Clinical

NEW YORK - Several hepatitis C virus core antigen (HCVcAg) tests accurately diagnose hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and could replace nucleic acid testing (NAT) in settings where HCV is prevalent, according to a systematic review and meta-analysis.

"Overall, several of the tests perform very well and while they are not equal to NAT, the lower costs may improve diagnostic capacity in the appropriate setting," Dr. J. Morgan Freiman from Boston Medical Center in Massachusetts told Reuters Health by email.

The current two-step diagnostic procedure for diagnosing HCV infection -- screening for antibodies to HCV followed by NAT for those with anti-HCV antibodies -- is a major bottleneck for addressing the HCV elimination strategy proposed by the World Health Organization. Currently, there are five tests for HCVcAg commercially available.

Dr. Freiman and colleagues evaluated the accuracy of diagnosis of active HCV infection among adults and children for these five commercially available tests compared with NAT in their systematic review and meta-analysis of 44 published reports.

The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 93.4% and 98.8% for the Abbott ARCHITECT assay, 93.2% and 99.2% for the Ortho HCV Ag ELISA, and 59.5% and 82.9% for the Hunan Jynda HCV Ag ELISA. There was insufficient information for a pooled analysis of the Eiken Lumispot HCV Ag and the Fujirebio Lumipulse Ortho HCV Ag assays.

Three reports showed that the HCVcAg correlated well with RNA when levels were at least 3000 IU/mL when the Abbott ARCHITECT assay was used, according to the June 21 Annals of Internal Medicine report.

"Although even tests with the highest performance are not as sensitive as NAT, well-performing HCVcAg tests with an analytic sensitivity reaching into the femtomolar range (equal to 3000 IU/mL) could replace NAT for HCV detection, particularly if a lower cost per test allows more patients to be served," the researchers conclude. "Therefore, HCVcAg should be explored for point-of-care (POC) testing to increase the number of patients diagnosed and streamline the HCV cascade of care."

"There is much more work to be done to determine at what sensitivity threshold a POC test would be clinically useful," Dr. Freiman said. "In settings with reliable access to centralized laboratory processing and higher diagnostic capacity, a POC test may still prove to be useful as a screening tool, but would be less likely to replace confirmatory nucleic acid testing (NAT)."

"We have the technology to detect circulating HCV RNA down to 15 IU/mL - amazing -- but how clinically relevant is that threshold when access to testing is equally as important as accuracy in resource limited settings?" he wondered.

Dr. Jose-Manuel Echevarria, from Carlos III Health Institute, Madrid, Spain, who recently reported that HCV core-specific antibody may represent occult HCV infection among blood donors, told Reuters Health by email, "Physicians should conclude from the report that HCVcAg testing provides trustful diagnostic results for the characterization of their anti-HCV positive patients as viremic or non-viremic before deciding about antiviral treatment."

"I would add that HCVcAg testing is particularly useful for the purpose of transfusion centers," he said. "Chronically infected blood donors are detected by anti-HCV screening, and HCVcAg will detect efficiently almost every blood unit obtained from donors experiencing the window period of the acute HCV infection, who test negative for anti-HCV."

"At present, high-resource settings will for sure use NAT testing because of its higher sensitivity, and because automatic equipment has reduced the chance for false-positive results because sample-to-sample contamination (is kept) to a minimum," Dr. Echevarria concluded. "However, HCVcAg testing is extremely useful and convenient for low-resource settings, and also for emergency units everywhere."

The National Institutes of Health funded this research. Three coauthors reported disclosures.

SOURCE: http://bit.ly/28LpRcU Ann Intern Med 2016.

NEW YORK - Several hepatitis C virus core antigen (HCVcAg) tests accurately diagnose hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and could replace nucleic acid testing (NAT) in settings where HCV is prevalent, according to a systematic review and meta-analysis.

"Overall, several of the tests perform very well and while they are not equal to NAT, the lower costs may improve diagnostic capacity in the appropriate setting," Dr. J. Morgan Freiman from Boston Medical Center in Massachusetts told Reuters Health by email.

The current two-step diagnostic procedure for diagnosing HCV infection -- screening for antibodies to HCV followed by NAT for those with anti-HCV antibodies -- is a major bottleneck for addressing the HCV elimination strategy proposed by the World Health Organization. Currently, there are five tests for HCVcAg commercially available.

Dr. Freiman and colleagues evaluated the accuracy of diagnosis of active HCV infection among adults and children for these five commercially available tests compared with NAT in their systematic review and meta-analysis of 44 published reports.

The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 93.4% and 98.8% for the Abbott ARCHITECT assay, 93.2% and 99.2% for the Ortho HCV Ag ELISA, and 59.5% and 82.9% for the Hunan Jynda HCV Ag ELISA. There was insufficient information for a pooled analysis of the Eiken Lumispot HCV Ag and the Fujirebio Lumipulse Ortho HCV Ag assays.

Three reports showed that the HCVcAg correlated well with RNA when levels were at least 3000 IU/mL when the Abbott ARCHITECT assay was used, according to the June 21 Annals of Internal Medicine report.

"Although even tests with the highest performance are not as sensitive as NAT, well-performing HCVcAg tests with an analytic sensitivity reaching into the femtomolar range (equal to 3000 IU/mL) could replace NAT for HCV detection, particularly if a lower cost per test allows more patients to be served," the researchers conclude. "Therefore, HCVcAg should be explored for point-of-care (POC) testing to increase the number of patients diagnosed and streamline the HCV cascade of care."

"There is much more work to be done to determine at what sensitivity threshold a POC test would be clinically useful," Dr. Freiman said. "In settings with reliable access to centralized laboratory processing and higher diagnostic capacity, a POC test may still prove to be useful as a screening tool, but would be less likely to replace confirmatory nucleic acid testing (NAT)."

"We have the technology to detect circulating HCV RNA down to 15 IU/mL - amazing -- but how clinically relevant is that threshold when access to testing is equally as important as accuracy in resource limited settings?" he wondered.

Dr. Jose-Manuel Echevarria, from Carlos III Health Institute, Madrid, Spain, who recently reported that HCV core-specific antibody may represent occult HCV infection among blood donors, told Reuters Health by email, "Physicians should conclude from the report that HCVcAg testing provides trustful diagnostic results for the characterization of their anti-HCV positive patients as viremic or non-viremic before deciding about antiviral treatment."

"I would add that HCVcAg testing is particularly useful for the purpose of transfusion centers," he said. "Chronically infected blood donors are detected by anti-HCV screening, and HCVcAg will detect efficiently almost every blood unit obtained from donors experiencing the window period of the acute HCV infection, who test negative for anti-HCV."

"At present, high-resource settings will for sure use NAT testing because of its higher sensitivity, and because automatic equipment has reduced the chance for false-positive results because sample-to-sample contamination (is kept) to a minimum," Dr. Echevarria concluded. "However, HCVcAg testing is extremely useful and convenient for low-resource settings, and also for emergency units everywhere."

The National Institutes of Health funded this research. Three coauthors reported disclosures.

SOURCE: http://bit.ly/28LpRcU Ann Intern Med 2016.

NEW YORK - Several hepatitis C virus core antigen (HCVcAg) tests accurately diagnose hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and could replace nucleic acid testing (NAT) in settings where HCV is prevalent, according to a systematic review and meta-analysis.

"Overall, several of the tests perform very well and while they are not equal to NAT, the lower costs may improve diagnostic capacity in the appropriate setting," Dr. J. Morgan Freiman from Boston Medical Center in Massachusetts told Reuters Health by email.

The current two-step diagnostic procedure for diagnosing HCV infection -- screening for antibodies to HCV followed by NAT for those with anti-HCV antibodies -- is a major bottleneck for addressing the HCV elimination strategy proposed by the World Health Organization. Currently, there are five tests for HCVcAg commercially available.

Dr. Freiman and colleagues evaluated the accuracy of diagnosis of active HCV infection among adults and children for these five commercially available tests compared with NAT in their systematic review and meta-analysis of 44 published reports.

The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 93.4% and 98.8% for the Abbott ARCHITECT assay, 93.2% and 99.2% for the Ortho HCV Ag ELISA, and 59.5% and 82.9% for the Hunan Jynda HCV Ag ELISA. There was insufficient information for a pooled analysis of the Eiken Lumispot HCV Ag and the Fujirebio Lumipulse Ortho HCV Ag assays.

Three reports showed that the HCVcAg correlated well with RNA when levels were at least 3000 IU/mL when the Abbott ARCHITECT assay was used, according to the June 21 Annals of Internal Medicine report.

"Although even tests with the highest performance are not as sensitive as NAT, well-performing HCVcAg tests with an analytic sensitivity reaching into the femtomolar range (equal to 3000 IU/mL) could replace NAT for HCV detection, particularly if a lower cost per test allows more patients to be served," the researchers conclude. "Therefore, HCVcAg should be explored for point-of-care (POC) testing to increase the number of patients diagnosed and streamline the HCV cascade of care."

"There is much more work to be done to determine at what sensitivity threshold a POC test would be clinically useful," Dr. Freiman said. "In settings with reliable access to centralized laboratory processing and higher diagnostic capacity, a POC test may still prove to be useful as a screening tool, but would be less likely to replace confirmatory nucleic acid testing (NAT)."

"We have the technology to detect circulating HCV RNA down to 15 IU/mL - amazing -- but how clinically relevant is that threshold when access to testing is equally as important as accuracy in resource limited settings?" he wondered.

Dr. Jose-Manuel Echevarria, from Carlos III Health Institute, Madrid, Spain, who recently reported that HCV core-specific antibody may represent occult HCV infection among blood donors, told Reuters Health by email, "Physicians should conclude from the report that HCVcAg testing provides trustful diagnostic results for the characterization of their anti-HCV positive patients as viremic or non-viremic before deciding about antiviral treatment."

"I would add that HCVcAg testing is particularly useful for the purpose of transfusion centers," he said. "Chronically infected blood donors are detected by anti-HCV screening, and HCVcAg will detect efficiently almost every blood unit obtained from donors experiencing the window period of the acute HCV infection, who test negative for anti-HCV."

"At present, high-resource settings will for sure use NAT testing because of its higher sensitivity, and because automatic equipment has reduced the chance for false-positive results because sample-to-sample contamination (is kept) to a minimum," Dr. Echevarria concluded. "However, HCVcAg testing is extremely useful and convenient for low-resource settings, and also for emergency units everywhere."

The National Institutes of Health funded this research. Three coauthors reported disclosures.

SOURCE: http://bit.ly/28LpRcU Ann Intern Med 2016.

Clinical question: Is one dose of dexamethasone comparable to five days of prednisone for treating mild-to-moderate asthma exacerbations?

Background: Corticosteroids are the mainstay of initial treatment for asthma exacerbations. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute recommends a minimum of five days of prednisone, though studies have shown incomplete adherence to prolonged therapies. Dexamethasone has a longer duration of action than prednisone.

Study design: Randomized, controlled, double-blinded trial.

Setting: Urban, safety-net, teaching hospital.

Synopsis: The study included 376 adults ages 18–55 presenting to the emergency department for a mild-to-moderate asthma exacerbation who were randomized to two treatment courses of corticosteroids: one 12 mg dose of oral dexamethasone followed by four days of placebo versus five days of 60 mg of oral prednisone. Two weeks later, a telephone survey asked if they had relapsed and had to seek medical attention. This study did not show noninferiority of the dexamethasone option compared to the standard of care. Specifically, it showed a 12.1% relapse rate in the dexamethasone group versus a 9.8% relapse rate for prednisone (95% CI, -4.1% to 8.6%).

This was a small study looking at adults without other chronic lung diseases or diabetes. The authors did not include those patients who were either lost to follow-up (20% of those initially randomized) or ultimately admitted after their emergency department course.

Hospitalists who care for patients with asthma should look to the current standards of corticosteroid selection and duration to minimize clinical relapses and possibly readmissions.

Bottom line: One large dose of dexamethasone is inferior to the standard five days of prednisone for treating acute asthma exacerbations in adults.

Citation: Rehrer MW, Liu B, Rodriguez M, Lam J, Alter HJ. A randomized controlled noninferiority trial of single dose of oral dexamethasone versus 5 days of oral prednisone in acute adult asthma [published online ahead of print April 14, 2016]. Ann Emerg Med. doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2016.03.017.

Short Take

Guideline Recommends ED Asthma Management Associated with Shorter Inpatient Stay

Observational study found ED treatment concordance with four guideline-based processes for acute asthma treatment (inhaled beta-agonists, inhaled anticholinergics, systemic corticosteroids, and avoidance of methylxanthines) is associated with a 17% shorter hospital length of stay.

Citation: Hasegawa K, Brenner BE, Nowak RM, et al. Association of guideline-concordant acute asthma care in the emergency department with shorter hospital length of stay: a multicenter observational study. Acad Emerg Med. 2016;23(5):616-622.

Clinical question: Is one dose of dexamethasone comparable to five days of prednisone for treating mild-to-moderate asthma exacerbations?

Background: Corticosteroids are the mainstay of initial treatment for asthma exacerbations. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute recommends a minimum of five days of prednisone, though studies have shown incomplete adherence to prolonged therapies. Dexamethasone has a longer duration of action than prednisone.

Study design: Randomized, controlled, double-blinded trial.

Setting: Urban, safety-net, teaching hospital.

Synopsis: The study included 376 adults ages 18–55 presenting to the emergency department for a mild-to-moderate asthma exacerbation who were randomized to two treatment courses of corticosteroids: one 12 mg dose of oral dexamethasone followed by four days of placebo versus five days of 60 mg of oral prednisone. Two weeks later, a telephone survey asked if they had relapsed and had to seek medical attention. This study did not show noninferiority of the dexamethasone option compared to the standard of care. Specifically, it showed a 12.1% relapse rate in the dexamethasone group versus a 9.8% relapse rate for prednisone (95% CI, -4.1% to 8.6%).

This was a small study looking at adults without other chronic lung diseases or diabetes. The authors did not include those patients who were either lost to follow-up (20% of those initially randomized) or ultimately admitted after their emergency department course.

Hospitalists who care for patients with asthma should look to the current standards of corticosteroid selection and duration to minimize clinical relapses and possibly readmissions.

Bottom line: One large dose of dexamethasone is inferior to the standard five days of prednisone for treating acute asthma exacerbations in adults.

Citation: Rehrer MW, Liu B, Rodriguez M, Lam J, Alter HJ. A randomized controlled noninferiority trial of single dose of oral dexamethasone versus 5 days of oral prednisone in acute adult asthma [published online ahead of print April 14, 2016]. Ann Emerg Med. doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2016.03.017.

Short Take

Guideline Recommends ED Asthma Management Associated with Shorter Inpatient Stay

Observational study found ED treatment concordance with four guideline-based processes for acute asthma treatment (inhaled beta-agonists, inhaled anticholinergics, systemic corticosteroids, and avoidance of methylxanthines) is associated with a 17% shorter hospital length of stay.

Citation: Hasegawa K, Brenner BE, Nowak RM, et al. Association of guideline-concordant acute asthma care in the emergency department with shorter hospital length of stay: a multicenter observational study. Acad Emerg Med. 2016;23(5):616-622.

Clinical question: Is one dose of dexamethasone comparable to five days of prednisone for treating mild-to-moderate asthma exacerbations?

Background: Corticosteroids are the mainstay of initial treatment for asthma exacerbations. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute recommends a minimum of five days of prednisone, though studies have shown incomplete adherence to prolonged therapies. Dexamethasone has a longer duration of action than prednisone.

Study design: Randomized, controlled, double-blinded trial.

Setting: Urban, safety-net, teaching hospital.

Synopsis: The study included 376 adults ages 18–55 presenting to the emergency department for a mild-to-moderate asthma exacerbation who were randomized to two treatment courses of corticosteroids: one 12 mg dose of oral dexamethasone followed by four days of placebo versus five days of 60 mg of oral prednisone. Two weeks later, a telephone survey asked if they had relapsed and had to seek medical attention. This study did not show noninferiority of the dexamethasone option compared to the standard of care. Specifically, it showed a 12.1% relapse rate in the dexamethasone group versus a 9.8% relapse rate for prednisone (95% CI, -4.1% to 8.6%).

This was a small study looking at adults without other chronic lung diseases or diabetes. The authors did not include those patients who were either lost to follow-up (20% of those initially randomized) or ultimately admitted after their emergency department course.

Hospitalists who care for patients with asthma should look to the current standards of corticosteroid selection and duration to minimize clinical relapses and possibly readmissions.

Bottom line: One large dose of dexamethasone is inferior to the standard five days of prednisone for treating acute asthma exacerbations in adults.

Citation: Rehrer MW, Liu B, Rodriguez M, Lam J, Alter HJ. A randomized controlled noninferiority trial of single dose of oral dexamethasone versus 5 days of oral prednisone in acute adult asthma [published online ahead of print April 14, 2016]. Ann Emerg Med. doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2016.03.017.

Short Take

Guideline Recommends ED Asthma Management Associated with Shorter Inpatient Stay

Observational study found ED treatment concordance with four guideline-based processes for acute asthma treatment (inhaled beta-agonists, inhaled anticholinergics, systemic corticosteroids, and avoidance of methylxanthines) is associated with a 17% shorter hospital length of stay.

Citation: Hasegawa K, Brenner BE, Nowak RM, et al. Association of guideline-concordant acute asthma care in the emergency department with shorter hospital length of stay: a multicenter observational study. Acad Emerg Med. 2016;23(5):616-622.

Clinical question: Does nasal high-flow (NHF) oxygen after extubation reduce reintubation rates in low-risk patients?

Background: NHF oxygen devices deliver warmed and humidified oxygen up to 60 liters per minutes. NHF provides positive end-expiratory pressure and dead-space washout. NHF in higher-risk post-extubation patients has been shown to have clinical benefits. Whether NHF post-extubation benefits patients at low risk of reintubation is unknown.

Study design: Randomized control trial (RCT).

Setting: Seven ICUs in Spain.

Synopsis: In this RCT, post-extubation NHF oxygen for 24 hours reduced the risk of reintubation among 527 ICU adults at low risk of reintubation when compared to conventional oxygen therapy (by nasal cannula or face mask). Patients with hypercapnia during weaning trials were excluded. The risk of reintubation was 4.9% versus 12.2% in NHF versus standard oxygen therapy, with an absolute difference of 7.2% (95% CI, 2.5–12.2%; P=0.004). ICU length of stay and mortality were not significantly different between the groups. The strengths of the study were adequate sample size, prespecified criteria for reintubation, and low number of crossover patients.

Limitations of the trial were the high percentage of surgical and neurologic cases, exclusion of patients with a variety of common comorbidities, and the inability to blind the physicians to the treatment arm of the subjects. Select patients may benefit from noninvasive ventilation to prevent reintubation, which was not studied. These results are highly relevant to post-extubation patients, with the optimum therapy for low-risk patients now appearing to be NHF.

Bottom line: NHF oxygen reduced reintubation compared to conventional oxygen therapy (nasal cannula or face mask) in extubated patients at low risk of reintubation.

Citation: Hernández G, Vaquero C, González P, et al. Effect of postextubation high-flow nasal cannula vs conventional oxygen therapy on reintubation in low-risk patients: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2016;315(13):1354-1361. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.2711.

Clinical question: Does nasal high-flow (NHF) oxygen after extubation reduce reintubation rates in low-risk patients?

Background: NHF oxygen devices deliver warmed and humidified oxygen up to 60 liters per minutes. NHF provides positive end-expiratory pressure and dead-space washout. NHF in higher-risk post-extubation patients has been shown to have clinical benefits. Whether NHF post-extubation benefits patients at low risk of reintubation is unknown.

Study design: Randomized control trial (RCT).

Setting: Seven ICUs in Spain.

Synopsis: In this RCT, post-extubation NHF oxygen for 24 hours reduced the risk of reintubation among 527 ICU adults at low risk of reintubation when compared to conventional oxygen therapy (by nasal cannula or face mask). Patients with hypercapnia during weaning trials were excluded. The risk of reintubation was 4.9% versus 12.2% in NHF versus standard oxygen therapy, with an absolute difference of 7.2% (95% CI, 2.5–12.2%; P=0.004). ICU length of stay and mortality were not significantly different between the groups. The strengths of the study were adequate sample size, prespecified criteria for reintubation, and low number of crossover patients.

Limitations of the trial were the high percentage of surgical and neurologic cases, exclusion of patients with a variety of common comorbidities, and the inability to blind the physicians to the treatment arm of the subjects. Select patients may benefit from noninvasive ventilation to prevent reintubation, which was not studied. These results are highly relevant to post-extubation patients, with the optimum therapy for low-risk patients now appearing to be NHF.

Bottom line: NHF oxygen reduced reintubation compared to conventional oxygen therapy (nasal cannula or face mask) in extubated patients at low risk of reintubation.

Citation: Hernández G, Vaquero C, González P, et al. Effect of postextubation high-flow nasal cannula vs conventional oxygen therapy on reintubation in low-risk patients: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2016;315(13):1354-1361. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.2711.

Clinical question: Does nasal high-flow (NHF) oxygen after extubation reduce reintubation rates in low-risk patients?

Background: NHF oxygen devices deliver warmed and humidified oxygen up to 60 liters per minutes. NHF provides positive end-expiratory pressure and dead-space washout. NHF in higher-risk post-extubation patients has been shown to have clinical benefits. Whether NHF post-extubation benefits patients at low risk of reintubation is unknown.

Study design: Randomized control trial (RCT).

Setting: Seven ICUs in Spain.

Synopsis: In this RCT, post-extubation NHF oxygen for 24 hours reduced the risk of reintubation among 527 ICU adults at low risk of reintubation when compared to conventional oxygen therapy (by nasal cannula or face mask). Patients with hypercapnia during weaning trials were excluded. The risk of reintubation was 4.9% versus 12.2% in NHF versus standard oxygen therapy, with an absolute difference of 7.2% (95% CI, 2.5–12.2%; P=0.004). ICU length of stay and mortality were not significantly different between the groups. The strengths of the study were adequate sample size, prespecified criteria for reintubation, and low number of crossover patients.

Limitations of the trial were the high percentage of surgical and neurologic cases, exclusion of patients with a variety of common comorbidities, and the inability to blind the physicians to the treatment arm of the subjects. Select patients may benefit from noninvasive ventilation to prevent reintubation, which was not studied. These results are highly relevant to post-extubation patients, with the optimum therapy for low-risk patients now appearing to be NHF.

Bottom line: NHF oxygen reduced reintubation compared to conventional oxygen therapy (nasal cannula or face mask) in extubated patients at low risk of reintubation.

Citation: Hernández G, Vaquero C, González P, et al. Effect of postextubation high-flow nasal cannula vs conventional oxygen therapy on reintubation in low-risk patients: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2016;315(13):1354-1361. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.2711.

“I recently discharged a complex patient from the hospital, and I was shocked to see the poor quality of his clinical summary,” says Erin Sarzynski, MD, MS, of Michigan State University’s Department of Family Medicine. This observation drove the research underlying the paper she co-wrote titled “Opportunities to Improve Clinical Summaries for Patients at Hospital Discharge,” published in BMJ Quality & Safety.

The problem, the paper lays out, is that, “presently, it is unclear whether clinical summaries include relevant content or whether healthcare organizations configure their EHRs to generate content in a way that promotes patient self-management after hospital discharge.”

As a first step toward improving these documents, Dr. Sarzynski worked with a team to evaluate 100 clinical summaries generated at two Michigan hospitals based on content, organization, and understandability. They became aware of systemic problems.

“Clinical summaries are produced from templates, but physicians’ workflows do not prompt them to preview the document before the nurse prints it to review with the patient,” Dr. Sarzynski says. “Clinical summaries are lengthy yet omit key discharge information. They are poorly organized, written at the 8th- to 12th-grade reading level, and score poorly on assessments of understandability and actionability.

“Medication lists illustrate a key safety issue resulting from poor-quality clinical summaries; for example, we routinely send patients home without parameters for sliding-scale insulin.”

The study highlights opportunities to improve clinical summaries for guiding patients’ post-discharge care.

“We developed an audit tool based on the Meaningful Use view-download-transmit objective and the SHM Discharge Checklist (content); the Institute of Medicine recommendations for distributing easy-to-understand print material (organization); and five readability formulas and the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool,” the authors write.

“If possible, hospitalists should preview their patients’ clinical summaries before printing—it’s an opportunity to ensure key discharge information is correct and appropriately emphasized,” Dr. Sarzynski says.

Reference

1. Sarzynski E, Hashmi H, Subramanian J, et al. Opportunities to improve clinical summaries for patients at hospital discharge. BMJ Qual Saf. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2015-005201.

“I recently discharged a complex patient from the hospital, and I was shocked to see the poor quality of his clinical summary,” says Erin Sarzynski, MD, MS, of Michigan State University’s Department of Family Medicine. This observation drove the research underlying the paper she co-wrote titled “Opportunities to Improve Clinical Summaries for Patients at Hospital Discharge,” published in BMJ Quality & Safety.

The problem, the paper lays out, is that, “presently, it is unclear whether clinical summaries include relevant content or whether healthcare organizations configure their EHRs to generate content in a way that promotes patient self-management after hospital discharge.”

As a first step toward improving these documents, Dr. Sarzynski worked with a team to evaluate 100 clinical summaries generated at two Michigan hospitals based on content, organization, and understandability. They became aware of systemic problems.

“Clinical summaries are produced from templates, but physicians’ workflows do not prompt them to preview the document before the nurse prints it to review with the patient,” Dr. Sarzynski says. “Clinical summaries are lengthy yet omit key discharge information. They are poorly organized, written at the 8th- to 12th-grade reading level, and score poorly on assessments of understandability and actionability.

“Medication lists illustrate a key safety issue resulting from poor-quality clinical summaries; for example, we routinely send patients home without parameters for sliding-scale insulin.”

The study highlights opportunities to improve clinical summaries for guiding patients’ post-discharge care.

“We developed an audit tool based on the Meaningful Use view-download-transmit objective and the SHM Discharge Checklist (content); the Institute of Medicine recommendations for distributing easy-to-understand print material (organization); and five readability formulas and the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool,” the authors write.

“If possible, hospitalists should preview their patients’ clinical summaries before printing—it’s an opportunity to ensure key discharge information is correct and appropriately emphasized,” Dr. Sarzynski says.

Reference

1. Sarzynski E, Hashmi H, Subramanian J, et al. Opportunities to improve clinical summaries for patients at hospital discharge. BMJ Qual Saf. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2015-005201.

“I recently discharged a complex patient from the hospital, and I was shocked to see the poor quality of his clinical summary,” says Erin Sarzynski, MD, MS, of Michigan State University’s Department of Family Medicine. This observation drove the research underlying the paper she co-wrote titled “Opportunities to Improve Clinical Summaries for Patients at Hospital Discharge,” published in BMJ Quality & Safety.

The problem, the paper lays out, is that, “presently, it is unclear whether clinical summaries include relevant content or whether healthcare organizations configure their EHRs to generate content in a way that promotes patient self-management after hospital discharge.”

As a first step toward improving these documents, Dr. Sarzynski worked with a team to evaluate 100 clinical summaries generated at two Michigan hospitals based on content, organization, and understandability. They became aware of systemic problems.

“Clinical summaries are produced from templates, but physicians’ workflows do not prompt them to preview the document before the nurse prints it to review with the patient,” Dr. Sarzynski says. “Clinical summaries are lengthy yet omit key discharge information. They are poorly organized, written at the 8th- to 12th-grade reading level, and score poorly on assessments of understandability and actionability.

“Medication lists illustrate a key safety issue resulting from poor-quality clinical summaries; for example, we routinely send patients home without parameters for sliding-scale insulin.”

The study highlights opportunities to improve clinical summaries for guiding patients’ post-discharge care.

“We developed an audit tool based on the Meaningful Use view-download-transmit objective and the SHM Discharge Checklist (content); the Institute of Medicine recommendations for distributing easy-to-understand print material (organization); and five readability formulas and the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool,” the authors write.

“If possible, hospitalists should preview their patients’ clinical summaries before printing—it’s an opportunity to ensure key discharge information is correct and appropriately emphasized,” Dr. Sarzynski says.

Reference

1. Sarzynski E, Hashmi H, Subramanian J, et al. Opportunities to improve clinical summaries for patients at hospital discharge. BMJ Qual Saf. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2015-005201.

Clinical question: How do interhospital handoff practices differ among U.S. tertiary care centers, and what challenges and innovations have providers encountered?

Background: Little has been studied regarding interhospital transfers. Many centers differ in the processes they follow, and well-delineated national guidelines are lacking. Adverse events occur in up to 30% of transfers. Standardization of these handoffs has been shown to reduce preventable errors and near misses.

Study design: Survey of convenience sample of institutions.

Setting: Transfer center directors from 32 tertiary care centers in the U.S.

Synopsis: The authors surveyed directors of 32 transfer centers between 2013 and 2015. Hospitals were selected from a nationally ranked list as well as those comparable to the authors’ own institutions. The median number of patients transferred per month was 700.

Only 23% of hospitals surveyed identified significant EHR interoperability. Almost all required three-way recorded discussion between transfer center staff and referring and accepting physicians. Only 29% had available objective clinical information to share. Only 23% recorded a three-way nursing handoff, and only 32% used their EHR to document the transfer process and share clinical information among providers.

Innovations included electronic transfer notes, a standardized system of feedback to referring hospitals, automatic internal review for adverse events and delayed transfers, and use of a scorecard with key measures shared with stakeholders.

Barriers noted included complexity, acuity, and lack of continuity. Increased use of EHRs, checklists, and common processes were identified as best practices.

Limitations of the study included reliance on verbal qualitative data, a single investigator doing most of the discussions, and possible sampling bias.

Bottom line: Interhospital transfer practices at academic tertiary care centers vary widely, and optimizing and aligning practices between sending and receiving hospitals may improve efficiency and patient outcomes.

References: Herrigel DJ, Carroll M, Fanning C, Steinberg MB, Parikh A, Usher M. Interhospital transfer handoff practices among US tertiary care centers: a descriptive survey. J Hosp Med. 2016;11(6):413-417.

Clinical question: How do interhospital handoff practices differ among U.S. tertiary care centers, and what challenges and innovations have providers encountered?

Background: Little has been studied regarding interhospital transfers. Many centers differ in the processes they follow, and well-delineated national guidelines are lacking. Adverse events occur in up to 30% of transfers. Standardization of these handoffs has been shown to reduce preventable errors and near misses.

Study design: Survey of convenience sample of institutions.

Setting: Transfer center directors from 32 tertiary care centers in the U.S.

Synopsis: The authors surveyed directors of 32 transfer centers between 2013 and 2015. Hospitals were selected from a nationally ranked list as well as those comparable to the authors’ own institutions. The median number of patients transferred per month was 700.

Only 23% of hospitals surveyed identified significant EHR interoperability. Almost all required three-way recorded discussion between transfer center staff and referring and accepting physicians. Only 29% had available objective clinical information to share. Only 23% recorded a three-way nursing handoff, and only 32% used their EHR to document the transfer process and share clinical information among providers.

Innovations included electronic transfer notes, a standardized system of feedback to referring hospitals, automatic internal review for adverse events and delayed transfers, and use of a scorecard with key measures shared with stakeholders.

Barriers noted included complexity, acuity, and lack of continuity. Increased use of EHRs, checklists, and common processes were identified as best practices.

Limitations of the study included reliance on verbal qualitative data, a single investigator doing most of the discussions, and possible sampling bias.

Bottom line: Interhospital transfer practices at academic tertiary care centers vary widely, and optimizing and aligning practices between sending and receiving hospitals may improve efficiency and patient outcomes.

References: Herrigel DJ, Carroll M, Fanning C, Steinberg MB, Parikh A, Usher M. Interhospital transfer handoff practices among US tertiary care centers: a descriptive survey. J Hosp Med. 2016;11(6):413-417.

Clinical question: How do interhospital handoff practices differ among U.S. tertiary care centers, and what challenges and innovations have providers encountered?

Background: Little has been studied regarding interhospital transfers. Many centers differ in the processes they follow, and well-delineated national guidelines are lacking. Adverse events occur in up to 30% of transfers. Standardization of these handoffs has been shown to reduce preventable errors and near misses.

Study design: Survey of convenience sample of institutions.

Setting: Transfer center directors from 32 tertiary care centers in the U.S.

Synopsis: The authors surveyed directors of 32 transfer centers between 2013 and 2015. Hospitals were selected from a nationally ranked list as well as those comparable to the authors’ own institutions. The median number of patients transferred per month was 700.

Only 23% of hospitals surveyed identified significant EHR interoperability. Almost all required three-way recorded discussion between transfer center staff and referring and accepting physicians. Only 29% had available objective clinical information to share. Only 23% recorded a three-way nursing handoff, and only 32% used their EHR to document the transfer process and share clinical information among providers.

Innovations included electronic transfer notes, a standardized system of feedback to referring hospitals, automatic internal review for adverse events and delayed transfers, and use of a scorecard with key measures shared with stakeholders.

Barriers noted included complexity, acuity, and lack of continuity. Increased use of EHRs, checklists, and common processes were identified as best practices.

Limitations of the study included reliance on verbal qualitative data, a single investigator doing most of the discussions, and possible sampling bias.

Bottom line: Interhospital transfer practices at academic tertiary care centers vary widely, and optimizing and aligning practices between sending and receiving hospitals may improve efficiency and patient outcomes.

References: Herrigel DJ, Carroll M, Fanning C, Steinberg MB, Parikh A, Usher M. Interhospital transfer handoff practices among US tertiary care centers: a descriptive survey. J Hosp Med. 2016;11(6):413-417.

Clinical question: Are oral steroids as effective as NSAIDs in treating acute gout?

Background: Two small trials have suggested that oral steroids are as effective as NSAIDs in treating acute gout. Wider acceptance of steroids as first-line agents for acute gout may require more robust evidence supporting their safety and efficacy.

Study design: Multicenter, double-blind, randomized equivalence trial.

Setting: Four EDs in Hong Kong.

Synopsis: The study included 416 patients presenting to the ED with clinically suspected acute gout who were randomized to treatment with either oral indomethacin or oral prednisolone for five days. A research investigator assessed response to therapy in the ED at 30, 60, 90, and 120 minutes after administration of the initial dose of medication. Patients then kept pain-assessment diaries for 14 days after discharge from the ED.

Pain scores were assessed using a visual analog scale of 0 mm (no pain) to 100 mm (worst pain the patient had experienced). Clinically significant changes in pain scores were defined as decreases of >13 mm on the visual analog scale.

The number of patients with clinically significant decreases in pain scores did not differ statistically between groups. Both groups had similar reductions in mean pain scores over the course of the study. Patients in the indomethacin group had a statistically significant increase in minor adverse events. No patients in either group had major adverse events.

Bottom line: Oral prednisolone appears to be a safe and effective first-line agent for the treatment of acute gout.

Citation: Rainer TH, Chen CH, Janssens HJEM, et al. Oral prednisolone in the treatment of acute gout. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164(7):464-471.

Short Take

Rate Control as Effective as Rhythm Control in Postoperative Atrial Fibrillation

This study randomized patients with postoperative atrial fibrillation to rhythm control (using amiodarone and/or direct current cardioversion) or rate control and found neither treatment strategy has a clinical benefit over the other.

Citation: Gillinov AM, Bagiella E, Moskowitz AJ, et al. Rate control versus rhythm control for atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(20):1911-1921.

Clinical question: Are oral steroids as effective as NSAIDs in treating acute gout?

Background: Two small trials have suggested that oral steroids are as effective as NSAIDs in treating acute gout. Wider acceptance of steroids as first-line agents for acute gout may require more robust evidence supporting their safety and efficacy.

Study design: Multicenter, double-blind, randomized equivalence trial.

Setting: Four EDs in Hong Kong.

Synopsis: The study included 416 patients presenting to the ED with clinically suspected acute gout who were randomized to treatment with either oral indomethacin or oral prednisolone for five days. A research investigator assessed response to therapy in the ED at 30, 60, 90, and 120 minutes after administration of the initial dose of medication. Patients then kept pain-assessment diaries for 14 days after discharge from the ED.

Pain scores were assessed using a visual analog scale of 0 mm (no pain) to 100 mm (worst pain the patient had experienced). Clinically significant changes in pain scores were defined as decreases of >13 mm on the visual analog scale.

The number of patients with clinically significant decreases in pain scores did not differ statistically between groups. Both groups had similar reductions in mean pain scores over the course of the study. Patients in the indomethacin group had a statistically significant increase in minor adverse events. No patients in either group had major adverse events.

Bottom line: Oral prednisolone appears to be a safe and effective first-line agent for the treatment of acute gout.

Citation: Rainer TH, Chen CH, Janssens HJEM, et al. Oral prednisolone in the treatment of acute gout. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164(7):464-471.

Short Take

Rate Control as Effective as Rhythm Control in Postoperative Atrial Fibrillation

This study randomized patients with postoperative atrial fibrillation to rhythm control (using amiodarone and/or direct current cardioversion) or rate control and found neither treatment strategy has a clinical benefit over the other.

Citation: Gillinov AM, Bagiella E, Moskowitz AJ, et al. Rate control versus rhythm control for atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(20):1911-1921.

Clinical question: Are oral steroids as effective as NSAIDs in treating acute gout?

Background: Two small trials have suggested that oral steroids are as effective as NSAIDs in treating acute gout. Wider acceptance of steroids as first-line agents for acute gout may require more robust evidence supporting their safety and efficacy.

Study design: Multicenter, double-blind, randomized equivalence trial.

Setting: Four EDs in Hong Kong.

Synopsis: The study included 416 patients presenting to the ED with clinically suspected acute gout who were randomized to treatment with either oral indomethacin or oral prednisolone for five days. A research investigator assessed response to therapy in the ED at 30, 60, 90, and 120 minutes after administration of the initial dose of medication. Patients then kept pain-assessment diaries for 14 days after discharge from the ED.

Pain scores were assessed using a visual analog scale of 0 mm (no pain) to 100 mm (worst pain the patient had experienced). Clinically significant changes in pain scores were defined as decreases of >13 mm on the visual analog scale.

The number of patients with clinically significant decreases in pain scores did not differ statistically between groups. Both groups had similar reductions in mean pain scores over the course of the study. Patients in the indomethacin group had a statistically significant increase in minor adverse events. No patients in either group had major adverse events.

Bottom line: Oral prednisolone appears to be a safe and effective first-line agent for the treatment of acute gout.

Citation: Rainer TH, Chen CH, Janssens HJEM, et al. Oral prednisolone in the treatment of acute gout. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164(7):464-471.

Short Take

Rate Control as Effective as Rhythm Control in Postoperative Atrial Fibrillation

This study randomized patients with postoperative atrial fibrillation to rhythm control (using amiodarone and/or direct current cardioversion) or rate control and found neither treatment strategy has a clinical benefit over the other.

Citation: Gillinov AM, Bagiella E, Moskowitz AJ, et al. Rate control versus rhythm control for atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(20):1911-1921.

When too many surgery patients are readmitted, the hospital can be fined by the federal government - but a new study suggests many of those readmissions are not the hospital's fault.

Many readmissions were due to issues like drug abuse or homelessness, the researchers found. Less than one in five patients returned to the hospital due to something doctors could have managed better.

"Very few were due to reasons we could control with better medical care at the index admission," said lead author Dr. Lisa McIntyre, of Harbourview Medical Center in Seattle.

McIntyre and her colleagues noted June 15 in JAMA Surgery that the U.S. government began fining hospitals in 2015 for surgery readmission rates that are higher than expected. Fines were already being imposed since 2012 for readmissions following treatments for various medical conditions.

The researchers studied the medical records of patients who were discharged from their hospital's general surgery department in 2014 or 2015 and readmitted within 30 days.

Out of the 2,100 discharges during that time, there were 173 unplanned readmissions. About 17% of those readmissions were due to injection drug use and about 15% were due to issues like homelessness or difficulty getting to follow-up appointments.

Only about 18% of readmissions - about 2% of all discharges - were due to potentially avoidable problems following surgery.

While the results are only from a single hospital, that hospital is also a safety-net facility for the local area - and McIntyre pointed out that all hospitals have some amount of disadvantaged patients.

"To be able to affect this rate, there are going to need to be new interventions that require money and a more global care package of each individual patient that doesn't stop at discharge," said McIntyre, who is also affiliated with the University of Washington.

Being female, having diabetes, having sepsis upon admission, being in the ICU and being discharged to respite care were all tied to an increased risk of readmission, the researchers found.

The results raise the question of whether readmission rates are valuable measures of surgical quality, write Drs. Alexander Schwed and Christian de Virgilio of the University of California, Los Angeles in an editorial.

Some would argue that readmitting patients is a sound medical decision that is tied to lower risks of death, they write.

"Should such an inexact marker of quality be used to financially penalize hospitals?" they ask. "Health services researchers (need to find) a better marker for surgical quality that is reliably calculable and clinically useful."

SOURCE: http://bit.ly/28Km3aH and http://bit.ly/28Km3Ye JAMA Surgery 2016.

When too many surgery patients are readmitted, the hospital can be fined by the federal government - but a new study suggests many of those readmissions are not the hospital's fault.

Many readmissions were due to issues like drug abuse or homelessness, the researchers found. Less than one in five patients returned to the hospital due to something doctors could have managed better.

"Very few were due to reasons we could control with better medical care at the index admission," said lead author Dr. Lisa McIntyre, of Harbourview Medical Center in Seattle.

McIntyre and her colleagues noted June 15 in JAMA Surgery that the U.S. government began fining hospitals in 2015 for surgery readmission rates that are higher than expected. Fines were already being imposed since 2012 for readmissions following treatments for various medical conditions.

The researchers studied the medical records of patients who were discharged from their hospital's general surgery department in 2014 or 2015 and readmitted within 30 days.

Out of the 2,100 discharges during that time, there were 173 unplanned readmissions. About 17% of those readmissions were due to injection drug use and about 15% were due to issues like homelessness or difficulty getting to follow-up appointments.

Only about 18% of readmissions - about 2% of all discharges - were due to potentially avoidable problems following surgery.

While the results are only from a single hospital, that hospital is also a safety-net facility for the local area - and McIntyre pointed out that all hospitals have some amount of disadvantaged patients.

"To be able to affect this rate, there are going to need to be new interventions that require money and a more global care package of each individual patient that doesn't stop at discharge," said McIntyre, who is also affiliated with the University of Washington.

Being female, having diabetes, having sepsis upon admission, being in the ICU and being discharged to respite care were all tied to an increased risk of readmission, the researchers found.

The results raise the question of whether readmission rates are valuable measures of surgical quality, write Drs. Alexander Schwed and Christian de Virgilio of the University of California, Los Angeles in an editorial.

Some would argue that readmitting patients is a sound medical decision that is tied to lower risks of death, they write.

"Should such an inexact marker of quality be used to financially penalize hospitals?" they ask. "Health services researchers (need to find) a better marker for surgical quality that is reliably calculable and clinically useful."

SOURCE: http://bit.ly/28Km3aH and http://bit.ly/28Km3Ye JAMA Surgery 2016.

When too many surgery patients are readmitted, the hospital can be fined by the federal government - but a new study suggests many of those readmissions are not the hospital's fault.

Many readmissions were due to issues like drug abuse or homelessness, the researchers found. Less than one in five patients returned to the hospital due to something doctors could have managed better.

"Very few were due to reasons we could control with better medical care at the index admission," said lead author Dr. Lisa McIntyre, of Harbourview Medical Center in Seattle.

McIntyre and her colleagues noted June 15 in JAMA Surgery that the U.S. government began fining hospitals in 2015 for surgery readmission rates that are higher than expected. Fines were already being imposed since 2012 for readmissions following treatments for various medical conditions.

The researchers studied the medical records of patients who were discharged from their hospital's general surgery department in 2014 or 2015 and readmitted within 30 days.

Out of the 2,100 discharges during that time, there were 173 unplanned readmissions. About 17% of those readmissions were due to injection drug use and about 15% were due to issues like homelessness or difficulty getting to follow-up appointments.

Only about 18% of readmissions - about 2% of all discharges - were due to potentially avoidable problems following surgery.

While the results are only from a single hospital, that hospital is also a safety-net facility for the local area - and McIntyre pointed out that all hospitals have some amount of disadvantaged patients.

"To be able to affect this rate, there are going to need to be new interventions that require money and a more global care package of each individual patient that doesn't stop at discharge," said McIntyre, who is also affiliated with the University of Washington.

Being female, having diabetes, having sepsis upon admission, being in the ICU and being discharged to respite care were all tied to an increased risk of readmission, the researchers found.

The results raise the question of whether readmission rates are valuable measures of surgical quality, write Drs. Alexander Schwed and Christian de Virgilio of the University of California, Los Angeles in an editorial.

Some would argue that readmitting patients is a sound medical decision that is tied to lower risks of death, they write.

"Should such an inexact marker of quality be used to financially penalize hospitals?" they ask. "Health services researchers (need to find) a better marker for surgical quality that is reliably calculable and clinically useful."

SOURCE: http://bit.ly/28Km3aH and http://bit.ly/28Km3Ye JAMA Surgery 2016.

Due to many reasons, the healthcare paradigm has shifted, dictating alternative staffing models to manage the burgeoning inpatient census of hospital-based physicians. Herein, we will briefly describe the Emory University Division of Hospital Medicine (EDHM) approach to utilizing advanced practice providers (APPs) in the care of inpatients and summarize key components of the program that improve sustainability for providers.

The EDHM in Atlanta matriculated APPs into its service in 2004. Currently, there are 22 APPs across all Emory HM sites. The largest group is at Emory University Hospital Midtown (EUHM).

At EUHM, the addition of a renal service created concern for increased workload for the physicians. APPs were recruited to bridge the gap in 2011. Initially, the role was ill-defined, but over time, with physician and administrative leadership buy-in and support, the role has evolved. Currently at EUHM, APPs are practicing in other HM services, allowing them to practice near or at the top of their scope of practice. The 12 hospitalist APPs at EUHM practice in four roles: nocturnist, frontline provider in the observation unit, dedicated renal service, and generalist on an overflow team.

Along with the rapid growth of APPs on the service came the need for structured leadership, improved onboarding procedures, competency maintenance, advocacy, and professional development activities. Essentially, we needed to create a career track parallel to that of the physicians without compromising the portion of our scopes of our practice that overlap (i.e., patient care) while supporting our regulatory differences.

The professional development plans incorporated findings from APP exit interviews at the University of Maryland Medical Center highlighting the following retention issues:1

1. Length of time for credentialing
2. Role clarity
3. Inadequate clinical orientation
4. Feelings of clinical incompetence
5. Feelings of isolation

With the instillation of APP leadership, the team created a comprehensive APP program. The Hospital Medicine APP program at EUHM includes the following components:

• APP representation at monthly clinical operation meetings and quarterly education council meetings to ensure that APP competency and regulatory issues are always represented.
• Orientation personally tailored to the APP’s level of clinical expertise, with a post-orientation meeting with leadership and remediation, if needed.
• APP incentives to teach NP or PA students, conduct in-services, join committees, or participate in other leadership opportunities.
• APPs invited to attend and/or present at all divisional small and large group learning opportunities (e.g., Grand Rounds, Lunch and Learn, Journal Club).
• APPs allocated time and space to meet and discuss practice issues.
• Newly developed Mini-Hospitalist Academy, which offers monthly workshops to all hospitalist physicians and APPs, from novice to expert.
• Dedicated APP Ongoing Professional Performance Evaluation (OPPE) program.
• In addition to the annual monetary support offered for educational opportunities, the division offers an annual Faculty Development Award. This award is by application for eligible educational opportunities; APPs are welcome to apply and have consistently been awarded support to pursue myriad opportunities.

This successful APP-physician collaboration is driven by a committed group of professionals who are sensitive to the shifting healthcare paradigm. Our APPs and physicians are constantly adapting their practice so that our collaboration is safe, evidence-based, and professionally fulfilling. TH

Yvonne Brown, DNP, MSN, ACNP-C, FNP-C, nurse practitioner, lead advanced practice provider, Division of Hospital Medicine, Emory Healthcare, Emory University Hospital Midtown, Atlanta

Reference

1. Bahouth MN, Esposito-Herr MB. Orientation program for hospital-based nurse practitioners. AACN Adv Crit Care. 2009;20(1):82-90.

Due to many reasons, the healthcare paradigm has shifted, dictating alternative staffing models to manage the burgeoning inpatient census of hospital-based physicians. Herein, we will briefly describe the Emory University Division of Hospital Medicine (EDHM) approach to utilizing advanced practice providers (APPs) in the care of inpatients and summarize key components of the program that improve sustainability for providers.

The EDHM in Atlanta matriculated APPs into its service in 2004. Currently, there are 22 APPs across all Emory HM sites. The largest group is at Emory University Hospital Midtown (EUHM).

At EUHM, the addition of a renal service created concern for increased workload for the physicians. APPs were recruited to bridge the gap in 2011. Initially, the role was ill-defined, but over time, with physician and administrative leadership buy-in and support, the role has evolved. Currently at EUHM, APPs are practicing in other HM services, allowing them to practice near or at the top of their scope of practice. The 12 hospitalist APPs at EUHM practice in four roles: nocturnist, frontline provider in the observation unit, dedicated renal service, and generalist on an overflow team.

Along with the rapid growth of APPs on the service came the need for structured leadership, improved onboarding procedures, competency maintenance, advocacy, and professional development activities. Essentially, we needed to create a career track parallel to that of the physicians without compromising the portion of our scopes of our practice that overlap (i.e., patient care) while supporting our regulatory differences.

The professional development plans incorporated findings from APP exit interviews at the University of Maryland Medical Center highlighting the following retention issues:1

1. Length of time for credentialing
2. Role clarity
3. Inadequate clinical orientation
4. Feelings of clinical incompetence
5. Feelings of isolation

With the instillation of APP leadership, the team created a comprehensive APP program. The Hospital Medicine APP program at EUHM includes the following components:

• APP representation at monthly clinical operation meetings and quarterly education council meetings to ensure that APP competency and regulatory issues are always represented.
• Orientation personally tailored to the APP’s level of clinical expertise, with a post-orientation meeting with leadership and remediation, if needed.
• APP incentives to teach NP or PA students, conduct in-services, join committees, or participate in other leadership opportunities.
• APPs invited to attend and/or present at all divisional small and large group learning opportunities (e.g., Grand Rounds, Lunch and Learn, Journal Club).
• APPs allocated time and space to meet and discuss practice issues.
• Newly developed Mini-Hospitalist Academy, which offers monthly workshops to all hospitalist physicians and APPs, from novice to expert.
• Dedicated APP Ongoing Professional Performance Evaluation (OPPE) program.
• In addition to the annual monetary support offered for educational opportunities, the division offers an annual Faculty Development Award. This award is by application for eligible educational opportunities; APPs are welcome to apply and have consistently been awarded support to pursue myriad opportunities.

This successful APP-physician collaboration is driven by a committed group of professionals who are sensitive to the shifting healthcare paradigm. Our APPs and physicians are constantly adapting their practice so that our collaboration is safe, evidence-based, and professionally fulfilling. TH

Yvonne Brown, DNP, MSN, ACNP-C, FNP-C, nurse practitioner, lead advanced practice provider, Division of Hospital Medicine, Emory Healthcare, Emory University Hospital Midtown, Atlanta

Reference

1. Bahouth MN, Esposito-Herr MB. Orientation program for hospital-based nurse practitioners. AACN Adv Crit Care. 2009;20(1):82-90.

Due to many reasons, the healthcare paradigm has shifted, dictating alternative staffing models to manage the burgeoning inpatient census of hospital-based physicians. Herein, we will briefly describe the Emory University Division of Hospital Medicine (EDHM) approach to utilizing advanced practice providers (APPs) in the care of inpatients and summarize key components of the program that improve sustainability for providers.

The EDHM in Atlanta matriculated APPs into its service in 2004. Currently, there are 22 APPs across all Emory HM sites. The largest group is at Emory University Hospital Midtown (EUHM).

At EUHM, the addition of a renal service created concern for increased workload for the physicians. APPs were recruited to bridge the gap in 2011. Initially, the role was ill-defined, but over time, with physician and administrative leadership buy-in and support, the role has evolved. Currently at EUHM, APPs are practicing in other HM services, allowing them to practice near or at the top of their scope of practice. The 12 hospitalist APPs at EUHM practice in four roles: nocturnist, frontline provider in the observation unit, dedicated renal service, and generalist on an overflow team.

Along with the rapid growth of APPs on the service came the need for structured leadership, improved onboarding procedures, competency maintenance, advocacy, and professional development activities. Essentially, we needed to create a career track parallel to that of the physicians without compromising the portion of our scopes of our practice that overlap (i.e., patient care) while supporting our regulatory differences.

The professional development plans incorporated findings from APP exit interviews at the University of Maryland Medical Center highlighting the following retention issues:1

1. Length of time for credentialing
2. Role clarity
3. Inadequate clinical orientation
4. Feelings of clinical incompetence
5. Feelings of isolation

With the instillation of APP leadership, the team created a comprehensive APP program. The Hospital Medicine APP program at EUHM includes the following components:

• APP representation at monthly clinical operation meetings and quarterly education council meetings to ensure that APP competency and regulatory issues are always represented.
• Orientation personally tailored to the APP’s level of clinical expertise, with a post-orientation meeting with leadership and remediation, if needed.
• APP incentives to teach NP or PA students, conduct in-services, join committees, or participate in other leadership opportunities.
• APPs invited to attend and/or present at all divisional small and large group learning opportunities (e.g., Grand Rounds, Lunch and Learn, Journal Club).
• APPs allocated time and space to meet and discuss practice issues.
• Newly developed Mini-Hospitalist Academy, which offers monthly workshops to all hospitalist physicians and APPs, from novice to expert.
• Dedicated APP Ongoing Professional Performance Evaluation (OPPE) program.
• In addition to the annual monetary support offered for educational opportunities, the division offers an annual Faculty Development Award. This award is by application for eligible educational opportunities; APPs are welcome to apply and have consistently been awarded support to pursue myriad opportunities.

This successful APP-physician collaboration is driven by a committed group of professionals who are sensitive to the shifting healthcare paradigm. Our APPs and physicians are constantly adapting their practice so that our collaboration is safe, evidence-based, and professionally fulfilling. TH

Yvonne Brown, DNP, MSN, ACNP-C, FNP-C, nurse practitioner, lead advanced practice provider, Division of Hospital Medicine, Emory Healthcare, Emory University Hospital Midtown, Atlanta

Reference

1. Bahouth MN, Esposito-Herr MB. Orientation program for hospital-based nurse practitioners. AACN Adv Crit Care. 2009;20(1):82-90.

Clinical question: What is the contribution of hospital-based medical errors to national mortality in the U.S. compared to other causes listed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)?

Background: Medical error can contribute to patient mortality. Currently, the annual list of the most common causes of death in the U.S. is compiled by the CDC using the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes on death certificates. Deaths caused by errors are unmeasured because medical errors are not included in the death certificate.

Study design: Analysis of existing literature on medical errors.

Setting: U.S. hospitals.

Synopsis: Findings of four studies on U.S. death rates from medical errors published between 2000 and 2008 were synthesized and extrapolated to the total number of U.S. hospital admissions in 2013. This resulted in a mean rate of death from medical errors of 251,454 per year, which is much higher than the annual incidence of 44,000–98,000 deaths published in the 1999 Institute of Medicine report. Comparing these data to the CDC ranking makes medical errors the third-leading cause of death in the U.S.

Although the accuracy of this result is limited to inpatient deaths and as the authors extrapolated the data from other studies, the number is still staggering and highlights the need for systematic measurement of the problem. One simple solution for this could be to have an extra field on the death certificate asking whether a preventable complication stemming from the patient’s medical care contributed to the death.

Bottom line: Medical error as the estimated third-leading cause of the death in the U.S. remains under-recognized, underappreciated, and highly unmeasured.

Citation: Makary MA, Daniel M. Medical error-the third leading cause of death in the US. BMJ. 2016;353:i2139.

Short Take

Isolating C. Difficile Carriers Decreases Hospital-Acquired C. Difficile Infections

In a nonblinded time-series analysis, screening all patients for asymptomatic C. diff carrier status and isolating carriers reduced rates of hospital-acquired C. diff, preventing 62.4% of expected cases.

Citation: Longtin Y, Paquet-Bolduc B, Gilca R, et al. Effect of detecting and isolating Clostridium difficile carriers at hospital admission on the incidence of C difficile infections: a quasi-experimental controlled study. JAMA Inter Med. 2016;176(6):796¬-804.

Clinical question: What is the contribution of hospital-based medical errors to national mortality in the U.S. compared to other causes listed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)?

Background: Medical error can contribute to patient mortality. Currently, the annual list of the most common causes of death in the U.S. is compiled by the CDC using the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes on death certificates. Deaths caused by errors are unmeasured because medical errors are not included in the death certificate.

Study design: Analysis of existing literature on medical errors.

Setting: U.S. hospitals.

Synopsis: Findings of four studies on U.S. death rates from medical errors published between 2000 and 2008 were synthesized and extrapolated to the total number of U.S. hospital admissions in 2013. This resulted in a mean rate of death from medical errors of 251,454 per year, which is much higher than the annual incidence of 44,000–98,000 deaths published in the 1999 Institute of Medicine report. Comparing these data to the CDC ranking makes medical errors the third-leading cause of death in the U.S.

Although the accuracy of this result is limited to inpatient deaths and as the authors extrapolated the data from other studies, the number is still staggering and highlights the need for systematic measurement of the problem. One simple solution for this could be to have an extra field on the death certificate asking whether a preventable complication stemming from the patient’s medical care contributed to the death.

Bottom line: Medical error as the estimated third-leading cause of the death in the U.S. remains under-recognized, underappreciated, and highly unmeasured.

Citation: Makary MA, Daniel M. Medical error-the third leading cause of death in the US. BMJ. 2016;353:i2139.

Short Take

Isolating C. Difficile Carriers Decreases Hospital-Acquired C. Difficile Infections

In a nonblinded time-series analysis, screening all patients for asymptomatic C. diff carrier status and isolating carriers reduced rates of hospital-acquired C. diff, preventing 62.4% of expected cases.

Citation: Longtin Y, Paquet-Bolduc B, Gilca R, et al. Effect of detecting and isolating Clostridium difficile carriers at hospital admission on the incidence of C difficile infections: a quasi-experimental controlled study. JAMA Inter Med. 2016;176(6):796¬-804.

Clinical question: What is the contribution of hospital-based medical errors to national mortality in the U.S. compared to other causes listed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)?

Background: Medical error can contribute to patient mortality. Currently, the annual list of the most common causes of death in the U.S. is compiled by the CDC using the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes on death certificates. Deaths caused by errors are unmeasured because medical errors are not included in the death certificate.

Study design: Analysis of existing literature on medical errors.

Setting: U.S. hospitals.

Synopsis: Findings of four studies on U.S. death rates from medical errors published between 2000 and 2008 were synthesized and extrapolated to the total number of U.S. hospital admissions in 2013. This resulted in a mean rate of death from medical errors of 251,454 per year, which is much higher than the annual incidence of 44,000–98,000 deaths published in the 1999 Institute of Medicine report. Comparing these data to the CDC ranking makes medical errors the third-leading cause of death in the U.S.

Although the accuracy of this result is limited to inpatient deaths and as the authors extrapolated the data from other studies, the number is still staggering and highlights the need for systematic measurement of the problem. One simple solution for this could be to have an extra field on the death certificate asking whether a preventable complication stemming from the patient’s medical care contributed to the death.

Bottom line: Medical error as the estimated third-leading cause of the death in the U.S. remains under-recognized, underappreciated, and highly unmeasured.

Citation: Makary MA, Daniel M. Medical error-the third leading cause of death in the US. BMJ. 2016;353:i2139.

Short Take

Isolating C. Difficile Carriers Decreases Hospital-Acquired C. Difficile Infections

In a nonblinded time-series analysis, screening all patients for asymptomatic C. diff carrier status and isolating carriers reduced rates of hospital-acquired C. diff, preventing 62.4% of expected cases.

Citation: Longtin Y, Paquet-Bolduc B, Gilca R, et al. Effect of detecting and isolating Clostridium difficile carriers at hospital admission on the incidence of C difficile infections: a quasi-experimental controlled study. JAMA Inter Med. 2016;176(6):796¬-804.

Clinical question: How do guideline-based care and outcomes of patients with transient ischemic attack (TIA) and minor ischemic stroke differ among patients admitted to the hospital and discharged from the ED, as well as in those referred versus not referred to stroke prevention clinics following discharge?

Background: Previous research demonstrated that urgent outpatient management strategies for patients with TIA and minor ischemic stroke are superior to standard outpatient care. However, there is less known about how outpatient stroke care compares to inpatient care in terms of outcomes, rapid risk factor identification/modification, and initiation of antithrombotic therapy.

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: EDs of acute-care hospitals in Ontario, Canada.

Synopsis: Using the Ontario Stroke Registry, 8,540 patients seen in the ED with TIA or minor ischemic stroke were identified. The use of guideline-based interventions was highest in admitted patients, followed by patients discharged from the ED with stroke clinic follow-up, followed by patients discharged without follow-up. There was no significant difference in one-year mortality between admitted and discharged patients when adjusted for age, sex, and comorbid conditions (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.92–1.34). However, stroke clinic referral was associated with a lower risk of one-year mortality compared with those discharged without follow-up (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.38–0.64).

Limitations of this study include that it was carried out only in Ontario, where there is a universal healthcare system, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, patient information was limited to what was available through the registry, which may mean there were other unmeasurable differences among groups.

Bottom line: Admitted patients with TIA or minor ischemic stroke are more likely to receive guideline-based therapy, and among patients discharged from the ED, referral to stroke clinic improves outcomes, including one-year mortality.

Citation: Kapral MK, Hall R, Fang J, et al. Association between hospitalization and care after transient ischemic attack or minor stroke. Neurology. 2016;86(17):1582-1589.

Clinical question: How do guideline-based care and outcomes of patients with transient ischemic attack (TIA) and minor ischemic stroke differ among patients admitted to the hospital and discharged from the ED, as well as in those referred versus not referred to stroke prevention clinics following discharge?

Background: Previous research demonstrated that urgent outpatient management strategies for patients with TIA and minor ischemic stroke are superior to standard outpatient care. However, there is less known about how outpatient stroke care compares to inpatient care in terms of outcomes, rapid risk factor identification/modification, and initiation of antithrombotic therapy.

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: EDs of acute-care hospitals in Ontario, Canada.

Synopsis: Using the Ontario Stroke Registry, 8,540 patients seen in the ED with TIA or minor ischemic stroke were identified. The use of guideline-based interventions was highest in admitted patients, followed by patients discharged from the ED with stroke clinic follow-up, followed by patients discharged without follow-up. There was no significant difference in one-year mortality between admitted and discharged patients when adjusted for age, sex, and comorbid conditions (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.92–1.34). However, stroke clinic referral was associated with a lower risk of one-year mortality compared with those discharged without follow-up (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.38–0.64).

Limitations of this study include that it was carried out only in Ontario, where there is a universal healthcare system, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, patient information was limited to what was available through the registry, which may mean there were other unmeasurable differences among groups.

Bottom line: Admitted patients with TIA or minor ischemic stroke are more likely to receive guideline-based therapy, and among patients discharged from the ED, referral to stroke clinic improves outcomes, including one-year mortality.

Citation: Kapral MK, Hall R, Fang J, et al. Association between hospitalization and care after transient ischemic attack or minor stroke. Neurology. 2016;86(17):1582-1589.

Clinical question: How do guideline-based care and outcomes of patients with transient ischemic attack (TIA) and minor ischemic stroke differ among patients admitted to the hospital and discharged from the ED, as well as in those referred versus not referred to stroke prevention clinics following discharge?

Background: Previous research demonstrated that urgent outpatient management strategies for patients with TIA and minor ischemic stroke are superior to standard outpatient care. However, there is less known about how outpatient stroke care compares to inpatient care in terms of outcomes, rapid risk factor identification/modification, and initiation of antithrombotic therapy.

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: EDs of acute-care hospitals in Ontario, Canada.

Synopsis: Using the Ontario Stroke Registry, 8,540 patients seen in the ED with TIA or minor ischemic stroke were identified. The use of guideline-based interventions was highest in admitted patients, followed by patients discharged from the ED with stroke clinic follow-up, followed by patients discharged without follow-up. There was no significant difference in one-year mortality between admitted and discharged patients when adjusted for age, sex, and comorbid conditions (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.92–1.34). However, stroke clinic referral was associated with a lower risk of one-year mortality compared with those discharged without follow-up (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.38–0.64).

Limitations of this study include that it was carried out only in Ontario, where there is a universal healthcare system, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, patient information was limited to what was available through the registry, which may mean there were other unmeasurable differences among groups.

Bottom line: Admitted patients with TIA or minor ischemic stroke are more likely to receive guideline-based therapy, and among patients discharged from the ED, referral to stroke clinic improves outcomes, including one-year mortality.

Citation: Kapral MK, Hall R, Fang J, et al. Association between hospitalization and care after transient ischemic attack or minor stroke. Neurology. 2016;86(17):1582-1589.