Clinical

Case No. 1

A 41-year-old woman with a history of asthma presents to the emergency department (ED) with shortness of breath and wheezing. She is diagnosed with a mild asthma exacerbation. After three albuterol nebulizer treatments, she still has wheezing on physical examination but appears comfortable and has no oxygen requirement. She has a primary medical doctor at the hospital and follows up with her regularly.

The hospitalist recommends that she stay in the hospital for further treatment, but the patient says she has a nebulizer machine at home and asks to be discharged. In addition, she is worried about her frail elderly mother, for whom she is the primary caretaker. The hospitalist acknowledges her concerns but continues to recommend that she remain in the hospital for additional care and monitoring. She becomes visibly upset and insists that she must return home. She asks for prescriptions for albuterol and prednisone and is discharged against medical advice (AMA).

Case No. 2

A 52-year-old man with a history of hypertension and diabetes presents to the ED with left foot pain. He frequently presents with this complaint but often leaves AMA before treatment is completed. He has no known physical address or telephone number and has no known outpatient healthcare providers. Physical examination reveals several ulcers on the dorsum of the foot, one with purulent drainage, and generalized lower extremity pallor. His left leg is cool to the touch, and vascular surgery is consulted for suspected limb-threatening ischemia; IV antibiotics are started for suspected osteomyelitis.

During the interview, he states that he wishes to leave the hospital because he has “things to take care of.” The hospitalist recommends that he remain in the hospital for limb-preserving surgery and antibiotics. He then explains that he is homeless and needs to return to his shelter to keep his bed. He is able to articulate the risks of premature discharge and the medical concerns, and it is determined that he has the capacity to participate in discharge planning. The hospitalist therefore discharges him AMA.

Background

AMA discharges represent 1%–2% of all inpatient discharges.¹,² Despite being a small percentage of total discharges, these patients have disproportionately high healthcare costs. One study reported that healthcare costs among these patients were 56% higher than expected.² Furthermore, AMA patients suffer higher than expected rates of morbidity, mortality, and hospital readmission.

For example, in one case-control study in an urban teaching hospital, patients discharged AMA from the general medicine service had a 21% 15-day readmission rate compared to a 3% readmission rate among age, gender, and diagnosis-matched controls.^3,4,5

Additionally, history of AMA discharge appears to confer risk of increased future utilization of healthcare resources. In a cohort study of hospital admissions among HIV-infected patients with high rates of intravenous drug abuse, patients discharged AMA (13% of the cohort) were not only more likely to be readmitted within 30 days for a related diagnosis (odds ratio = 5.0) but also were more likely to have increased length of stay during the year following the index admission.⁶

These studies highlight the barriers to safe and effective transitions of care for this vulnerable population and demonstrate the increased burden that this population places on the health system.

Several retrospective studies have identified psychosocial and demographic risk factors associated with AMA discharge. These include younger age, male sex, substance abuse, lack of a primary care physician or health insurance, and history of previous AMA discharge.^1,3,7,8 Insurance status is also associated with AMA discharge, with increased odds of AMA discharge among Medicare and Medicaid patients and patients without health insurance.^9,10

 

Of note, one study found that race did not act as an independent predictor of AMA discharge when adjusted for age, gender, and socioeconomic factors.¹¹

The AMA population is clinically heterogeneous. Among patients with pneumonia, for example, Saitz et al showed that a patient’s documented clinical severity did not independently predict AMA discharge, suggesting that there is great clinical heterogeneity even among AMA patients with similar admission diagnoses.¹²

These studies highlight the clinical and demographic heterogeneity within this population, suggesting that patients discharged AMA require individualized attention from hospitalists and other healthcare providers.

Patients describe numerous motivations for leaving the hospital prematurely, including needing to pick up public-assistance checks, personal financial issues, and familial obligations.¹³ Interestingly, in the cohort of HIV patients referenced above, discharge on the day welfare checks were distributed was an independent predictor of AMA discharge.⁶ In focus groups composed of patients discharged AMA and their treating nurses and physicians, several themes were identified as potential contributors to AMA discharge, including drug addiction, pain management issues, external obligations, wait time, the physician’s bedside manner, being in a teaching hospital, and communication issues.¹⁴

Clearly, patients have a diversity of reasons for requesting to be discharged AMA, and further research is necessary to define clear and potentially modifiable risk factors.

Discussion

The clinical scenarios outlined above present two patients with very different clinical presentations and outpatient support systems as well as demonstrate the great variability in clinical risk at the time of discharge AMA. These examples emphasize the importance of an individualized approach to care for each patient.

In Case No. 1, the patient is admitted with a mild asthma exacerbation with persistent bronchospasm, though she clinically appears well and has reliable follow-up. In contrast, in Case No. 2, the patient has life-threatening disease and no established primary care physician or mechanism for outpatient care. These examples demonstrate extremes on the clinical and psychosocial spectrum of patients requesting an “early” discharge and suggest that no two patients at risk of AMA discharge are the same. Patient 1 could likely be safely managed at home with close outpatient follow-up, while Patient 2 presents a high-risk scenario with very few safe outpatient treatment options.

We suggest that an individualized approach be taken for each patient, with attention to both clinical and psychosocial risk. In clinically low-risk cases (e.g., Case No. 1), an approach that prioritizes shared decision making and coordination with the outpatient care team may be preferable to an AMA discharge, particularly given the often adversarial nature of the later.² In such cases, a collaborative approach may provide greater opportunity for harm reduction, provision of appropriate prescriptions, and follow-up appointments. In clinically high-risk patients such as Case No. 2, however, premature discharge is clearly inappropriate. Even in such clinically high-risk cases, however, we argue that a collaborative strategy aimed at identifying and addressing the patient’s psychosocial concerns is appropriate, as such an approach promotes shared decision making, builds trust between the patient and the care team, and therefore may facilitate improved follow-up at the time of discharge. Research is needed to formally assess the optimal approach for this patient population, including impact on rates of AMA discharge and the quality of post-discharge follow-up.

At present, the decision to classify a discharge as AMA falls solely on the treating provider, and we suspect that there is great variability in practice patterns, particularly as there are few established professional society practice guidelines regarding this difficult issue. As with all discharges from the hospital, the burden falls on the provider to engage the patient in shared decision making and ensure that the patient has the capacity to understand the risks and benefits of the proposed treatment plan. It is in this spirit that simply “filling out an AMA form” does not provide legal protection to a physician who does not adequately explain the full risks and benefits of refusal of inpatient treatment.^2,15

 

We propose that a high-quality AMA discharge be defined as a discharge in which the patient is informed of the clinical team’s determination that further hospitalization is required but elects to leave the hospital, and it includes a clear discussion of the risks of outpatient treatment, a determination of capacity, and an exploration of safe alternative care plans that could satisfy both the patient’s medical and social needs. This definition places the burden on hospitalists and other providers to fully explore the motivations behind a patient’s request to leave the hospital and treats psychosocial motivators for premature discharge as variables in the complex risk-benefit analysis that underlies the informed consent discussion prior to AMA discharge.

Furthermore, AMA discharge does not obviate a physician’s responsibility to advocate for a patient’s well-being, and therefore an AMA discharge should be accompanied by reasonable efforts to coordinate a patient’s ongoing outpatient care. Of note, this approach is consistent with previous reviews and attempts to balance the physician’s duty to honor a patient’s autonomy with the responsibility to protect the patient from harm.^2,16

Conclusion

Patients discharged AMA are a diverse population at markedly increased risk of morbidity, readmissions, and subsequent healthcare cost. We argue that in all cases of a potential premature discharge, a collaborative and patient-centered approach is crucial. Such an approach allows the provider to identify and address the patient’s concerns regarding further inpatient care, to explore possible safe outpatient treatment options, to document patient capacity, and to provide appropriate harm-reduction measures such as prescriptions.

Further research into the current practice patterns of hospitalists and other providers is necessary to allow for the formulation and adoption of best practices and implementation of appropriate harm-reduction strategies. TH

---

Dr. Tummalapalli is an internal medicine resident in the department of medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City. Dr. Goodman is a hospitalist in the division of hospital medicine, department of medicine, at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.

References

1. Aliyu ZY. Discharge against medical advice: sociodemographic, clinical and financial perspectives. Int J Clin Pract. 2002;56(5):325-327.
2. Kahle CH, Rubio ML, Santos RA. Discharges against medical advice: considerations for the hospitalist and the patient. Hospital Medicine Clinics. 2015;4(3):421-429.
3. Baptist AP, Warrier I, Arora R, Ager J, Massanari RM. Hospitalized patients with asthma who leave against medical advice: characteristics, reasons, and outcomes. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2007;119(4):924-929.
4. Hwang SW, Li J, Gupta R, Chien V, Martin RE. What happens to patients who leave hospital against medical advice? CMAJ. 2003;168(4):417-420.
5. Glasgow JM, Vaughn-Sarrazin MV, Kaboli PJ. Leaving against medical advice (AMA): risk of 30-day mortality and hospital readmission. J Gen Int Med. 2010;25(9):926-929.
6. Anis AH, Sun H, Guh DP, Palepu A, Schechter MT, O’Shaughnessy MV. Leaving hospital against medical advice among HIV-positive patients. CMAJ. 2002;167(6):633-637.
7. Jeremiah J, O’Sullivan P, Stein MD. Who leaves against medical advice? J Gen Int Med. 1995; 10(7);403-405.
8. O’Hara D, Hart W, McDonald I. Leaving hospital against medical advice. J Qual Clin Pract.1996;16(3):157-164.
9. Ibrahim SA, Kwoh CK, Krishnan E. Factors associated with patients who leave acute-care hospitals against medical advice. Am J Public Health. 2007;97(12): 2204-2208.
10. Weingart SN, Davis RB, Phillips RS. Patients discharged against medical advice from a general medicine service. J Gen Intern Med. 1998;13(8):568-571.
11. Franks P, Meldrum S, Fiscella K. Discharges against medical advice: are race/ethnicity predictors? J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21(9):955-960.
12. Saitz R, Ghali WA, Moskowitz MA. Characteristics of patients with pneumonia who are discharged from hospitals against medical advice. Am J Med. 1999;107(5):507-509.
13. Alfandre, DJ. “I’m going home”: discharges against medical advice. Mayo Clin Proc. 2009;84(3):255-260.
14. Onukwugha E, Saunders E, Mullins CD, Pradel FG, Zuckerman M, Weir MR. Reasons for discharges against medical advice: a qualitative study. Qual Saf Health Care. 2010;19(5):420-424. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2009.036269.
15. Battenfeld v. Gregory, 589 A.2d 1059, 1061 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1991).
16. Berger J. Discharge against medical advice: ethical considerations and professional obligations. J Hosp Med. 2008;3(5):403-408.

Case No. 1

A 41-year-old woman with a history of asthma presents to the emergency department (ED) with shortness of breath and wheezing. She is diagnosed with a mild asthma exacerbation. After three albuterol nebulizer treatments, she still has wheezing on physical examination but appears comfortable and has no oxygen requirement. She has a primary medical doctor at the hospital and follows up with her regularly.

The hospitalist recommends that she stay in the hospital for further treatment, but the patient says she has a nebulizer machine at home and asks to be discharged. In addition, she is worried about her frail elderly mother, for whom she is the primary caretaker. The hospitalist acknowledges her concerns but continues to recommend that she remain in the hospital for additional care and monitoring. She becomes visibly upset and insists that she must return home. She asks for prescriptions for albuterol and prednisone and is discharged against medical advice (AMA).

Case No. 2

A 52-year-old man with a history of hypertension and diabetes presents to the ED with left foot pain. He frequently presents with this complaint but often leaves AMA before treatment is completed. He has no known physical address or telephone number and has no known outpatient healthcare providers. Physical examination reveals several ulcers on the dorsum of the foot, one with purulent drainage, and generalized lower extremity pallor. His left leg is cool to the touch, and vascular surgery is consulted for suspected limb-threatening ischemia; IV antibiotics are started for suspected osteomyelitis.

During the interview, he states that he wishes to leave the hospital because he has “things to take care of.” The hospitalist recommends that he remain in the hospital for limb-preserving surgery and antibiotics. He then explains that he is homeless and needs to return to his shelter to keep his bed. He is able to articulate the risks of premature discharge and the medical concerns, and it is determined that he has the capacity to participate in discharge planning. The hospitalist therefore discharges him AMA.

Background

AMA discharges represent 1%–2% of all inpatient discharges.¹,² Despite being a small percentage of total discharges, these patients have disproportionately high healthcare costs. One study reported that healthcare costs among these patients were 56% higher than expected.² Furthermore, AMA patients suffer higher than expected rates of morbidity, mortality, and hospital readmission.

For example, in one case-control study in an urban teaching hospital, patients discharged AMA from the general medicine service had a 21% 15-day readmission rate compared to a 3% readmission rate among age, gender, and diagnosis-matched controls.^3,4,5

Additionally, history of AMA discharge appears to confer risk of increased future utilization of healthcare resources. In a cohort study of hospital admissions among HIV-infected patients with high rates of intravenous drug abuse, patients discharged AMA (13% of the cohort) were not only more likely to be readmitted within 30 days for a related diagnosis (odds ratio = 5.0) but also were more likely to have increased length of stay during the year following the index admission.⁶

These studies highlight the barriers to safe and effective transitions of care for this vulnerable population and demonstrate the increased burden that this population places on the health system.

Several retrospective studies have identified psychosocial and demographic risk factors associated with AMA discharge. These include younger age, male sex, substance abuse, lack of a primary care physician or health insurance, and history of previous AMA discharge.^1,3,7,8 Insurance status is also associated with AMA discharge, with increased odds of AMA discharge among Medicare and Medicaid patients and patients without health insurance.^9,10

 

Of note, one study found that race did not act as an independent predictor of AMA discharge when adjusted for age, gender, and socioeconomic factors.¹¹

The AMA population is clinically heterogeneous. Among patients with pneumonia, for example, Saitz et al showed that a patient’s documented clinical severity did not independently predict AMA discharge, suggesting that there is great clinical heterogeneity even among AMA patients with similar admission diagnoses.¹²

These studies highlight the clinical and demographic heterogeneity within this population, suggesting that patients discharged AMA require individualized attention from hospitalists and other healthcare providers.

Patients describe numerous motivations for leaving the hospital prematurely, including needing to pick up public-assistance checks, personal financial issues, and familial obligations.¹³ Interestingly, in the cohort of HIV patients referenced above, discharge on the day welfare checks were distributed was an independent predictor of AMA discharge.⁶ In focus groups composed of patients discharged AMA and their treating nurses and physicians, several themes were identified as potential contributors to AMA discharge, including drug addiction, pain management issues, external obligations, wait time, the physician’s bedside manner, being in a teaching hospital, and communication issues.¹⁴

Clearly, patients have a diversity of reasons for requesting to be discharged AMA, and further research is necessary to define clear and potentially modifiable risk factors.

Discussion

The clinical scenarios outlined above present two patients with very different clinical presentations and outpatient support systems as well as demonstrate the great variability in clinical risk at the time of discharge AMA. These examples emphasize the importance of an individualized approach to care for each patient.

In Case No. 1, the patient is admitted with a mild asthma exacerbation with persistent bronchospasm, though she clinically appears well and has reliable follow-up. In contrast, in Case No. 2, the patient has life-threatening disease and no established primary care physician or mechanism for outpatient care. These examples demonstrate extremes on the clinical and psychosocial spectrum of patients requesting an “early” discharge and suggest that no two patients at risk of AMA discharge are the same. Patient 1 could likely be safely managed at home with close outpatient follow-up, while Patient 2 presents a high-risk scenario with very few safe outpatient treatment options.

We suggest that an individualized approach be taken for each patient, with attention to both clinical and psychosocial risk. In clinically low-risk cases (e.g., Case No. 1), an approach that prioritizes shared decision making and coordination with the outpatient care team may be preferable to an AMA discharge, particularly given the often adversarial nature of the later.² In such cases, a collaborative approach may provide greater opportunity for harm reduction, provision of appropriate prescriptions, and follow-up appointments. In clinically high-risk patients such as Case No. 2, however, premature discharge is clearly inappropriate. Even in such clinically high-risk cases, however, we argue that a collaborative strategy aimed at identifying and addressing the patient’s psychosocial concerns is appropriate, as such an approach promotes shared decision making, builds trust between the patient and the care team, and therefore may facilitate improved follow-up at the time of discharge. Research is needed to formally assess the optimal approach for this patient population, including impact on rates of AMA discharge and the quality of post-discharge follow-up.

At present, the decision to classify a discharge as AMA falls solely on the treating provider, and we suspect that there is great variability in practice patterns, particularly as there are few established professional society practice guidelines regarding this difficult issue. As with all discharges from the hospital, the burden falls on the provider to engage the patient in shared decision making and ensure that the patient has the capacity to understand the risks and benefits of the proposed treatment plan. It is in this spirit that simply “filling out an AMA form” does not provide legal protection to a physician who does not adequately explain the full risks and benefits of refusal of inpatient treatment.^2,15

 

We propose that a high-quality AMA discharge be defined as a discharge in which the patient is informed of the clinical team’s determination that further hospitalization is required but elects to leave the hospital, and it includes a clear discussion of the risks of outpatient treatment, a determination of capacity, and an exploration of safe alternative care plans that could satisfy both the patient’s medical and social needs. This definition places the burden on hospitalists and other providers to fully explore the motivations behind a patient’s request to leave the hospital and treats psychosocial motivators for premature discharge as variables in the complex risk-benefit analysis that underlies the informed consent discussion prior to AMA discharge.

Furthermore, AMA discharge does not obviate a physician’s responsibility to advocate for a patient’s well-being, and therefore an AMA discharge should be accompanied by reasonable efforts to coordinate a patient’s ongoing outpatient care. Of note, this approach is consistent with previous reviews and attempts to balance the physician’s duty to honor a patient’s autonomy with the responsibility to protect the patient from harm.^2,16

Conclusion

Patients discharged AMA are a diverse population at markedly increased risk of morbidity, readmissions, and subsequent healthcare cost. We argue that in all cases of a potential premature discharge, a collaborative and patient-centered approach is crucial. Such an approach allows the provider to identify and address the patient’s concerns regarding further inpatient care, to explore possible safe outpatient treatment options, to document patient capacity, and to provide appropriate harm-reduction measures such as prescriptions.

Further research into the current practice patterns of hospitalists and other providers is necessary to allow for the formulation and adoption of best practices and implementation of appropriate harm-reduction strategies. TH

---

Dr. Tummalapalli is an internal medicine resident in the department of medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City. Dr. Goodman is a hospitalist in the division of hospital medicine, department of medicine, at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.

References

1. Aliyu ZY. Discharge against medical advice: sociodemographic, clinical and financial perspectives. Int J Clin Pract. 2002;56(5):325-327.
2. Kahle CH, Rubio ML, Santos RA. Discharges against medical advice: considerations for the hospitalist and the patient. Hospital Medicine Clinics. 2015;4(3):421-429.
3. Baptist AP, Warrier I, Arora R, Ager J, Massanari RM. Hospitalized patients with asthma who leave against medical advice: characteristics, reasons, and outcomes. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2007;119(4):924-929.
4. Hwang SW, Li J, Gupta R, Chien V, Martin RE. What happens to patients who leave hospital against medical advice? CMAJ. 2003;168(4):417-420.
5. Glasgow JM, Vaughn-Sarrazin MV, Kaboli PJ. Leaving against medical advice (AMA): risk of 30-day mortality and hospital readmission. J Gen Int Med. 2010;25(9):926-929.
6. Anis AH, Sun H, Guh DP, Palepu A, Schechter MT, O’Shaughnessy MV. Leaving hospital against medical advice among HIV-positive patients. CMAJ. 2002;167(6):633-637.
7. Jeremiah J, O’Sullivan P, Stein MD. Who leaves against medical advice? J Gen Int Med. 1995; 10(7);403-405.
8. O’Hara D, Hart W, McDonald I. Leaving hospital against medical advice. J Qual Clin Pract.1996;16(3):157-164.
9. Ibrahim SA, Kwoh CK, Krishnan E. Factors associated with patients who leave acute-care hospitals against medical advice. Am J Public Health. 2007;97(12): 2204-2208.
10. Weingart SN, Davis RB, Phillips RS. Patients discharged against medical advice from a general medicine service. J Gen Intern Med. 1998;13(8):568-571.
11. Franks P, Meldrum S, Fiscella K. Discharges against medical advice: are race/ethnicity predictors? J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21(9):955-960.
12. Saitz R, Ghali WA, Moskowitz MA. Characteristics of patients with pneumonia who are discharged from hospitals against medical advice. Am J Med. 1999;107(5):507-509.
13. Alfandre, DJ. “I’m going home”: discharges against medical advice. Mayo Clin Proc. 2009;84(3):255-260.
14. Onukwugha E, Saunders E, Mullins CD, Pradel FG, Zuckerman M, Weir MR. Reasons for discharges against medical advice: a qualitative study. Qual Saf Health Care. 2010;19(5):420-424. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2009.036269.
15. Battenfeld v. Gregory, 589 A.2d 1059, 1061 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1991).
16. Berger J. Discharge against medical advice: ethical considerations and professional obligations. J Hosp Med. 2008;3(5):403-408.

Case No. 1

A 41-year-old woman with a history of asthma presents to the emergency department (ED) with shortness of breath and wheezing. She is diagnosed with a mild asthma exacerbation. After three albuterol nebulizer treatments, she still has wheezing on physical examination but appears comfortable and has no oxygen requirement. She has a primary medical doctor at the hospital and follows up with her regularly.

The hospitalist recommends that she stay in the hospital for further treatment, but the patient says she has a nebulizer machine at home and asks to be discharged. In addition, she is worried about her frail elderly mother, for whom she is the primary caretaker. The hospitalist acknowledges her concerns but continues to recommend that she remain in the hospital for additional care and monitoring. She becomes visibly upset and insists that she must return home. She asks for prescriptions for albuterol and prednisone and is discharged against medical advice (AMA).

Case No. 2

A 52-year-old man with a history of hypertension and diabetes presents to the ED with left foot pain. He frequently presents with this complaint but often leaves AMA before treatment is completed. He has no known physical address or telephone number and has no known outpatient healthcare providers. Physical examination reveals several ulcers on the dorsum of the foot, one with purulent drainage, and generalized lower extremity pallor. His left leg is cool to the touch, and vascular surgery is consulted for suspected limb-threatening ischemia; IV antibiotics are started for suspected osteomyelitis.

During the interview, he states that he wishes to leave the hospital because he has “things to take care of.” The hospitalist recommends that he remain in the hospital for limb-preserving surgery and antibiotics. He then explains that he is homeless and needs to return to his shelter to keep his bed. He is able to articulate the risks of premature discharge and the medical concerns, and it is determined that he has the capacity to participate in discharge planning. The hospitalist therefore discharges him AMA.

Background

AMA discharges represent 1%–2% of all inpatient discharges.¹,² Despite being a small percentage of total discharges, these patients have disproportionately high healthcare costs. One study reported that healthcare costs among these patients were 56% higher than expected.² Furthermore, AMA patients suffer higher than expected rates of morbidity, mortality, and hospital readmission.

For example, in one case-control study in an urban teaching hospital, patients discharged AMA from the general medicine service had a 21% 15-day readmission rate compared to a 3% readmission rate among age, gender, and diagnosis-matched controls.^3,4,5

Additionally, history of AMA discharge appears to confer risk of increased future utilization of healthcare resources. In a cohort study of hospital admissions among HIV-infected patients with high rates of intravenous drug abuse, patients discharged AMA (13% of the cohort) were not only more likely to be readmitted within 30 days for a related diagnosis (odds ratio = 5.0) but also were more likely to have increased length of stay during the year following the index admission.⁶

These studies highlight the barriers to safe and effective transitions of care for this vulnerable population and demonstrate the increased burden that this population places on the health system.

Several retrospective studies have identified psychosocial and demographic risk factors associated with AMA discharge. These include younger age, male sex, substance abuse, lack of a primary care physician or health insurance, and history of previous AMA discharge.^1,3,7,8 Insurance status is also associated with AMA discharge, with increased odds of AMA discharge among Medicare and Medicaid patients and patients without health insurance.^9,10

 

Of note, one study found that race did not act as an independent predictor of AMA discharge when adjusted for age, gender, and socioeconomic factors.¹¹

The AMA population is clinically heterogeneous. Among patients with pneumonia, for example, Saitz et al showed that a patient’s documented clinical severity did not independently predict AMA discharge, suggesting that there is great clinical heterogeneity even among AMA patients with similar admission diagnoses.¹²

These studies highlight the clinical and demographic heterogeneity within this population, suggesting that patients discharged AMA require individualized attention from hospitalists and other healthcare providers.

Patients describe numerous motivations for leaving the hospital prematurely, including needing to pick up public-assistance checks, personal financial issues, and familial obligations.¹³ Interestingly, in the cohort of HIV patients referenced above, discharge on the day welfare checks were distributed was an independent predictor of AMA discharge.⁶ In focus groups composed of patients discharged AMA and their treating nurses and physicians, several themes were identified as potential contributors to AMA discharge, including drug addiction, pain management issues, external obligations, wait time, the physician’s bedside manner, being in a teaching hospital, and communication issues.¹⁴

Clearly, patients have a diversity of reasons for requesting to be discharged AMA, and further research is necessary to define clear and potentially modifiable risk factors.

Discussion

The clinical scenarios outlined above present two patients with very different clinical presentations and outpatient support systems as well as demonstrate the great variability in clinical risk at the time of discharge AMA. These examples emphasize the importance of an individualized approach to care for each patient.

In Case No. 1, the patient is admitted with a mild asthma exacerbation with persistent bronchospasm, though she clinically appears well and has reliable follow-up. In contrast, in Case No. 2, the patient has life-threatening disease and no established primary care physician or mechanism for outpatient care. These examples demonstrate extremes on the clinical and psychosocial spectrum of patients requesting an “early” discharge and suggest that no two patients at risk of AMA discharge are the same. Patient 1 could likely be safely managed at home with close outpatient follow-up, while Patient 2 presents a high-risk scenario with very few safe outpatient treatment options.

We suggest that an individualized approach be taken for each patient, with attention to both clinical and psychosocial risk. In clinically low-risk cases (e.g., Case No. 1), an approach that prioritizes shared decision making and coordination with the outpatient care team may be preferable to an AMA discharge, particularly given the often adversarial nature of the later.² In such cases, a collaborative approach may provide greater opportunity for harm reduction, provision of appropriate prescriptions, and follow-up appointments. In clinically high-risk patients such as Case No. 2, however, premature discharge is clearly inappropriate. Even in such clinically high-risk cases, however, we argue that a collaborative strategy aimed at identifying and addressing the patient’s psychosocial concerns is appropriate, as such an approach promotes shared decision making, builds trust between the patient and the care team, and therefore may facilitate improved follow-up at the time of discharge. Research is needed to formally assess the optimal approach for this patient population, including impact on rates of AMA discharge and the quality of post-discharge follow-up.

At present, the decision to classify a discharge as AMA falls solely on the treating provider, and we suspect that there is great variability in practice patterns, particularly as there are few established professional society practice guidelines regarding this difficult issue. As with all discharges from the hospital, the burden falls on the provider to engage the patient in shared decision making and ensure that the patient has the capacity to understand the risks and benefits of the proposed treatment plan. It is in this spirit that simply “filling out an AMA form” does not provide legal protection to a physician who does not adequately explain the full risks and benefits of refusal of inpatient treatment.^2,15

 

We propose that a high-quality AMA discharge be defined as a discharge in which the patient is informed of the clinical team’s determination that further hospitalization is required but elects to leave the hospital, and it includes a clear discussion of the risks of outpatient treatment, a determination of capacity, and an exploration of safe alternative care plans that could satisfy both the patient’s medical and social needs. This definition places the burden on hospitalists and other providers to fully explore the motivations behind a patient’s request to leave the hospital and treats psychosocial motivators for premature discharge as variables in the complex risk-benefit analysis that underlies the informed consent discussion prior to AMA discharge.

Furthermore, AMA discharge does not obviate a physician’s responsibility to advocate for a patient’s well-being, and therefore an AMA discharge should be accompanied by reasonable efforts to coordinate a patient’s ongoing outpatient care. Of note, this approach is consistent with previous reviews and attempts to balance the physician’s duty to honor a patient’s autonomy with the responsibility to protect the patient from harm.^2,16

Conclusion

Patients discharged AMA are a diverse population at markedly increased risk of morbidity, readmissions, and subsequent healthcare cost. We argue that in all cases of a potential premature discharge, a collaborative and patient-centered approach is crucial. Such an approach allows the provider to identify and address the patient’s concerns regarding further inpatient care, to explore possible safe outpatient treatment options, to document patient capacity, and to provide appropriate harm-reduction measures such as prescriptions.

Further research into the current practice patterns of hospitalists and other providers is necessary to allow for the formulation and adoption of best practices and implementation of appropriate harm-reduction strategies. TH

---

Dr. Tummalapalli is an internal medicine resident in the department of medicine at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City. Dr. Goodman is a hospitalist in the division of hospital medicine, department of medicine, at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.

References

1. Aliyu ZY. Discharge against medical advice: sociodemographic, clinical and financial perspectives. Int J Clin Pract. 2002;56(5):325-327.
2. Kahle CH, Rubio ML, Santos RA. Discharges against medical advice: considerations for the hospitalist and the patient. Hospital Medicine Clinics. 2015;4(3):421-429.
3. Baptist AP, Warrier I, Arora R, Ager J, Massanari RM. Hospitalized patients with asthma who leave against medical advice: characteristics, reasons, and outcomes. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2007;119(4):924-929.
4. Hwang SW, Li J, Gupta R, Chien V, Martin RE. What happens to patients who leave hospital against medical advice? CMAJ. 2003;168(4):417-420.
5. Glasgow JM, Vaughn-Sarrazin MV, Kaboli PJ. Leaving against medical advice (AMA): risk of 30-day mortality and hospital readmission. J Gen Int Med. 2010;25(9):926-929.
6. Anis AH, Sun H, Guh DP, Palepu A, Schechter MT, O’Shaughnessy MV. Leaving hospital against medical advice among HIV-positive patients. CMAJ. 2002;167(6):633-637.
7. Jeremiah J, O’Sullivan P, Stein MD. Who leaves against medical advice? J Gen Int Med. 1995; 10(7);403-405.
8. O’Hara D, Hart W, McDonald I. Leaving hospital against medical advice. J Qual Clin Pract.1996;16(3):157-164.
9. Ibrahim SA, Kwoh CK, Krishnan E. Factors associated with patients who leave acute-care hospitals against medical advice. Am J Public Health. 2007;97(12): 2204-2208.
10. Weingart SN, Davis RB, Phillips RS. Patients discharged against medical advice from a general medicine service. J Gen Intern Med. 1998;13(8):568-571.
11. Franks P, Meldrum S, Fiscella K. Discharges against medical advice: are race/ethnicity predictors? J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21(9):955-960.
12. Saitz R, Ghali WA, Moskowitz MA. Characteristics of patients with pneumonia who are discharged from hospitals against medical advice. Am J Med. 1999;107(5):507-509.
13. Alfandre, DJ. “I’m going home”: discharges against medical advice. Mayo Clin Proc. 2009;84(3):255-260.
14. Onukwugha E, Saunders E, Mullins CD, Pradel FG, Zuckerman M, Weir MR. Reasons for discharges against medical advice: a qualitative study. Qual Saf Health Care. 2010;19(5):420-424. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2009.036269.
15. Battenfeld v. Gregory, 589 A.2d 1059, 1061 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1991).
16. Berger J. Discharge against medical advice: ethical considerations and professional obligations. J Hosp Med. 2008;3(5):403-408.

Editor’s note: “Everything We Say and Do” is an informational series developed by SHM’s Patient Experience Committee to provide readers with thoughtful and actionable communication tactics that have great potential to positively impact patients’ experience of care. Each article will focus on how the contributor applies one ormore of the “key communication” tactics in practice to maintain provider accountability for “Everything we say and do that affects our patients’ thoughts, feelings and well-being.”

As providers, how do we define the patient experience? Over the past year, I have had the pleasure of working with a dedicated group of 15 fellow members on the newly formed SHM Patient Experience Committee. One of our first goals was to define the patient experience in a way that acknowledges our role and its potential impact on patients as emotional beings and not just vessels for their disease.

To this end, we define the patient experience as “everything we say and do that affects our patients’ thoughts, feelings, and well-being.

Although it’s true that patients bring with them their own history and narrative that contribute to their experience, we cannot change that. We can only adjust our own behaviors and actions when we seek to elicit or respond to patients’ concerns and goals.

And although “everything we say and do” is inclusive of providing the most effective and evidence-based medical care at all times, we believe that accurate clinical decision making absolutely must be accompanied by superior communication. By offering clear explanations, listening compassionately, and acknowledging patients’ predicaments with empathy and caring statements, we can restore a degree of humanity to our care that will allow patients to trust that we have their best interests in mind at all times. This is our role in improving the patient experience.

Beginning next month, members of the Patient Experience Committee will be sharing key communication skills and interventions that each of us believes to be important and effective. Each member will share what they do, why they do it, and how it can be done effectively. The items we’ll be focusing on will be taken from the “Core Principles” and “Key Communications,” as compiled by the committee (see Table 1, below). Some have evidence to back them up. Some are common sense. All of them are simply the right thing to do.

We hope you’ll reflect on “everything we say and do” each month as well as share it with your colleagues and teams. And we need look no further for a winning argument to focus on the patient experience than Sir William Osler and one of his most famous quotes: “The good physician treats the disease; the great physician treats the patient who has the disease.”

We’re going for great. Are you with us? TH

Dr. Rudolph is vice president of physician development and patient experience for Tacoma, Wash.–based Sound Physicians. He is chair of SHM’s Patient Experience Committee.

Table 1.

---

 

Editor’s note: “Everything We Say and Do” is an informational series developed by SHM’s Patient Experience Committee to provide readers with thoughtful and actionable communication tactics that have great potential to positively impact patients’ experience of care. Each article will focus on how the contributor applies one ormore of the “key communication” tactics in practice to maintain provider accountability for “Everything we say and do that affects our patients’ thoughts, feelings and well-being.”

As providers, how do we define the patient experience? Over the past year, I have had the pleasure of working with a dedicated group of 15 fellow members on the newly formed SHM Patient Experience Committee. One of our first goals was to define the patient experience in a way that acknowledges our role and its potential impact on patients as emotional beings and not just vessels for their disease.

To this end, we define the patient experience as “everything we say and do that affects our patients’ thoughts, feelings, and well-being.

Although it’s true that patients bring with them their own history and narrative that contribute to their experience, we cannot change that. We can only adjust our own behaviors and actions when we seek to elicit or respond to patients’ concerns and goals.

And although “everything we say and do” is inclusive of providing the most effective and evidence-based medical care at all times, we believe that accurate clinical decision making absolutely must be accompanied by superior communication. By offering clear explanations, listening compassionately, and acknowledging patients’ predicaments with empathy and caring statements, we can restore a degree of humanity to our care that will allow patients to trust that we have their best interests in mind at all times. This is our role in improving the patient experience.

Beginning next month, members of the Patient Experience Committee will be sharing key communication skills and interventions that each of us believes to be important and effective. Each member will share what they do, why they do it, and how it can be done effectively. The items we’ll be focusing on will be taken from the “Core Principles” and “Key Communications,” as compiled by the committee (see Table 1, below). Some have evidence to back them up. Some are common sense. All of them are simply the right thing to do.

We hope you’ll reflect on “everything we say and do” each month as well as share it with your colleagues and teams. And we need look no further for a winning argument to focus on the patient experience than Sir William Osler and one of his most famous quotes: “The good physician treats the disease; the great physician treats the patient who has the disease.”

We’re going for great. Are you with us? TH

Dr. Rudolph is vice president of physician development and patient experience for Tacoma, Wash.–based Sound Physicians. He is chair of SHM’s Patient Experience Committee.

Table 1.

---

 

Editor’s note: “Everything We Say and Do” is an informational series developed by SHM’s Patient Experience Committee to provide readers with thoughtful and actionable communication tactics that have great potential to positively impact patients’ experience of care. Each article will focus on how the contributor applies one ormore of the “key communication” tactics in practice to maintain provider accountability for “Everything we say and do that affects our patients’ thoughts, feelings and well-being.”

As providers, how do we define the patient experience? Over the past year, I have had the pleasure of working with a dedicated group of 15 fellow members on the newly formed SHM Patient Experience Committee. One of our first goals was to define the patient experience in a way that acknowledges our role and its potential impact on patients as emotional beings and not just vessels for their disease.

To this end, we define the patient experience as “everything we say and do that affects our patients’ thoughts, feelings, and well-being.

Although it’s true that patients bring with them their own history and narrative that contribute to their experience, we cannot change that. We can only adjust our own behaviors and actions when we seek to elicit or respond to patients’ concerns and goals.

And although “everything we say and do” is inclusive of providing the most effective and evidence-based medical care at all times, we believe that accurate clinical decision making absolutely must be accompanied by superior communication. By offering clear explanations, listening compassionately, and acknowledging patients’ predicaments with empathy and caring statements, we can restore a degree of humanity to our care that will allow patients to trust that we have their best interests in mind at all times. This is our role in improving the patient experience.

Beginning next month, members of the Patient Experience Committee will be sharing key communication skills and interventions that each of us believes to be important and effective. Each member will share what they do, why they do it, and how it can be done effectively. The items we’ll be focusing on will be taken from the “Core Principles” and “Key Communications,” as compiled by the committee (see Table 1, below). Some have evidence to back them up. Some are common sense. All of them are simply the right thing to do.

We hope you’ll reflect on “everything we say and do” each month as well as share it with your colleagues and teams. And we need look no further for a winning argument to focus on the patient experience than Sir William Osler and one of his most famous quotes: “The good physician treats the disease; the great physician treats the patient who has the disease.”

We’re going for great. Are you with us? TH

Dr. Rudolph is vice president of physician development and patient experience for Tacoma, Wash.–based Sound Physicians. He is chair of SHM’s Patient Experience Committee.

Table 1.

---

 

Clinical question: Is there a difference in patient experience on hospitalist teams compared with teaching teams?

Background: Hospitalist-intensive hospitals tend to perform better on patient-satisfaction measures on HCAHPS survey; however, little is known about the difference in patient experience between patients cared for by hospitalist and trainee teams.

Study design: Retrospective cohort analysis.

Setting: University of Chicago Medical Center.

Synopsis: A 30-day post-discharge survey was sent to 14,855 patients cared for by hospitalist and teaching teams, with 57% of teaching and 31% of hospitalist team patients returning fully completed surveys. A higher percentage of hospitalist team patients reported satisfaction with their overall care (73% vs. 67%; P<0.001; regression model odds ratio = 1.33; 95% CI, 1.15–1.47). There was no statistically significant difference in patient satisfaction with the teamwork of their providers, confidence in identifying their provider, or ability to understand the role of their provider.

Other than the inability to mitigate response-selection bias, the main limitation of this study is the single-center setting, which impacts the generalizability of the findings. Hospital-specific factors like different services and structures (hospitalists at their institution care for renal and lung transplant and oncology patients) could influence patients’ perception of their care. More research needs to be done to determine the specific factors that lead to a better patient experience.

Bottom line: At a single academic center, overall patient satisfaction was higher on a hospitalist service compared with teaching teams.

Citation: Wray CM, Flores A, Padula WV, Prochaska MT, Meltzer DO, Arora VM. Measuring patient experiences on hospitalist and teaching services: patient responses to a 30-day postdischarge questionnaire [published online ahead of print September 18, 2015]. J Hosp Med. doi:10.1002/jhm.2485.

Clinical question: Is there a difference in patient experience on hospitalist teams compared with teaching teams?

Background: Hospitalist-intensive hospitals tend to perform better on patient-satisfaction measures on HCAHPS survey; however, little is known about the difference in patient experience between patients cared for by hospitalist and trainee teams.

Study design: Retrospective cohort analysis.

Setting: University of Chicago Medical Center.

Synopsis: A 30-day post-discharge survey was sent to 14,855 patients cared for by hospitalist and teaching teams, with 57% of teaching and 31% of hospitalist team patients returning fully completed surveys. A higher percentage of hospitalist team patients reported satisfaction with their overall care (73% vs. 67%; P<0.001; regression model odds ratio = 1.33; 95% CI, 1.15–1.47). There was no statistically significant difference in patient satisfaction with the teamwork of their providers, confidence in identifying their provider, or ability to understand the role of their provider.

Other than the inability to mitigate response-selection bias, the main limitation of this study is the single-center setting, which impacts the generalizability of the findings. Hospital-specific factors like different services and structures (hospitalists at their institution care for renal and lung transplant and oncology patients) could influence patients’ perception of their care. More research needs to be done to determine the specific factors that lead to a better patient experience.

Bottom line: At a single academic center, overall patient satisfaction was higher on a hospitalist service compared with teaching teams.

Citation: Wray CM, Flores A, Padula WV, Prochaska MT, Meltzer DO, Arora VM. Measuring patient experiences on hospitalist and teaching services: patient responses to a 30-day postdischarge questionnaire [published online ahead of print September 18, 2015]. J Hosp Med. doi:10.1002/jhm.2485.

Clinical question: Is there a difference in patient experience on hospitalist teams compared with teaching teams?

Background: Hospitalist-intensive hospitals tend to perform better on patient-satisfaction measures on HCAHPS survey; however, little is known about the difference in patient experience between patients cared for by hospitalist and trainee teams.

Study design: Retrospective cohort analysis.

Setting: University of Chicago Medical Center.

Synopsis: A 30-day post-discharge survey was sent to 14,855 patients cared for by hospitalist and teaching teams, with 57% of teaching and 31% of hospitalist team patients returning fully completed surveys. A higher percentage of hospitalist team patients reported satisfaction with their overall care (73% vs. 67%; P<0.001; regression model odds ratio = 1.33; 95% CI, 1.15–1.47). There was no statistically significant difference in patient satisfaction with the teamwork of their providers, confidence in identifying their provider, or ability to understand the role of their provider.

Other than the inability to mitigate response-selection bias, the main limitation of this study is the single-center setting, which impacts the generalizability of the findings. Hospital-specific factors like different services and structures (hospitalists at their institution care for renal and lung transplant and oncology patients) could influence patients’ perception of their care. More research needs to be done to determine the specific factors that lead to a better patient experience.

Bottom line: At a single academic center, overall patient satisfaction was higher on a hospitalist service compared with teaching teams.

Citation: Wray CM, Flores A, Padula WV, Prochaska MT, Meltzer DO, Arora VM. Measuring patient experiences on hospitalist and teaching services: patient responses to a 30-day postdischarge questionnaire [published online ahead of print September 18, 2015]. J Hosp Med. doi:10.1002/jhm.2485.

Clinical question: Is the Caprini risk assessment model (RAM) a valid tool to predict venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk in critically ill surgical patients?

Background: VTE is a major source of morbidity and mortality among hospitalized patients; prevention is critical to reduce morbidity and cut healthcare costs. Risk assessment is important to determine thromboprophylaxis, yet data are lacking regarding an appropriate tool for risk stratification in the critically ill.

Study design: Retrospective cohort.

Setting: University of Michigan Health System; 20-bed surgical ICU at an academic hospital.

Synopsis: This study included 4,844 surgical ICU patients. Primary outcome was VTE during the patient’s hospital admission. A retrospective risk scoring method based on the 2005 Caprini RAM was used to calculate the risk for all patients at the time of ICU admission. Patients were divided into low (Caprini score 0–2), moderate, high, highest, and super-high (Caprini score > 8) risk levels. The incidence of VTE increased in linear fashion with increasing Caprini score.

This study was limited to one academic medical center. The retrospective scoring model limits the ability to identify all patient risk factors. VTE outcomes were reported only for the length of hospitalization and did not include post-discharge follow-up. Replicating this study across a larger patient population and performing a prospective study with follow-up after discharge would address these limitations.

Bottom line: The Caprini risk assessment model is a valid instrument to assess VTE risk in critically ill surgical patients.

Citation: Obi AT, Pannucci CJ, Nackashi A, et al. Validation of the Caprini venous thromboembolism risk assessment model in critically ill surgical patients. JAMA Surg. 2015;150(10):941-948.

Clinical question: Is the Caprini risk assessment model (RAM) a valid tool to predict venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk in critically ill surgical patients?

Background: VTE is a major source of morbidity and mortality among hospitalized patients; prevention is critical to reduce morbidity and cut healthcare costs. Risk assessment is important to determine thromboprophylaxis, yet data are lacking regarding an appropriate tool for risk stratification in the critically ill.

Study design: Retrospective cohort.

Setting: University of Michigan Health System; 20-bed surgical ICU at an academic hospital.

Synopsis: This study included 4,844 surgical ICU patients. Primary outcome was VTE during the patient’s hospital admission. A retrospective risk scoring method based on the 2005 Caprini RAM was used to calculate the risk for all patients at the time of ICU admission. Patients were divided into low (Caprini score 0–2), moderate, high, highest, and super-high (Caprini score > 8) risk levels. The incidence of VTE increased in linear fashion with increasing Caprini score.

This study was limited to one academic medical center. The retrospective scoring model limits the ability to identify all patient risk factors. VTE outcomes were reported only for the length of hospitalization and did not include post-discharge follow-up. Replicating this study across a larger patient population and performing a prospective study with follow-up after discharge would address these limitations.

Bottom line: The Caprini risk assessment model is a valid instrument to assess VTE risk in critically ill surgical patients.

Citation: Obi AT, Pannucci CJ, Nackashi A, et al. Validation of the Caprini venous thromboembolism risk assessment model in critically ill surgical patients. JAMA Surg. 2015;150(10):941-948.

Clinical question: Is the Caprini risk assessment model (RAM) a valid tool to predict venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk in critically ill surgical patients?

Background: VTE is a major source of morbidity and mortality among hospitalized patients; prevention is critical to reduce morbidity and cut healthcare costs. Risk assessment is important to determine thromboprophylaxis, yet data are lacking regarding an appropriate tool for risk stratification in the critically ill.

Study design: Retrospective cohort.

Setting: University of Michigan Health System; 20-bed surgical ICU at an academic hospital.

Synopsis: This study included 4,844 surgical ICU patients. Primary outcome was VTE during the patient’s hospital admission. A retrospective risk scoring method based on the 2005 Caprini RAM was used to calculate the risk for all patients at the time of ICU admission. Patients were divided into low (Caprini score 0–2), moderate, high, highest, and super-high (Caprini score > 8) risk levels. The incidence of VTE increased in linear fashion with increasing Caprini score.

This study was limited to one academic medical center. The retrospective scoring model limits the ability to identify all patient risk factors. VTE outcomes were reported only for the length of hospitalization and did not include post-discharge follow-up. Replicating this study across a larger patient population and performing a prospective study with follow-up after discharge would address these limitations.

Bottom line: The Caprini risk assessment model is a valid instrument to assess VTE risk in critically ill surgical patients.

Citation: Obi AT, Pannucci CJ, Nackashi A, et al. Validation of the Caprini venous thromboembolism risk assessment model in critically ill surgical patients. JAMA Surg. 2015;150(10):941-948.

Clinical question: Does total knee replacement followed by a 12-week non-surgical treatment program provide greater pain relief and improvement in function and quality of life than non-surgical treatment alone?

Background: The number of total knee replacements in the U.S. has increased dramatically since the 1970s and is expected to continue to rise. To date, evidence to support the effectiveness of surgical intervention compared to non-surgical intervention is lacking.

Study design: Randomized, controlled trial.

Setting: Aalborg University Hospital Outpatient Clinics, Denmark.

Synopsis: One hundred patients with osteoarthritis were randomly assigned to undergo total knee replacement followed by 12 weeks of non-surgical treatment or to receive only 12 weeks of non-surgical treatment. The non-surgical treatment program consisted of exercise, education, dietary advice, insoles, and pain medication. Change from baseline to 12 months was assessed using the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS).

The total knee replacement group had a significantly greater improvement in the KOOS score than did the non-surgical group. Serious adverse events were more common in the total knee replacement group.

The study did not include a sham-surgery control group. It is unknown whether the KOOS pain subscale is generalizable to patients with severe pain. Additionally, the intensity of non-surgical treatment may have differed between groups.

Bottom line: Total knee replacement followed by non-surgical treatment is more efficacious than non-surgical treatment alone in providing pain relief and improving function and quality of life, but it is associated with higher number of adverse events.

Citation: Skou ST, Roos EM, Laursen MB, et al. A randomized, controlled trial of total knee replacement. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(17):1597-1606.

Clinical question: Does total knee replacement followed by a 12-week non-surgical treatment program provide greater pain relief and improvement in function and quality of life than non-surgical treatment alone?

Background: The number of total knee replacements in the U.S. has increased dramatically since the 1970s and is expected to continue to rise. To date, evidence to support the effectiveness of surgical intervention compared to non-surgical intervention is lacking.

Study design: Randomized, controlled trial.

Setting: Aalborg University Hospital Outpatient Clinics, Denmark.

Synopsis: One hundred patients with osteoarthritis were randomly assigned to undergo total knee replacement followed by 12 weeks of non-surgical treatment or to receive only 12 weeks of non-surgical treatment. The non-surgical treatment program consisted of exercise, education, dietary advice, insoles, and pain medication. Change from baseline to 12 months was assessed using the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS).

The total knee replacement group had a significantly greater improvement in the KOOS score than did the non-surgical group. Serious adverse events were more common in the total knee replacement group.

The study did not include a sham-surgery control group. It is unknown whether the KOOS pain subscale is generalizable to patients with severe pain. Additionally, the intensity of non-surgical treatment may have differed between groups.

Bottom line: Total knee replacement followed by non-surgical treatment is more efficacious than non-surgical treatment alone in providing pain relief and improving function and quality of life, but it is associated with higher number of adverse events.

Citation: Skou ST, Roos EM, Laursen MB, et al. A randomized, controlled trial of total knee replacement. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(17):1597-1606.

Clinical question: Does total knee replacement followed by a 12-week non-surgical treatment program provide greater pain relief and improvement in function and quality of life than non-surgical treatment alone?

Background: The number of total knee replacements in the U.S. has increased dramatically since the 1970s and is expected to continue to rise. To date, evidence to support the effectiveness of surgical intervention compared to non-surgical intervention is lacking.

Study design: Randomized, controlled trial.

Setting: Aalborg University Hospital Outpatient Clinics, Denmark.

Synopsis: One hundred patients with osteoarthritis were randomly assigned to undergo total knee replacement followed by 12 weeks of non-surgical treatment or to receive only 12 weeks of non-surgical treatment. The non-surgical treatment program consisted of exercise, education, dietary advice, insoles, and pain medication. Change from baseline to 12 months was assessed using the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS).

The total knee replacement group had a significantly greater improvement in the KOOS score than did the non-surgical group. Serious adverse events were more common in the total knee replacement group.

The study did not include a sham-surgery control group. It is unknown whether the KOOS pain subscale is generalizable to patients with severe pain. Additionally, the intensity of non-surgical treatment may have differed between groups.

Bottom line: Total knee replacement followed by non-surgical treatment is more efficacious than non-surgical treatment alone in providing pain relief and improving function and quality of life, but it is associated with higher number of adverse events.

Citation: Skou ST, Roos EM, Laursen MB, et al. A randomized, controlled trial of total knee replacement. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(17):1597-1606.

Clinical question: Is there an improved 30-day mortality rate if patients receive blood transfusion at higher hematocrit values after postoperative myocardial infarction (MI)?

Background: Prior studies evaluating patients with a history of coronary artery disease (CAD) who undergo non-cardiac surgery have shown similar mortality outcomes with liberal and restrictive transfusion strategies. Data are lacking for transfusion strategies in patients with CAD who experience postoperative MI after non-cardiac surgeries.

Study design: Retrospective cohort.

Setting: Veterans Affairs health system.

Synopsis: The study included 7,361 patients with a history of CAD who underwent non-cardiac surgery whose postoperative hematocrit was between 20% and 30%. Patients were stratified by postoperative hematocrit nadir and presence of postoperative MI. In patients with postoperative MI, transfusion was associated with lower mortality with hematocrit nadir of 20%–24% but not with hematocrit of 24%–27% or 27%–30%. In patients without postoperative MI, transfusion was associated with higher mortality in patients with hematocrit of 27%–30%.

This retrospective study was limited to the VA population of mostly male patients. The sample size was limited. The study was unable to determine if postoperative blood transfusion is a risk for developing MI.

Bottom line: Patients with a history of CAD and MI who have a postoperative MI following non-cardiac surgery may benefit from higher blood transfusion thresholds; however, further controlled studies are needed.

Citation: Hollis RH, Singeltary BA, McMurtrie JT, et al. Blood transfusion and 30-day mortality in patients with coronary artery disease and anemia following noncardiac surgery [published online ahead of print October 7, 2015]. JAMA Surg. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2015.3420.

Clinical question: Is there an improved 30-day mortality rate if patients receive blood transfusion at higher hematocrit values after postoperative myocardial infarction (MI)?

Background: Prior studies evaluating patients with a history of coronary artery disease (CAD) who undergo non-cardiac surgery have shown similar mortality outcomes with liberal and restrictive transfusion strategies. Data are lacking for transfusion strategies in patients with CAD who experience postoperative MI after non-cardiac surgeries.

Study design: Retrospective cohort.

Setting: Veterans Affairs health system.

Synopsis: The study included 7,361 patients with a history of CAD who underwent non-cardiac surgery whose postoperative hematocrit was between 20% and 30%. Patients were stratified by postoperative hematocrit nadir and presence of postoperative MI. In patients with postoperative MI, transfusion was associated with lower mortality with hematocrit nadir of 20%–24% but not with hematocrit of 24%–27% or 27%–30%. In patients without postoperative MI, transfusion was associated with higher mortality in patients with hematocrit of 27%–30%.

This retrospective study was limited to the VA population of mostly male patients. The sample size was limited. The study was unable to determine if postoperative blood transfusion is a risk for developing MI.

Bottom line: Patients with a history of CAD and MI who have a postoperative MI following non-cardiac surgery may benefit from higher blood transfusion thresholds; however, further controlled studies are needed.

Citation: Hollis RH, Singeltary BA, McMurtrie JT, et al. Blood transfusion and 30-day mortality in patients with coronary artery disease and anemia following noncardiac surgery [published online ahead of print October 7, 2015]. JAMA Surg. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2015.3420.

Clinical question: Is there an improved 30-day mortality rate if patients receive blood transfusion at higher hematocrit values after postoperative myocardial infarction (MI)?

Background: Prior studies evaluating patients with a history of coronary artery disease (CAD) who undergo non-cardiac surgery have shown similar mortality outcomes with liberal and restrictive transfusion strategies. Data are lacking for transfusion strategies in patients with CAD who experience postoperative MI after non-cardiac surgeries.

Study design: Retrospective cohort.

Setting: Veterans Affairs health system.

Synopsis: The study included 7,361 patients with a history of CAD who underwent non-cardiac surgery whose postoperative hematocrit was between 20% and 30%. Patients were stratified by postoperative hematocrit nadir and presence of postoperative MI. In patients with postoperative MI, transfusion was associated with lower mortality with hematocrit nadir of 20%–24% but not with hematocrit of 24%–27% or 27%–30%. In patients without postoperative MI, transfusion was associated with higher mortality in patients with hematocrit of 27%–30%.

This retrospective study was limited to the VA population of mostly male patients. The sample size was limited. The study was unable to determine if postoperative blood transfusion is a risk for developing MI.

Bottom line: Patients with a history of CAD and MI who have a postoperative MI following non-cardiac surgery may benefit from higher blood transfusion thresholds; however, further controlled studies are needed.

Citation: Hollis RH, Singeltary BA, McMurtrie JT, et al. Blood transfusion and 30-day mortality in patients with coronary artery disease and anemia following noncardiac surgery [published online ahead of print October 7, 2015]. JAMA Surg. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2015.3420.

Clinical question: Does the use of nebulized 3% hypertonic saline shorten length of stay (LOS) in infants hospitalized with acute bronchiolitis?

Background: Acute bronchiolitis is a disease primarily of infants and young children, triggered by a viral infection that leads to variable inflammation, edema, and inspissated mucus in the lower airways. Although bronchiolitis is the most common cause of hospitalization in children under the age of two, few interventions have been shown to improve patient-level outcomes.

Hypertonic saline (generally 3%) has been one of the few interventions that has improved outcomes in some studies, leading the most recent American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) clinical practice guideline (CPG) to state that nebulized hypertonic saline may be considered for infants and children hospitalized for bronchiolitis. The studies cited in this CPG statement were heterogeneous, with many of them performed in Europe, where the LOS for bronchiolitis is generally longer than in the U.S. In addition, most of the studies administered hypertonic saline (HS) with a bronchodilator, confounding the outcomes with an intervention not recommended in the most recent bronchiolitis CPG.

Study design: Prospective, randomized controlled, double-blinded, parallel-group study.

Setting: Urban, tertiary-care, 136-bed children’s hospital.

Synopsis: Infants 4 points received a bronchodilator and were withdrawn from the study.

Of the 227 patients enrolled after application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, 113 were randomized to receive HS and 114 to NS. Twenty patients in the HS group and 17 in the NS group discontinued intervention due to ICU transfer, provider choice to use albuterol, parental request, or protocol deviation, but patients were analyzed by intention-to-treat (ITT) assignments. No significant difference in LOS between the HS and NS groups was found, either by the traditional definition or the treatment-to-discharge order definition. No significant differences were found in secondary outcomes between the two groups, including readmission rates or clinical worsening. In addition, pre- to post-treatment RDAI score changes were not significantly different for HS versus NS.

Bottom line: Treating infants

Citation: Silver AH, Esteban-Cruciani N, Azzarone G, et al. 3% hypertonic saline versus normal saline in inpatient bronchiolitis: a randomized controlled trial. Pediatrics. 2015;136(6):1036-1043. TH

---

Dr. Chang is pediatric editor of The Hospitalist. He is associate clinical professor of medicine and pediatrics at the University of California at San Diego (UCSD) School of Medicine, and a hospitalist at both UCSD Medical Center and Rady Children’s Hospital. Send comments and questions to [email protected].

Clinical question: Does the use of nebulized 3% hypertonic saline shorten length of stay (LOS) in infants hospitalized with acute bronchiolitis?

Background: Acute bronchiolitis is a disease primarily of infants and young children, triggered by a viral infection that leads to variable inflammation, edema, and inspissated mucus in the lower airways. Although bronchiolitis is the most common cause of hospitalization in children under the age of two, few interventions have been shown to improve patient-level outcomes.

Hypertonic saline (generally 3%) has been one of the few interventions that has improved outcomes in some studies, leading the most recent American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) clinical practice guideline (CPG) to state that nebulized hypertonic saline may be considered for infants and children hospitalized for bronchiolitis. The studies cited in this CPG statement were heterogeneous, with many of them performed in Europe, where the LOS for bronchiolitis is generally longer than in the U.S. In addition, most of the studies administered hypertonic saline (HS) with a bronchodilator, confounding the outcomes with an intervention not recommended in the most recent bronchiolitis CPG.

Study design: Prospective, randomized controlled, double-blinded, parallel-group study.

Setting: Urban, tertiary-care, 136-bed children’s hospital.

Synopsis: Infants 4 points received a bronchodilator and were withdrawn from the study.

Of the 227 patients enrolled after application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, 113 were randomized to receive HS and 114 to NS. Twenty patients in the HS group and 17 in the NS group discontinued intervention due to ICU transfer, provider choice to use albuterol, parental request, or protocol deviation, but patients were analyzed by intention-to-treat (ITT) assignments. No significant difference in LOS between the HS and NS groups was found, either by the traditional definition or the treatment-to-discharge order definition. No significant differences were found in secondary outcomes between the two groups, including readmission rates or clinical worsening. In addition, pre- to post-treatment RDAI score changes were not significantly different for HS versus NS.

Bottom line: Treating infants

Citation: Silver AH, Esteban-Cruciani N, Azzarone G, et al. 3% hypertonic saline versus normal saline in inpatient bronchiolitis: a randomized controlled trial. Pediatrics. 2015;136(6):1036-1043. TH

---

Dr. Chang is pediatric editor of The Hospitalist. He is associate clinical professor of medicine and pediatrics at the University of California at San Diego (UCSD) School of Medicine, and a hospitalist at both UCSD Medical Center and Rady Children’s Hospital. Send comments and questions to [email protected].

Clinical question: Does the use of nebulized 3% hypertonic saline shorten length of stay (LOS) in infants hospitalized with acute bronchiolitis?

Background: Acute bronchiolitis is a disease primarily of infants and young children, triggered by a viral infection that leads to variable inflammation, edema, and inspissated mucus in the lower airways. Although bronchiolitis is the most common cause of hospitalization in children under the age of two, few interventions have been shown to improve patient-level outcomes.

Hypertonic saline (generally 3%) has been one of the few interventions that has improved outcomes in some studies, leading the most recent American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) clinical practice guideline (CPG) to state that nebulized hypertonic saline may be considered for infants and children hospitalized for bronchiolitis. The studies cited in this CPG statement were heterogeneous, with many of them performed in Europe, where the LOS for bronchiolitis is generally longer than in the U.S. In addition, most of the studies administered hypertonic saline (HS) with a bronchodilator, confounding the outcomes with an intervention not recommended in the most recent bronchiolitis CPG.

Study design: Prospective, randomized controlled, double-blinded, parallel-group study.

Setting: Urban, tertiary-care, 136-bed children’s hospital.

Synopsis: Infants 4 points received a bronchodilator and were withdrawn from the study.

Of the 227 patients enrolled after application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, 113 were randomized to receive HS and 114 to NS. Twenty patients in the HS group and 17 in the NS group discontinued intervention due to ICU transfer, provider choice to use albuterol, parental request, or protocol deviation, but patients were analyzed by intention-to-treat (ITT) assignments. No significant difference in LOS between the HS and NS groups was found, either by the traditional definition or the treatment-to-discharge order definition. No significant differences were found in secondary outcomes between the two groups, including readmission rates or clinical worsening. In addition, pre- to post-treatment RDAI score changes were not significantly different for HS versus NS.

Bottom line: Treating infants

Citation: Silver AH, Esteban-Cruciani N, Azzarone G, et al. 3% hypertonic saline versus normal saline in inpatient bronchiolitis: a randomized controlled trial. Pediatrics. 2015;136(6):1036-1043. TH

---

Dr. Chang is pediatric editor of The Hospitalist. He is associate clinical professor of medicine and pediatrics at the University of California at San Diego (UCSD) School of Medicine, and a hospitalist at both UCSD Medical Center and Rady Children’s Hospital. Send comments and questions to [email protected].

Clinical question: Does taking a perioperative beta-blocker increase the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) and all-cause mortality in low-risk patients with essential hypertension (HTN)?

Background: Guidelines for the use of perioperative beta-blockers are being reevaluated due to concerns about validity of prior studies that supported the use of perioperative beta-blockers. This study sought to evaluate effectiveness and safety of beta-blockers in patients with uncomplicated HTN.

Study design: Observational cohort study.

Setting: Denmark.

Synopsis: This study included 55,320 hypertensive patients using at least two antihypertensive drugs who underwent non-cardiac surgery. Of these, 14,644 patients were treated with a beta-blocker. Patients with secondary cardiovascular conditions, renal disease, or liver disease were excluded; 30-day MACEs and all-cause mortality were analyzed.

In patients treated with a beta-blocker, the incidence of 30-day MACEs was 1.32% compared with 0.84% in the non-beta-blockers group; 30-day mortality in those treated with beta-blocker was 1.9% compared with 1.3% in the non-beta-blocker group. Risk of beta-blocker-associated MACEs was higher in patients 70 and older. Causality cannot be concluded based on observational data.

Bottom line: In patients with uncomplicated HTN, treatment with a beta-blocker may be associated with increased 30-day risk of perioperative MACEs after non-cardiac surgery.

Citation: Jorgensen ME, Hlatky MA, Kober L, et al. Beta-blocker-associated risks in patients with uncomplicated hypertension undergoing noncardiac surgery. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(12):1923-1931.

Clinical question: Does taking a perioperative beta-blocker increase the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) and all-cause mortality in low-risk patients with essential hypertension (HTN)?

Background: Guidelines for the use of perioperative beta-blockers are being reevaluated due to concerns about validity of prior studies that supported the use of perioperative beta-blockers. This study sought to evaluate effectiveness and safety of beta-blockers in patients with uncomplicated HTN.

Study design: Observational cohort study.

Setting: Denmark.

Synopsis: This study included 55,320 hypertensive patients using at least two antihypertensive drugs who underwent non-cardiac surgery. Of these, 14,644 patients were treated with a beta-blocker. Patients with secondary cardiovascular conditions, renal disease, or liver disease were excluded; 30-day MACEs and all-cause mortality were analyzed.

In patients treated with a beta-blocker, the incidence of 30-day MACEs was 1.32% compared with 0.84% in the non-beta-blockers group; 30-day mortality in those treated with beta-blocker was 1.9% compared with 1.3% in the non-beta-blocker group. Risk of beta-blocker-associated MACEs was higher in patients 70 and older. Causality cannot be concluded based on observational data.

Bottom line: In patients with uncomplicated HTN, treatment with a beta-blocker may be associated with increased 30-day risk of perioperative MACEs after non-cardiac surgery.

Citation: Jorgensen ME, Hlatky MA, Kober L, et al. Beta-blocker-associated risks in patients with uncomplicated hypertension undergoing noncardiac surgery. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(12):1923-1931.

Clinical question: Does taking a perioperative beta-blocker increase the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) and all-cause mortality in low-risk patients with essential hypertension (HTN)?

Background: Guidelines for the use of perioperative beta-blockers are being reevaluated due to concerns about validity of prior studies that supported the use of perioperative beta-blockers. This study sought to evaluate effectiveness and safety of beta-blockers in patients with uncomplicated HTN.

Study design: Observational cohort study.

Setting: Denmark.

Synopsis: This study included 55,320 hypertensive patients using at least two antihypertensive drugs who underwent non-cardiac surgery. Of these, 14,644 patients were treated with a beta-blocker. Patients with secondary cardiovascular conditions, renal disease, or liver disease were excluded; 30-day MACEs and all-cause mortality were analyzed.

In patients treated with a beta-blocker, the incidence of 30-day MACEs was 1.32% compared with 0.84% in the non-beta-blockers group; 30-day mortality in those treated with beta-blocker was 1.9% compared with 1.3% in the non-beta-blocker group. Risk of beta-blocker-associated MACEs was higher in patients 70 and older. Causality cannot be concluded based on observational data.

Bottom line: In patients with uncomplicated HTN, treatment with a beta-blocker may be associated with increased 30-day risk of perioperative MACEs after non-cardiac surgery.

Citation: Jorgensen ME, Hlatky MA, Kober L, et al. Beta-blocker-associated risks in patients with uncomplicated hypertension undergoing noncardiac surgery. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(12):1923-1931.

Clinical question: Does pharmacist involvement in transitions of care decrease medication errors (MEs), adverse drug events (ADEs), and 30-day ED visits and inpatient readmissions?

Background: Previous studies show pharmacist involvement in discharge can reduce ADEs and improve patient satisfaction, but there have been inconsistent data on the impact of pharmacist involvement on readmissions, ADEs, and MEs.

Study design: Prospective, randomized, single-period, longitudinal study.

Setting: Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago.

Synopsis: Investigators included 278 patients (137 in study arm, 141 in control arm) in the final analysis. The study arm received intensive pharmacist involvement on admission and discharge, followed by phone calls at three, 14, and 30 days post-discharge. The study arm had lower composite 30-day ED visits and inpatient readmission rates compared to the control group (25% vs. 39%; P=0.001) but did not have lower isolated inpatient readmission rates (20% vs. 24%; P=0.43). ADEs and MEs were not significantly different between the two groups.

This study had extensive exclusion criteria, limiting the patient population to which these results can be applied. It was underpowered, which could have prevented the detection of a significant improvement in readmission rates.

Care transitions are high-risk periods in patient care, and there is benefit to continuity of care of an interdisciplinary team, including pharmacists.

Bottom line: Pharmacist involvement in transitions of care was shown to reduce the composite of ED visits and inpatient readmissions.

Citation: Phatak A, Prusi R, Ward B, et al. Impact of pharmacist involvement in the transitional care of high-risk patients through medication reconciliation, medication education, and postdischarge call-backs (IPITCH Study). J Hosp Med. 2016;11(1):39-44. doi:10.1002/jhm.2493.

Clinical question: Does pharmacist involvement in transitions of care decrease medication errors (MEs), adverse drug events (ADEs), and 30-day ED visits and inpatient readmissions?

Background: Previous studies show pharmacist involvement in discharge can reduce ADEs and improve patient satisfaction, but there have been inconsistent data on the impact of pharmacist involvement on readmissions, ADEs, and MEs.

Study design: Prospective, randomized, single-period, longitudinal study.

Setting: Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago.

Synopsis: Investigators included 278 patients (137 in study arm, 141 in control arm) in the final analysis. The study arm received intensive pharmacist involvement on admission and discharge, followed by phone calls at three, 14, and 30 days post-discharge. The study arm had lower composite 30-day ED visits and inpatient readmission rates compared to the control group (25% vs. 39%; P=0.001) but did not have lower isolated inpatient readmission rates (20% vs. 24%; P=0.43). ADEs and MEs were not significantly different between the two groups.

This study had extensive exclusion criteria, limiting the patient population to which these results can be applied. It was underpowered, which could have prevented the detection of a significant improvement in readmission rates.

Care transitions are high-risk periods in patient care, and there is benefit to continuity of care of an interdisciplinary team, including pharmacists.

Bottom line: Pharmacist involvement in transitions of care was shown to reduce the composite of ED visits and inpatient readmissions.

Citation: Phatak A, Prusi R, Ward B, et al. Impact of pharmacist involvement in the transitional care of high-risk patients through medication reconciliation, medication education, and postdischarge call-backs (IPITCH Study). J Hosp Med. 2016;11(1):39-44. doi:10.1002/jhm.2493.

Clinical question: Does pharmacist involvement in transitions of care decrease medication errors (MEs), adverse drug events (ADEs), and 30-day ED visits and inpatient readmissions?

Background: Previous studies show pharmacist involvement in discharge can reduce ADEs and improve patient satisfaction, but there have been inconsistent data on the impact of pharmacist involvement on readmissions, ADEs, and MEs.

Study design: Prospective, randomized, single-period, longitudinal study.

Setting: Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago.

Synopsis: Investigators included 278 patients (137 in study arm, 141 in control arm) in the final analysis. The study arm received intensive pharmacist involvement on admission and discharge, followed by phone calls at three, 14, and 30 days post-discharge. The study arm had lower composite 30-day ED visits and inpatient readmission rates compared to the control group (25% vs. 39%; P=0.001) but did not have lower isolated inpatient readmission rates (20% vs. 24%; P=0.43). ADEs and MEs were not significantly different between the two groups.

This study had extensive exclusion criteria, limiting the patient population to which these results can be applied. It was underpowered, which could have prevented the detection of a significant improvement in readmission rates.

Care transitions are high-risk periods in patient care, and there is benefit to continuity of care of an interdisciplinary team, including pharmacists.

Bottom line: Pharmacist involvement in transitions of care was shown to reduce the composite of ED visits and inpatient readmissions.

Citation: Phatak A, Prusi R, Ward B, et al. Impact of pharmacist involvement in the transitional care of high-risk patients through medication reconciliation, medication education, and postdischarge call-backs (IPITCH Study). J Hosp Med. 2016;11(1):39-44. doi:10.1002/jhm.2493.

Clinical question: Does price display impact order costs and volume as well as patient safety outcomes, and is it acceptable to providers?

Background: Up to one-third of national healthcare expenditures are wasteful, with physicians playing a central role in overall cost, purchasing almost all tests and therapies for patients. Increasing the transparency of costs for physicians is one strategy to reduce unnecessary spending.

Study design: Systematic review.

Setting: Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn.

Synopsis: Nineteen publications were selected for final analysis. Thirteen studies reported the impact of price display on costs, nine of which showed a statistically significant decrease in order costs. Only three of eight studies reporting the impact of price display on order volume showed statistically significant decreases in order volume. One study showed adverse safety findings in the form of higher rates of unscheduled follow-up care in a pediatric ED. Physicians were overall satisfied with price display in the five studies reporting this.

There was high heterogeneity among studies, which did not allow for pooling of data. Furthermore, more than half of the studies were conducted more than 15 years ago, limiting their generalizability to the modern era of electronic health records (EHRs).

Overall, this review supports the conclusion that price display has a modest effect on order costs. Additional studies utilizing EHR systems are required to more definitively confirm these findings.

Bottom line: Displaying prices to physicians can have a modest effect on overall order costs.

Citation: Silvestri MT, Bongiovanni TR, Glover JG, Gross CP. Impact of price display on provider ordering: a systematic review. J Hosp Med. 2016;11(1):65-76. doi:10.1002/jhm.2500.

Clinical question: Does price display impact order costs and volume as well as patient safety outcomes, and is it acceptable to providers?

Background: Up to one-third of national healthcare expenditures are wasteful, with physicians playing a central role in overall cost, purchasing almost all tests and therapies for patients. Increasing the transparency of costs for physicians is one strategy to reduce unnecessary spending.

Study design: Systematic review.

Setting: Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn.

Synopsis: Nineteen publications were selected for final analysis. Thirteen studies reported the impact of price display on costs, nine of which showed a statistically significant decrease in order costs. Only three of eight studies reporting the impact of price display on order volume showed statistically significant decreases in order volume. One study showed adverse safety findings in the form of higher rates of unscheduled follow-up care in a pediatric ED. Physicians were overall satisfied with price display in the five studies reporting this.

There was high heterogeneity among studies, which did not allow for pooling of data. Furthermore, more than half of the studies were conducted more than 15 years ago, limiting their generalizability to the modern era of electronic health records (EHRs).

Overall, this review supports the conclusion that price display has a modest effect on order costs. Additional studies utilizing EHR systems are required to more definitively confirm these findings.

Bottom line: Displaying prices to physicians can have a modest effect on overall order costs.

Citation: Silvestri MT, Bongiovanni TR, Glover JG, Gross CP. Impact of price display on provider ordering: a systematic review. J Hosp Med. 2016;11(1):65-76. doi:10.1002/jhm.2500.

Clinical question: Does price display impact order costs and volume as well as patient safety outcomes, and is it acceptable to providers?

Background: Up to one-third of national healthcare expenditures are wasteful, with physicians playing a central role in overall cost, purchasing almost all tests and therapies for patients. Increasing the transparency of costs for physicians is one strategy to reduce unnecessary spending.

Study design: Systematic review.

Setting: Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn.

Synopsis: Nineteen publications were selected for final analysis. Thirteen studies reported the impact of price display on costs, nine of which showed a statistically significant decrease in order costs. Only three of eight studies reporting the impact of price display on order volume showed statistically significant decreases in order volume. One study showed adverse safety findings in the form of higher rates of unscheduled follow-up care in a pediatric ED. Physicians were overall satisfied with price display in the five studies reporting this.

There was high heterogeneity among studies, which did not allow for pooling of data. Furthermore, more than half of the studies were conducted more than 15 years ago, limiting their generalizability to the modern era of electronic health records (EHRs).

Overall, this review supports the conclusion that price display has a modest effect on order costs. Additional studies utilizing EHR systems are required to more definitively confirm these findings.

Bottom line: Displaying prices to physicians can have a modest effect on overall order costs.

Citation: Silvestri MT, Bongiovanni TR, Glover JG, Gross CP. Impact of price display on provider ordering: a systematic review. J Hosp Med. 2016;11(1):65-76. doi:10.1002/jhm.2500.