the practice of adult hospital medicine both in compensation and required training and is heightened by the fact that the training in question does not incorporate care for adult patients. There is clear consensus by 96% of med-peds hospitalists that the creation of an ACGME-certified PHM subspecialty will negatively affect the likelihood of med-peds providers pursuing PHM.7

Certification will pose a potential risk to specific patient populations.

We are also concerned that a reduced PHM workforce could disproportionately impact young adults with special healthcare needs and those children cared for in rural or community-based hospitals. Med-peds training equips providers to care for children with chronic diseases that then transition into adulthood; more than 25% provide care for young adults with special healthcare needs.6 With the increasing number of children with chronic health conditions surviving into adulthood,8 med-peds hospitalists serve essential roles in providing care and coordination for this vulnerable population. Furthermore, hospital medicine groups in medical systems that cannot support a full-time categorical pediatric hospitalist tend to employ med-peds physicians or family practitioners. Concerns with PHM certification are thus extended to those family medicine physicians who practice PHM.

Pediatric residency trains pediatricians in inpatient care.

We feel that the decision to move forward on PHM subspecialty certification calls into question the value of pediatric residency training. There is no evidence that clinical inpatient training in pediatrics residency is inadequate. If one leaves residency trained to do anything, it is practicing hospital medicine. A significant portion of residency takes place inpatient, both on wards and in the intensive care units. The 2009 ABP Foundation–funded study of PHM reported that 94% of pediatric hospitalist respondents rated their training in general clinical skills during residency as fully adequate, 85% rated their training in communication skills as fully adequate, and 73% did not believe any additional training beyond residency should be required.9 With respect to med-peds graduates, more than 90% feel equipped to care for children and adults upon residency completion.10 If the ABMS carries forward with this decision, the only clinical work one would be “certified” to do after residency is primary care. However, after completion of residency training, most of us feel at least as comfortable, if not more comfortable, caring for children in the inpatient setting.

Primary care should require subspecialty certification as well.

Furthermore, the decision to create a certified subspecialty begs the question as to why fellowship should not be mandated for those entering the field of primary care. Does the field of primary care not require research to move it forward? Does the field of primary care not require providers who can adeptly apply quality improvement methodologies to improve primary-care delivery? Does the public not require the same type of assurance? By these measures, primary care should require subspecialty certification as well. These arguments could easily be construed as an indictment of residency training.

The target should be residency training.

The PHM ABMS application describes a clinical curriculum consisting of eight core clinical rotations in various settings. That small number emphasizes the fact that extra clinical training is really not needed and that we do not require a complete overhaul of the current training system. The skills in question for the accredited PHM fellowship include communication, negotiation, leadership, quality improvement, pain management, sedation, procedures, transport, billing/coding, autonomous decision making, and scholarly practice. Are most of these not skills that we should foster in all practicing pediatricians? If graduating pediatric residents lack competence in core pediatric skills (e.g., communication, pain management, autonomous decision making), we should target improvements in residency education rather than require years of further training. Pediatrics residency training already requires training in quality improvement and is incorporating “tracks” that target areas of perceived deficiency. Those physicians who actually require specialized hospital-based skills (e.g., sedation, procedures, and transport) could receive core training during residency (e.g., through PHM tracks or electives) and further hone these skills through faculty development efforts. While non-PhD researchers may benefit from additional training in research methodologies, this training comes at the expense of time spent caring for patients on the wards and should not be required training for the majority of pediatric hospitalists pursuing purely clinical roles.

 

Broad-based support for a PHM subspecialty has not been demonstrated.

While approximately 40 pediatric hospitalists originated the PHM certification petition, we have not seen clear support for subspecialty certification from the community. PHM certification runs the risk of alienating the general pediatrics community, as many outpatient pediatricians continue to care for their patients in the inpatient setting. Furthermore, at tertiary-care medical centers, pediatric subspecialists often serve as hospitalists, yet this stakeholder group has not entered into this conversation. Importantly, the Association of Pediatric Program Directors (APPD) did not endorse this proposal. Many of the APPD members were quite concerned about the harm this certification could cause. While the APA Board and the AAP Board of Directors support PHM subspecialty certification, it is not clear that the rank-and-file members do. The Society of Hospital Medicine did not support or oppose certification. In an era of controversy surrounding certification requirements, prior to making a decision that will alter the direction of an entire field and impact all future residency graduates interested in entering that field, we should ensure there is broad-based support for this decision.

An alternative path has already been established and validated.

A more prudent, cost-effective, and universally acceptable approach would be to follow in the footsteps of the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) and American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM) in establishing a Focused Practice in Pediatric Hospital Medicine program. This approach respects the unique body of knowledge required of those who care for hospitalized children while maintaining the required flexibility to nurture and help to mature existing training pipelines. Core hospital medicine skills should be further honed through residency curricular changes and faculty development efforts, while hospital-based physicians interested in developing niche skills could still do so via already existing fellowships.

When it comes to pediatric hospital medicine, first, do no harm.

Pediatric hospitalists are inpatient generalists by training and clinical approach. Our practices vary from large academic medical centers with every imaginable subspecialty consult service available to remote rural settings that require hospitalists to possess unique and specific skills. Some pediatric hospitalists participate in newborn care, some perform sedations, and some perform a variety of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. The current system is meeting the needs of the vast majority of our PHM community. Changes to the residency curriculum that are already under way can address any clinical and quality improvement gaps. More than enough PHM fellowships are available to those who choose to pursue them. The public is not requesting reassurance, and the field is already advancing at a rapid rate both clinically and scholarly. Subspecialty recognition is not necessary and will likely lead to negative unintended consequences. Given the financial constraints on our current system and the need for pediatric hospitalists to be stewards of high-value care, we should make collective decisions that will clearly benefit our patients and health system. As medical professionals, our priority should always be first, do no harm.

Weijen W. Chang, MD, is chief of the Division of Pediatric Hospital Medicine at Baystate Children’s Hospital and associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Massachusetts Medical School.

Leonard Samuel Feldman, MD, is director of the Medicine-Pediatrics Urban Health Residency Program and associate professor of medicine and pediatrics at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine.

Bradley Monash, MD, is associate chief of medicine at University of California, San Francisco and assistant clinical professor of medicine and pediatrics at UCSF School of Medicine.

Archna Eniasivam, MD, is assistant clinical professor of medicine at UCSF School of Medicine.

References

1. Chen C, Eagle S. “Should Pediatric HM Pursue Subspecialty Certification, Required Fellowship Training?” The Hospitalist. July 31, 2012
2. Results and Data: Specialties Matching Service 2016 Appointment Year. National Resident Matching Program website. Accessed May 15, 2016.
3. Medscape Pediatrician Compensation Report 2015. Medscape website.  Accessed April 29, 2016.
4. Rochlin JM, Simon HK. Does fellowship pay: what is the long-term financial impact of subspecialty training in pediatrics? Pediatrics. 2001;127(2):254-260.
5. Asch DA, Nicholson S, Vujicic M. Are we in a medical education bubble market? N Engl J Med. 2013;369(21):1973-1975.
6. O’Toole JK, Friedland AR, Gonzaga AM, et al. The practice patterns of recently graduated internal medicine-pediatric hospitalists. Hosp Pediatr. 2015;5(6):309-314.
7. Society of Hospital Medicine: Survey of Med-Peds Physicians about PHM Certification. May 2014 (unpublished).
8. Goodman DM, Hall M, Levin A, et al. Adults with chronic health conditions originating in childhood: inpatient experience in children’s hospitals. Pediatrics. 2011;128(1):5-13.
9. Freed GL, Dunham KM, Research Advisory Committee of the American Board of P. Pediatric hospitalists: training, current practice, and career goals. J Hosp Med. 2009;4(3):179-186.
10. Donnelly MJ, Lubrano L, Radabaugh CL, Lukela MP, Friedland AR, Ruch-Ross HS. The med-peds hospitalist workforce: results from the American Academy of Pediatrics Workforce Survey. Hosp Pediatr. 2015;5(11):574-579.

The Joint Council of Pediatric Hospital Medicine (JCPHM), successor to the Strategic Planning (STP) Committee, recently recommended submitting a petition for two-year pediatric hospital medicine (PHM) fellowship certification to the American Board of Pediatrics (ABP), which was completed in 2014. In December 2015, the ABP Board of Directors voted to (1) approve the proposal for a two-year PHM fellowship incorporating scholarly activity with the provision that entrustable professional activities (EPAs) be used as the framework for assessing competencies and (2) not require those who achieve and maintain PHM certification to maintain general pediatrics certification. The proposal for certification of a two-year PHM fellowship will now be submitted to the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS). Concerns regarding the formal certification of PHM as an ABMS-recognized subspecialty have been raised by many stakeholders, including community pediatric hospitalists, pediatric residency program directors, and med-peds physicians.

We feel that the “first, do no harm” guiding principle seems to have been forgotten by the ABP as it attempts to formalize the training of pediatric hospitalists. In December 2015, the ABP voted in favor of a two-year ACGME-accredited PHM fellowship. The intent was to “assure the best care of hospitalized children,” “assure the public,” “accelerate improvements and innovation in quality improvement,” and “raise the level of care of all hospitalized children by establishing best practices in clinical care.” To be clear, these goals are shared by all of us (although there is no indication that the public is seeking additional assurance). Prior to launching broad-scale, time-intensive, and financially costly initiatives, we should ensure that our efforts would achieve—rather than obstruct—their intended aims. In addition to a lack of evidence supporting that subspecialty certification will advance our path toward achieving these goals, there are numerous reasons a required PHM fellowship is unnecessary and potentially even harmful to the hospitalist workforce. The negative unintended consequences need to be weighed heavily.

We have found no data to support that children would receive inferior inpatient care from pediatric hospitalists due to lack of formal certification. Hospital medicine physicians are paving the way in quality improvement, high-value care, medical education, palliative care, and global health, supported in part through training in various non-accredited hospital medicine fellowships. There is nothing stopping pediatric hospitalists from establishing and disseminating best practices in clinical care. Hospitalists are already making strides in providing high-quality care at low costs, as demonstrated by the abundant PHM scholarly work described in the ABP application to the ABMS. The alleged problem of needing to build trust within the community is yet to be demonstrated, as we have leaders at local, regional, and national levels. The chief medical officer of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is a hospitalist as is our surgeon general. Hospital medicine is the fastest-growing specialty in the history of medicine,1 and we should seek to propel rather than fetter our future colleagues.

Below are our reasons for opposing this formal certification.

We already have a fellowship system.

As we all know, advanced training opportunities already exist for those interested in pursuing extra research and quality improvement training. Similar to other pediatric subspecialty fellowships, these PHM fellowships are undersubscribed (20% of PHM fellowships did not fill in 2016),2 with the majority of graduating pediatric residents transitioning to hospitalists opting not to pursue fellowship training. We should continue to let graduating pediatric residents vote with their feet without the undue influence of subspecialty certification.

Subspecialization has opportunity costs that may reduce the PHM pipeline.

Even if we assume an adequate number of fellowship programs could be developed and funded, our fear is that the decision to turn PHM into an accredited subspecialty could paradoxically reduce the pipeline of inpatient providers. Residency is already a three- to four-year endeavor (pediatrics and med-peds) that is poorly compensated and time-intensive. In the absence of evidence supporting the value of additional training, tacking on another two years seems unreasonable in the face of the student loan debt crisis, reduced compensation, and lost time for career advancement. These are significant opportunity costs. While most specialties lead to a significant pay raise to compensate for the added training time, pediatrics remains the lowest-paid physician specialty.3 Should PHM follow the trend of most pediatric subspecialties, pursuit of fellowship training would be a negative financial decision for residency graduates.4 For the health system, increasing debt-to-income ratios runs the risk of creating a medical education bubble market.5

 

More than 25% of med-peds graduates pursue careers in hospital medicine, a percentage that continues to grow, accounting for more than 100 new hospitalists per year.6 As a result, med-peds-trained hospitalists constitute more than 10% of the pediatric hospitalist workforce.6 Requiring PHM fellowship training may reduce this crucial pipeline of practitioners. In a 2014 unpublished survey of 225 med-peds practitioners, 78% of residents and 96% of attendings responded that they would not consider pursuing an ACGME-accredited PHM fellowship.7 This is compounded by a lack of parity with the practice of adult hospital medicine both in compensation and required training and is heightened by the fact that the training in question does not incorporate care for adult patients. There is clear consensus by 96% of med-peds hospitalists that the creation of an ACGME-certified PHM subspecialty will negatively affect the likelihood of med-peds providers pursuing PHM.7

Certification will pose a potential risk to specific patient populations.

We are also concerned that a reduced PHM workforce could disproportionately impact young adults with special healthcare needs and those children cared for in rural or community-based hospitals. Med-peds training equips providers to care for children with chronic diseases that then transition into adulthood; more than 25% provide care for young adults with special healthcare needs.6 With the increasing number of children with chronic health conditions surviving into adulthood,8 med-peds hospitalists serve essential roles in providing care and coordination for this vulnerable population. Furthermore, hospital medicine groups in medical systems that cannot support a full-time categorical pediatric hospitalist tend to employ med-peds physicians or family practitioners. Concerns with PHM certification are thus extended to those family medicine physicians who practice PHM.

Pediatric residency trains pediatricians in inpatient care.

We feel that the decision to move forward on PHM subspecialty certification calls into question the value of pediatric residency training. There is no evidence that clinical inpatient training in pediatrics residency is inadequate. If one leaves residency trained to do anything, it is practicing hospital medicine. A significant portion of residency takes place inpatient, both on wards and in the intensive care units. The 2009 ABP Foundation–funded study of PHM reported that 94% of pediatric hospitalist respondents rated their training in general clinical skills during residency as fully adequate, 85% rated their training in communication skills as fully adequate, and 73% did not believe any additional training beyond residency should be required.9 With respect to med-peds graduates, more than 90% feel equipped to care for children and adults upon residency completion.10 If the ABMS carries forward with this decision, the only clinical work one would be “certified” to do after residency is primary care. However, after completion of residency training, most of us feel at least as comfortable, if not more comfortable, caring for children in the inpatient setting.

Primary care should require subspecialty certification as well.

Furthermore, the decision to create a certified subspecialty begs the question as to why fellowship should not be mandated for those entering the field of primary care. Does the field of primary care not require research to move it forward? Does the field of primary care not require providers who can adeptly apply quality improvement methodologies to improve primary-care delivery? Does the public not require the same type of assurance? By these measures, primary care should require subspecialty certification as well. These arguments could easily be construed as an indictment of residency training.

The target should be residency training.

The PHM ABMS application describes a clinical curriculum consisting of eight core clinical rotations in various settings. That small number emphasizes the fact that extra clinical training is really not needed and that we do not require a complete overhaul of the current training system. The skills in question for the accredited PHM fellowship include communication, negotiation, leadership, quality improvement, pain management, sedation, procedures, transport, billing/coding, autonomous decision making, and scholarly practice. Are most of these not skills that we should foster in all practicing pediatricians? If graduating pediatric residents lack competence in core pediatric skills (e.g., communication, pain management, autonomous decision making), we should target improvements in residency education rather than require years of further training. Pediatrics residency training already requires training in quality improvement and is incorporating “tracks” that target areas of perceived deficiency. Those physicians who actually require specialized hospital-based skills (e.g., sedation, procedures, and transport) could receive core training during residency (e.g., through PHM tracks or electives) and further hone these skills through faculty development efforts. While non-PhD researchers may benefit from additional training in research methodologies, this training comes at the expense of time spent caring for patients on the wards and should not be required training for the majority of pediatric hospitalists pursuing purely clinical roles.

 

Broad-based support for a PHM subspecialty has not been demonstrated.

While approximately 40 pediatric hospitalists originated the PHM certification petition, we have not seen clear support for subspecialty certification from the community. PHM certification runs the risk of alienating the general pediatrics community, as many outpatient pediatricians continue to care for their patients in the inpatient setting. Furthermore, at tertiary-care medical centers, pediatric subspecialists often serve as hospitalists, yet this stakeholder group has not entered into this conversation. Importantly, the Association of Pediatric Program Directors (APPD) did not endorse this proposal. Many of the APPD members were quite concerned about the harm this certification could cause. While the APA Board and the AAP Board of Directors support PHM subspecialty certification, it is not clear that the rank-and-file members do. The Society of Hospital Medicine did not support or oppose certification. In an era of controversy surrounding certification requirements, prior to making a decision that will alter the direction of an entire field and impact all future residency graduates interested in entering that field, we should ensure there is broad-based support for this decision.

An alternative path has already been established and validated.

A more prudent, cost-effective, and universally acceptable approach would be to follow in the footsteps of the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) and American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM) in establishing a Focused Practice in Pediatric Hospital Medicine program. This approach respects the unique body of knowledge required of those who care for hospitalized children while maintaining the required flexibility to nurture and help to mature existing training pipelines. Core hospital medicine skills should be further honed through residency curricular changes and faculty development efforts, while hospital-based physicians interested in developing niche skills could still do so via already existing fellowships.

When it comes to pediatric hospital medicine, first, do no harm.

Pediatric hospitalists are inpatient generalists by training and clinical approach. Our practices vary from large academic medical centers with every imaginable subspecialty consult service available to remote rural settings that require hospitalists to possess unique and specific skills. Some pediatric hospitalists participate in newborn care, some perform sedations, and some perform a variety of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. The current system is meeting the needs of the vast majority of our PHM community. Changes to the residency curriculum that are already under way can address any clinical and quality improvement gaps. More than enough PHM fellowships are available to those who choose to pursue them. The public is not requesting reassurance, and the field is already advancing at a rapid rate both clinically and scholarly. Subspecialty recognition is not necessary and will likely lead to negative unintended consequences. Given the financial constraints on our current system and the need for pediatric hospitalists to be stewards of high-value care, we should make collective decisions that will clearly benefit our patients and health system. As medical professionals, our priority should always be first, do no harm.

Weijen W. Chang, MD, is chief of the Division of Pediatric Hospital Medicine at Baystate Children’s Hospital and associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Massachusetts Medical School.

Leonard Samuel Feldman, MD, is director of the Medicine-Pediatrics Urban Health Residency Program and associate professor of medicine and pediatrics at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine.

Bradley Monash, MD, is associate chief of medicine at University of California, San Francisco and assistant clinical professor of medicine and pediatrics at UCSF School of Medicine.

Archna Eniasivam, MD, is assistant clinical professor of medicine at UCSF School of Medicine.

References

1. Chen C, Eagle S. “Should Pediatric HM Pursue Subspecialty Certification, Required Fellowship Training?” The Hospitalist. July 31, 2012
2. Results and Data: Specialties Matching Service 2016 Appointment Year. National Resident Matching Program website. Accessed May 15, 2016.
3. Medscape Pediatrician Compensation Report 2015. Medscape website.  Accessed April 29, 2016.
4. Rochlin JM, Simon HK. Does fellowship pay: what is the long-term financial impact of subspecialty training in pediatrics? Pediatrics. 2001;127(2):254-260.
5. Asch DA, Nicholson S, Vujicic M. Are we in a medical education bubble market? N Engl J Med. 2013;369(21):1973-1975.
6. O’Toole JK, Friedland AR, Gonzaga AM, et al. The practice patterns of recently graduated internal medicine-pediatric hospitalists. Hosp Pediatr. 2015;5(6):309-314.
7. Society of Hospital Medicine: Survey of Med-Peds Physicians about PHM Certification. May 2014 (unpublished).
8. Goodman DM, Hall M, Levin A, et al. Adults with chronic health conditions originating in childhood: inpatient experience in children’s hospitals. Pediatrics. 2011;128(1):5-13.
9. Freed GL, Dunham KM, Research Advisory Committee of the American Board of P. Pediatric hospitalists: training, current practice, and career goals. J Hosp Med. 2009;4(3):179-186.
10. Donnelly MJ, Lubrano L, Radabaugh CL, Lukela MP, Friedland AR, Ruch-Ross HS. The med-peds hospitalist workforce: results from the American Academy of Pediatrics Workforce Survey. Hosp Pediatr. 2015;5(11):574-579.

The Joint Council of Pediatric Hospital Medicine (JCPHM), successor to the Strategic Planning (STP) Committee, recently recommended submitting a petition for two-year pediatric hospital medicine (PHM) fellowship certification to the American Board of Pediatrics (ABP), which was completed in 2014. In December 2015, the ABP Board of Directors voted to (1) approve the proposal for a two-year PHM fellowship incorporating scholarly activity with the provision that entrustable professional activities (EPAs) be used as the framework for assessing competencies and (2) not require those who achieve and maintain PHM certification to maintain general pediatrics certification. The proposal for certification of a two-year PHM fellowship will now be submitted to the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS). Concerns regarding the formal certification of PHM as an ABMS-recognized subspecialty have been raised by many stakeholders, including community pediatric hospitalists, pediatric residency program directors, and med-peds physicians.

We feel that the “first, do no harm” guiding principle seems to have been forgotten by the ABP as it attempts to formalize the training of pediatric hospitalists. In December 2015, the ABP voted in favor of a two-year ACGME-accredited PHM fellowship. The intent was to “assure the best care of hospitalized children,” “assure the public,” “accelerate improvements and innovation in quality improvement,” and “raise the level of care of all hospitalized children by establishing best practices in clinical care.” To be clear, these goals are shared by all of us (although there is no indication that the public is seeking additional assurance). Prior to launching broad-scale, time-intensive, and financially costly initiatives, we should ensure that our efforts would achieve—rather than obstruct—their intended aims. In addition to a lack of evidence supporting that subspecialty certification will advance our path toward achieving these goals, there are numerous reasons a required PHM fellowship is unnecessary and potentially even harmful to the hospitalist workforce. The negative unintended consequences need to be weighed heavily.

We have found no data to support that children would receive inferior inpatient care from pediatric hospitalists due to lack of formal certification. Hospital medicine physicians are paving the way in quality improvement, high-value care, medical education, palliative care, and global health, supported in part through training in various non-accredited hospital medicine fellowships. There is nothing stopping pediatric hospitalists from establishing and disseminating best practices in clinical care. Hospitalists are already making strides in providing high-quality care at low costs, as demonstrated by the abundant PHM scholarly work described in the ABP application to the ABMS. The alleged problem of needing to build trust within the community is yet to be demonstrated, as we have leaders at local, regional, and national levels. The chief medical officer of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is a hospitalist as is our surgeon general. Hospital medicine is the fastest-growing specialty in the history of medicine,1 and we should seek to propel rather than fetter our future colleagues.

Below are our reasons for opposing this formal certification.

We already have a fellowship system.

As we all know, advanced training opportunities already exist for those interested in pursuing extra research and quality improvement training. Similar to other pediatric subspecialty fellowships, these PHM fellowships are undersubscribed (20% of PHM fellowships did not fill in 2016),2 with the majority of graduating pediatric residents transitioning to hospitalists opting not to pursue fellowship training. We should continue to let graduating pediatric residents vote with their feet without the undue influence of subspecialty certification.

Subspecialization has opportunity costs that may reduce the PHM pipeline.

Even if we assume an adequate number of fellowship programs could be developed and funded, our fear is that the decision to turn PHM into an accredited subspecialty could paradoxically reduce the pipeline of inpatient providers. Residency is already a three- to four-year endeavor (pediatrics and med-peds) that is poorly compensated and time-intensive. In the absence of evidence supporting the value of additional training, tacking on another two years seems unreasonable in the face of the student loan debt crisis, reduced compensation, and lost time for career advancement. These are significant opportunity costs. While most specialties lead to a significant pay raise to compensate for the added training time, pediatrics remains the lowest-paid physician specialty.3 Should PHM follow the trend of most pediatric subspecialties, pursuit of fellowship training would be a negative financial decision for residency graduates.4 For the health system, increasing debt-to-income ratios runs the risk of creating a medical education bubble market.5

 

More than 25% of med-peds graduates pursue careers in hospital medicine, a percentage that continues to grow, accounting for more than 100 new hospitalists per year.6 As a result, med-peds-trained hospitalists constitute more than 10% of the pediatric hospitalist workforce.6 Requiring PHM fellowship training may reduce this crucial pipeline of practitioners. In a 2014 unpublished survey of 225 med-peds practitioners, 78% of residents and 96% of attendings responded that they would not consider pursuing an ACGME-accredited PHM fellowship.7 This is compounded by a lack of parity with the practice of adult hospital medicine both in compensation and required training and is heightened by the fact that the training in question does not incorporate care for adult patients. There is clear consensus by 96% of med-peds hospitalists that the creation of an ACGME-certified PHM subspecialty will negatively affect the likelihood of med-peds providers pursuing PHM.7

Certification will pose a potential risk to specific patient populations.

We are also concerned that a reduced PHM workforce could disproportionately impact young adults with special healthcare needs and those children cared for in rural or community-based hospitals. Med-peds training equips providers to care for children with chronic diseases that then transition into adulthood; more than 25% provide care for young adults with special healthcare needs.6 With the increasing number of children with chronic health conditions surviving into adulthood,8 med-peds hospitalists serve essential roles in providing care and coordination for this vulnerable population. Furthermore, hospital medicine groups in medical systems that cannot support a full-time categorical pediatric hospitalist tend to employ med-peds physicians or family practitioners. Concerns with PHM certification are thus extended to those family medicine physicians who practice PHM.

Pediatric residency trains pediatricians in inpatient care.

We feel that the decision to move forward on PHM subspecialty certification calls into question the value of pediatric residency training. There is no evidence that clinical inpatient training in pediatrics residency is inadequate. If one leaves residency trained to do anything, it is practicing hospital medicine. A significant portion of residency takes place inpatient, both on wards and in the intensive care units. The 2009 ABP Foundation–funded study of PHM reported that 94% of pediatric hospitalist respondents rated their training in general clinical skills during residency as fully adequate, 85% rated their training in communication skills as fully adequate, and 73% did not believe any additional training beyond residency should be required.9 With respect to med-peds graduates, more than 90% feel equipped to care for children and adults upon residency completion.10 If the ABMS carries forward with this decision, the only clinical work one would be “certified” to do after residency is primary care. However, after completion of residency training, most of us feel at least as comfortable, if not more comfortable, caring for children in the inpatient setting.

Primary care should require subspecialty certification as well.

Furthermore, the decision to create a certified subspecialty begs the question as to why fellowship should not be mandated for those entering the field of primary care. Does the field of primary care not require research to move it forward? Does the field of primary care not require providers who can adeptly apply quality improvement methodologies to improve primary-care delivery? Does the public not require the same type of assurance? By these measures, primary care should require subspecialty certification as well. These arguments could easily be construed as an indictment of residency training.

The target should be residency training.

The PHM ABMS application describes a clinical curriculum consisting of eight core clinical rotations in various settings. That small number emphasizes the fact that extra clinical training is really not needed and that we do not require a complete overhaul of the current training system. The skills in question for the accredited PHM fellowship include communication, negotiation, leadership, quality improvement, pain management, sedation, procedures, transport, billing/coding, autonomous decision making, and scholarly practice. Are most of these not skills that we should foster in all practicing pediatricians? If graduating pediatric residents lack competence in core pediatric skills (e.g., communication, pain management, autonomous decision making), we should target improvements in residency education rather than require years of further training. Pediatrics residency training already requires training in quality improvement and is incorporating “tracks” that target areas of perceived deficiency. Those physicians who actually require specialized hospital-based skills (e.g., sedation, procedures, and transport) could receive core training during residency (e.g., through PHM tracks or electives) and further hone these skills through faculty development efforts. While non-PhD researchers may benefit from additional training in research methodologies, this training comes at the expense of time spent caring for patients on the wards and should not be required training for the majority of pediatric hospitalists pursuing purely clinical roles.

 

Broad-based support for a PHM subspecialty has not been demonstrated.

While approximately 40 pediatric hospitalists originated the PHM certification petition, we have not seen clear support for subspecialty certification from the community. PHM certification runs the risk of alienating the general pediatrics community, as many outpatient pediatricians continue to care for their patients in the inpatient setting. Furthermore, at tertiary-care medical centers, pediatric subspecialists often serve as hospitalists, yet this stakeholder group has not entered into this conversation. Importantly, the Association of Pediatric Program Directors (APPD) did not endorse this proposal. Many of the APPD members were quite concerned about the harm this certification could cause. While the APA Board and the AAP Board of Directors support PHM subspecialty certification, it is not clear that the rank-and-file members do. The Society of Hospital Medicine did not support or oppose certification. In an era of controversy surrounding certification requirements, prior to making a decision that will alter the direction of an entire field and impact all future residency graduates interested in entering that field, we should ensure there is broad-based support for this decision.

An alternative path has already been established and validated.

A more prudent, cost-effective, and universally acceptable approach would be to follow in the footsteps of the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) and American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM) in establishing a Focused Practice in Pediatric Hospital Medicine program. This approach respects the unique body of knowledge required of those who care for hospitalized children while maintaining the required flexibility to nurture and help to mature existing training pipelines. Core hospital medicine skills should be further honed through residency curricular changes and faculty development efforts, while hospital-based physicians interested in developing niche skills could still do so via already existing fellowships.

When it comes to pediatric hospital medicine, first, do no harm.

Pediatric hospitalists are inpatient generalists by training and clinical approach. Our practices vary from large academic medical centers with every imaginable subspecialty consult service available to remote rural settings that require hospitalists to possess unique and specific skills. Some pediatric hospitalists participate in newborn care, some perform sedations, and some perform a variety of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. The current system is meeting the needs of the vast majority of our PHM community. Changes to the residency curriculum that are already under way can address any clinical and quality improvement gaps. More than enough PHM fellowships are available to those who choose to pursue them. The public is not requesting reassurance, and the field is already advancing at a rapid rate both clinically and scholarly. Subspecialty recognition is not necessary and will likely lead to negative unintended consequences. Given the financial constraints on our current system and the need for pediatric hospitalists to be stewards of high-value care, we should make collective decisions that will clearly benefit our patients and health system. As medical professionals, our priority should always be first, do no harm.

Weijen W. Chang, MD, is chief of the Division of Pediatric Hospital Medicine at Baystate Children’s Hospital and associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Massachusetts Medical School.

Leonard Samuel Feldman, MD, is director of the Medicine-Pediatrics Urban Health Residency Program and associate professor of medicine and pediatrics at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine.

Bradley Monash, MD, is associate chief of medicine at University of California, San Francisco and assistant clinical professor of medicine and pediatrics at UCSF School of Medicine.

Archna Eniasivam, MD, is assistant clinical professor of medicine at UCSF School of Medicine.

References

1. Chen C, Eagle S. “Should Pediatric HM Pursue Subspecialty Certification, Required Fellowship Training?” The Hospitalist. July 31, 2012
2. Results and Data: Specialties Matching Service 2016 Appointment Year. National Resident Matching Program website. Accessed May 15, 2016.
3. Medscape Pediatrician Compensation Report 2015. Medscape website.  Accessed April 29, 2016.
4. Rochlin JM, Simon HK. Does fellowship pay: what is the long-term financial impact of subspecialty training in pediatrics? Pediatrics. 2001;127(2):254-260.
5. Asch DA, Nicholson S, Vujicic M. Are we in a medical education bubble market? N Engl J Med. 2013;369(21):1973-1975.
6. O’Toole JK, Friedland AR, Gonzaga AM, et al. The practice patterns of recently graduated internal medicine-pediatric hospitalists. Hosp Pediatr. 2015;5(6):309-314.
7. Society of Hospital Medicine: Survey of Med-Peds Physicians about PHM Certification. May 2014 (unpublished).
8. Goodman DM, Hall M, Levin A, et al. Adults with chronic health conditions originating in childhood: inpatient experience in children’s hospitals. Pediatrics. 2011;128(1):5-13.
9. Freed GL, Dunham KM, Research Advisory Committee of the American Board of P. Pediatric hospitalists: training, current practice, and career goals. J Hosp Med. 2009;4(3):179-186.
10. Donnelly MJ, Lubrano L, Radabaugh CL, Lukela MP, Friedland AR, Ruch-Ross HS. The med-peds hospitalist workforce: results from the American Academy of Pediatrics Workforce Survey. Hosp Pediatr. 2015;5(11):574-579.

Clinical Question: Is there a difference in family-rated quality of care for patients dying with different serious illnesses?

Background: End-of-life care has focused largely on cancer patients. However, other conditions lead to more deaths than cancer in the United States.

Study Design: A retrospective cross-sectional study.

Setting: 146 inpatient Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities.

Synopsis: This study included 57,753 patients who died in inpatient facilities with a diagnosis of cancer, dementia, end-stage renal disease (ESRD), cardiopulmonary failure (heart failure or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), or frailty. Measures included palliative care consultations, do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders, death in inpatient hospice, death in the intensive care unit (ICU), and family-reported quality of end-of-life care. Palliative care consultations were given to 73.5% of patients with cancer and 61.4% of patients with dementia, which was significantly more than patients with other diagnoses (P < .001).

Approximately one-third of patients with diagnoses other than cancer or dementia died in the ICU, which was more than double the rate among patients with cancer or dementia (P < .001). Rates of excellent quality of end-of-life care were similar for patients with cancer and dementia (59.2% and 59.3%) but lower for other conditions (P = 0.02 when compared with cancer patient). This was mediated by palliative care consultation, setting of death, and DNR status. Difficulty defining frailty and restriction to only the VA system are limitations of this study.

Bottom Line: Increasing access to palliative care, goals-of-care discussions, and preferred setting of death may improve overall quality of end-of-life care.

Citation: Wachterman MW, Pilver C, Smith D, Ersek M, Lipsitz SR, Keating NL. Quality of end-of-life care provided to patients with different serious illnesses. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(8):1095-1102. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.1200.

Clinical Question: Is there a difference in family-rated quality of care for patients dying with different serious illnesses?

Background: End-of-life care has focused largely on cancer patients. However, other conditions lead to more deaths than cancer in the United States.

Study Design: A retrospective cross-sectional study.

Setting: 146 inpatient Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities.

Synopsis: This study included 57,753 patients who died in inpatient facilities with a diagnosis of cancer, dementia, end-stage renal disease (ESRD), cardiopulmonary failure (heart failure or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), or frailty. Measures included palliative care consultations, do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders, death in inpatient hospice, death in the intensive care unit (ICU), and family-reported quality of end-of-life care. Palliative care consultations were given to 73.5% of patients with cancer and 61.4% of patients with dementia, which was significantly more than patients with other diagnoses (P < .001).

Approximately one-third of patients with diagnoses other than cancer or dementia died in the ICU, which was more than double the rate among patients with cancer or dementia (P < .001). Rates of excellent quality of end-of-life care were similar for patients with cancer and dementia (59.2% and 59.3%) but lower for other conditions (P = 0.02 when compared with cancer patient). This was mediated by palliative care consultation, setting of death, and DNR status. Difficulty defining frailty and restriction to only the VA system are limitations of this study.

Bottom Line: Increasing access to palliative care, goals-of-care discussions, and preferred setting of death may improve overall quality of end-of-life care.

Citation: Wachterman MW, Pilver C, Smith D, Ersek M, Lipsitz SR, Keating NL. Quality of end-of-life care provided to patients with different serious illnesses. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(8):1095-1102. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.1200.

Clinical Question: Is there a difference in family-rated quality of care for patients dying with different serious illnesses?

Background: End-of-life care has focused largely on cancer patients. However, other conditions lead to more deaths than cancer in the United States.

Study Design: A retrospective cross-sectional study.

Setting: 146 inpatient Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities.

Synopsis: This study included 57,753 patients who died in inpatient facilities with a diagnosis of cancer, dementia, end-stage renal disease (ESRD), cardiopulmonary failure (heart failure or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), or frailty. Measures included palliative care consultations, do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders, death in inpatient hospice, death in the intensive care unit (ICU), and family-reported quality of end-of-life care. Palliative care consultations were given to 73.5% of patients with cancer and 61.4% of patients with dementia, which was significantly more than patients with other diagnoses (P < .001).

Approximately one-third of patients with diagnoses other than cancer or dementia died in the ICU, which was more than double the rate among patients with cancer or dementia (P < .001). Rates of excellent quality of end-of-life care were similar for patients with cancer and dementia (59.2% and 59.3%) but lower for other conditions (P = 0.02 when compared with cancer patient). This was mediated by palliative care consultation, setting of death, and DNR status. Difficulty defining frailty and restriction to only the VA system are limitations of this study.

Bottom Line: Increasing access to palliative care, goals-of-care discussions, and preferred setting of death may improve overall quality of end-of-life care.

Citation: Wachterman MW, Pilver C, Smith D, Ersek M, Lipsitz SR, Keating NL. Quality of end-of-life care provided to patients with different serious illnesses. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(8):1095-1102. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.1200.

Clinical Question: How much are insured nonelderly adult patients paying out of pocket for inpatient care, and does that amount vary over time or by patient characteristics, region, or type of insurance?

Background: Prior estimates have been based on patient-reported survey data. This is the first study to find nationwide out-of-pocket expenditure for inpatient hospitalizations.

Study Design: Retrospective analysis.

Setting: Medical claims data from Aetna, UnitedHealthcare, and Humana including 7.3 million hospitalizations from 2009 to 2013.

Synopsis: Authors used the Health Care Cost Institute (HCCI) database and studied inpatient hospitalization for ages 18–64. The adjusted total cost sharing per inpatient hospitalization increased by 37% (from $738 in 2009 to $1,013 in 2013). Both the mean amount of coinsurance and deductibles increased during this period by 33% (from $518 to $688) and 86% (from $145 to $270), respectively. The mean copayment decreased by 27% (from $75 to $55).

Increase in cost sharing was lowest in individual-market and consumer-directed health plans, although both had highest cost sharing.

Total cost sharing increased in every state. The largest increases were seen in Georgia, Louisiana, and Colorado. In 2013, the states with the highest cost sharing were Utah, Alaska, and Oregon.

Acute myocardial infarction and acute appendicitis saw maximum rise in out-of-pocket spending; both surpassed $1,500 in 2013. Cost sharing associated with procedures was lower.

Bottom Line: Even after adjusting for inflation and case-mix differences, the total cost sharing per inpatient hospitalization increased between 2009 and 2013. Policymakers and patients need to pay attention to these trends.

Citation: Adrion ER, Ryan AM, Seltzer AC, Chen LM, Ayanian JZ, Nallamothu BK. Out-of-pocket spending for hospitalizations among nonelderly adults. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(9)1325-1332.

Short Take

Aspirin Is Being Used Instead of Anticoagulation in Afib

Despite recommendations to anticoagulate patients with CHADS2 /CHA2DS2-VASc scores of ≥2, more than one-third of the patients in a large population of cardiology outpatients were treated with aspirin alone.

Citation: Hsu JC, Maddox TM, Kennedy K, et al. Aspirin instead of oral anticoagulant prescription in atrial fibrillation patients at risk for stroke. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;67(25):2913-2923.

Clinical Question: How much are insured nonelderly adult patients paying out of pocket for inpatient care, and does that amount vary over time or by patient characteristics, region, or type of insurance?

Background: Prior estimates have been based on patient-reported survey data. This is the first study to find nationwide out-of-pocket expenditure for inpatient hospitalizations.

Study Design: Retrospective analysis.

Setting: Medical claims data from Aetna, UnitedHealthcare, and Humana including 7.3 million hospitalizations from 2009 to 2013.

Synopsis: Authors used the Health Care Cost Institute (HCCI) database and studied inpatient hospitalization for ages 18–64. The adjusted total cost sharing per inpatient hospitalization increased by 37% (from $738 in 2009 to $1,013 in 2013). Both the mean amount of coinsurance and deductibles increased during this period by 33% (from $518 to $688) and 86% (from $145 to $270), respectively. The mean copayment decreased by 27% (from $75 to $55).

Increase in cost sharing was lowest in individual-market and consumer-directed health plans, although both had highest cost sharing.

Total cost sharing increased in every state. The largest increases were seen in Georgia, Louisiana, and Colorado. In 2013, the states with the highest cost sharing were Utah, Alaska, and Oregon.

Acute myocardial infarction and acute appendicitis saw maximum rise in out-of-pocket spending; both surpassed $1,500 in 2013. Cost sharing associated with procedures was lower.

Bottom Line: Even after adjusting for inflation and case-mix differences, the total cost sharing per inpatient hospitalization increased between 2009 and 2013. Policymakers and patients need to pay attention to these trends.

Citation: Adrion ER, Ryan AM, Seltzer AC, Chen LM, Ayanian JZ, Nallamothu BK. Out-of-pocket spending for hospitalizations among nonelderly adults. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(9)1325-1332.

Short Take

Aspirin Is Being Used Instead of Anticoagulation in Afib

Despite recommendations to anticoagulate patients with CHADS2 /CHA2DS2-VASc scores of ≥2, more than one-third of the patients in a large population of cardiology outpatients were treated with aspirin alone.

Citation: Hsu JC, Maddox TM, Kennedy K, et al. Aspirin instead of oral anticoagulant prescription in atrial fibrillation patients at risk for stroke. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;67(25):2913-2923.

Clinical Question: How much are insured nonelderly adult patients paying out of pocket for inpatient care, and does that amount vary over time or by patient characteristics, region, or type of insurance?

Background: Prior estimates have been based on patient-reported survey data. This is the first study to find nationwide out-of-pocket expenditure for inpatient hospitalizations.

Study Design: Retrospective analysis.

Setting: Medical claims data from Aetna, UnitedHealthcare, and Humana including 7.3 million hospitalizations from 2009 to 2013.

Synopsis: Authors used the Health Care Cost Institute (HCCI) database and studied inpatient hospitalization for ages 18–64. The adjusted total cost sharing per inpatient hospitalization increased by 37% (from $738 in 2009 to $1,013 in 2013). Both the mean amount of coinsurance and deductibles increased during this period by 33% (from $518 to $688) and 86% (from $145 to $270), respectively. The mean copayment decreased by 27% (from $75 to $55).

Increase in cost sharing was lowest in individual-market and consumer-directed health plans, although both had highest cost sharing.

Total cost sharing increased in every state. The largest increases were seen in Georgia, Louisiana, and Colorado. In 2013, the states with the highest cost sharing were Utah, Alaska, and Oregon.

Acute myocardial infarction and acute appendicitis saw maximum rise in out-of-pocket spending; both surpassed $1,500 in 2013. Cost sharing associated with procedures was lower.

Bottom Line: Even after adjusting for inflation and case-mix differences, the total cost sharing per inpatient hospitalization increased between 2009 and 2013. Policymakers and patients need to pay attention to these trends.

Citation: Adrion ER, Ryan AM, Seltzer AC, Chen LM, Ayanian JZ, Nallamothu BK. Out-of-pocket spending for hospitalizations among nonelderly adults. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(9)1325-1332.

Short Take

Aspirin Is Being Used Instead of Anticoagulation in Afib

Despite recommendations to anticoagulate patients with CHADS2 /CHA2DS2-VASc scores of ≥2, more than one-third of the patients in a large population of cardiology outpatients were treated with aspirin alone.

Citation: Hsu JC, Maddox TM, Kennedy K, et al. Aspirin instead of oral anticoagulant prescription in atrial fibrillation patients at risk for stroke. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;67(25):2913-2923.

The Case

A 74-year-old man with Alzheimer’s dementia presents with urinary tract infection (UTI), hypovolemia, and hypernatremia. He also has chronic dysphagia with a history of aspiration pneumonia and has been on thickened liquids at home for the past five months. As his infection is treated, he improves and requests water to drink.

Background

Dysphagia is a very common problem, particularly among elderly patients. The exact prevalence is unknown, but it is estimated to occur in up to 30% of the elderly population. Dysphagia is defined as difficulty or discomfort in swallowing and is traditionally classified as either oropharyngeal or esophageal in origin. Normal aging as well as chronic illness may lead to decreased connective tissue elasticity, muscle mass, and oral secretions, which affect swallowing performance.1 Stroke is a common predisposing condition.2 Dysphagia predisposes patients to dehydration, malnutrition, and electrolyte derangements. The most feared immediate complication is aspiration pneumonia (AP) resulting from impaired clearance of oral secretions.3

The diagnosis of dysphagia is clinical, and assessments from patients and family are often sufficient. The optimal test to assess the severity of dysphagia is a bedside swallow evaluation using small amounts of water.1 Video-assisted fluoroscopic examinations can identify problem areas within the oropharynx and esophagus and may help determine the etiology of dysphagia.

What evidence supports various treatment options for dysphagia?

Access to Water

Water is a thin liquid with low viscosity, which allows for rapid transit through the oropharynx. In debilitated and elderly patients, thin liquids easily reach the epiglottis and enter the trachea before pharyngeal muscles compensate. As such, access to water and other thin liquids is often restricted in patients suspected to have dysphagia.4

However, allowing access to water improves patient satisfaction, reduces the development of dehydration, and does not increase the incidence of AP. Bedside therapy interventions such as correct positioning and chin-tuck and sipping technique as well as attention to oral hygiene are recommended prior to more noxious options such as thickened liquids.1 The Frazier water protocol may help provide logistical guidance for facilities interested in improving access to water for patients with dysphagia.

Liquid Modification

Many clinicians manage dysphagia through restricting access to all thin liquids. In the hospital setting where video fluoroscopy and speech therapy are readily available, clinicians frequently employ the use of modified diets with thickened liquids in order to minimize the risk of aspiration despite the lack of high-quality evidence supporting liquid modification.2 Patients associate thickened liquids and restricted diets with a reduction in quality of life. Compliance studies have shown that only a minority of patients are compliant with thickened liquids at five days. In addition, thickening liquids has not been shown to decrease the risk of AP nor improve nutritional status, and it may actually cause harm by increasing the risk of dehydration and UTI.4

Tube Feeding

In patients with severe dysphagia in whom conservative management is not feasible or has failed, maintaining adequate nutrition can be a challenge. There are encouraging data with nutritionally enriching and modifying the texture of solid foods.1 Alternative methods of enteral nutrition delivery are often also considered. The most common vehicles of delivery are nasogastric tubes, post-pyloric feeding tubes, and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes. In theory, bypassing the pharynx and esophagus could result in fewer aspiration events and less AP.3 However, nasogastric, post-pyloric, or PEG feeding does not decrease the risk of AP. For patients with advanced dementia, there have been no randomized trials demonstrating an improvement in mortality with tube feeds.4 Tube feeding also carries with it a slight procedural risk and a high incidence of associated diarrhea, plus is associated with electrolyte derangements such as hypernatremia. The decision to pursue tube feeding should be weighed heavily in every patient and is highly influenced by the etiology and anticipated duration of dysphagia.

 

Selective Digestive Decontamination

Selective digestive decontamination (SDD) is a protocol-based treatment that aims to eradicate potentially pathogenic gut flora, particularly aerobic gram-negatives, in critically ill patients to reduce the impact of aspiration events. The utilization of SDD and the available literature center firmly on critically ill and ventilated patients. Subsequent studies have demonstrated recolonization after protocol cessation, and long-term effects are currently undefined.5 Until it can be studied in broader populations and proven to have clinical benefit, employing SSD in non-critically ill patients with dysphagia remains unsupported.

Multimodal Approach

Many rehabilitation centers incorporate a therapist-driven swallowing treatment program. Evidence suggests patient and family counseling alone may not be effective, so these programs variably incorporate diet/liquid modification, strengthening exercises, sensory processing techniques, and even neuromuscular electrical stimulation for muscle building.1 Accordingly, these programs are resource-intensive.

Management

Dysphagia remains a significant clinical problem for hospitalized patients. The existing literature and practice guidelines generally support a “less is more” approach. Though liquid/diet modification is common practice, it is not based in solid evidence and may contribute to unnecessary tube feeding. The best current evidence supports allowing access to water and ice chips. The ideal management plan for each patient will differ and should incorporate patient and family preferences in a multidisciplinary approach.

Back to the Case

Our patient requests water. He coughs after drinking during a bedside swallow evaluation. The risks of potential aspiration and AP are explained, and he expresses his understanding. He reiterates his choice to be allowed access to water as it is important to his quality of life. The speech therapy team is consulted and provides instruction on chin-tuck positioning, oral care, and timing water between meals rather than while eating food. He does well for the remainder of the hospital stay, and by time of discharge, his electrolytes are corrected, and he is much more comfortable being allowed to drink water. He is discharged home and encouraged to continue with these conservative measures.

Bottom Line

Evidence to support many common interventions for dysphagia is lacking; patients with dysphagia are best managed via a multidisciplinary, multimodal approach that provides access to water whenever possible. TH

---

Vijay G. Paryani, MD, is an internal medicine resident in the department of internal medicine at the University of Kentucky. Joseph R. Sweigart, MD, is a hospitalist and assistant professor of hospital medicine in the division of hospital medicine at the University of Kentucky. Laura C. Fanucchi, MD, is a hospitalist and assistant professor of hospital medicine in the division of hospital medicine at the University of Kentucky.

References

1. Karagiannis MJ, Chivers L, Karagiannis TC. Effects of oral intake of water in patients with oropharyngeal dysphagia. BMC Geriatr. 2011;11(2):9.
2. Foley N, Teasell R, Salter K, Kruger E, Martino R. Dysphagia treatment post stroke: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Age Ageing. 2008;37(3):258-264.
3. Marik PE. Aspiration pneumonitis and aspiration pneumonia. N Engl J Med. 2001;344(9):665-671.
4. Loeb MB, Becker M, Eady A, Walker-Dilks C. Interventions to prevent aspiration pneumonia in older adults: a systematic review. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2003;51(7):1018-1022.
5. Gosney M, Martin MV, Wright AE. The role of selective decontamination of the digestive tract in acute stroke. Age Ageing 2006;35(1):42-47.

 

The Case

A 74-year-old man with Alzheimer’s dementia presents with urinary tract infection (UTI), hypovolemia, and hypernatremia. He also has chronic dysphagia with a history of aspiration pneumonia and has been on thickened liquids at home for the past five months. As his infection is treated, he improves and requests water to drink.

Background

Dysphagia is a very common problem, particularly among elderly patients. The exact prevalence is unknown, but it is estimated to occur in up to 30% of the elderly population. Dysphagia is defined as difficulty or discomfort in swallowing and is traditionally classified as either oropharyngeal or esophageal in origin. Normal aging as well as chronic illness may lead to decreased connective tissue elasticity, muscle mass, and oral secretions, which affect swallowing performance.1 Stroke is a common predisposing condition.2 Dysphagia predisposes patients to dehydration, malnutrition, and electrolyte derangements. The most feared immediate complication is aspiration pneumonia (AP) resulting from impaired clearance of oral secretions.3

The diagnosis of dysphagia is clinical, and assessments from patients and family are often sufficient. The optimal test to assess the severity of dysphagia is a bedside swallow evaluation using small amounts of water.1 Video-assisted fluoroscopic examinations can identify problem areas within the oropharynx and esophagus and may help determine the etiology of dysphagia.

What evidence supports various treatment options for dysphagia?

Access to Water

Water is a thin liquid with low viscosity, which allows for rapid transit through the oropharynx. In debilitated and elderly patients, thin liquids easily reach the epiglottis and enter the trachea before pharyngeal muscles compensate. As such, access to water and other thin liquids is often restricted in patients suspected to have dysphagia.4

However, allowing access to water improves patient satisfaction, reduces the development of dehydration, and does not increase the incidence of AP. Bedside therapy interventions such as correct positioning and chin-tuck and sipping technique as well as attention to oral hygiene are recommended prior to more noxious options such as thickened liquids.1 The Frazier water protocol may help provide logistical guidance for facilities interested in improving access to water for patients with dysphagia.

Liquid Modification

Many clinicians manage dysphagia through restricting access to all thin liquids. In the hospital setting where video fluoroscopy and speech therapy are readily available, clinicians frequently employ the use of modified diets with thickened liquids in order to minimize the risk of aspiration despite the lack of high-quality evidence supporting liquid modification.2 Patients associate thickened liquids and restricted diets with a reduction in quality of life. Compliance studies have shown that only a minority of patients are compliant with thickened liquids at five days. In addition, thickening liquids has not been shown to decrease the risk of AP nor improve nutritional status, and it may actually cause harm by increasing the risk of dehydration and UTI.4

Tube Feeding

In patients with severe dysphagia in whom conservative management is not feasible or has failed, maintaining adequate nutrition can be a challenge. There are encouraging data with nutritionally enriching and modifying the texture of solid foods.1 Alternative methods of enteral nutrition delivery are often also considered. The most common vehicles of delivery are nasogastric tubes, post-pyloric feeding tubes, and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes. In theory, bypassing the pharynx and esophagus could result in fewer aspiration events and less AP.3 However, nasogastric, post-pyloric, or PEG feeding does not decrease the risk of AP. For patients with advanced dementia, there have been no randomized trials demonstrating an improvement in mortality with tube feeds.4 Tube feeding also carries with it a slight procedural risk and a high incidence of associated diarrhea, plus is associated with electrolyte derangements such as hypernatremia. The decision to pursue tube feeding should be weighed heavily in every patient and is highly influenced by the etiology and anticipated duration of dysphagia.

 

Selective Digestive Decontamination

Selective digestive decontamination (SDD) is a protocol-based treatment that aims to eradicate potentially pathogenic gut flora, particularly aerobic gram-negatives, in critically ill patients to reduce the impact of aspiration events. The utilization of SDD and the available literature center firmly on critically ill and ventilated patients. Subsequent studies have demonstrated recolonization after protocol cessation, and long-term effects are currently undefined.5 Until it can be studied in broader populations and proven to have clinical benefit, employing SSD in non-critically ill patients with dysphagia remains unsupported.

Multimodal Approach

Many rehabilitation centers incorporate a therapist-driven swallowing treatment program. Evidence suggests patient and family counseling alone may not be effective, so these programs variably incorporate diet/liquid modification, strengthening exercises, sensory processing techniques, and even neuromuscular electrical stimulation for muscle building.1 Accordingly, these programs are resource-intensive.

Management

Dysphagia remains a significant clinical problem for hospitalized patients. The existing literature and practice guidelines generally support a “less is more” approach. Though liquid/diet modification is common practice, it is not based in solid evidence and may contribute to unnecessary tube feeding. The best current evidence supports allowing access to water and ice chips. The ideal management plan for each patient will differ and should incorporate patient and family preferences in a multidisciplinary approach.

Back to the Case

Our patient requests water. He coughs after drinking during a bedside swallow evaluation. The risks of potential aspiration and AP are explained, and he expresses his understanding. He reiterates his choice to be allowed access to water as it is important to his quality of life. The speech therapy team is consulted and provides instruction on chin-tuck positioning, oral care, and timing water between meals rather than while eating food. He does well for the remainder of the hospital stay, and by time of discharge, his electrolytes are corrected, and he is much more comfortable being allowed to drink water. He is discharged home and encouraged to continue with these conservative measures.

Bottom Line

Evidence to support many common interventions for dysphagia is lacking; patients with dysphagia are best managed via a multidisciplinary, multimodal approach that provides access to water whenever possible. TH

---

Vijay G. Paryani, MD, is an internal medicine resident in the department of internal medicine at the University of Kentucky. Joseph R. Sweigart, MD, is a hospitalist and assistant professor of hospital medicine in the division of hospital medicine at the University of Kentucky. Laura C. Fanucchi, MD, is a hospitalist and assistant professor of hospital medicine in the division of hospital medicine at the University of Kentucky.

References

1. Karagiannis MJ, Chivers L, Karagiannis TC. Effects of oral intake of water in patients with oropharyngeal dysphagia. BMC Geriatr. 2011;11(2):9.
2. Foley N, Teasell R, Salter K, Kruger E, Martino R. Dysphagia treatment post stroke: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Age Ageing. 2008;37(3):258-264.
3. Marik PE. Aspiration pneumonitis and aspiration pneumonia. N Engl J Med. 2001;344(9):665-671.
4. Loeb MB, Becker M, Eady A, Walker-Dilks C. Interventions to prevent aspiration pneumonia in older adults: a systematic review. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2003;51(7):1018-1022.
5. Gosney M, Martin MV, Wright AE. The role of selective decontamination of the digestive tract in acute stroke. Age Ageing 2006;35(1):42-47.

 

The Case

A 74-year-old man with Alzheimer’s dementia presents with urinary tract infection (UTI), hypovolemia, and hypernatremia. He also has chronic dysphagia with a history of aspiration pneumonia and has been on thickened liquids at home for the past five months. As his infection is treated, he improves and requests water to drink.

Background

Dysphagia is a very common problem, particularly among elderly patients. The exact prevalence is unknown, but it is estimated to occur in up to 30% of the elderly population. Dysphagia is defined as difficulty or discomfort in swallowing and is traditionally classified as either oropharyngeal or esophageal in origin. Normal aging as well as chronic illness may lead to decreased connective tissue elasticity, muscle mass, and oral secretions, which affect swallowing performance.1 Stroke is a common predisposing condition.2 Dysphagia predisposes patients to dehydration, malnutrition, and electrolyte derangements. The most feared immediate complication is aspiration pneumonia (AP) resulting from impaired clearance of oral secretions.3

The diagnosis of dysphagia is clinical, and assessments from patients and family are often sufficient. The optimal test to assess the severity of dysphagia is a bedside swallow evaluation using small amounts of water.1 Video-assisted fluoroscopic examinations can identify problem areas within the oropharynx and esophagus and may help determine the etiology of dysphagia.

What evidence supports various treatment options for dysphagia?

Access to Water

Water is a thin liquid with low viscosity, which allows for rapid transit through the oropharynx. In debilitated and elderly patients, thin liquids easily reach the epiglottis and enter the trachea before pharyngeal muscles compensate. As such, access to water and other thin liquids is often restricted in patients suspected to have dysphagia.4

However, allowing access to water improves patient satisfaction, reduces the development of dehydration, and does not increase the incidence of AP. Bedside therapy interventions such as correct positioning and chin-tuck and sipping technique as well as attention to oral hygiene are recommended prior to more noxious options such as thickened liquids.1 The Frazier water protocol may help provide logistical guidance for facilities interested in improving access to water for patients with dysphagia.

Liquid Modification

Many clinicians manage dysphagia through restricting access to all thin liquids. In the hospital setting where video fluoroscopy and speech therapy are readily available, clinicians frequently employ the use of modified diets with thickened liquids in order to minimize the risk of aspiration despite the lack of high-quality evidence supporting liquid modification.2 Patients associate thickened liquids and restricted diets with a reduction in quality of life. Compliance studies have shown that only a minority of patients are compliant with thickened liquids at five days. In addition, thickening liquids has not been shown to decrease the risk of AP nor improve nutritional status, and it may actually cause harm by increasing the risk of dehydration and UTI.4

Tube Feeding

In patients with severe dysphagia in whom conservative management is not feasible or has failed, maintaining adequate nutrition can be a challenge. There are encouraging data with nutritionally enriching and modifying the texture of solid foods.1 Alternative methods of enteral nutrition delivery are often also considered. The most common vehicles of delivery are nasogastric tubes, post-pyloric feeding tubes, and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes. In theory, bypassing the pharynx and esophagus could result in fewer aspiration events and less AP.3 However, nasogastric, post-pyloric, or PEG feeding does not decrease the risk of AP. For patients with advanced dementia, there have been no randomized trials demonstrating an improvement in mortality with tube feeds.4 Tube feeding also carries with it a slight procedural risk and a high incidence of associated diarrhea, plus is associated with electrolyte derangements such as hypernatremia. The decision to pursue tube feeding should be weighed heavily in every patient and is highly influenced by the etiology and anticipated duration of dysphagia.

 

Selective Digestive Decontamination

Selective digestive decontamination (SDD) is a protocol-based treatment that aims to eradicate potentially pathogenic gut flora, particularly aerobic gram-negatives, in critically ill patients to reduce the impact of aspiration events. The utilization of SDD and the available literature center firmly on critically ill and ventilated patients. Subsequent studies have demonstrated recolonization after protocol cessation, and long-term effects are currently undefined.5 Until it can be studied in broader populations and proven to have clinical benefit, employing SSD in non-critically ill patients with dysphagia remains unsupported.

Multimodal Approach

Many rehabilitation centers incorporate a therapist-driven swallowing treatment program. Evidence suggests patient and family counseling alone may not be effective, so these programs variably incorporate diet/liquid modification, strengthening exercises, sensory processing techniques, and even neuromuscular electrical stimulation for muscle building.1 Accordingly, these programs are resource-intensive.

Management

Dysphagia remains a significant clinical problem for hospitalized patients. The existing literature and practice guidelines generally support a “less is more” approach. Though liquid/diet modification is common practice, it is not based in solid evidence and may contribute to unnecessary tube feeding. The best current evidence supports allowing access to water and ice chips. The ideal management plan for each patient will differ and should incorporate patient and family preferences in a multidisciplinary approach.

Back to the Case

Our patient requests water. He coughs after drinking during a bedside swallow evaluation. The risks of potential aspiration and AP are explained, and he expresses his understanding. He reiterates his choice to be allowed access to water as it is important to his quality of life. The speech therapy team is consulted and provides instruction on chin-tuck positioning, oral care, and timing water between meals rather than while eating food. He does well for the remainder of the hospital stay, and by time of discharge, his electrolytes are corrected, and he is much more comfortable being allowed to drink water. He is discharged home and encouraged to continue with these conservative measures.

Bottom Line

Evidence to support many common interventions for dysphagia is lacking; patients with dysphagia are best managed via a multidisciplinary, multimodal approach that provides access to water whenever possible. TH

---

Vijay G. Paryani, MD, is an internal medicine resident in the department of internal medicine at the University of Kentucky. Joseph R. Sweigart, MD, is a hospitalist and assistant professor of hospital medicine in the division of hospital medicine at the University of Kentucky. Laura C. Fanucchi, MD, is a hospitalist and assistant professor of hospital medicine in the division of hospital medicine at the University of Kentucky.

References

1. Karagiannis MJ, Chivers L, Karagiannis TC. Effects of oral intake of water in patients with oropharyngeal dysphagia. BMC Geriatr. 2011;11(2):9.
2. Foley N, Teasell R, Salter K, Kruger E, Martino R. Dysphagia treatment post stroke: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Age Ageing. 2008;37(3):258-264.
3. Marik PE. Aspiration pneumonitis and aspiration pneumonia. N Engl J Med. 2001;344(9):665-671.
4. Loeb MB, Becker M, Eady A, Walker-Dilks C. Interventions to prevent aspiration pneumonia in older adults: a systematic review. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2003;51(7):1018-1022.
5. Gosney M, Martin MV, Wright AE. The role of selective decontamination of the digestive tract in acute stroke. Age Ageing 2006;35(1):42-47.