Medicolegal Issues

Dear Dr. Mossman,

A psychiatrist retires from practice and goes into some other line of work—perhaps managing a restaurant. He then has an “affair” with a former patient whom he had not treated for several years. Could the retired psychiatrist’s conduct be the basis of a successful lawsuit?—Submitted by “Dr. D”

Evidence tells us that the retired psychiatrist’s behavior likely could do emotional harm to his former patient. If the former patient suffers some injury, a successful suit could follow—if not on grounds of malpractice, then on other grounds. In this article we’ll see why by looking at:

• rates of doctor-patient sex
• potential harm from doctor-patient sex
• ethical bans on sex with former patients
• possible legal actions.

Sex with patients: Rates and risk

Doctors and patients often develop erotic thoughts about each other.^1,2 But as Sigmund Freud noted almost a century ago, an actual love relationship between a doctor and a psychotherapy patient can cause a “complete defeat for the treatment” and destroy the patient’s chance for recovery.³

More than 5 decades later, surveys of medical professionals supplemented Freud’s observations with data about the frequency and impact of doctor-patient sex. In a 1973 survey, 11% of physicians said they had erotic contact with patients, and 5% reported intercourse.⁴ In a 1986 survey of psychiatrists, 3% of women and 7% of men acknowledged having sexual contact with patients.⁵ In a 1992 study of 10,000 nonpsychiatric physicians, 9% of respondents reported having sex with patients.⁶ Actual rates of doctor-patient sex probably are much higher than reported because physicians may be reluctant to admit to having erotic contact with patients, even in anonymous surveys.⁷ The typical therapist-patient sex scenario involves a male doctor and an adult female patient, but same-sex encounters and sexual contact with minors occur, too.⁸

Sex between a therapist and a patient is likely to cause emotional injury. For example, a 1991 study found that 90% of psychotherapy patients who had sexual involvement with a prior therapist had been harmed by the experience.⁹ Books, articles, and Web sites offer vivid individual accounts of harm patients have suffered ( Table ). Doctors who have sex with patients could face public opprobrium, civil lawsuits, actions against their medical licenses, and prosecution in states that make sex with psychiatric patients a criminal offense.¹⁰

Table

How sexual relationships can harm patients

Type of harm	Explanation
Ambivalence	Psychological paralysis regarding whether to protect or take action against the abusive therapist
Cognitive dysfunction	Impaired memory and concentration, intrusive thoughts, flashbacks
Emotional lability	Unpredictable emotional responses, abrupt changes in mood, severe disruption of the patient’s typical way of feeling
Emptiness, isolation	Lost sense of self, feeling cut off from others
Guilt	Irrational self-blame for causing the sexual contact
Impaired trust	Fear of being taken advantage of, used, or abused in future therapy
Suicide	14% of patients who had sex with a therapist attempt suicide; approximately 1% commit suicide
Role confusion	Treatment sessions and the therapeutic relationship serve the therapist’s needs rather than the patient’s; this perception may generalize to later therapies and other relationships
Sexual confusion	Examples include disgust with sexual feelings, uncertainty about sexual orientation, belief that self-worth comes from gratifying others’ sexual desires
Confusion about anger	Rage at self, self-loathing, need to suppress angry feelings, mistaken beliefs that others are angry at you
Source: Adapted from reference 8

What about former patients?

Sex between providers and current patients is opposed by all major healthcare organizations, including the American Psychiatric Association (APA),¹¹ American Medical Association,¹² and American Psychological Association.¹³ The last 2 groups strongly discourage sex with former patients, but the APA’s ethics code states that such activity is always unethical.

The APA’s position reflects 2 general truths of psychiatric practice:

• Psychiatric patients often return for care years after initial treatment has ended. “Former patients” are really “possible future patients.” Improper relationships with former patients disrupt the doctor’s obligation to remain available for future care.
• Even if a patient never returns to treatment, intense feelings about a doctor can last for years. A psychiatrist who engages in sex with a former patient may evoke and manipulate feelings “left over” from therapy.

Psychiatrists therefore “have only one kind of relationship with a patient—that is, a doctor-patient relationship.”¹⁴ Moreover, as Simon and Shuman observe, “[N]o patient [is] strong enough, no pause is long enough, and no love is true enough to justify compromising this boundary.”¹⁵

Legal actions

If a physician no longer practices medicine, can any of his activities—including with a former patient—be malpractice? In fact, sex between practicing doctors and current patients might not always be malpractice. If a psychiatrist gains sexual access to a patient by saying that the sex will be therapeutic, the psychiatrist has perpetrated fraud and this intentional action might not be covered by malpractice insurance.¹⁶

 

In several cases involving nonpsychiatric physicians,¹⁷ courts have held that consensual doctor-patient sex is not malpractice, though it might represent some other form of wrongdoing. The argument is that sex with a patient is an intentional act that is never a professional service, whereas malpractice by definition arises unintentionally from negligence while rendering professional services. Other courts, however, have held that doctor-patient sex can be malpractice because it breaches the physician’s fiduciary relationship and can constitute an abuse of power.¹⁸

After retirement, physicians still have responsibilities to former patients: to protect records, to respect confidentiality, and to release information upon proper requests. Some fiduciary duties to patients survive the conclusion of treatment, and behavior that breaches those responsibilities can bring legal action.

Psychiatrists should realize that many former patients remain vulnerable because of feelings “left over” from therapy. Therefore, potential civil actions against a retired psychiatrist might include:

A suit for intentional infliction of emotional distress. This tort action requires proving more than mere insults or indignities; it occurs only when someone “by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another.”¹⁹ Initiating sex with a former patient is strongly disapproved and meets the legal criterion of having a high probability of causing mental distress.²⁰

A suit for negligent infliction of emotional distress. Modern law permits recourse for negligently inflicted emotional distress when harm occurs in “the course of specified categories of activities, undertakings, or relationships in which the negligent conduct is especially likely to cause emotional disturbance.”²¹

Suits for exploitation. Some jurisdictions allow suits against therapists who have sex with former patients, irrespective of therapists’ license status. For example, Minnesota allows lawsuits for “sexual exploitation” if the former patient’s capacity to consent was impaired by emotional dependence on the psychotherapist.²²

Actions by licensing boards. Many retired practitioners maintain their medical licenses. Retired-but-still-licensed psychiatrists can be subject to professional disciplinary actions.

Dear Dr. Mossman,

A psychiatrist retires from practice and goes into some other line of work—perhaps managing a restaurant. He then has an “affair” with a former patient whom he had not treated for several years. Could the retired psychiatrist’s conduct be the basis of a successful lawsuit?—Submitted by “Dr. D”

Evidence tells us that the retired psychiatrist’s behavior likely could do emotional harm to his former patient. If the former patient suffers some injury, a successful suit could follow—if not on grounds of malpractice, then on other grounds. In this article we’ll see why by looking at:

• rates of doctor-patient sex
• potential harm from doctor-patient sex
• ethical bans on sex with former patients
• possible legal actions.

Sex with patients: Rates and risk

Doctors and patients often develop erotic thoughts about each other.^1,2 But as Sigmund Freud noted almost a century ago, an actual love relationship between a doctor and a psychotherapy patient can cause a “complete defeat for the treatment” and destroy the patient’s chance for recovery.³

More than 5 decades later, surveys of medical professionals supplemented Freud’s observations with data about the frequency and impact of doctor-patient sex. In a 1973 survey, 11% of physicians said they had erotic contact with patients, and 5% reported intercourse.⁴ In a 1986 survey of psychiatrists, 3% of women and 7% of men acknowledged having sexual contact with patients.⁵ In a 1992 study of 10,000 nonpsychiatric physicians, 9% of respondents reported having sex with patients.⁶ Actual rates of doctor-patient sex probably are much higher than reported because physicians may be reluctant to admit to having erotic contact with patients, even in anonymous surveys.⁷ The typical therapist-patient sex scenario involves a male doctor and an adult female patient, but same-sex encounters and sexual contact with minors occur, too.⁸

Sex between a therapist and a patient is likely to cause emotional injury. For example, a 1991 study found that 90% of psychotherapy patients who had sexual involvement with a prior therapist had been harmed by the experience.⁹ Books, articles, and Web sites offer vivid individual accounts of harm patients have suffered ( Table ). Doctors who have sex with patients could face public opprobrium, civil lawsuits, actions against their medical licenses, and prosecution in states that make sex with psychiatric patients a criminal offense.¹⁰

Table

How sexual relationships can harm patients

Type of harm	Explanation
Ambivalence	Psychological paralysis regarding whether to protect or take action against the abusive therapist
Cognitive dysfunction	Impaired memory and concentration, intrusive thoughts, flashbacks
Emotional lability	Unpredictable emotional responses, abrupt changes in mood, severe disruption of the patient’s typical way of feeling
Emptiness, isolation	Lost sense of self, feeling cut off from others
Guilt	Irrational self-blame for causing the sexual contact
Impaired trust	Fear of being taken advantage of, used, or abused in future therapy
Suicide	14% of patients who had sex with a therapist attempt suicide; approximately 1% commit suicide
Role confusion	Treatment sessions and the therapeutic relationship serve the therapist’s needs rather than the patient’s; this perception may generalize to later therapies and other relationships
Sexual confusion	Examples include disgust with sexual feelings, uncertainty about sexual orientation, belief that self-worth comes from gratifying others’ sexual desires
Confusion about anger	Rage at self, self-loathing, need to suppress angry feelings, mistaken beliefs that others are angry at you
Source: Adapted from reference 8

What about former patients?

Sex between providers and current patients is opposed by all major healthcare organizations, including the American Psychiatric Association (APA),¹¹ American Medical Association,¹² and American Psychological Association.¹³ The last 2 groups strongly discourage sex with former patients, but the APA’s ethics code states that such activity is always unethical.

The APA’s position reflects 2 general truths of psychiatric practice:

• Psychiatric patients often return for care years after initial treatment has ended. “Former patients” are really “possible future patients.” Improper relationships with former patients disrupt the doctor’s obligation to remain available for future care.
• Even if a patient never returns to treatment, intense feelings about a doctor can last for years. A psychiatrist who engages in sex with a former patient may evoke and manipulate feelings “left over” from therapy.

Psychiatrists therefore “have only one kind of relationship with a patient—that is, a doctor-patient relationship.”¹⁴ Moreover, as Simon and Shuman observe, “[N]o patient [is] strong enough, no pause is long enough, and no love is true enough to justify compromising this boundary.”¹⁵

Legal actions

If a physician no longer practices medicine, can any of his activities—including with a former patient—be malpractice? In fact, sex between practicing doctors and current patients might not always be malpractice. If a psychiatrist gains sexual access to a patient by saying that the sex will be therapeutic, the psychiatrist has perpetrated fraud and this intentional action might not be covered by malpractice insurance.¹⁶

 

In several cases involving nonpsychiatric physicians,¹⁷ courts have held that consensual doctor-patient sex is not malpractice, though it might represent some other form of wrongdoing. The argument is that sex with a patient is an intentional act that is never a professional service, whereas malpractice by definition arises unintentionally from negligence while rendering professional services. Other courts, however, have held that doctor-patient sex can be malpractice because it breaches the physician’s fiduciary relationship and can constitute an abuse of power.¹⁸

After retirement, physicians still have responsibilities to former patients: to protect records, to respect confidentiality, and to release information upon proper requests. Some fiduciary duties to patients survive the conclusion of treatment, and behavior that breaches those responsibilities can bring legal action.

Psychiatrists should realize that many former patients remain vulnerable because of feelings “left over” from therapy. Therefore, potential civil actions against a retired psychiatrist might include:

A suit for intentional infliction of emotional distress. This tort action requires proving more than mere insults or indignities; it occurs only when someone “by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another.”¹⁹ Initiating sex with a former patient is strongly disapproved and meets the legal criterion of having a high probability of causing mental distress.²⁰

A suit for negligent infliction of emotional distress. Modern law permits recourse for negligently inflicted emotional distress when harm occurs in “the course of specified categories of activities, undertakings, or relationships in which the negligent conduct is especially likely to cause emotional disturbance.”²¹

Suits for exploitation. Some jurisdictions allow suits against therapists who have sex with former patients, irrespective of therapists’ license status. For example, Minnesota allows lawsuits for “sexual exploitation” if the former patient’s capacity to consent was impaired by emotional dependence on the psychotherapist.²²

Actions by licensing boards. Many retired practitioners maintain their medical licenses. Retired-but-still-licensed psychiatrists can be subject to professional disciplinary actions.

Dear Dr. Mossman,

A psychiatrist retires from practice and goes into some other line of work—perhaps managing a restaurant. He then has an “affair” with a former patient whom he had not treated for several years. Could the retired psychiatrist’s conduct be the basis of a successful lawsuit?—Submitted by “Dr. D”

Evidence tells us that the retired psychiatrist’s behavior likely could do emotional harm to his former patient. If the former patient suffers some injury, a successful suit could follow—if not on grounds of malpractice, then on other grounds. In this article we’ll see why by looking at:

• rates of doctor-patient sex
• potential harm from doctor-patient sex
• ethical bans on sex with former patients
• possible legal actions.

Sex with patients: Rates and risk

Doctors and patients often develop erotic thoughts about each other.^1,2 But as Sigmund Freud noted almost a century ago, an actual love relationship between a doctor and a psychotherapy patient can cause a “complete defeat for the treatment” and destroy the patient’s chance for recovery.³

More than 5 decades later, surveys of medical professionals supplemented Freud’s observations with data about the frequency and impact of doctor-patient sex. In a 1973 survey, 11% of physicians said they had erotic contact with patients, and 5% reported intercourse.⁴ In a 1986 survey of psychiatrists, 3% of women and 7% of men acknowledged having sexual contact with patients.⁵ In a 1992 study of 10,000 nonpsychiatric physicians, 9% of respondents reported having sex with patients.⁶ Actual rates of doctor-patient sex probably are much higher than reported because physicians may be reluctant to admit to having erotic contact with patients, even in anonymous surveys.⁷ The typical therapist-patient sex scenario involves a male doctor and an adult female patient, but same-sex encounters and sexual contact with minors occur, too.⁸

Sex between a therapist and a patient is likely to cause emotional injury. For example, a 1991 study found that 90% of psychotherapy patients who had sexual involvement with a prior therapist had been harmed by the experience.⁹ Books, articles, and Web sites offer vivid individual accounts of harm patients have suffered ( Table ). Doctors who have sex with patients could face public opprobrium, civil lawsuits, actions against their medical licenses, and prosecution in states that make sex with psychiatric patients a criminal offense.¹⁰

Table

How sexual relationships can harm patients

Type of harm	Explanation
Ambivalence	Psychological paralysis regarding whether to protect or take action against the abusive therapist
Cognitive dysfunction	Impaired memory and concentration, intrusive thoughts, flashbacks
Emotional lability	Unpredictable emotional responses, abrupt changes in mood, severe disruption of the patient’s typical way of feeling
Emptiness, isolation	Lost sense of self, feeling cut off from others
Guilt	Irrational self-blame for causing the sexual contact
Impaired trust	Fear of being taken advantage of, used, or abused in future therapy
Suicide	14% of patients who had sex with a therapist attempt suicide; approximately 1% commit suicide
Role confusion	Treatment sessions and the therapeutic relationship serve the therapist’s needs rather than the patient’s; this perception may generalize to later therapies and other relationships
Sexual confusion	Examples include disgust with sexual feelings, uncertainty about sexual orientation, belief that self-worth comes from gratifying others’ sexual desires
Confusion about anger	Rage at self, self-loathing, need to suppress angry feelings, mistaken beliefs that others are angry at you
Source: Adapted from reference 8

What about former patients?

Sex between providers and current patients is opposed by all major healthcare organizations, including the American Psychiatric Association (APA),¹¹ American Medical Association,¹² and American Psychological Association.¹³ The last 2 groups strongly discourage sex with former patients, but the APA’s ethics code states that such activity is always unethical.

The APA’s position reflects 2 general truths of psychiatric practice:

• Psychiatric patients often return for care years after initial treatment has ended. “Former patients” are really “possible future patients.” Improper relationships with former patients disrupt the doctor’s obligation to remain available for future care.
• Even if a patient never returns to treatment, intense feelings about a doctor can last for years. A psychiatrist who engages in sex with a former patient may evoke and manipulate feelings “left over” from therapy.

Psychiatrists therefore “have only one kind of relationship with a patient—that is, a doctor-patient relationship.”¹⁴ Moreover, as Simon and Shuman observe, “[N]o patient [is] strong enough, no pause is long enough, and no love is true enough to justify compromising this boundary.”¹⁵

Legal actions

If a physician no longer practices medicine, can any of his activities—including with a former patient—be malpractice? In fact, sex between practicing doctors and current patients might not always be malpractice. If a psychiatrist gains sexual access to a patient by saying that the sex will be therapeutic, the psychiatrist has perpetrated fraud and this intentional action might not be covered by malpractice insurance.¹⁶

 

In several cases involving nonpsychiatric physicians,¹⁷ courts have held that consensual doctor-patient sex is not malpractice, though it might represent some other form of wrongdoing. The argument is that sex with a patient is an intentional act that is never a professional service, whereas malpractice by definition arises unintentionally from negligence while rendering professional services. Other courts, however, have held that doctor-patient sex can be malpractice because it breaches the physician’s fiduciary relationship and can constitute an abuse of power.¹⁸

After retirement, physicians still have responsibilities to former patients: to protect records, to respect confidentiality, and to release information upon proper requests. Some fiduciary duties to patients survive the conclusion of treatment, and behavior that breaches those responsibilities can bring legal action.

Psychiatrists should realize that many former patients remain vulnerable because of feelings “left over” from therapy. Therefore, potential civil actions against a retired psychiatrist might include:

A suit for intentional infliction of emotional distress. This tort action requires proving more than mere insults or indignities; it occurs only when someone “by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another.”¹⁹ Initiating sex with a former patient is strongly disapproved and meets the legal criterion of having a high probability of causing mental distress.²⁰

A suit for negligent infliction of emotional distress. Modern law permits recourse for negligently inflicted emotional distress when harm occurs in “the course of specified categories of activities, undertakings, or relationships in which the negligent conduct is especially likely to cause emotional disturbance.”²¹

Suits for exploitation. Some jurisdictions allow suits against therapists who have sex with former patients, irrespective of therapists’ license status. For example, Minnesota allows lawsuits for “sexual exploitation” if the former patient’s capacity to consent was impaired by emotional dependence on the psychotherapist.²²

Actions by licensing boards. Many retired practitioners maintain their medical licenses. Retired-but-still-licensed psychiatrists can be subject to professional disciplinary actions.

A hospitalist who scrutinizes claims might notice a payment denial related to “unbundling” issues. Line-item rejections might state the service is “mutually exclusive,” “incidental to another procedure,” or “payment was received as part of another service/procedure.” Unbundling refers to the practice of reporting each component of a service or procedure instead of reporting the single, comprehensive code. Two types of practices lead to unbundling: unintentional reporting resulting from a basic misunderstanding of correct coding, and intentional reporting to improperly maximize payment of otherwise bundled Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) or Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) codes.1

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) developed the National Correct Coding Initiative (NCCI) for implementation and application to physician claims (e.g., Medicare Part B) with dates of service on or after Jan. 1, 1996. The rationale for these edits is a culmination of:

• Coding standards identified in the American Medical Association’s (AMA) CPT manual;
• National and local coverage determinations developed by CMS and local Medicare contractors;
• Coding standards set forth by national medical organizations and specialty societies;
• Appropriate standards of medical and surgical care; and
• Current coding practices identified through claim analysis, pre- and post-payment documentation reviews, and other forms of payor-initiated audit.

The initial NCCI goal was to promote correct coding methodologies and to control improper coding, which led to inappropriate payment in Part B claims.2 It later expanded to include corresponding NCCI edits in the outpatient code editor (OCE) for both outpatient hospital providers and therapy providers. Therapy providers encompass skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation facilities (CORFs), outpatient physical therapy (OPTs) and speech-language pathology providers, and home health agencies (HHAs).

Fact-Check

The NCCI recognizes two edit types: Column One/Column Two Correct Coding edits and Mutually Exclusive edits. Each of these edit categories lists code pairs that should not be reported together on the same date by either a single physician or physicians of the same specialty within a provider group.

 

When applying Column One/Column Two editing logic to physician claims, the Column One code represents the more comprehensive code of the pair being reported. The Column Two code (the component service that is bundled into the comprehensive service) will be denied. This is not to say a code that appears in Column Two of the NCCI cannot be paid when reported by itself on any given date. The denial occurs only when the component service is reported on the same date as the more comprehensive service.

For example, CPT code 36556 (insertion of nontunneled centrally inserted central venous catheter, age 5 years or older) is considered comprehensive to codes 36000 (introduction of needle or intracatheter, vein) and 36410 (venipuncture, age 3 years or older, necessitating physician’s skill [separate procedure], for diagnostic or therapeutic purposes). These code combinations should not be reported together on the same date when performed as part of the same procedure by the same physician or physicians of the same practice group. If this occurs, the payor will reimburse the initial service and deny the subsequent service. As a result, the first code received by the payor, on the same or separate claims, is reimbursed, even if that code represents the lesser of the two services.

Mutually Exclusive edits occur with less frequency than Column One/Column Two edits. Mutually Exclusive edits prevent reporting of two services or procedures that are highly unlikely to be performed together on the same patient, at the same session or encounter, by the same physician or physicians of the same specialty in a provider group. For example, CPT code 36556 (insertion of nontunneled centrally inserted central venous catheter, age 5 years or older) would not be reported on the same day as 36555 (insertion of nontunneled centrally inserted central venous catheter, younger than 5 years of age).

CMS publishes the National Correct Coding Initiative Coding Policy Manual for Medicare Services (www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalCorrectCodInitEd) and encourages local Medicare contractors and fiscal intermediaries to use it as a reference for claims-processing edits. The manual is updated annually, and the NCCI edits are updated quarterly. TH

Carol Pohlig is a billing and coding expert with the University of Pennsylvania Medical Center in Philadelphia. She is faculty of SHM’s inpatient coding course.

References

1. National correct coding initiative edits. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Web site. Available at: www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalCorrectCodInitEd. Accessed March 10, 2009.
2. Medicare claims processing manual. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Web site. Available at: www.cms.hhs.gov/manuals/downloads/clm104c12.pdf. Accessed March 10, 2009.
3. Beebe M, Dalton J, Espronceda M, Evans D, Glenn R. Current Procedural Terminology Professional Edition. Chicago: American Medical Association Press, 2008;477-481.
4. Modifier 59 article. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Web site. Available at: www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalCorrectCodInitEd/Downloads/modifier59.pdf. Accessed March 10, 2009.
5. French K. Coding for Chest Medicine 2009. Northbrook, IL: American College of Chest Physicians. 2008;283-287.

A hospitalist who scrutinizes claims might notice a payment denial related to “unbundling” issues. Line-item rejections might state the service is “mutually exclusive,” “incidental to another procedure,” or “payment was received as part of another service/procedure.” Unbundling refers to the practice of reporting each component of a service or procedure instead of reporting the single, comprehensive code. Two types of practices lead to unbundling: unintentional reporting resulting from a basic misunderstanding of correct coding, and intentional reporting to improperly maximize payment of otherwise bundled Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) or Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) codes.1

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) developed the National Correct Coding Initiative (NCCI) for implementation and application to physician claims (e.g., Medicare Part B) with dates of service on or after Jan. 1, 1996. The rationale for these edits is a culmination of:

• Coding standards identified in the American Medical Association’s (AMA) CPT manual;
• National and local coverage determinations developed by CMS and local Medicare contractors;
• Coding standards set forth by national medical organizations and specialty societies;
• Appropriate standards of medical and surgical care; and
• Current coding practices identified through claim analysis, pre- and post-payment documentation reviews, and other forms of payor-initiated audit.

The initial NCCI goal was to promote correct coding methodologies and to control improper coding, which led to inappropriate payment in Part B claims.2 It later expanded to include corresponding NCCI edits in the outpatient code editor (OCE) for both outpatient hospital providers and therapy providers. Therapy providers encompass skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation facilities (CORFs), outpatient physical therapy (OPTs) and speech-language pathology providers, and home health agencies (HHAs).

Fact-Check

The NCCI recognizes two edit types: Column One/Column Two Correct Coding edits and Mutually Exclusive edits. Each of these edit categories lists code pairs that should not be reported together on the same date by either a single physician or physicians of the same specialty within a provider group.

 

When applying Column One/Column Two editing logic to physician claims, the Column One code represents the more comprehensive code of the pair being reported. The Column Two code (the component service that is bundled into the comprehensive service) will be denied. This is not to say a code that appears in Column Two of the NCCI cannot be paid when reported by itself on any given date. The denial occurs only when the component service is reported on the same date as the more comprehensive service.

For example, CPT code 36556 (insertion of nontunneled centrally inserted central venous catheter, age 5 years or older) is considered comprehensive to codes 36000 (introduction of needle or intracatheter, vein) and 36410 (venipuncture, age 3 years or older, necessitating physician’s skill [separate procedure], for diagnostic or therapeutic purposes). These code combinations should not be reported together on the same date when performed as part of the same procedure by the same physician or physicians of the same practice group. If this occurs, the payor will reimburse the initial service and deny the subsequent service. As a result, the first code received by the payor, on the same or separate claims, is reimbursed, even if that code represents the lesser of the two services.

Mutually Exclusive edits occur with less frequency than Column One/Column Two edits. Mutually Exclusive edits prevent reporting of two services or procedures that are highly unlikely to be performed together on the same patient, at the same session or encounter, by the same physician or physicians of the same specialty in a provider group. For example, CPT code 36556 (insertion of nontunneled centrally inserted central venous catheter, age 5 years or older) would not be reported on the same day as 36555 (insertion of nontunneled centrally inserted central venous catheter, younger than 5 years of age).

CMS publishes the National Correct Coding Initiative Coding Policy Manual for Medicare Services (www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalCorrectCodInitEd) and encourages local Medicare contractors and fiscal intermediaries to use it as a reference for claims-processing edits. The manual is updated annually, and the NCCI edits are updated quarterly. TH

Carol Pohlig is a billing and coding expert with the University of Pennsylvania Medical Center in Philadelphia. She is faculty of SHM’s inpatient coding course.

References

1. National correct coding initiative edits. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Web site. Available at: www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalCorrectCodInitEd. Accessed March 10, 2009.
2. Medicare claims processing manual. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Web site. Available at: www.cms.hhs.gov/manuals/downloads/clm104c12.pdf. Accessed March 10, 2009.
3. Beebe M, Dalton J, Espronceda M, Evans D, Glenn R. Current Procedural Terminology Professional Edition. Chicago: American Medical Association Press, 2008;477-481.
4. Modifier 59 article. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Web site. Available at: www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalCorrectCodInitEd/Downloads/modifier59.pdf. Accessed March 10, 2009.
5. French K. Coding for Chest Medicine 2009. Northbrook, IL: American College of Chest Physicians. 2008;283-287.

A hospitalist who scrutinizes claims might notice a payment denial related to “unbundling” issues. Line-item rejections might state the service is “mutually exclusive,” “incidental to another procedure,” or “payment was received as part of another service/procedure.” Unbundling refers to the practice of reporting each component of a service or procedure instead of reporting the single, comprehensive code. Two types of practices lead to unbundling: unintentional reporting resulting from a basic misunderstanding of correct coding, and intentional reporting to improperly maximize payment of otherwise bundled Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) or Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) codes.1

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) developed the National Correct Coding Initiative (NCCI) for implementation and application to physician claims (e.g., Medicare Part B) with dates of service on or after Jan. 1, 1996. The rationale for these edits is a culmination of:

• Coding standards identified in the American Medical Association’s (AMA) CPT manual;
• National and local coverage determinations developed by CMS and local Medicare contractors;
• Coding standards set forth by national medical organizations and specialty societies;
• Appropriate standards of medical and surgical care; and
• Current coding practices identified through claim analysis, pre- and post-payment documentation reviews, and other forms of payor-initiated audit.

The initial NCCI goal was to promote correct coding methodologies and to control improper coding, which led to inappropriate payment in Part B claims.2 It later expanded to include corresponding NCCI edits in the outpatient code editor (OCE) for both outpatient hospital providers and therapy providers. Therapy providers encompass skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation facilities (CORFs), outpatient physical therapy (OPTs) and speech-language pathology providers, and home health agencies (HHAs).

Fact-Check

The NCCI recognizes two edit types: Column One/Column Two Correct Coding edits and Mutually Exclusive edits. Each of these edit categories lists code pairs that should not be reported together on the same date by either a single physician or physicians of the same specialty within a provider group.

 

When applying Column One/Column Two editing logic to physician claims, the Column One code represents the more comprehensive code of the pair being reported. The Column Two code (the component service that is bundled into the comprehensive service) will be denied. This is not to say a code that appears in Column Two of the NCCI cannot be paid when reported by itself on any given date. The denial occurs only when the component service is reported on the same date as the more comprehensive service.

For example, CPT code 36556 (insertion of nontunneled centrally inserted central venous catheter, age 5 years or older) is considered comprehensive to codes 36000 (introduction of needle or intracatheter, vein) and 36410 (venipuncture, age 3 years or older, necessitating physician’s skill [separate procedure], for diagnostic or therapeutic purposes). These code combinations should not be reported together on the same date when performed as part of the same procedure by the same physician or physicians of the same practice group. If this occurs, the payor will reimburse the initial service and deny the subsequent service. As a result, the first code received by the payor, on the same or separate claims, is reimbursed, even if that code represents the lesser of the two services.

Mutually Exclusive edits occur with less frequency than Column One/Column Two edits. Mutually Exclusive edits prevent reporting of two services or procedures that are highly unlikely to be performed together on the same patient, at the same session or encounter, by the same physician or physicians of the same specialty in a provider group. For example, CPT code 36556 (insertion of nontunneled centrally inserted central venous catheter, age 5 years or older) would not be reported on the same day as 36555 (insertion of nontunneled centrally inserted central venous catheter, younger than 5 years of age).

CMS publishes the National Correct Coding Initiative Coding Policy Manual for Medicare Services (www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalCorrectCodInitEd) and encourages local Medicare contractors and fiscal intermediaries to use it as a reference for claims-processing edits. The manual is updated annually, and the NCCI edits are updated quarterly. TH

Carol Pohlig is a billing and coding expert with the University of Pennsylvania Medical Center in Philadelphia. She is faculty of SHM’s inpatient coding course.

References

1. National correct coding initiative edits. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Web site. Available at: www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalCorrectCodInitEd. Accessed March 10, 2009.
2. Medicare claims processing manual. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Web site. Available at: www.cms.hhs.gov/manuals/downloads/clm104c12.pdf. Accessed March 10, 2009.
3. Beebe M, Dalton J, Espronceda M, Evans D, Glenn R. Current Procedural Terminology Professional Edition. Chicago: American Medical Association Press, 2008;477-481.
4. Modifier 59 article. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Web site. Available at: www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalCorrectCodInitEd/Downloads/modifier59.pdf. Accessed March 10, 2009.
5. French K. Coding for Chest Medicine 2009. Northbrook, IL: American College of Chest Physicians. 2008;283-287.

Some healthcare providers probably missed an important change buried within the 2009 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule: New rules for physician enrollment have drastically reduced the period for retroactive billing. Effective April 1, physicians enrolling or re-enrolling with Medicare can only submit a bill for services provided up to 30 days prior to the effective date, rather than for the prior 27 months.

Those who miss this deadline will be denied reimbursement for services to Medicare patients seen before the deadline. And those who move to a new job (“change of location,” in Medicare parlance) and fail to update their address within 30 days risk a two-year suspension from receiving Medicare payments.

What It Means

Essentially, HM group leaders must make sure they are ready to credential a new hire long before they start working. Before now, groups had months to get new hires enrolled in the Medicare system; now, with just 30 days to enroll, you need to start your credentialing and enrollment process early—before the physician’s start date, if possible.

“In a nutshell, groups are going to have to be more proactive than ever before in getting paperwork submitted for new providers,” says Derise Woods, operations project manager for Knoxville, Tenn.-based TeamHealth. “The situation we often face is that the provider is found and placed, and sometimes the paperwork does not get submitted right away. The natural focus is to get them on board and then get them up and running.”

If that is the case in your group, you should create a checklist for enrollment in Medicare and for other payors. Then, as soon as your new hire signs the contract, require them to submit all available information (e.g., DEA number and proof of board certification).

Woods says the rule states that “retroactive billing can start from the provider’s start date or from the date the enrollment is received at [Medicare], whichever is later.”

Even if you don’t capture all the necessary information, enroll the new physician as soon as possible. According to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), incomplete applications will be denied, but the date of the original filing will be preserved. So if a hospitalist begins working for your group Sept. 1, and you submit the enrollment application Sept. 7, the hospitalist can bill retroactively starting Sept. 7, even if that application is kicked back to you for more information and doesn’t get resolved for several weeks.

Large and Small Groups

Missing the new enrollment deadline means reimbursement losses. Hospitalists provide services to a significant number of Medicare patients, so cutting back on retroactive billing could hurt the bottom line. “In most [HM] instances where Medicare is a large portion of income, this has potential to disrupt a practice,” Woods says, noting TeamHealth has yet to see the impact of the new enrollment rules.

 

Which entity incurs the loss of Medicare payments depends on your program’s payment structure. “For instance, TeamHealth contracts with our providers and pays them an hourly rate,” says Woods, explaining that the third-party contractor will suffer any loss of fees. “In a hospital-based program, the hospital might bill for the provider—and that provider may not get paid.”

Smaller HM groups might not have as much experience with these changes simply because they don’t hire physicians as often. “I did not know about this,” says Heidi Tessler, MD, president of the Colorado Hospitalist Company in Denver. “We contract with a billing company [for physician enrollments], and we would have been caught flat-footed with our next hire.”

Small groups could end up scrambling when they need to fill a position, especially if it’s a quick turnover. Groups that outsource their recruiting and billing should plan to communicate with those companies to expedite the enrollment process, Woods says.

TeamHealth, the largest provider of hospital-based clinical outsourcing in the U.S., has made numerous changes to accommodate the new enrollment rules, all the way up to a new business development group. “They now take this new rule into consideration when we are planning to start providing service,” Woods says. “Our recruiters are helping. They are ensuring that new providers fill out their paperwork and get it in. Understandably, physicians can let paperwork sit for a number of days.”

The good news is CMS has made it easier—and faster—to enroll through a Web-based portal called PECOS (Provider Enrollment, Chain, and Ownership System), which can be accessed at www.cms.hhs.gov/MedicareProviderSupEnroll/.

Central Source

SHM has consolidated essential sources on the new rules to include:

• Medicare’s all-inclusive Web section on provider enrollment is www.cms.hhs.gov/medicareprovidersupenroll.
• The CMS manual on enrollment is at www.cms.hhs.gov. Click on “manuals,” then “Internet-only manuals”; select “Publication 100-08, Program Integrity Manual,” then “Chapter 10.”
• AMA provides an overview on its Web site, and, with the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA), has developed a toolkit to guide physicians through the new rules. “The toolkit is probably the best resource available,” says Leslie Flores, principal in Nelson/Flores Associates, a national hospitalist management consulting firm and director of SHM’s Practice Management Institute. AMA and MGMA members can access the toolkit at www.mgma.com/policy/default.aspx?id=5712.

“SHM wants to make sure we communicate these new rules to our members,” says Flores, “and provide direction to resources they can use.” Check www.hospitalmedicine.org for the latest links and information. TH

Jane Jerrard is a freelance writer based in Chicago.

Some healthcare providers probably missed an important change buried within the 2009 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule: New rules for physician enrollment have drastically reduced the period for retroactive billing. Effective April 1, physicians enrolling or re-enrolling with Medicare can only submit a bill for services provided up to 30 days prior to the effective date, rather than for the prior 27 months.

Those who miss this deadline will be denied reimbursement for services to Medicare patients seen before the deadline. And those who move to a new job (“change of location,” in Medicare parlance) and fail to update their address within 30 days risk a two-year suspension from receiving Medicare payments.

What It Means

Essentially, HM group leaders must make sure they are ready to credential a new hire long before they start working. Before now, groups had months to get new hires enrolled in the Medicare system; now, with just 30 days to enroll, you need to start your credentialing and enrollment process early—before the physician’s start date, if possible.

“In a nutshell, groups are going to have to be more proactive than ever before in getting paperwork submitted for new providers,” says Derise Woods, operations project manager for Knoxville, Tenn.-based TeamHealth. “The situation we often face is that the provider is found and placed, and sometimes the paperwork does not get submitted right away. The natural focus is to get them on board and then get them up and running.”

If that is the case in your group, you should create a checklist for enrollment in Medicare and for other payors. Then, as soon as your new hire signs the contract, require them to submit all available information (e.g., DEA number and proof of board certification).

Woods says the rule states that “retroactive billing can start from the provider’s start date or from the date the enrollment is received at [Medicare], whichever is later.”

Even if you don’t capture all the necessary information, enroll the new physician as soon as possible. According to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), incomplete applications will be denied, but the date of the original filing will be preserved. So if a hospitalist begins working for your group Sept. 1, and you submit the enrollment application Sept. 7, the hospitalist can bill retroactively starting Sept. 7, even if that application is kicked back to you for more information and doesn’t get resolved for several weeks.

Large and Small Groups

Missing the new enrollment deadline means reimbursement losses. Hospitalists provide services to a significant number of Medicare patients, so cutting back on retroactive billing could hurt the bottom line. “In most [HM] instances where Medicare is a large portion of income, this has potential to disrupt a practice,” Woods says, noting TeamHealth has yet to see the impact of the new enrollment rules.

 

Which entity incurs the loss of Medicare payments depends on your program’s payment structure. “For instance, TeamHealth contracts with our providers and pays them an hourly rate,” says Woods, explaining that the third-party contractor will suffer any loss of fees. “In a hospital-based program, the hospital might bill for the provider—and that provider may not get paid.”

Smaller HM groups might not have as much experience with these changes simply because they don’t hire physicians as often. “I did not know about this,” says Heidi Tessler, MD, president of the Colorado Hospitalist Company in Denver. “We contract with a billing company [for physician enrollments], and we would have been caught flat-footed with our next hire.”

Small groups could end up scrambling when they need to fill a position, especially if it’s a quick turnover. Groups that outsource their recruiting and billing should plan to communicate with those companies to expedite the enrollment process, Woods says.

TeamHealth, the largest provider of hospital-based clinical outsourcing in the U.S., has made numerous changes to accommodate the new enrollment rules, all the way up to a new business development group. “They now take this new rule into consideration when we are planning to start providing service,” Woods says. “Our recruiters are helping. They are ensuring that new providers fill out their paperwork and get it in. Understandably, physicians can let paperwork sit for a number of days.”

The good news is CMS has made it easier—and faster—to enroll through a Web-based portal called PECOS (Provider Enrollment, Chain, and Ownership System), which can be accessed at www.cms.hhs.gov/MedicareProviderSupEnroll/.

Central Source

SHM has consolidated essential sources on the new rules to include:

• Medicare’s all-inclusive Web section on provider enrollment is www.cms.hhs.gov/medicareprovidersupenroll.
• The CMS manual on enrollment is at www.cms.hhs.gov. Click on “manuals,” then “Internet-only manuals”; select “Publication 100-08, Program Integrity Manual,” then “Chapter 10.”
• AMA provides an overview on its Web site, and, with the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA), has developed a toolkit to guide physicians through the new rules. “The toolkit is probably the best resource available,” says Leslie Flores, principal in Nelson/Flores Associates, a national hospitalist management consulting firm and director of SHM’s Practice Management Institute. AMA and MGMA members can access the toolkit at www.mgma.com/policy/default.aspx?id=5712.

“SHM wants to make sure we communicate these new rules to our members,” says Flores, “and provide direction to resources they can use.” Check www.hospitalmedicine.org for the latest links and information. TH

Jane Jerrard is a freelance writer based in Chicago.

Some healthcare providers probably missed an important change buried within the 2009 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule: New rules for physician enrollment have drastically reduced the period for retroactive billing. Effective April 1, physicians enrolling or re-enrolling with Medicare can only submit a bill for services provided up to 30 days prior to the effective date, rather than for the prior 27 months.

Those who miss this deadline will be denied reimbursement for services to Medicare patients seen before the deadline. And those who move to a new job (“change of location,” in Medicare parlance) and fail to update their address within 30 days risk a two-year suspension from receiving Medicare payments.

What It Means

Essentially, HM group leaders must make sure they are ready to credential a new hire long before they start working. Before now, groups had months to get new hires enrolled in the Medicare system; now, with just 30 days to enroll, you need to start your credentialing and enrollment process early—before the physician’s start date, if possible.

“In a nutshell, groups are going to have to be more proactive than ever before in getting paperwork submitted for new providers,” says Derise Woods, operations project manager for Knoxville, Tenn.-based TeamHealth. “The situation we often face is that the provider is found and placed, and sometimes the paperwork does not get submitted right away. The natural focus is to get them on board and then get them up and running.”

If that is the case in your group, you should create a checklist for enrollment in Medicare and for other payors. Then, as soon as your new hire signs the contract, require them to submit all available information (e.g., DEA number and proof of board certification).

Woods says the rule states that “retroactive billing can start from the provider’s start date or from the date the enrollment is received at [Medicare], whichever is later.”

Even if you don’t capture all the necessary information, enroll the new physician as soon as possible. According to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), incomplete applications will be denied, but the date of the original filing will be preserved. So if a hospitalist begins working for your group Sept. 1, and you submit the enrollment application Sept. 7, the hospitalist can bill retroactively starting Sept. 7, even if that application is kicked back to you for more information and doesn’t get resolved for several weeks.

Large and Small Groups

Missing the new enrollment deadline means reimbursement losses. Hospitalists provide services to a significant number of Medicare patients, so cutting back on retroactive billing could hurt the bottom line. “In most [HM] instances where Medicare is a large portion of income, this has potential to disrupt a practice,” Woods says, noting TeamHealth has yet to see the impact of the new enrollment rules.

 

Which entity incurs the loss of Medicare payments depends on your program’s payment structure. “For instance, TeamHealth contracts with our providers and pays them an hourly rate,” says Woods, explaining that the third-party contractor will suffer any loss of fees. “In a hospital-based program, the hospital might bill for the provider—and that provider may not get paid.”

Smaller HM groups might not have as much experience with these changes simply because they don’t hire physicians as often. “I did not know about this,” says Heidi Tessler, MD, president of the Colorado Hospitalist Company in Denver. “We contract with a billing company [for physician enrollments], and we would have been caught flat-footed with our next hire.”

Small groups could end up scrambling when they need to fill a position, especially if it’s a quick turnover. Groups that outsource their recruiting and billing should plan to communicate with those companies to expedite the enrollment process, Woods says.

TeamHealth, the largest provider of hospital-based clinical outsourcing in the U.S., has made numerous changes to accommodate the new enrollment rules, all the way up to a new business development group. “They now take this new rule into consideration when we are planning to start providing service,” Woods says. “Our recruiters are helping. They are ensuring that new providers fill out their paperwork and get it in. Understandably, physicians can let paperwork sit for a number of days.”

The good news is CMS has made it easier—and faster—to enroll through a Web-based portal called PECOS (Provider Enrollment, Chain, and Ownership System), which can be accessed at www.cms.hhs.gov/MedicareProviderSupEnroll/.

Central Source

SHM has consolidated essential sources on the new rules to include:

• Medicare’s all-inclusive Web section on provider enrollment is www.cms.hhs.gov/medicareprovidersupenroll.
• The CMS manual on enrollment is at www.cms.hhs.gov. Click on “manuals,” then “Internet-only manuals”; select “Publication 100-08, Program Integrity Manual,” then “Chapter 10.”
• AMA provides an overview on its Web site, and, with the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA), has developed a toolkit to guide physicians through the new rules. “The toolkit is probably the best resource available,” says Leslie Flores, principal in Nelson/Flores Associates, a national hospitalist management consulting firm and director of SHM’s Practice Management Institute. AMA and MGMA members can access the toolkit at www.mgma.com/policy/default.aspx?id=5712.

“SHM wants to make sure we communicate these new rules to our members,” says Flores, “and provide direction to resources they can use.” Check www.hospitalmedicine.org for the latest links and information. TH

Jane Jerrard is a freelance writer based in Chicago.

Case

A previously healthy 55-year-old white female presents to the ED with a three-day history of pain and erythema in her right hand. Examination reveals fluctuance as well. She is diagnosed with an abscess with surrounding cellulitis. The abscess is incised, drained, and cultured, and she is sent home on oral trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole. The following day, her cellulitis has worsened. She is hospitalized and commenced on intravenous vancomycin. What is the best empiric therapy for community-acquired cellulitis?

Background

Cellulitis is defined as a skin and soft-tissue infection (SSTI), which develops as a result of bacterial entry via breaches in the skin barrier. Typically, it involves the dermis and subcutaneous tissue, and is associated with local tenderness, erythema, swelling and fever. Cellulitis usually affects the lower extremities, but can affect other locations resulting in diagnoses such as periorbital, abdominal wall, buccal, and perianal cellulitis.1,2

Gram-positive organisms, especially Staphylococcus aureus and beta hemolytic streptococci, are the most common causes of cellulitis. Although it is less common, cellulitis can be caused by gram-negative organisms. The recent significant increase in the prevalence of SSTIs due to community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (CA-MRSA) has led to changes in the selection of antibiotics that were most commonly utilized to empirically treat cellulitis.

The diagnosis of cellulitis is based primarily on clinical manifestations. Due to low diagnostic yields, blood cultures, needle aspiration, or punch biopsy, specimens usually are not helpful in the setting of simple cellulitis.3 Therefore, antibiotic therapy is almost universally started empirically. Starting appropriate initial antibiotic therapy improves patient outcomes by reducing mortality rates, length of stay, and inpatient costs.4

Cellulitis incidence is about two cases per 1,000 patient-years.5 This rather high incidence, coupled with escalating rates of SSTIs due to CA-MRSA, demands reliable and cost-effective treatment strategies for the management of community-acquired cellulitis.

Review of the Data

The treatment of community-acquired cellulitis was straightforward until the past decade, as physicians saw a significant increase in CA-MRSA incidence.6 MRSA was reported initially in 1961, only two years after methicillin was introduced into clinical practice.7,8 Subsequently, MRSA prevalence increased dramatically, and by the beginning of this decade, more than 50% of the Staphylococcus aureus hospital strains were resistant to methicillin.8 Furthermore, 60% to 80% of community-acquired Staphylococcus aureus strains in the U.S. are methicillin-resistant.8

The two major types of MRSA infections are healthcare-acquired (HA-MRSA) and community-acquired (CA-MRSA). The HA-MRSA infection group is further subdivided into those strains that develop during a period of hospitalization, and those that develop following contact with healthcare facilities (e.g., hospitalization or surgery within the previous year). This subgroup includes HA-MRSA infections in hemodialysis patients, residents of long-term care facilities, and individuals who have a vascular catheter or other indwelling device.9,10

 

CA-MRSA infections, on the other hand, occur in individuals who have not had any contact with healthcare facilities. Higher rates of CA-MRSA infection are observed in settings where individuals have close contact with each other, including military trainees, athletes involved in contact sports, patients age 65 and older, men who have sex with other men, and parenteral substance abusers.8,11-13 However, in view of the high prevalence of CA-MRSA in the U.S., most patients, including those without any apparent risk factors, are at risk.8

HA-MRSA has the ability to survive on inanimate objects for extended time periods, increasing the likelihood of transmission to persons who come into contact with those objects. Although evidence has not confirmed that CA-MRSA has a similar capacity, it seems plausible that such spread does contribute to the propagation of CA-MRSA.12

The increasing importance of CA-MRSA also is evident in hospital settings, where it is replacing HA-MRSA as the most common type of Staphylococcus aureus. Since CA-MRSA tends to be susceptible to a larger number of antibiotics than HA-MRSA is, this has led to a reduced incidence of multidrug resistance. Fortunately, unlike HA-MRSA, CA-MRSA is susceptible to non-beta-lactam antibiotics, including tetracyclines, sulfonamides, and clindamycin.9

CA-MRSA most often causes SSTIs, and a tender abscess is a typical presentation.8 Patients commonly misinterpret early skin lesions as an insect or spider bite.12,14 When cutaneous CA-MRSA presents as an abscess, an incision and drainage procedure is essential for adequate treatment of the infection. For some CA-MRSA infections, particularly those characterized by the presence of a relatively small abscess, it might be adequate to do only an incision and drainage procedure, and not administer antibiotics.8,15 However, in most instances, especially when there is an area of cellulitis around the abscess, the initiation of antibiotic therapy improves patients’ clinical outcomes.9,16

When there is no apparent drainable purulent fluid collection, which often occurs with cellulitis, antibiotics should be the mainstay of therapy. The decision about which antibiotic to start can present some challenges, because the organism causing the cellulitis usually is not identified. This is because blood cultures are positive in less than 5% of cases. Also, positive culture results from needle aspiration are only helpful from 5% to 40% of the time. Meanwhile, culture of punch biopsy specimens yields a pathogen in only 20% to 30% of cases.3,17-19

Due to increased CA-MRSA incidence, cephalexin should not be prescribed to treat cellulitis in the outpatient setting because it does not provide coverage for the pathogen.13 Instead, oral antibiotics (e.g., clindamycin or trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole) should be prescribed. Doxycycline, minocycline, rifampin (usually prescribed in combination with fusidic acid to prevent resistance development), and linezolid are additional therapeutic options.

Trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and clindamycin have several advantages: good oral bioavailability, familiarity to physicians, and general affordability. A disadvantage to using both trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and doxycycline is that they provide inadequate coverage for group A streptococci, which are a common cause of cellulitis. Therefore, the simultaneous use of a beta-lactam antibiotic with either of these medications may improve outcomes for “nonpurulent” cellulitis.13,15 Linezolid has proven effective for skin and SSTI caused by MRSA, even though it is not bactericidal.

Excellent oral bioavailability of this drug is an attractive characteristic, as it facilitates the transition from the use of intravenous to oral antibiotic therapy later in a patient’s hospital course. Although oral linezolid has been studied in clinical trials and provides good coverage for MRSA, its use in the outpatient setting is relatively limited, largely due to its significant cost.20 In 2008, the cost of 10 days of treatment with oral linezolid was $1,286.80. In comparison, the generic trimethoprim/sulfamethox-azole cost $9.40, and generic clindamycin cost $95.10.8 The lack of routine availability in many outpatient pharmacies also hinders the widespread use of linezolid.13

 

To date, with the exception of linezolid, no randomized, prospective clinical trials clearly demonstrate the efficacy of the oral agents that are commonly used for the outpatient treatment of cellulitis.20

When patients require hospitalization for the optimal treatment of cellulitis, it is important to select a parenteral antibiotic that provides coverage for MRSA.8 Vancomycin, daptomycin, linezolid, and tigecycline are the most commonly used agents.6

In the inpatient setting, failure to initiate appropriate medical therapy can result in longer hospital admissions, which significantly increase inpatient costs. Inadequate antibiotic therapy creates a significant financial burden and has been associated with increased mortality.4 Historically, vancomycin is used whenever a MRSA infection is suspected. However, there is concern about the declining efficacy of vancomycin related to a gradual increase in the rate of relative resistance—a minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) increase—in MRSA strains. This MIC creep is noted in some medical centers and can lead to a failure to respond to vancomycin.13,20

Daptomycin is rapidly bactericidal against MRSA; in some institutions, its use may be preferred over vancomycin because the former antibiotic is associated with a significantly more rapid clinical response, which may shorten the required length of hospitalization.21 The once-daily dosing requirement for daptomycin allows for ease of use in both hospital and outpatient settings, and therefore may facilitate early hospital discharge or prevent the need for hospitalization altogether. Clinical experience also suggests potential economic advantages with the use of daptomycin.22

Tigecycline is a bacteriostatic antibiotic that achieves low serum concentrations. However, it penetrates the skin well and has a similar effectiveness to combination therapy with vancomycin and aztreonam. Thus far, tigecycline is not widely used for the treatment of MRSA infections, and it has been suggested that it may be preferred for polymicrobial infections or for patients who exhibit allergies to more commonly used agents.8

When selecting an antibiotic therapy, cost considerations play an important role in the decision-making process. For intravenous agents commonly used to treat CA-MRSA infections, the 2008 cost for 10 days of treatment with generic vancomycin was $182.80; daptomycin cost $1,660.80. For tigecycline and linezolid, the same duration of treatment cost $1,362 and $1,560, respectively.8

Back to the Case

Our patient, an otherwise healthy female, presented with no apparent risk factors for developing a CA-MRSA SSTI. However, more detailed history revealed that she regularly used sports equipment at her local fitness center. Based on her clinical presentation and concerns about the high local prevalence of CA-MRSA, an incision and drainage procedure was performed, and she was started empirically on IV vancomycin. She had a positive clinical response to this treatment.

Wound culture results confirmed CA-MRSA abscess and cellulitis, susceptible to trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole. She was discharged on the oral formulation of this antibiotic to complete a 10-day course of treatment, including the days she received intravenous antibiotics.

Few well-designed trials have compared different lengths of cellulitis therapy. Most authorities recommend five to 10 days of treatment; however, longer courses might be required for more severe or complicated diseases.

Bottom line

Because of the high prevalence of CA-MRSA, initial antibiotic therapy for the treatment of community-acquired cellulitis must provide coverage for this organism. TH

Dr. Clarke is a hospitalist and clinical instructor at Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta. Dr. Dressler is associate professor and director of education, section of hospital medicine, and associate program director of the J. Willis Hurst Internal Medicine Residency Program. Dr. Purohit is an instructor in clinical medicine at Emory University School of Medicine.

 

References

1. Barzilai A, Choen HA. Isolation of group A streptococci from children with perianal cellulitis and from their siblings. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1998;17(4):358-360.
2. Thorsteinsdottir B, Tleyjeh IM, Baddour LM. Abdominal wall cellulitis in the morbidly obese. Scand J Infect Dis. 2005;37(8):605-608.
3. Swartz MN. Clinical practice. Cellulitis. N Engl J Med. 2004;350(9):904-912.
4. Edelsberg J, Berger A, Weber DJ, et al. Clinical and economic consequences of failure of initial antibiotic therapy for hospitalized patients with complicated skin and skin-structure infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2008;29(2):160-169.
5. McNamara DR, Tleyjeh IM, Berbari EF, et al. Incidence of lower extremity cellulitis: a population-based study in Olmsted County, Minnesota. Mayo Clin Proc. 2007;82(7):817-821.
6. Moellering RC. Current treatment options for community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection. Clin Infect Dis. 2008;46(7):1032-1037.
7. Chambers HF. The changing epidemiology of Staphylococcus aureus. Emerg Infect Dis. 2001;7(2):178-182.
8. Moellering RC. A 39-year-old man with a skin infection. JAMA. 2008;299(1):79-87
9. Ruhe J, Smith N, Bradsher RW, Menon A. Community-onset methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus skin and soft tissue infections: impact of antimicrobial therapy on outcome. Clin Infect Dis. 2007;44(6):777-784.
10. David MZ, Glikman D, Crawford SE, et al. What is community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus? J Infect Dis. 2008;197(9):1235-1243.
11. Iyer S, Jones DH. Community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus skin infection: a retrospective analysis of clinical presentation and treatment of a local outbreak. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2004;50(6):854-858.
12. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus skin or soft tissue infections in a state prison—Mississippi, 2000. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2001;50(42):919-922.
13. Daum RS. Clinical practice. Skin and soft-tissue infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(4):380-390.
14. Dominguez TJ. It’s not a spider bite, it’s community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J Am Board Fam Pract. 2004;17(3):220-226.
15. Moran GJ, Krishnadasan A, Gorwitz RJ, et al. Methicillin-resistant S. aureus infections among patients in the emergency department. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(7):666-674.
16. Jetton L. Therapy for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(20):2153-2155.
17. Hook EW, Hooton TM, Horton CA, et al. Microbiologic evaluation of cutaneous cellulitis in adults. Arch Intern Med. 1986;146(2):295-297.
18. Duvanel T, Auckenthaler R, Rohner P, Harms M, Saurat JH. Quantitative cultures of biopsy specimens from cutaneous cellulitis. Arch Intern Med. 1989;149(2):293-296.
19. Newell PM, Norden CW. Value of needle aspiration in bacteriologic diagnosis of cellulitis in adults. J Clin Microbiol. 1988; 26(3):401-404.
20. Loffler CA, Macdougall C. Update on prevalence and treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2007;5(6):961-981.
21. Davis SL, McKinnon PS, Hall LM, et al. Daptomycin versus vancomycin for complicated skin and skin structure infections: clinical and economic outcomes. Pharmacotherapy. 2007;27(12):1611-1618.
22. Seaton RA. Daptomycin: rationale and role in the management of skin and soft tissue infections. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2008;62(Suppl 3):iii15-23.

Case

A previously healthy 55-year-old white female presents to the ED with a three-day history of pain and erythema in her right hand. Examination reveals fluctuance as well. She is diagnosed with an abscess with surrounding cellulitis. The abscess is incised, drained, and cultured, and she is sent home on oral trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole. The following day, her cellulitis has worsened. She is hospitalized and commenced on intravenous vancomycin. What is the best empiric therapy for community-acquired cellulitis?

Background

Cellulitis is defined as a skin and soft-tissue infection (SSTI), which develops as a result of bacterial entry via breaches in the skin barrier. Typically, it involves the dermis and subcutaneous tissue, and is associated with local tenderness, erythema, swelling and fever. Cellulitis usually affects the lower extremities, but can affect other locations resulting in diagnoses such as periorbital, abdominal wall, buccal, and perianal cellulitis.1,2

Gram-positive organisms, especially Staphylococcus aureus and beta hemolytic streptococci, are the most common causes of cellulitis. Although it is less common, cellulitis can be caused by gram-negative organisms. The recent significant increase in the prevalence of SSTIs due to community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (CA-MRSA) has led to changes in the selection of antibiotics that were most commonly utilized to empirically treat cellulitis.

The diagnosis of cellulitis is based primarily on clinical manifestations. Due to low diagnostic yields, blood cultures, needle aspiration, or punch biopsy, specimens usually are not helpful in the setting of simple cellulitis.3 Therefore, antibiotic therapy is almost universally started empirically. Starting appropriate initial antibiotic therapy improves patient outcomes by reducing mortality rates, length of stay, and inpatient costs.4

Cellulitis incidence is about two cases per 1,000 patient-years.5 This rather high incidence, coupled with escalating rates of SSTIs due to CA-MRSA, demands reliable and cost-effective treatment strategies for the management of community-acquired cellulitis.

Review of the Data

The treatment of community-acquired cellulitis was straightforward until the past decade, as physicians saw a significant increase in CA-MRSA incidence.6 MRSA was reported initially in 1961, only two years after methicillin was introduced into clinical practice.7,8 Subsequently, MRSA prevalence increased dramatically, and by the beginning of this decade, more than 50% of the Staphylococcus aureus hospital strains were resistant to methicillin.8 Furthermore, 60% to 80% of community-acquired Staphylococcus aureus strains in the U.S. are methicillin-resistant.8

The two major types of MRSA infections are healthcare-acquired (HA-MRSA) and community-acquired (CA-MRSA). The HA-MRSA infection group is further subdivided into those strains that develop during a period of hospitalization, and those that develop following contact with healthcare facilities (e.g., hospitalization or surgery within the previous year). This subgroup includes HA-MRSA infections in hemodialysis patients, residents of long-term care facilities, and individuals who have a vascular catheter or other indwelling device.9,10

 

CA-MRSA infections, on the other hand, occur in individuals who have not had any contact with healthcare facilities. Higher rates of CA-MRSA infection are observed in settings where individuals have close contact with each other, including military trainees, athletes involved in contact sports, patients age 65 and older, men who have sex with other men, and parenteral substance abusers.8,11-13 However, in view of the high prevalence of CA-MRSA in the U.S., most patients, including those without any apparent risk factors, are at risk.8

HA-MRSA has the ability to survive on inanimate objects for extended time periods, increasing the likelihood of transmission to persons who come into contact with those objects. Although evidence has not confirmed that CA-MRSA has a similar capacity, it seems plausible that such spread does contribute to the propagation of CA-MRSA.12

The increasing importance of CA-MRSA also is evident in hospital settings, where it is replacing HA-MRSA as the most common type of Staphylococcus aureus. Since CA-MRSA tends to be susceptible to a larger number of antibiotics than HA-MRSA is, this has led to a reduced incidence of multidrug resistance. Fortunately, unlike HA-MRSA, CA-MRSA is susceptible to non-beta-lactam antibiotics, including tetracyclines, sulfonamides, and clindamycin.9

CA-MRSA most often causes SSTIs, and a tender abscess is a typical presentation.8 Patients commonly misinterpret early skin lesions as an insect or spider bite.12,14 When cutaneous CA-MRSA presents as an abscess, an incision and drainage procedure is essential for adequate treatment of the infection. For some CA-MRSA infections, particularly those characterized by the presence of a relatively small abscess, it might be adequate to do only an incision and drainage procedure, and not administer antibiotics.8,15 However, in most instances, especially when there is an area of cellulitis around the abscess, the initiation of antibiotic therapy improves patients’ clinical outcomes.9,16

When there is no apparent drainable purulent fluid collection, which often occurs with cellulitis, antibiotics should be the mainstay of therapy. The decision about which antibiotic to start can present some challenges, because the organism causing the cellulitis usually is not identified. This is because blood cultures are positive in less than 5% of cases. Also, positive culture results from needle aspiration are only helpful from 5% to 40% of the time. Meanwhile, culture of punch biopsy specimens yields a pathogen in only 20% to 30% of cases.3,17-19

Due to increased CA-MRSA incidence, cephalexin should not be prescribed to treat cellulitis in the outpatient setting because it does not provide coverage for the pathogen.13 Instead, oral antibiotics (e.g., clindamycin or trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole) should be prescribed. Doxycycline, minocycline, rifampin (usually prescribed in combination with fusidic acid to prevent resistance development), and linezolid are additional therapeutic options.

Trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and clindamycin have several advantages: good oral bioavailability, familiarity to physicians, and general affordability. A disadvantage to using both trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and doxycycline is that they provide inadequate coverage for group A streptococci, which are a common cause of cellulitis. Therefore, the simultaneous use of a beta-lactam antibiotic with either of these medications may improve outcomes for “nonpurulent” cellulitis.13,15 Linezolid has proven effective for skin and SSTI caused by MRSA, even though it is not bactericidal.

Excellent oral bioavailability of this drug is an attractive characteristic, as it facilitates the transition from the use of intravenous to oral antibiotic therapy later in a patient’s hospital course. Although oral linezolid has been studied in clinical trials and provides good coverage for MRSA, its use in the outpatient setting is relatively limited, largely due to its significant cost.20 In 2008, the cost of 10 days of treatment with oral linezolid was $1,286.80. In comparison, the generic trimethoprim/sulfamethox-azole cost $9.40, and generic clindamycin cost $95.10.8 The lack of routine availability in many outpatient pharmacies also hinders the widespread use of linezolid.13

 

To date, with the exception of linezolid, no randomized, prospective clinical trials clearly demonstrate the efficacy of the oral agents that are commonly used for the outpatient treatment of cellulitis.20

When patients require hospitalization for the optimal treatment of cellulitis, it is important to select a parenteral antibiotic that provides coverage for MRSA.8 Vancomycin, daptomycin, linezolid, and tigecycline are the most commonly used agents.6

In the inpatient setting, failure to initiate appropriate medical therapy can result in longer hospital admissions, which significantly increase inpatient costs. Inadequate antibiotic therapy creates a significant financial burden and has been associated with increased mortality.4 Historically, vancomycin is used whenever a MRSA infection is suspected. However, there is concern about the declining efficacy of vancomycin related to a gradual increase in the rate of relative resistance—a minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) increase—in MRSA strains. This MIC creep is noted in some medical centers and can lead to a failure to respond to vancomycin.13,20

Daptomycin is rapidly bactericidal against MRSA; in some institutions, its use may be preferred over vancomycin because the former antibiotic is associated with a significantly more rapid clinical response, which may shorten the required length of hospitalization.21 The once-daily dosing requirement for daptomycin allows for ease of use in both hospital and outpatient settings, and therefore may facilitate early hospital discharge or prevent the need for hospitalization altogether. Clinical experience also suggests potential economic advantages with the use of daptomycin.22

Tigecycline is a bacteriostatic antibiotic that achieves low serum concentrations. However, it penetrates the skin well and has a similar effectiveness to combination therapy with vancomycin and aztreonam. Thus far, tigecycline is not widely used for the treatment of MRSA infections, and it has been suggested that it may be preferred for polymicrobial infections or for patients who exhibit allergies to more commonly used agents.8

When selecting an antibiotic therapy, cost considerations play an important role in the decision-making process. For intravenous agents commonly used to treat CA-MRSA infections, the 2008 cost for 10 days of treatment with generic vancomycin was $182.80; daptomycin cost $1,660.80. For tigecycline and linezolid, the same duration of treatment cost $1,362 and $1,560, respectively.8

Back to the Case

Our patient, an otherwise healthy female, presented with no apparent risk factors for developing a CA-MRSA SSTI. However, more detailed history revealed that she regularly used sports equipment at her local fitness center. Based on her clinical presentation and concerns about the high local prevalence of CA-MRSA, an incision and drainage procedure was performed, and she was started empirically on IV vancomycin. She had a positive clinical response to this treatment.

Wound culture results confirmed CA-MRSA abscess and cellulitis, susceptible to trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole. She was discharged on the oral formulation of this antibiotic to complete a 10-day course of treatment, including the days she received intravenous antibiotics.

Few well-designed trials have compared different lengths of cellulitis therapy. Most authorities recommend five to 10 days of treatment; however, longer courses might be required for more severe or complicated diseases.

Bottom line

Because of the high prevalence of CA-MRSA, initial antibiotic therapy for the treatment of community-acquired cellulitis must provide coverage for this organism. TH

Dr. Clarke is a hospitalist and clinical instructor at Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta. Dr. Dressler is associate professor and director of education, section of hospital medicine, and associate program director of the J. Willis Hurst Internal Medicine Residency Program. Dr. Purohit is an instructor in clinical medicine at Emory University School of Medicine.

 

References

1. Barzilai A, Choen HA. Isolation of group A streptococci from children with perianal cellulitis and from their siblings. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1998;17(4):358-360.
2. Thorsteinsdottir B, Tleyjeh IM, Baddour LM. Abdominal wall cellulitis in the morbidly obese. Scand J Infect Dis. 2005;37(8):605-608.
3. Swartz MN. Clinical practice. Cellulitis. N Engl J Med. 2004;350(9):904-912.
4. Edelsberg J, Berger A, Weber DJ, et al. Clinical and economic consequences of failure of initial antibiotic therapy for hospitalized patients with complicated skin and skin-structure infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2008;29(2):160-169.
5. McNamara DR, Tleyjeh IM, Berbari EF, et al. Incidence of lower extremity cellulitis: a population-based study in Olmsted County, Minnesota. Mayo Clin Proc. 2007;82(7):817-821.
6. Moellering RC. Current treatment options for community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection. Clin Infect Dis. 2008;46(7):1032-1037.
7. Chambers HF. The changing epidemiology of Staphylococcus aureus. Emerg Infect Dis. 2001;7(2):178-182.
8. Moellering RC. A 39-year-old man with a skin infection. JAMA. 2008;299(1):79-87
9. Ruhe J, Smith N, Bradsher RW, Menon A. Community-onset methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus skin and soft tissue infections: impact of antimicrobial therapy on outcome. Clin Infect Dis. 2007;44(6):777-784.
10. David MZ, Glikman D, Crawford SE, et al. What is community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus? J Infect Dis. 2008;197(9):1235-1243.
11. Iyer S, Jones DH. Community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus skin infection: a retrospective analysis of clinical presentation and treatment of a local outbreak. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2004;50(6):854-858.
12. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus skin or soft tissue infections in a state prison—Mississippi, 2000. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2001;50(42):919-922.
13. Daum RS. Clinical practice. Skin and soft-tissue infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(4):380-390.
14. Dominguez TJ. It’s not a spider bite, it’s community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J Am Board Fam Pract. 2004;17(3):220-226.
15. Moran GJ, Krishnadasan A, Gorwitz RJ, et al. Methicillin-resistant S. aureus infections among patients in the emergency department. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(7):666-674.
16. Jetton L. Therapy for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(20):2153-2155.
17. Hook EW, Hooton TM, Horton CA, et al. Microbiologic evaluation of cutaneous cellulitis in adults. Arch Intern Med. 1986;146(2):295-297.
18. Duvanel T, Auckenthaler R, Rohner P, Harms M, Saurat JH. Quantitative cultures of biopsy specimens from cutaneous cellulitis. Arch Intern Med. 1989;149(2):293-296.
19. Newell PM, Norden CW. Value of needle aspiration in bacteriologic diagnosis of cellulitis in adults. J Clin Microbiol. 1988; 26(3):401-404.
20. Loffler CA, Macdougall C. Update on prevalence and treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2007;5(6):961-981.
21. Davis SL, McKinnon PS, Hall LM, et al. Daptomycin versus vancomycin for complicated skin and skin structure infections: clinical and economic outcomes. Pharmacotherapy. 2007;27(12):1611-1618.
22. Seaton RA. Daptomycin: rationale and role in the management of skin and soft tissue infections. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2008;62(Suppl 3):iii15-23.

Case

A previously healthy 55-year-old white female presents to the ED with a three-day history of pain and erythema in her right hand. Examination reveals fluctuance as well. She is diagnosed with an abscess with surrounding cellulitis. The abscess is incised, drained, and cultured, and she is sent home on oral trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole. The following day, her cellulitis has worsened. She is hospitalized and commenced on intravenous vancomycin. What is the best empiric therapy for community-acquired cellulitis?

Background

Cellulitis is defined as a skin and soft-tissue infection (SSTI), which develops as a result of bacterial entry via breaches in the skin barrier. Typically, it involves the dermis and subcutaneous tissue, and is associated with local tenderness, erythema, swelling and fever. Cellulitis usually affects the lower extremities, but can affect other locations resulting in diagnoses such as periorbital, abdominal wall, buccal, and perianal cellulitis.1,2

Gram-positive organisms, especially Staphylococcus aureus and beta hemolytic streptococci, are the most common causes of cellulitis. Although it is less common, cellulitis can be caused by gram-negative organisms. The recent significant increase in the prevalence of SSTIs due to community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (CA-MRSA) has led to changes in the selection of antibiotics that were most commonly utilized to empirically treat cellulitis.

The diagnosis of cellulitis is based primarily on clinical manifestations. Due to low diagnostic yields, blood cultures, needle aspiration, or punch biopsy, specimens usually are not helpful in the setting of simple cellulitis.3 Therefore, antibiotic therapy is almost universally started empirically. Starting appropriate initial antibiotic therapy improves patient outcomes by reducing mortality rates, length of stay, and inpatient costs.4

Cellulitis incidence is about two cases per 1,000 patient-years.5 This rather high incidence, coupled with escalating rates of SSTIs due to CA-MRSA, demands reliable and cost-effective treatment strategies for the management of community-acquired cellulitis.

Review of the Data

The treatment of community-acquired cellulitis was straightforward until the past decade, as physicians saw a significant increase in CA-MRSA incidence.6 MRSA was reported initially in 1961, only two years after methicillin was introduced into clinical practice.7,8 Subsequently, MRSA prevalence increased dramatically, and by the beginning of this decade, more than 50% of the Staphylococcus aureus hospital strains were resistant to methicillin.8 Furthermore, 60% to 80% of community-acquired Staphylococcus aureus strains in the U.S. are methicillin-resistant.8

The two major types of MRSA infections are healthcare-acquired (HA-MRSA) and community-acquired (CA-MRSA). The HA-MRSA infection group is further subdivided into those strains that develop during a period of hospitalization, and those that develop following contact with healthcare facilities (e.g., hospitalization or surgery within the previous year). This subgroup includes HA-MRSA infections in hemodialysis patients, residents of long-term care facilities, and individuals who have a vascular catheter or other indwelling device.9,10

 

CA-MRSA infections, on the other hand, occur in individuals who have not had any contact with healthcare facilities. Higher rates of CA-MRSA infection are observed in settings where individuals have close contact with each other, including military trainees, athletes involved in contact sports, patients age 65 and older, men who have sex with other men, and parenteral substance abusers.8,11-13 However, in view of the high prevalence of CA-MRSA in the U.S., most patients, including those without any apparent risk factors, are at risk.8

HA-MRSA has the ability to survive on inanimate objects for extended time periods, increasing the likelihood of transmission to persons who come into contact with those objects. Although evidence has not confirmed that CA-MRSA has a similar capacity, it seems plausible that such spread does contribute to the propagation of CA-MRSA.12

The increasing importance of CA-MRSA also is evident in hospital settings, where it is replacing HA-MRSA as the most common type of Staphylococcus aureus. Since CA-MRSA tends to be susceptible to a larger number of antibiotics than HA-MRSA is, this has led to a reduced incidence of multidrug resistance. Fortunately, unlike HA-MRSA, CA-MRSA is susceptible to non-beta-lactam antibiotics, including tetracyclines, sulfonamides, and clindamycin.9

CA-MRSA most often causes SSTIs, and a tender abscess is a typical presentation.8 Patients commonly misinterpret early skin lesions as an insect or spider bite.12,14 When cutaneous CA-MRSA presents as an abscess, an incision and drainage procedure is essential for adequate treatment of the infection. For some CA-MRSA infections, particularly those characterized by the presence of a relatively small abscess, it might be adequate to do only an incision and drainage procedure, and not administer antibiotics.8,15 However, in most instances, especially when there is an area of cellulitis around the abscess, the initiation of antibiotic therapy improves patients’ clinical outcomes.9,16

When there is no apparent drainable purulent fluid collection, which often occurs with cellulitis, antibiotics should be the mainstay of therapy. The decision about which antibiotic to start can present some challenges, because the organism causing the cellulitis usually is not identified. This is because blood cultures are positive in less than 5% of cases. Also, positive culture results from needle aspiration are only helpful from 5% to 40% of the time. Meanwhile, culture of punch biopsy specimens yields a pathogen in only 20% to 30% of cases.3,17-19

Due to increased CA-MRSA incidence, cephalexin should not be prescribed to treat cellulitis in the outpatient setting because it does not provide coverage for the pathogen.13 Instead, oral antibiotics (e.g., clindamycin or trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole) should be prescribed. Doxycycline, minocycline, rifampin (usually prescribed in combination with fusidic acid to prevent resistance development), and linezolid are additional therapeutic options.

Trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and clindamycin have several advantages: good oral bioavailability, familiarity to physicians, and general affordability. A disadvantage to using both trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and doxycycline is that they provide inadequate coverage for group A streptococci, which are a common cause of cellulitis. Therefore, the simultaneous use of a beta-lactam antibiotic with either of these medications may improve outcomes for “nonpurulent” cellulitis.13,15 Linezolid has proven effective for skin and SSTI caused by MRSA, even though it is not bactericidal.

Excellent oral bioavailability of this drug is an attractive characteristic, as it facilitates the transition from the use of intravenous to oral antibiotic therapy later in a patient’s hospital course. Although oral linezolid has been studied in clinical trials and provides good coverage for MRSA, its use in the outpatient setting is relatively limited, largely due to its significant cost.20 In 2008, the cost of 10 days of treatment with oral linezolid was $1,286.80. In comparison, the generic trimethoprim/sulfamethox-azole cost $9.40, and generic clindamycin cost $95.10.8 The lack of routine availability in many outpatient pharmacies also hinders the widespread use of linezolid.13

 

To date, with the exception of linezolid, no randomized, prospective clinical trials clearly demonstrate the efficacy of the oral agents that are commonly used for the outpatient treatment of cellulitis.20

When patients require hospitalization for the optimal treatment of cellulitis, it is important to select a parenteral antibiotic that provides coverage for MRSA.8 Vancomycin, daptomycin, linezolid, and tigecycline are the most commonly used agents.6

In the inpatient setting, failure to initiate appropriate medical therapy can result in longer hospital admissions, which significantly increase inpatient costs. Inadequate antibiotic therapy creates a significant financial burden and has been associated with increased mortality.4 Historically, vancomycin is used whenever a MRSA infection is suspected. However, there is concern about the declining efficacy of vancomycin related to a gradual increase in the rate of relative resistance—a minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) increase—in MRSA strains. This MIC creep is noted in some medical centers and can lead to a failure to respond to vancomycin.13,20

Daptomycin is rapidly bactericidal against MRSA; in some institutions, its use may be preferred over vancomycin because the former antibiotic is associated with a significantly more rapid clinical response, which may shorten the required length of hospitalization.21 The once-daily dosing requirement for daptomycin allows for ease of use in both hospital and outpatient settings, and therefore may facilitate early hospital discharge or prevent the need for hospitalization altogether. Clinical experience also suggests potential economic advantages with the use of daptomycin.22

Tigecycline is a bacteriostatic antibiotic that achieves low serum concentrations. However, it penetrates the skin well and has a similar effectiveness to combination therapy with vancomycin and aztreonam. Thus far, tigecycline is not widely used for the treatment of MRSA infections, and it has been suggested that it may be preferred for polymicrobial infections or for patients who exhibit allergies to more commonly used agents.8

When selecting an antibiotic therapy, cost considerations play an important role in the decision-making process. For intravenous agents commonly used to treat CA-MRSA infections, the 2008 cost for 10 days of treatment with generic vancomycin was $182.80; daptomycin cost $1,660.80. For tigecycline and linezolid, the same duration of treatment cost $1,362 and $1,560, respectively.8

Back to the Case

Our patient, an otherwise healthy female, presented with no apparent risk factors for developing a CA-MRSA SSTI. However, more detailed history revealed that she regularly used sports equipment at her local fitness center. Based on her clinical presentation and concerns about the high local prevalence of CA-MRSA, an incision and drainage procedure was performed, and she was started empirically on IV vancomycin. She had a positive clinical response to this treatment.

Wound culture results confirmed CA-MRSA abscess and cellulitis, susceptible to trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole. She was discharged on the oral formulation of this antibiotic to complete a 10-day course of treatment, including the days she received intravenous antibiotics.

Few well-designed trials have compared different lengths of cellulitis therapy. Most authorities recommend five to 10 days of treatment; however, longer courses might be required for more severe or complicated diseases.

Bottom line

Because of the high prevalence of CA-MRSA, initial antibiotic therapy for the treatment of community-acquired cellulitis must provide coverage for this organism. TH

Dr. Clarke is a hospitalist and clinical instructor at Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta. Dr. Dressler is associate professor and director of education, section of hospital medicine, and associate program director of the J. Willis Hurst Internal Medicine Residency Program. Dr. Purohit is an instructor in clinical medicine at Emory University School of Medicine.

 

References

1. Barzilai A, Choen HA. Isolation of group A streptococci from children with perianal cellulitis and from their siblings. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1998;17(4):358-360.
2. Thorsteinsdottir B, Tleyjeh IM, Baddour LM. Abdominal wall cellulitis in the morbidly obese. Scand J Infect Dis. 2005;37(8):605-608.
3. Swartz MN. Clinical practice. Cellulitis. N Engl J Med. 2004;350(9):904-912.
4. Edelsberg J, Berger A, Weber DJ, et al. Clinical and economic consequences of failure of initial antibiotic therapy for hospitalized patients with complicated skin and skin-structure infections. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2008;29(2):160-169.
5. McNamara DR, Tleyjeh IM, Berbari EF, et al. Incidence of lower extremity cellulitis: a population-based study in Olmsted County, Minnesota. Mayo Clin Proc. 2007;82(7):817-821.
6. Moellering RC. Current treatment options for community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection. Clin Infect Dis. 2008;46(7):1032-1037.
7. Chambers HF. The changing epidemiology of Staphylococcus aureus. Emerg Infect Dis. 2001;7(2):178-182.
8. Moellering RC. A 39-year-old man with a skin infection. JAMA. 2008;299(1):79-87
9. Ruhe J, Smith N, Bradsher RW, Menon A. Community-onset methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus skin and soft tissue infections: impact of antimicrobial therapy on outcome. Clin Infect Dis. 2007;44(6):777-784.
10. David MZ, Glikman D, Crawford SE, et al. What is community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus? J Infect Dis. 2008;197(9):1235-1243.
11. Iyer S, Jones DH. Community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus skin infection: a retrospective analysis of clinical presentation and treatment of a local outbreak. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2004;50(6):854-858.
12. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus skin or soft tissue infections in a state prison—Mississippi, 2000. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2001;50(42):919-922.
13. Daum RS. Clinical practice. Skin and soft-tissue infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(4):380-390.
14. Dominguez TJ. It’s not a spider bite, it’s community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. J Am Board Fam Pract. 2004;17(3):220-226.
15. Moran GJ, Krishnadasan A, Gorwitz RJ, et al. Methicillin-resistant S. aureus infections among patients in the emergency department. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(7):666-674.
16. Jetton L. Therapy for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(20):2153-2155.
17. Hook EW, Hooton TM, Horton CA, et al. Microbiologic evaluation of cutaneous cellulitis in adults. Arch Intern Med. 1986;146(2):295-297.
18. Duvanel T, Auckenthaler R, Rohner P, Harms M, Saurat JH. Quantitative cultures of biopsy specimens from cutaneous cellulitis. Arch Intern Med. 1989;149(2):293-296.
19. Newell PM, Norden CW. Value of needle aspiration in bacteriologic diagnosis of cellulitis in adults. J Clin Microbiol. 1988; 26(3):401-404.
20. Loffler CA, Macdougall C. Update on prevalence and treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2007;5(6):961-981.
21. Davis SL, McKinnon PS, Hall LM, et al. Daptomycin versus vancomycin for complicated skin and skin structure infections: clinical and economic outcomes. Pharmacotherapy. 2007;27(12):1611-1618.
22. Seaton RA. Daptomycin: rationale and role in the management of skin and soft tissue infections. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2008;62(Suppl 3):iii15-23.

According to the American Diabetes Association, a normal fasting plasma glucose (FPG) level is less than 100 mg/dl; impaired fasting glucose (IFG) is defined as an FPG from 100 to 125 mg/dl; and any patient with an FPG greater than or equal to 126 mg/dL carries a provisional diagnosis of diabetes.1 When the oral glucose tolerance test is used for evaluation, similar definitions exist. Patients with IFG or impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) have “pre-diabetes,” and are at a high risk for developing diabetes. Elevated blood glucose levels can have major consequences, particularly in high-risk populations.2

 

Macrovascular and microvascular complications, impaired wound healing, and a compromised immune system can occur in the setting of sustained, elevated blood glucose concentrations. Aside from patients with diabetes who have elevated blood glucose levels, schizophrenic patients might be predisposed to glucose intolerance and diabetes independent of treatment.3

It is not known whether IGT seen in schizophrenics is due to lifestyle risk factors (e.g., smoking, poor diet, being overweight, lack of exercise) or some genetic or biological component of the disease. However, this is complicated by the fact that many of these patients are treated with second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs), which might increase the risk of developing diabetes.4 Because of this, a warning regarding the risk of developing hyperglycemia and diabetes was mandated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for SGA manufacturers.5

Hyperglycemia symptoms include polyuria, polydipsia, weight loss (sometimes with polyphagia), and blurred vision. Impairment of growth and susceptibility to certain infections might occur with chronic hyperglycemia. Hyperglycemia with ketoacidosis or the nonketotic hyperosmolar syndrome are acute, life-threatening consequences of uncontrolled diabetes. It is important for hospitalists and other healthcare professionals to be aware of drugs that can cause hyperglycemia or impair glucose tolerance. In some cases, the drug can be continued; in other cases, an alternate agent should be provided if necessary for patient management.

Certain drugs and drug classes known to cause hyperglycemia include: thiazide diuretics, glucocorticoids, oral contraceptives and sex hormones (e.g., testosterone), protease inhibitors, SGAs, thyroid hormone, phenytoin, niacin/nicotinic acid, diazoxide, and alfa-interferon.1-3,6

Limited evidence exists for some other agents/classes, including: asparaginase, beta-agonists, beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, clonidine, cyclosporine, levodopa, lithium, minoxidil, phenothiazines, and others.7 The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee (JNC 7) recommends thiazide diuretics as a first-line treatment for most patients with Stage 1 hypertension, alone or in combination for patients with diabetes.8 These thiazide doses tend to be smaller and, therefore, tend to have minimal effects on blood glucose levels.

In 2004, a consensus guideline was developed on antipsychotic drugs, obesity, and diabetes.9 It describes baseline and followup monitoring of patients treated with SGAs. The baseline includes personal/family history, weight/body mass index, waist circumference, blood pressure, FPG, and a fasting lipid profile. Monitoring of these parameters is then designated at specified times throughout treatment (e.g., weeks four, eight, 12, etc.). Haupt et al recently compared monitoring of lipids and glucose in a population of insured patients receiving SGAs in a retrospective cohort of patients pre- and post-guideline.10 Baseline lipid and glucose testing rates increased minimally post-guideline versus pre-guideline.

The results of this study demonstrate that even though monitoring guidelines to prevent potentially adverse outcomes in a patient population at high risk for developing adverse outcomes are available, clinicians do not always follow them. In order to improve patient outcomes, identified at-risk populations (e.g., patients receiving SGAs) need to be more closely evaluated and monitored throughout therapy to prevent IGT and/or diabetes. TH

Michele B. Kaufman, PharmD, BSc, RPh, is a freelance medical writer based in New York City.

References

1. American Diabetes Association. Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus. Diabetes Care. 2009;32:S62-S67.
2. Luna B, Feinglos MN. Drug-induced hyperglycemia. JAMA. 2001;286:1945-1948.
3. Newcomer JW. Metabolic considerations in the use of antipsychotic medications: a review of recent evidence. J Clin Psychiatry. 2007;68(Suppl 1):20-27.
4. Tahir R. Metabolic effects of atypical antipsychotics. US Pharm. 2007;32:HS3-HS14.
5. Warning about hyperglycemia and atypical antipsychotic drugs. U.S. Food & Drug Administration Web site. Available at: www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/psn/printer.cfm?id=229. Accessed March 31, 2009.
6. Kaufman MB, Simionatto C. A review of protease inhibitor-induced hyperglycemia. Pharmacotherapy. 1999;19:114-117.
7. Pandit MK, Burke J, Gustafson AB, Minocha A, Peiris AN. Drug-induced disorders of glucose tolerance. Ann Intern Med. 1993;118:529-539.
8. Chobanian AV, Bakris GL, Clack HR, et al. The seventh report of the joint national committee on prevention, detection, evaluations, and treatment of high blood pressure. JAMA. 2003;289:2560-2572.
9. American Diabetes Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, North American Association for the Study of Obesity. Consensus development conference on antipsychotic drugs and obesity and diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2004;27:596-601.
10. Haupt DW, Rosenblatt LC, Kim E, Baker RA, Whitehead R, Newcomer JW. Prevalence and predictors of lipid and glucose monitoring in commercially insured patients treated with second-generation antipsychotic agents. Am J Psychiatry. 2009;166:345-353.
11. FDA approves generic treatment for emesis. Drug Store News Web site. Available at: www.drugstorenews.com/story.aspx?id=96143. Accessed March 6, 2009.
12. Aurobindo Pharma gets tentative approval from US FDA for tenofovir disoproxil fumarate tabs. RTT News Web site. Available at: www.rttnews.com/ArticleView.aspx?id=860423. Accessed March 4, 2009.
13. Teva announces approval and launch of generic Topamax tablets.Teva Web site. Available at: www.tevapharm.com/pr/2009/pr_835.asp. Accessed March 30, 2009.
14. FDA approves Symbicort for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). AstraZeneca Web site. Available at: www.astrazeneca-us.com/about-astrazenecaus/newsroom/all/4939997?itemId=4939997. Accessed June 5, 2009.
15. Copaxone approved by the FDA for patients with a first clinical event suggestive of multiple sclerosis. Teva Web site. Available at: www.tevapharm.com/pr/2009/ pr_826.asp? Accessed June 5, 2009.
16. Todoruk M. FDA approves new use for Wyeth’s Tygacil antibiotic. Available at: www.firstwordplus.com/Fws.do?articleid=CF71DE6056CE4120A295243AE2D6EC00. Accessed March 25, 2009.
17. FDA Web site. Available at www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2009/021821s013s017s018lbl.pdf. Accessed June 5, 2009.
18. Transdermal drug patches with metallic backings. FDA Web site. Available at: www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/SafetyInformation/SafetyAlertsforHumanMedicalProducts/ucm111493.htm. Accessed June 5, 2009.
19. FDA warns about risk of wearing medicated patches during MRIs. FDA Web site. Available at: www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm149537.htm. Accessed March 6, 2009.
20. FDA requires boxed warning and risk mitigation strategy for metoclopramide-containing drugs. FDA Web site. Available at: www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm149533.htm. Accessed March 4, 2009.
21. Zonisamide (marketed as Zonegran, and generics). FDA Web site. Available at: www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm095251.htm. Accessed March 4, 2009.

According to the American Diabetes Association, a normal fasting plasma glucose (FPG) level is less than 100 mg/dl; impaired fasting glucose (IFG) is defined as an FPG from 100 to 125 mg/dl; and any patient with an FPG greater than or equal to 126 mg/dL carries a provisional diagnosis of diabetes.1 When the oral glucose tolerance test is used for evaluation, similar definitions exist. Patients with IFG or impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) have “pre-diabetes,” and are at a high risk for developing diabetes. Elevated blood glucose levels can have major consequences, particularly in high-risk populations.2

 

Macrovascular and microvascular complications, impaired wound healing, and a compromised immune system can occur in the setting of sustained, elevated blood glucose concentrations. Aside from patients with diabetes who have elevated blood glucose levels, schizophrenic patients might be predisposed to glucose intolerance and diabetes independent of treatment.3

It is not known whether IGT seen in schizophrenics is due to lifestyle risk factors (e.g., smoking, poor diet, being overweight, lack of exercise) or some genetic or biological component of the disease. However, this is complicated by the fact that many of these patients are treated with second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs), which might increase the risk of developing diabetes.4 Because of this, a warning regarding the risk of developing hyperglycemia and diabetes was mandated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for SGA manufacturers.5

Hyperglycemia symptoms include polyuria, polydipsia, weight loss (sometimes with polyphagia), and blurred vision. Impairment of growth and susceptibility to certain infections might occur with chronic hyperglycemia. Hyperglycemia with ketoacidosis or the nonketotic hyperosmolar syndrome are acute, life-threatening consequences of uncontrolled diabetes. It is important for hospitalists and other healthcare professionals to be aware of drugs that can cause hyperglycemia or impair glucose tolerance. In some cases, the drug can be continued; in other cases, an alternate agent should be provided if necessary for patient management.

Certain drugs and drug classes known to cause hyperglycemia include: thiazide diuretics, glucocorticoids, oral contraceptives and sex hormones (e.g., testosterone), protease inhibitors, SGAs, thyroid hormone, phenytoin, niacin/nicotinic acid, diazoxide, and alfa-interferon.1-3,6

Limited evidence exists for some other agents/classes, including: asparaginase, beta-agonists, beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, clonidine, cyclosporine, levodopa, lithium, minoxidil, phenothiazines, and others.7 The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee (JNC 7) recommends thiazide diuretics as a first-line treatment for most patients with Stage 1 hypertension, alone or in combination for patients with diabetes.8 These thiazide doses tend to be smaller and, therefore, tend to have minimal effects on blood glucose levels.

In 2004, a consensus guideline was developed on antipsychotic drugs, obesity, and diabetes.9 It describes baseline and followup monitoring of patients treated with SGAs. The baseline includes personal/family history, weight/body mass index, waist circumference, blood pressure, FPG, and a fasting lipid profile. Monitoring of these parameters is then designated at specified times throughout treatment (e.g., weeks four, eight, 12, etc.). Haupt et al recently compared monitoring of lipids and glucose in a population of insured patients receiving SGAs in a retrospective cohort of patients pre- and post-guideline.10 Baseline lipid and glucose testing rates increased minimally post-guideline versus pre-guideline.

The results of this study demonstrate that even though monitoring guidelines to prevent potentially adverse outcomes in a patient population at high risk for developing adverse outcomes are available, clinicians do not always follow them. In order to improve patient outcomes, identified at-risk populations (e.g., patients receiving SGAs) need to be more closely evaluated and monitored throughout therapy to prevent IGT and/or diabetes. TH

Michele B. Kaufman, PharmD, BSc, RPh, is a freelance medical writer based in New York City.

References

1. American Diabetes Association. Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus. Diabetes Care. 2009;32:S62-S67.
2. Luna B, Feinglos MN. Drug-induced hyperglycemia. JAMA. 2001;286:1945-1948.
3. Newcomer JW. Metabolic considerations in the use of antipsychotic medications: a review of recent evidence. J Clin Psychiatry. 2007;68(Suppl 1):20-27.
4. Tahir R. Metabolic effects of atypical antipsychotics. US Pharm. 2007;32:HS3-HS14.
5. Warning about hyperglycemia and atypical antipsychotic drugs. U.S. Food & Drug Administration Web site. Available at: www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/psn/printer.cfm?id=229. Accessed March 31, 2009.
6. Kaufman MB, Simionatto C. A review of protease inhibitor-induced hyperglycemia. Pharmacotherapy. 1999;19:114-117.
7. Pandit MK, Burke J, Gustafson AB, Minocha A, Peiris AN. Drug-induced disorders of glucose tolerance. Ann Intern Med. 1993;118:529-539.
8. Chobanian AV, Bakris GL, Clack HR, et al. The seventh report of the joint national committee on prevention, detection, evaluations, and treatment of high blood pressure. JAMA. 2003;289:2560-2572.
9. American Diabetes Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, North American Association for the Study of Obesity. Consensus development conference on antipsychotic drugs and obesity and diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2004;27:596-601.
10. Haupt DW, Rosenblatt LC, Kim E, Baker RA, Whitehead R, Newcomer JW. Prevalence and predictors of lipid and glucose monitoring in commercially insured patients treated with second-generation antipsychotic agents. Am J Psychiatry. 2009;166:345-353.
11. FDA approves generic treatment for emesis. Drug Store News Web site. Available at: www.drugstorenews.com/story.aspx?id=96143. Accessed March 6, 2009.
12. Aurobindo Pharma gets tentative approval from US FDA for tenofovir disoproxil fumarate tabs. RTT News Web site. Available at: www.rttnews.com/ArticleView.aspx?id=860423. Accessed March 4, 2009.
13. Teva announces approval and launch of generic Topamax tablets.Teva Web site. Available at: www.tevapharm.com/pr/2009/pr_835.asp. Accessed March 30, 2009.
14. FDA approves Symbicort for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). AstraZeneca Web site. Available at: www.astrazeneca-us.com/about-astrazenecaus/newsroom/all/4939997?itemId=4939997. Accessed June 5, 2009.
15. Copaxone approved by the FDA for patients with a first clinical event suggestive of multiple sclerosis. Teva Web site. Available at: www.tevapharm.com/pr/2009/ pr_826.asp? Accessed June 5, 2009.
16. Todoruk M. FDA approves new use for Wyeth’s Tygacil antibiotic. Available at: www.firstwordplus.com/Fws.do?articleid=CF71DE6056CE4120A295243AE2D6EC00. Accessed March 25, 2009.
17. FDA Web site. Available at www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2009/021821s013s017s018lbl.pdf. Accessed June 5, 2009.
18. Transdermal drug patches with metallic backings. FDA Web site. Available at: www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/SafetyInformation/SafetyAlertsforHumanMedicalProducts/ucm111493.htm. Accessed June 5, 2009.
19. FDA warns about risk of wearing medicated patches during MRIs. FDA Web site. Available at: www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm149537.htm. Accessed March 6, 2009.
20. FDA requires boxed warning and risk mitigation strategy for metoclopramide-containing drugs. FDA Web site. Available at: www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm149533.htm. Accessed March 4, 2009.
21. Zonisamide (marketed as Zonegran, and generics). FDA Web site. Available at: www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm095251.htm. Accessed March 4, 2009.

According to the American Diabetes Association, a normal fasting plasma glucose (FPG) level is less than 100 mg/dl; impaired fasting glucose (IFG) is defined as an FPG from 100 to 125 mg/dl; and any patient with an FPG greater than or equal to 126 mg/dL carries a provisional diagnosis of diabetes.1 When the oral glucose tolerance test is used for evaluation, similar definitions exist. Patients with IFG or impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) have “pre-diabetes,” and are at a high risk for developing diabetes. Elevated blood glucose levels can have major consequences, particularly in high-risk populations.2

 

Macrovascular and microvascular complications, impaired wound healing, and a compromised immune system can occur in the setting of sustained, elevated blood glucose concentrations. Aside from patients with diabetes who have elevated blood glucose levels, schizophrenic patients might be predisposed to glucose intolerance and diabetes independent of treatment.3

It is not known whether IGT seen in schizophrenics is due to lifestyle risk factors (e.g., smoking, poor diet, being overweight, lack of exercise) or some genetic or biological component of the disease. However, this is complicated by the fact that many of these patients are treated with second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs), which might increase the risk of developing diabetes.4 Because of this, a warning regarding the risk of developing hyperglycemia and diabetes was mandated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for SGA manufacturers.5

Hyperglycemia symptoms include polyuria, polydipsia, weight loss (sometimes with polyphagia), and blurred vision. Impairment of growth and susceptibility to certain infections might occur with chronic hyperglycemia. Hyperglycemia with ketoacidosis or the nonketotic hyperosmolar syndrome are acute, life-threatening consequences of uncontrolled diabetes. It is important for hospitalists and other healthcare professionals to be aware of drugs that can cause hyperglycemia or impair glucose tolerance. In some cases, the drug can be continued; in other cases, an alternate agent should be provided if necessary for patient management.

Certain drugs and drug classes known to cause hyperglycemia include: thiazide diuretics, glucocorticoids, oral contraceptives and sex hormones (e.g., testosterone), protease inhibitors, SGAs, thyroid hormone, phenytoin, niacin/nicotinic acid, diazoxide, and alfa-interferon.1-3,6

Limited evidence exists for some other agents/classes, including: asparaginase, beta-agonists, beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, clonidine, cyclosporine, levodopa, lithium, minoxidil, phenothiazines, and others.7 The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee (JNC 7) recommends thiazide diuretics as a first-line treatment for most patients with Stage 1 hypertension, alone or in combination for patients with diabetes.8 These thiazide doses tend to be smaller and, therefore, tend to have minimal effects on blood glucose levels.

In 2004, a consensus guideline was developed on antipsychotic drugs, obesity, and diabetes.9 It describes baseline and followup monitoring of patients treated with SGAs. The baseline includes personal/family history, weight/body mass index, waist circumference, blood pressure, FPG, and a fasting lipid profile. Monitoring of these parameters is then designated at specified times throughout treatment (e.g., weeks four, eight, 12, etc.). Haupt et al recently compared monitoring of lipids and glucose in a population of insured patients receiving SGAs in a retrospective cohort of patients pre- and post-guideline.10 Baseline lipid and glucose testing rates increased minimally post-guideline versus pre-guideline.

The results of this study demonstrate that even though monitoring guidelines to prevent potentially adverse outcomes in a patient population at high risk for developing adverse outcomes are available, clinicians do not always follow them. In order to improve patient outcomes, identified at-risk populations (e.g., patients receiving SGAs) need to be more closely evaluated and monitored throughout therapy to prevent IGT and/or diabetes. TH

Michele B. Kaufman, PharmD, BSc, RPh, is a freelance medical writer based in New York City.

References

1. American Diabetes Association. Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus. Diabetes Care. 2009;32:S62-S67.
2. Luna B, Feinglos MN. Drug-induced hyperglycemia. JAMA. 2001;286:1945-1948.
3. Newcomer JW. Metabolic considerations in the use of antipsychotic medications: a review of recent evidence. J Clin Psychiatry. 2007;68(Suppl 1):20-27.
4. Tahir R. Metabolic effects of atypical antipsychotics. US Pharm. 2007;32:HS3-HS14.
5. Warning about hyperglycemia and atypical antipsychotic drugs. U.S. Food & Drug Administration Web site. Available at: www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/psn/printer.cfm?id=229. Accessed March 31, 2009.
6. Kaufman MB, Simionatto C. A review of protease inhibitor-induced hyperglycemia. Pharmacotherapy. 1999;19:114-117.
7. Pandit MK, Burke J, Gustafson AB, Minocha A, Peiris AN. Drug-induced disorders of glucose tolerance. Ann Intern Med. 1993;118:529-539.
8. Chobanian AV, Bakris GL, Clack HR, et al. The seventh report of the joint national committee on prevention, detection, evaluations, and treatment of high blood pressure. JAMA. 2003;289:2560-2572.
9. American Diabetes Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, North American Association for the Study of Obesity. Consensus development conference on antipsychotic drugs and obesity and diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2004;27:596-601.
10. Haupt DW, Rosenblatt LC, Kim E, Baker RA, Whitehead R, Newcomer JW. Prevalence and predictors of lipid and glucose monitoring in commercially insured patients treated with second-generation antipsychotic agents. Am J Psychiatry. 2009;166:345-353.
11. FDA approves generic treatment for emesis. Drug Store News Web site. Available at: www.drugstorenews.com/story.aspx?id=96143. Accessed March 6, 2009.
12. Aurobindo Pharma gets tentative approval from US FDA for tenofovir disoproxil fumarate tabs. RTT News Web site. Available at: www.rttnews.com/ArticleView.aspx?id=860423. Accessed March 4, 2009.
13. Teva announces approval and launch of generic Topamax tablets.Teva Web site. Available at: www.tevapharm.com/pr/2009/pr_835.asp. Accessed March 30, 2009.
14. FDA approves Symbicort for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). AstraZeneca Web site. Available at: www.astrazeneca-us.com/about-astrazenecaus/newsroom/all/4939997?itemId=4939997. Accessed June 5, 2009.
15. Copaxone approved by the FDA for patients with a first clinical event suggestive of multiple sclerosis. Teva Web site. Available at: www.tevapharm.com/pr/2009/ pr_826.asp? Accessed June 5, 2009.
16. Todoruk M. FDA approves new use for Wyeth’s Tygacil antibiotic. Available at: www.firstwordplus.com/Fws.do?articleid=CF71DE6056CE4120A295243AE2D6EC00. Accessed March 25, 2009.
17. FDA Web site. Available at www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2009/021821s013s017s018lbl.pdf. Accessed June 5, 2009.
18. Transdermal drug patches with metallic backings. FDA Web site. Available at: www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/SafetyInformation/SafetyAlertsforHumanMedicalProducts/ucm111493.htm. Accessed June 5, 2009.
19. FDA warns about risk of wearing medicated patches during MRIs. FDA Web site. Available at: www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm149537.htm. Accessed March 6, 2009.
20. FDA requires boxed warning and risk mitigation strategy for metoclopramide-containing drugs. FDA Web site. Available at: www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm149533.htm. Accessed March 4, 2009.
21. Zonisamide (marketed as Zonegran, and generics). FDA Web site. Available at: www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm095251.htm. Accessed March 4, 2009.

In This Edition

Literature at a Glance: A guide to this month’s studies

• PPI use with clopidrogrel in ACS.
• Chlorhexidine sponge use reduces line infections.
• Extended thienopyridine use does not benefit DES patients.
• CABG is revascularization choice for severe CAD.
• Pre-treated CVC use reduces bloodstream infections.
• Hospitalist use grows in U.S.
• Sepsis order set improves outcomes.
• Admission day predicts acute PE mortality.

PPI Use with Clopidogrel in Acute Coronary Syndrome Is Associated with Readmissions and Mortality

Clinical question: Does concomitant use of clopidogrel and a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) following hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) lead to adverse outcomes?

Background: Prophylactic PPIs often are prescribed with clopidogrel to reduce the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding. Mechanistic studies have shown that omeprazole decreases the platelet-inhibitory effect of clopidogrel, raising concerns that PPIs might interfere with clopidogrel’s beneficial effects. The clinical significance of this finding is unknown.

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: 127 VA hospitals.

Synopsis: Investigators used data from the Cardiac Care Follow-up Clinical Study and VA pharmacy records to examine 8,205 male veterans who were hospitalized for ACS and treated with clopidogrel. Patients who filled prescriptions for both clopidogrel and a PPI were at significantly higher risk for death or readmission with ACS compared with those who filled prescriptions for clopidogrel only (adjusted odds ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-1.41). Patients who filled prescriptions for PPIs alone had similar risk for adverse events as those who took neither medication.

Subanalyses found similarly increased risk among patients prescribed omeprazole and rabeprazole, but those taking lanzoprazole and pantoprazole were not examined due to the small sample size. Although causality cannot be inferred from this observational study, and the risk associated with combined clopidigrel and PPI use appeared small, alternatives for gastric acid reduction exist. Thus, it may be prudent to restrict PPI use to patients who have a clear indication for their use until more definitive clinical trials can be conducted.

 

Bottom line: Among patients who are treated with clopidogrel for ACS, PPIs should be reserved for patients with a clear indication for gastric acid reduction and who cannot use alternative therapies.

Citation: Ho PM, Maddox TM, Wang L, et al. Risk of adverse outcomes associated with concomitant use of clopidogrel and proton pump inhibitors following acute coronary syndrome. JAMA. 2009;301(9):937-944.

Chlorhexidine-Impregnated Sponge Use Reduces Line Infections

Clinical question: Does dressing vascular catheters with chlorhexidine gluconate-impregnated sponges (CHGIS) reduce rates of catheter-related infections, and are dressing changes every seven days inferior to every three days?

Background: Process improvement strategies—including educating providers, strictly adhering to sterile technique, and promptly removing unnecessary catheters—greatly decrease catheter-related infections. It is unclear if CHGIS dressings offer additional benefit. Also uncertain is whether weekly dressing changes are as safe as changing dressings every three days.

Study design: A 2x2 factorial, assessor-blinded, randomized controlled trial.

Setting: ICUs in three university hospitals and two general hospitals in France.

Synopsis: 1,636 French adults expected to require arterial and central venous catheters for >48 hours were randomly assigned to one of four groups. Each group received either CHGIS dressings or standard dressings, and each group had dressing changes every three or seven days. Dressings were changed sooner if soiled or nonadherent. CHGIS dressings were associated with fewer catheter-related infections than standard dressings (0.6 vs. 1.4 infections per 1,000 catheter days; P=0.03). No significant difference in rates of catheter colonization existed between the three-day and seven-day dressing change strategies (10.4 vs. 11 events per 1,000 catheter days, P>0.05).

Although microbiology assessors were blinded to patients’ status, the ICU staff was not, potentially creating experimenter bias. Approximately 30% of the venous catheters and 40% of the arterial catheters were in a femoral site. Secondary analyses found higher rates of severe dermatitis among patients with CHGIS dressings but no difference in minimal bactericidal concentration (MBC) or colonizing organisms. Preliminary calculations suggested CHGIS dressings could be cost-effective.

Bottom line: Among critically ill adults, CHGIS catheter dressings may marginally reduce catheter-related infection rates, but further evaluation is needed before this technology can be adopted widely.

Citation: Timsit JF, Schwebel C, Bouadma L, et al. Chlorhexidine-impregnated sponges and less frequent dressing changes for prevention of catheter-related infections in critically-ill adults: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2009;301(12):1231-1241.

 

Thienopyridine Use Six Months after Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Implant-ation Offers No Benefit

Clinical question: What are the relative contributions of aspirin and thienopyridine on preventing stent thrombosis in patients with sirolimus-eluting stents?

Background: There are no randomized clinical trials addressing the optimal duration, or the risks associated with discontinuation, of dual-antiplatelet therapy after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation. Nevertheless, many patients continue to be maintained on dual-antiplatelet therapy beyond one year of their index DES implantation.

Study design: Prospective multicenter observational study.

Setting: Hospitals in Japan.

Synopsis: This study observed 10,778 Japanese patients undergoing sirolimus-eluting stent implantation. Patients discontinuing both thienopyridine and aspirin had a significantly higher rate of stent thrombosis than those who continued both medications for up to 18 months. However, discontinuation of thienopyridine alone was not associated with an excess risk of stent thrombosis. Additionally, a landmark analysis of patients who were free of events at six months showed rates of death for myocardial infarction (MI) at 24 months were 4.1% for patients taking thienopyridine and 4.1% for patients not taking thienopyridine (P=0.99). Ticlodipine was the thienopyridine used by more than 95% of patients.

Hospitalists should be aware that the role thienopyridine therapy plays in reducing stent thrombosis beyond one month after implantation has not been well addressed.

Bottom line: Discontinuation of thienopyridine therapy after six months while maintaining aspirin therapy is not associated with increased risk of stent thrombosis in patients with sirolimus-eluting stents.

Citation: Kimura T, Morimoto T, Nakagawa Y, et al. Antiplatelet therapy and stent thrombosis after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation. Circulation. 2009;119(7):987-995.

Compared with PCI, CABG Results in Lower Rates of Major Adverse Events in Severe CAD Patients

Clinical question: What is the optimal revascularization strategy for previously untreated severe coronary artery disease (CAD)?

Background: Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is the treatment of choice in three-vessel and left-main CAD. However, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents often is utilized despite the lack of adequately powered randomized trials.

Study design: Prospective multicenter randomized clinical trial.

Setting: 85 hospitals in Europe and the U.S.

Synopsis: 1,800 patients with an average age of 65 and previously untreated three-vessel or left-main CAD amenable to therapy with both PCI and CABG were randomized to CABG or PCI. The primary combined endpoint was a major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular event, defined as death, stroke, MI, or repeat revascularization. PCI was associated with a significantly higher rate of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events, due mostly to a higher rate of repeat revascularization (13.5% vs. 5.9%, P<0.001). At 12 months, the two groups had similar rates of death from any cause or MI, and similar rates of the combined endpoint of death from any cause, stroke, or MI; however, the rate of stroke was 1.6% higher in the CABG group.

Hospitalists should continue to favor CABG over PCI but give consideration to the risks involved with such an intervention.

Bottom line: CABG remains the revascularization choice in patients with severe CAD.

Citation: Serruys PW, Morice MC, Kappetein AP, et al. Percuta-neous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(10):961-972.

Pre-Medicated Central Venous Catheters Reduce Risk of Catheter-Related Bloodstream Infections

Clinical question: Does pre-treating central venous catheters with anti-infective agents prevent catheter-related bloodstream infections?

Background: Use of central venous catheters (CVC) is associated with catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI), with CRBSI-related mortality rates as high as 25%. Previous reviews have indicated that CVCs coated or impregnated with anti-infectives may reduce CRBSI incidence. This review integrates new trial data with information from prior reviews.

 

Study design: Meta-analysis of 27 randomized controlled trials.

Setting: Meta-analysis.

Synopsis: The authors report CVCs pre-treated with anti-infectives (AI-CVCs) are clinically effective in reducing the risk of CRBSI. The odds of having a CRBSI with a treated CVC versus an untreated CVC are 0.49 to 1 (95% CI, 0.37–0.64, 27 studies, fixed effects). The study also finds the use of AI-CVCs might provide a large cost savings in Great Britain. Because the findings are based on a meta-analysis, they are limited by the quality, context, and consistency of the original studies. The authors note that many of the studies had unsatisfactory descriptions of methodology. The current study is unable to separate the risk reduction attributable to AI-CVC versus that attributable to other infection control practices. Also, original data is insufficient to assess the benefits of AI-CVCs placed for longer than 12 days.

To summarize, AI-CVCs may present a means to reduce CRBSI, but more investigation of its role within infection control protocols is needed, as is investigation of longer duration of treatment.

Bottom line: Central venous catheters pre-treated with anti-infectives significantly reduce catheter-related bloodstream infections.

Citation: Hockenhull JC, Dwan KM, Smith GW, et al. The clinical effectiveness of central venous catheters treated with anti-infective agents in preventing catheter-related bloodstream infections: a systematic review. Crit Care Med. 2009;37(2):702-712.

Fivefold Increase in Hospitalists in the U.S. from 1995 to 2006

Clinical question: What is the growth rate of hospitalists and hospitalist-provided care?

Background: Survey data has shown a sharp increase in the number of hospitalists, but until now there have not been any national or population-based data on the growth of hospitalist care.

Study design: Descriptive analysis.

Setting: Medicare-enrolled patients.

Synopsis: The study is based on national Medicare data from 2.1 million admissions involving 990,785 patients in 5,800 hospitals and 120,226 general internists. It represents 5% of inpatient Medicare claims generated by general internists. The authors define “hospitalist” as a general internist who generates >90% of his or her claims from the care of hospitalized patients.

U.S. hospitals have seen substantial growth in hospitalists over the period examined. The nation saw a 500% increase in the number of general-internist hospitalists, and a 28% increase (to 37.1% in 2006 from 9.1% in 1995) in the number of Medicare patients who received care from a hospitalist. The odds that a hospitalized Medicare patient received care from a hospitalist increased 29.2% per year from 1997 to 2006. The percentage of hospitals with at least three hospitalists rose to 47.1% in 2006 from 11.6% in 1995.

This analysis might actually have underestimated HM’s growth. Analysis of Medicare claims does not identify pediatric hospitalists and hospitalists who work exclusively within HMOs. This analysis also did not include family practitioners or internal-medicine subspecialists who are hospitalists.

Bottom line: Medicare claims data confirm survey data findings: Hospitalists and hospitalist care has grown sharply over the last decade.

Citation: Kuo YF, Sharma G, Freeman JL, Goodwin JS. Growth in the care of older patients by hospitalists in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:1102-1012.

Standardized Order Set for Bacteremic Sepsis Improves LOS and Mortality

Clinical question: Does a standardized order set for bacteremic sepsis impact patient management and outcomes?

Background: Prompt cardiovascular resuscitation and appropriate antibiotics decrease morbidity and mortality in bacteremic sepsis. This study examined whether hospitalwide, standardized sepsis order set improved management and outcomes.

Study design: Retrospective, before-and-after study design.

Setting: 1,200-bed academic medical center.

Synopsis: Two hundred patients with bacteremic severe sepsis were randomly selected from 18 months before the order set was introduced, and 200 were selected from 18 months after the order set was introduced. Primary outcomes measured were quantity of fluid administered and appropriate initial antibiotics. Secondary outcomes measured were hospital mortality and length of stay. Patients in the “after” group received more intravenous fluid (1627±1862 ml vs. 2054±2237 ml, P=.04), more appropriate antibiotics (53.0% vs. 65.5%, P=.01), had shorter hospital stays (28.7±30.1 days vs. 22.4±20.9 days, P=.02), and decreased in-house mortality (55.0% vs. 39.5%, P =<0.01).

 

The retrospective design of the study limited its ability to determine causal relationship. Extensive education may have contributed to the change (Hawthorne effect). Management in the ICU and ED, not the hospital wards, was the primary reason for mortality difference.

Bottom line: A standardized order set for bacteremic sepsis was associated with increased compliance with evidence-based treatment and improved outcomes. Hospitalists should promptly treat bacteremic sepsis with appropriate fluid resuscitation and antibiotics.

Citation: Thiel SW, Asghar MF, Micek ST, Reichley RM, Doherty JA, Kollef MH. Hospital-wide impact of a standardized order set for the management of bacteremic severe sepsis. Crit Care Med. 2009;37(3):819-824.

Admission Day of the Week Predicts Mortality in Patients with Acute Pulmonary Embolus

Clinical question: Do weekend pulmonary embolus (PE) admissions have worse outcomes than weekday admissions?

Background: Studies of patients with acute cardiovascular diagnoses (e.g., stroke, cardiac arrest) have shown higher short-term mortality and longer length of stay (LOS) for weekend versus weekday admissions. PE diagnosis is complex, requiring timely testing and experienced staff who are sometimes unavailable on weekends. Optimal anticoagulation therapy also depends on provider skill.

Study design: Retrospective observational study.

Setting: 186 private Pennsylvania hospitals, January 2000 through November 2002.

Synopsis: Using the Pennsylvania Health Care Cost Containment Council database, the authors reviewed 15,531 records of patients with a primary or secondary PE diagnosis code. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality over 30 days; LOS was the secondary outcome.

Weekend admissions in the highest severity of illness risk class had higher 30-day mortality than weekday admissions. Weekend admissions were significantly more likely than weekday admissions to be clinically unstable and to have abnormal lab parameters. Adjusted for severity of illness risk class, overall mortality was 1.4% higher for weekend versus weekday admissions. All excess mortality came from the sickest group of patients. LOS did not differ.

Less-experienced caregivers or delayed diagnostic testing may play a role in poor outcomes. Patients admitted on weekends might receive delayed care from the first onset of symptoms. This is important because timely therapy has been shown to influence outcomes in acute PE. Reasons for these observed differences should be explored further to help provide more consistent PE management, regardless of admission day.

Bottom line: The sickest patients with PE admitted on weekends experienced small but significantly greater 30-day mortality compared with those admitted on weekdays.

Citation: Aujesky D, Jimenez D, Mor M, Geng M, Fine M, Ibrahim S. Weekend versus weekday admission and mortality after acute pulmonary embolism. Circulation. 2009;119:962-968. TH

In This Edition

Literature at a Glance: A guide to this month’s studies

• PPI use with clopidrogrel in ACS.
• Chlorhexidine sponge use reduces line infections.
• Extended thienopyridine use does not benefit DES patients.
• CABG is revascularization choice for severe CAD.
• Pre-treated CVC use reduces bloodstream infections.
• Hospitalist use grows in U.S.
• Sepsis order set improves outcomes.
• Admission day predicts acute PE mortality.

PPI Use with Clopidogrel in Acute Coronary Syndrome Is Associated with Readmissions and Mortality

Clinical question: Does concomitant use of clopidogrel and a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) following hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) lead to adverse outcomes?

Background: Prophylactic PPIs often are prescribed with clopidogrel to reduce the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding. Mechanistic studies have shown that omeprazole decreases the platelet-inhibitory effect of clopidogrel, raising concerns that PPIs might interfere with clopidogrel’s beneficial effects. The clinical significance of this finding is unknown.

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: 127 VA hospitals.

Synopsis: Investigators used data from the Cardiac Care Follow-up Clinical Study and VA pharmacy records to examine 8,205 male veterans who were hospitalized for ACS and treated with clopidogrel. Patients who filled prescriptions for both clopidogrel and a PPI were at significantly higher risk for death or readmission with ACS compared with those who filled prescriptions for clopidogrel only (adjusted odds ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-1.41). Patients who filled prescriptions for PPIs alone had similar risk for adverse events as those who took neither medication.

Subanalyses found similarly increased risk among patients prescribed omeprazole and rabeprazole, but those taking lanzoprazole and pantoprazole were not examined due to the small sample size. Although causality cannot be inferred from this observational study, and the risk associated with combined clopidigrel and PPI use appeared small, alternatives for gastric acid reduction exist. Thus, it may be prudent to restrict PPI use to patients who have a clear indication for their use until more definitive clinical trials can be conducted.

 

Bottom line: Among patients who are treated with clopidogrel for ACS, PPIs should be reserved for patients with a clear indication for gastric acid reduction and who cannot use alternative therapies.

Citation: Ho PM, Maddox TM, Wang L, et al. Risk of adverse outcomes associated with concomitant use of clopidogrel and proton pump inhibitors following acute coronary syndrome. JAMA. 2009;301(9):937-944.

Chlorhexidine-Impregnated Sponge Use Reduces Line Infections

Clinical question: Does dressing vascular catheters with chlorhexidine gluconate-impregnated sponges (CHGIS) reduce rates of catheter-related infections, and are dressing changes every seven days inferior to every three days?

Background: Process improvement strategies—including educating providers, strictly adhering to sterile technique, and promptly removing unnecessary catheters—greatly decrease catheter-related infections. It is unclear if CHGIS dressings offer additional benefit. Also uncertain is whether weekly dressing changes are as safe as changing dressings every three days.

Study design: A 2x2 factorial, assessor-blinded, randomized controlled trial.

Setting: ICUs in three university hospitals and two general hospitals in France.

Synopsis: 1,636 French adults expected to require arterial and central venous catheters for >48 hours were randomly assigned to one of four groups. Each group received either CHGIS dressings or standard dressings, and each group had dressing changes every three or seven days. Dressings were changed sooner if soiled or nonadherent. CHGIS dressings were associated with fewer catheter-related infections than standard dressings (0.6 vs. 1.4 infections per 1,000 catheter days; P=0.03). No significant difference in rates of catheter colonization existed between the three-day and seven-day dressing change strategies (10.4 vs. 11 events per 1,000 catheter days, P>0.05).

Although microbiology assessors were blinded to patients’ status, the ICU staff was not, potentially creating experimenter bias. Approximately 30% of the venous catheters and 40% of the arterial catheters were in a femoral site. Secondary analyses found higher rates of severe dermatitis among patients with CHGIS dressings but no difference in minimal bactericidal concentration (MBC) or colonizing organisms. Preliminary calculations suggested CHGIS dressings could be cost-effective.

Bottom line: Among critically ill adults, CHGIS catheter dressings may marginally reduce catheter-related infection rates, but further evaluation is needed before this technology can be adopted widely.

Citation: Timsit JF, Schwebel C, Bouadma L, et al. Chlorhexidine-impregnated sponges and less frequent dressing changes for prevention of catheter-related infections in critically-ill adults: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2009;301(12):1231-1241.

 

Thienopyridine Use Six Months after Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Implant-ation Offers No Benefit

Clinical question: What are the relative contributions of aspirin and thienopyridine on preventing stent thrombosis in patients with sirolimus-eluting stents?

Background: There are no randomized clinical trials addressing the optimal duration, or the risks associated with discontinuation, of dual-antiplatelet therapy after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation. Nevertheless, many patients continue to be maintained on dual-antiplatelet therapy beyond one year of their index DES implantation.

Study design: Prospective multicenter observational study.

Setting: Hospitals in Japan.

Synopsis: This study observed 10,778 Japanese patients undergoing sirolimus-eluting stent implantation. Patients discontinuing both thienopyridine and aspirin had a significantly higher rate of stent thrombosis than those who continued both medications for up to 18 months. However, discontinuation of thienopyridine alone was not associated with an excess risk of stent thrombosis. Additionally, a landmark analysis of patients who were free of events at six months showed rates of death for myocardial infarction (MI) at 24 months were 4.1% for patients taking thienopyridine and 4.1% for patients not taking thienopyridine (P=0.99). Ticlodipine was the thienopyridine used by more than 95% of patients.

Hospitalists should be aware that the role thienopyridine therapy plays in reducing stent thrombosis beyond one month after implantation has not been well addressed.

Bottom line: Discontinuation of thienopyridine therapy after six months while maintaining aspirin therapy is not associated with increased risk of stent thrombosis in patients with sirolimus-eluting stents.

Citation: Kimura T, Morimoto T, Nakagawa Y, et al. Antiplatelet therapy and stent thrombosis after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation. Circulation. 2009;119(7):987-995.

Compared with PCI, CABG Results in Lower Rates of Major Adverse Events in Severe CAD Patients

Clinical question: What is the optimal revascularization strategy for previously untreated severe coronary artery disease (CAD)?

Background: Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is the treatment of choice in three-vessel and left-main CAD. However, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents often is utilized despite the lack of adequately powered randomized trials.

Study design: Prospective multicenter randomized clinical trial.

Setting: 85 hospitals in Europe and the U.S.

Synopsis: 1,800 patients with an average age of 65 and previously untreated three-vessel or left-main CAD amenable to therapy with both PCI and CABG were randomized to CABG or PCI. The primary combined endpoint was a major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular event, defined as death, stroke, MI, or repeat revascularization. PCI was associated with a significantly higher rate of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events, due mostly to a higher rate of repeat revascularization (13.5% vs. 5.9%, P<0.001). At 12 months, the two groups had similar rates of death from any cause or MI, and similar rates of the combined endpoint of death from any cause, stroke, or MI; however, the rate of stroke was 1.6% higher in the CABG group.

Hospitalists should continue to favor CABG over PCI but give consideration to the risks involved with such an intervention.

Bottom line: CABG remains the revascularization choice in patients with severe CAD.

Citation: Serruys PW, Morice MC, Kappetein AP, et al. Percuta-neous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(10):961-972.

Pre-Medicated Central Venous Catheters Reduce Risk of Catheter-Related Bloodstream Infections

Clinical question: Does pre-treating central venous catheters with anti-infective agents prevent catheter-related bloodstream infections?

Background: Use of central venous catheters (CVC) is associated with catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI), with CRBSI-related mortality rates as high as 25%. Previous reviews have indicated that CVCs coated or impregnated with anti-infectives may reduce CRBSI incidence. This review integrates new trial data with information from prior reviews.

 

Study design: Meta-analysis of 27 randomized controlled trials.

Setting: Meta-analysis.

Synopsis: The authors report CVCs pre-treated with anti-infectives (AI-CVCs) are clinically effective in reducing the risk of CRBSI. The odds of having a CRBSI with a treated CVC versus an untreated CVC are 0.49 to 1 (95% CI, 0.37–0.64, 27 studies, fixed effects). The study also finds the use of AI-CVCs might provide a large cost savings in Great Britain. Because the findings are based on a meta-analysis, they are limited by the quality, context, and consistency of the original studies. The authors note that many of the studies had unsatisfactory descriptions of methodology. The current study is unable to separate the risk reduction attributable to AI-CVC versus that attributable to other infection control practices. Also, original data is insufficient to assess the benefits of AI-CVCs placed for longer than 12 days.

To summarize, AI-CVCs may present a means to reduce CRBSI, but more investigation of its role within infection control protocols is needed, as is investigation of longer duration of treatment.

Bottom line: Central venous catheters pre-treated with anti-infectives significantly reduce catheter-related bloodstream infections.

Citation: Hockenhull JC, Dwan KM, Smith GW, et al. The clinical effectiveness of central venous catheters treated with anti-infective agents in preventing catheter-related bloodstream infections: a systematic review. Crit Care Med. 2009;37(2):702-712.

Fivefold Increase in Hospitalists in the U.S. from 1995 to 2006

Clinical question: What is the growth rate of hospitalists and hospitalist-provided care?

Background: Survey data has shown a sharp increase in the number of hospitalists, but until now there have not been any national or population-based data on the growth of hospitalist care.

Study design: Descriptive analysis.

Setting: Medicare-enrolled patients.

Synopsis: The study is based on national Medicare data from 2.1 million admissions involving 990,785 patients in 5,800 hospitals and 120,226 general internists. It represents 5% of inpatient Medicare claims generated by general internists. The authors define “hospitalist” as a general internist who generates >90% of his or her claims from the care of hospitalized patients.

U.S. hospitals have seen substantial growth in hospitalists over the period examined. The nation saw a 500% increase in the number of general-internist hospitalists, and a 28% increase (to 37.1% in 2006 from 9.1% in 1995) in the number of Medicare patients who received care from a hospitalist. The odds that a hospitalized Medicare patient received care from a hospitalist increased 29.2% per year from 1997 to 2006. The percentage of hospitals with at least three hospitalists rose to 47.1% in 2006 from 11.6% in 1995.

This analysis might actually have underestimated HM’s growth. Analysis of Medicare claims does not identify pediatric hospitalists and hospitalists who work exclusively within HMOs. This analysis also did not include family practitioners or internal-medicine subspecialists who are hospitalists.

Bottom line: Medicare claims data confirm survey data findings: Hospitalists and hospitalist care has grown sharply over the last decade.

Citation: Kuo YF, Sharma G, Freeman JL, Goodwin JS. Growth in the care of older patients by hospitalists in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:1102-1012.

Standardized Order Set for Bacteremic Sepsis Improves LOS and Mortality

Clinical question: Does a standardized order set for bacteremic sepsis impact patient management and outcomes?

Background: Prompt cardiovascular resuscitation and appropriate antibiotics decrease morbidity and mortality in bacteremic sepsis. This study examined whether hospitalwide, standardized sepsis order set improved management and outcomes.

Study design: Retrospective, before-and-after study design.

Setting: 1,200-bed academic medical center.

Synopsis: Two hundred patients with bacteremic severe sepsis were randomly selected from 18 months before the order set was introduced, and 200 were selected from 18 months after the order set was introduced. Primary outcomes measured were quantity of fluid administered and appropriate initial antibiotics. Secondary outcomes measured were hospital mortality and length of stay. Patients in the “after” group received more intravenous fluid (1627±1862 ml vs. 2054±2237 ml, P=.04), more appropriate antibiotics (53.0% vs. 65.5%, P=.01), had shorter hospital stays (28.7±30.1 days vs. 22.4±20.9 days, P=.02), and decreased in-house mortality (55.0% vs. 39.5%, P =<0.01).

 

The retrospective design of the study limited its ability to determine causal relationship. Extensive education may have contributed to the change (Hawthorne effect). Management in the ICU and ED, not the hospital wards, was the primary reason for mortality difference.

Bottom line: A standardized order set for bacteremic sepsis was associated with increased compliance with evidence-based treatment and improved outcomes. Hospitalists should promptly treat bacteremic sepsis with appropriate fluid resuscitation and antibiotics.

Citation: Thiel SW, Asghar MF, Micek ST, Reichley RM, Doherty JA, Kollef MH. Hospital-wide impact of a standardized order set for the management of bacteremic severe sepsis. Crit Care Med. 2009;37(3):819-824.

Admission Day of the Week Predicts Mortality in Patients with Acute Pulmonary Embolus

Clinical question: Do weekend pulmonary embolus (PE) admissions have worse outcomes than weekday admissions?

Background: Studies of patients with acute cardiovascular diagnoses (e.g., stroke, cardiac arrest) have shown higher short-term mortality and longer length of stay (LOS) for weekend versus weekday admissions. PE diagnosis is complex, requiring timely testing and experienced staff who are sometimes unavailable on weekends. Optimal anticoagulation therapy also depends on provider skill.

Study design: Retrospective observational study.

Setting: 186 private Pennsylvania hospitals, January 2000 through November 2002.

Synopsis: Using the Pennsylvania Health Care Cost Containment Council database, the authors reviewed 15,531 records of patients with a primary or secondary PE diagnosis code. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality over 30 days; LOS was the secondary outcome.

Weekend admissions in the highest severity of illness risk class had higher 30-day mortality than weekday admissions. Weekend admissions were significantly more likely than weekday admissions to be clinically unstable and to have abnormal lab parameters. Adjusted for severity of illness risk class, overall mortality was 1.4% higher for weekend versus weekday admissions. All excess mortality came from the sickest group of patients. LOS did not differ.

Less-experienced caregivers or delayed diagnostic testing may play a role in poor outcomes. Patients admitted on weekends might receive delayed care from the first onset of symptoms. This is important because timely therapy has been shown to influence outcomes in acute PE. Reasons for these observed differences should be explored further to help provide more consistent PE management, regardless of admission day.

Bottom line: The sickest patients with PE admitted on weekends experienced small but significantly greater 30-day mortality compared with those admitted on weekdays.

Citation: Aujesky D, Jimenez D, Mor M, Geng M, Fine M, Ibrahim S. Weekend versus weekday admission and mortality after acute pulmonary embolism. Circulation. 2009;119:962-968. TH

In This Edition

Literature at a Glance: A guide to this month’s studies

• PPI use with clopidrogrel in ACS.
• Chlorhexidine sponge use reduces line infections.
• Extended thienopyridine use does not benefit DES patients.
• CABG is revascularization choice for severe CAD.
• Pre-treated CVC use reduces bloodstream infections.
• Hospitalist use grows in U.S.
• Sepsis order set improves outcomes.
• Admission day predicts acute PE mortality.

PPI Use with Clopidogrel in Acute Coronary Syndrome Is Associated with Readmissions and Mortality

Clinical question: Does concomitant use of clopidogrel and a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) following hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) lead to adverse outcomes?

Background: Prophylactic PPIs often are prescribed with clopidogrel to reduce the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding. Mechanistic studies have shown that omeprazole decreases the platelet-inhibitory effect of clopidogrel, raising concerns that PPIs might interfere with clopidogrel’s beneficial effects. The clinical significance of this finding is unknown.

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: 127 VA hospitals.

Synopsis: Investigators used data from the Cardiac Care Follow-up Clinical Study and VA pharmacy records to examine 8,205 male veterans who were hospitalized for ACS and treated with clopidogrel. Patients who filled prescriptions for both clopidogrel and a PPI were at significantly higher risk for death or readmission with ACS compared with those who filled prescriptions for clopidogrel only (adjusted odds ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-1.41). Patients who filled prescriptions for PPIs alone had similar risk for adverse events as those who took neither medication.

Subanalyses found similarly increased risk among patients prescribed omeprazole and rabeprazole, but those taking lanzoprazole and pantoprazole were not examined due to the small sample size. Although causality cannot be inferred from this observational study, and the risk associated with combined clopidigrel and PPI use appeared small, alternatives for gastric acid reduction exist. Thus, it may be prudent to restrict PPI use to patients who have a clear indication for their use until more definitive clinical trials can be conducted.

 

Bottom line: Among patients who are treated with clopidogrel for ACS, PPIs should be reserved for patients with a clear indication for gastric acid reduction and who cannot use alternative therapies.

Citation: Ho PM, Maddox TM, Wang L, et al. Risk of adverse outcomes associated with concomitant use of clopidogrel and proton pump inhibitors following acute coronary syndrome. JAMA. 2009;301(9):937-944.

Chlorhexidine-Impregnated Sponge Use Reduces Line Infections

Clinical question: Does dressing vascular catheters with chlorhexidine gluconate-impregnated sponges (CHGIS) reduce rates of catheter-related infections, and are dressing changes every seven days inferior to every three days?

Background: Process improvement strategies—including educating providers, strictly adhering to sterile technique, and promptly removing unnecessary catheters—greatly decrease catheter-related infections. It is unclear if CHGIS dressings offer additional benefit. Also uncertain is whether weekly dressing changes are as safe as changing dressings every three days.

Study design: A 2x2 factorial, assessor-blinded, randomized controlled trial.

Setting: ICUs in three university hospitals and two general hospitals in France.

Synopsis: 1,636 French adults expected to require arterial and central venous catheters for >48 hours were randomly assigned to one of four groups. Each group received either CHGIS dressings or standard dressings, and each group had dressing changes every three or seven days. Dressings were changed sooner if soiled or nonadherent. CHGIS dressings were associated with fewer catheter-related infections than standard dressings (0.6 vs. 1.4 infections per 1,000 catheter days; P=0.03). No significant difference in rates of catheter colonization existed between the three-day and seven-day dressing change strategies (10.4 vs. 11 events per 1,000 catheter days, P>0.05).

Although microbiology assessors were blinded to patients’ status, the ICU staff was not, potentially creating experimenter bias. Approximately 30% of the venous catheters and 40% of the arterial catheters were in a femoral site. Secondary analyses found higher rates of severe dermatitis among patients with CHGIS dressings but no difference in minimal bactericidal concentration (MBC) or colonizing organisms. Preliminary calculations suggested CHGIS dressings could be cost-effective.

Bottom line: Among critically ill adults, CHGIS catheter dressings may marginally reduce catheter-related infection rates, but further evaluation is needed before this technology can be adopted widely.

Citation: Timsit JF, Schwebel C, Bouadma L, et al. Chlorhexidine-impregnated sponges and less frequent dressing changes for prevention of catheter-related infections in critically-ill adults: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2009;301(12):1231-1241.

 

Thienopyridine Use Six Months after Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Implant-ation Offers No Benefit

Clinical question: What are the relative contributions of aspirin and thienopyridine on preventing stent thrombosis in patients with sirolimus-eluting stents?

Background: There are no randomized clinical trials addressing the optimal duration, or the risks associated with discontinuation, of dual-antiplatelet therapy after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation. Nevertheless, many patients continue to be maintained on dual-antiplatelet therapy beyond one year of their index DES implantation.

Study design: Prospective multicenter observational study.

Setting: Hospitals in Japan.

Synopsis: This study observed 10,778 Japanese patients undergoing sirolimus-eluting stent implantation. Patients discontinuing both thienopyridine and aspirin had a significantly higher rate of stent thrombosis than those who continued both medications for up to 18 months. However, discontinuation of thienopyridine alone was not associated with an excess risk of stent thrombosis. Additionally, a landmark analysis of patients who were free of events at six months showed rates of death for myocardial infarction (MI) at 24 months were 4.1% for patients taking thienopyridine and 4.1% for patients not taking thienopyridine (P=0.99). Ticlodipine was the thienopyridine used by more than 95% of patients.

Hospitalists should be aware that the role thienopyridine therapy plays in reducing stent thrombosis beyond one month after implantation has not been well addressed.

Bottom line: Discontinuation of thienopyridine therapy after six months while maintaining aspirin therapy is not associated with increased risk of stent thrombosis in patients with sirolimus-eluting stents.

Citation: Kimura T, Morimoto T, Nakagawa Y, et al. Antiplatelet therapy and stent thrombosis after sirolimus-eluting stent implantation. Circulation. 2009;119(7):987-995.

Compared with PCI, CABG Results in Lower Rates of Major Adverse Events in Severe CAD Patients

Clinical question: What is the optimal revascularization strategy for previously untreated severe coronary artery disease (CAD)?

Background: Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is the treatment of choice in three-vessel and left-main CAD. However, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents often is utilized despite the lack of adequately powered randomized trials.

Study design: Prospective multicenter randomized clinical trial.

Setting: 85 hospitals in Europe and the U.S.

Synopsis: 1,800 patients with an average age of 65 and previously untreated three-vessel or left-main CAD amenable to therapy with both PCI and CABG were randomized to CABG or PCI. The primary combined endpoint was a major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular event, defined as death, stroke, MI, or repeat revascularization. PCI was associated with a significantly higher rate of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events, due mostly to a higher rate of repeat revascularization (13.5% vs. 5.9%, P<0.001). At 12 months, the two groups had similar rates of death from any cause or MI, and similar rates of the combined endpoint of death from any cause, stroke, or MI; however, the rate of stroke was 1.6% higher in the CABG group.

Hospitalists should continue to favor CABG over PCI but give consideration to the risks involved with such an intervention.

Bottom line: CABG remains the revascularization choice in patients with severe CAD.

Citation: Serruys PW, Morice MC, Kappetein AP, et al. Percuta-neous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(10):961-972.

Pre-Medicated Central Venous Catheters Reduce Risk of Catheter-Related Bloodstream Infections

Clinical question: Does pre-treating central venous catheters with anti-infective agents prevent catheter-related bloodstream infections?

Background: Use of central venous catheters (CVC) is associated with catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI), with CRBSI-related mortality rates as high as 25%. Previous reviews have indicated that CVCs coated or impregnated with anti-infectives may reduce CRBSI incidence. This review integrates new trial data with information from prior reviews.

 

Study design: Meta-analysis of 27 randomized controlled trials.

Setting: Meta-analysis.

Synopsis: The authors report CVCs pre-treated with anti-infectives (AI-CVCs) are clinically effective in reducing the risk of CRBSI. The odds of having a CRBSI with a treated CVC versus an untreated CVC are 0.49 to 1 (95% CI, 0.37–0.64, 27 studies, fixed effects). The study also finds the use of AI-CVCs might provide a large cost savings in Great Britain. Because the findings are based on a meta-analysis, they are limited by the quality, context, and consistency of the original studies. The authors note that many of the studies had unsatisfactory descriptions of methodology. The current study is unable to separate the risk reduction attributable to AI-CVC versus that attributable to other infection control practices. Also, original data is insufficient to assess the benefits of AI-CVCs placed for longer than 12 days.

To summarize, AI-CVCs may present a means to reduce CRBSI, but more investigation of its role within infection control protocols is needed, as is investigation of longer duration of treatment.

Bottom line: Central venous catheters pre-treated with anti-infectives significantly reduce catheter-related bloodstream infections.

Citation: Hockenhull JC, Dwan KM, Smith GW, et al. The clinical effectiveness of central venous catheters treated with anti-infective agents in preventing catheter-related bloodstream infections: a systematic review. Crit Care Med. 2009;37(2):702-712.

Fivefold Increase in Hospitalists in the U.S. from 1995 to 2006

Clinical question: What is the growth rate of hospitalists and hospitalist-provided care?

Background: Survey data has shown a sharp increase in the number of hospitalists, but until now there have not been any national or population-based data on the growth of hospitalist care.

Study design: Descriptive analysis.

Setting: Medicare-enrolled patients.

Synopsis: The study is based on national Medicare data from 2.1 million admissions involving 990,785 patients in 5,800 hospitals and 120,226 general internists. It represents 5% of inpatient Medicare claims generated by general internists. The authors define “hospitalist” as a general internist who generates >90% of his or her claims from the care of hospitalized patients.

U.S. hospitals have seen substantial growth in hospitalists over the period examined. The nation saw a 500% increase in the number of general-internist hospitalists, and a 28% increase (to 37.1% in 2006 from 9.1% in 1995) in the number of Medicare patients who received care from a hospitalist. The odds that a hospitalized Medicare patient received care from a hospitalist increased 29.2% per year from 1997 to 2006. The percentage of hospitals with at least three hospitalists rose to 47.1% in 2006 from 11.6% in 1995.

This analysis might actually have underestimated HM’s growth. Analysis of Medicare claims does not identify pediatric hospitalists and hospitalists who work exclusively within HMOs. This analysis also did not include family practitioners or internal-medicine subspecialists who are hospitalists.

Bottom line: Medicare claims data confirm survey data findings: Hospitalists and hospitalist care has grown sharply over the last decade.

Citation: Kuo YF, Sharma G, Freeman JL, Goodwin JS. Growth in the care of older patients by hospitalists in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:1102-1012.

Standardized Order Set for Bacteremic Sepsis Improves LOS and Mortality

Clinical question: Does a standardized order set for bacteremic sepsis impact patient management and outcomes?

Background: Prompt cardiovascular resuscitation and appropriate antibiotics decrease morbidity and mortality in bacteremic sepsis. This study examined whether hospitalwide, standardized sepsis order set improved management and outcomes.

Study design: Retrospective, before-and-after study design.

Setting: 1,200-bed academic medical center.

Synopsis: Two hundred patients with bacteremic severe sepsis were randomly selected from 18 months before the order set was introduced, and 200 were selected from 18 months after the order set was introduced. Primary outcomes measured were quantity of fluid administered and appropriate initial antibiotics. Secondary outcomes measured were hospital mortality and length of stay. Patients in the “after” group received more intravenous fluid (1627±1862 ml vs. 2054±2237 ml, P=.04), more appropriate antibiotics (53.0% vs. 65.5%, P=.01), had shorter hospital stays (28.7±30.1 days vs. 22.4±20.9 days, P=.02), and decreased in-house mortality (55.0% vs. 39.5%, P =<0.01).

 

The retrospective design of the study limited its ability to determine causal relationship. Extensive education may have contributed to the change (Hawthorne effect). Management in the ICU and ED, not the hospital wards, was the primary reason for mortality difference.

Bottom line: A standardized order set for bacteremic sepsis was associated with increased compliance with evidence-based treatment and improved outcomes. Hospitalists should promptly treat bacteremic sepsis with appropriate fluid resuscitation and antibiotics.

Citation: Thiel SW, Asghar MF, Micek ST, Reichley RM, Doherty JA, Kollef MH. Hospital-wide impact of a standardized order set for the management of bacteremic severe sepsis. Crit Care Med. 2009;37(3):819-824.

Admission Day of the Week Predicts Mortality in Patients with Acute Pulmonary Embolus

Clinical question: Do weekend pulmonary embolus (PE) admissions have worse outcomes than weekday admissions?

Background: Studies of patients with acute cardiovascular diagnoses (e.g., stroke, cardiac arrest) have shown higher short-term mortality and longer length of stay (LOS) for weekend versus weekday admissions. PE diagnosis is complex, requiring timely testing and experienced staff who are sometimes unavailable on weekends. Optimal anticoagulation therapy also depends on provider skill.

Study design: Retrospective observational study.

Setting: 186 private Pennsylvania hospitals, January 2000 through November 2002.

Synopsis: Using the Pennsylvania Health Care Cost Containment Council database, the authors reviewed 15,531 records of patients with a primary or secondary PE diagnosis code. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality over 30 days; LOS was the secondary outcome.

Weekend admissions in the highest severity of illness risk class had higher 30-day mortality than weekday admissions. Weekend admissions were significantly more likely than weekday admissions to be clinically unstable and to have abnormal lab parameters. Adjusted for severity of illness risk class, overall mortality was 1.4% higher for weekend versus weekday admissions. All excess mortality came from the sickest group of patients. LOS did not differ.

Less-experienced caregivers or delayed diagnostic testing may play a role in poor outcomes. Patients admitted on weekends might receive delayed care from the first onset of symptoms. This is important because timely therapy has been shown to influence outcomes in acute PE. Reasons for these observed differences should be explored further to help provide more consistent PE management, regardless of admission day.

Bottom line: The sickest patients with PE admitted on weekends experienced small but significantly greater 30-day mortality compared with those admitted on weekdays.

Citation: Aujesky D, Jimenez D, Mor M, Geng M, Fine M, Ibrahim S. Weekend versus weekday admission and mortality after acute pulmonary embolism. Circulation. 2009;119:962-968. TH

Younger generations blaze new paths through the American economy. Fifteen years ago, Generation X was fresh out of college and flush with the unimagined potential of the Internet. They helped change the way the world shared information and conducted business. The impact of such innovation and enthusiasm for new technology is still felt today.

The healthcare sector possesses pioneers of its own, many with the same kind of drive and vision as the dot-com entrepreneurs of the 1990s. Fifteen years from now, today’s young hospitalists—shaped by ever-changing demands and healthcare hurdles—will be recognized as an authority in the new ways patient care is delivered.

Bijo Chacko, MD, FHM, former chair of SHM’s Young Physicians Committee, sees energy in the newest generation of hospitalists. He also sees great potential from residents who are finishing their training and considering their job options. Until recently, SHM’s Young Physicians Committee operated as a task force. The group’s growth and increased young-physician representation throughout the society prompted SHM leadership to promote the task force to full committee status.

“The wonderful thing is that we have received lots of input from around the country and dramatically increased membership in the past few years,” says Dr. Chacko, hospital medicine medical director for Preferred Health Partners in New York City. “We have moved from simply gathering information about young physicians in hospital medicine to actively disseminating it, including the new Resident’s Corner [department in The Hospitalist]. It addresses the needs of residents and introduces them to the nuances and specifics of hospital medicine.”

The demand for information has spurred the launch of a young physicians section (www.hospitalmedicine.org/youngdoctor) on SHM’s Web site. Combined with SHM’s online career center (www.hospitalmedicine.org/careercenter), the new microsites provide young physicians a broad range of information about the specialty and—most importantly—HM career options.

Natural Progression

Four out of five large hospitals now use hospitalists, and as more hospitals implement HM programs, more residents will be exposed to the hospitalist model of care. For residents, the allure of an HM career is broad and deep. In many ways, HM is the logical extension of residency training. Brian Markoff, MD, FHM, a hospitalist and associate professor of medicine at Mount Sinai Hospitalist Group in New York City, was a chief resident when he founded the hospitalist program at the University of California at Davis Health System in Sacramento in 1998.

 

“Creating the hospitalist program at UC-Davis was pretty easy,” Dr. Markoff says. “All of the program’s founders were chief residents at the time. The people involved were warm to the idea, and we could teach without being in the fellowship program. Residents are already very comfortable treating patients in the hospital setting.”

Dr. Markoff says practicing hospitalists are a positive influence on residents who are still undecided on a career path. “If you’re a good role model, they’ll be interested in hospital medicine,” he says.

Diversity of Patients, Issues, Settings

Dr. Markoff and others caution that HM encompasses more than an expansion of a resident’s standard roles and responsibilities. “We’re not just super-residents,” he says. “We’re highly trained specialists in the care of hospitalized patients and the process of making care in hospital better.”

Medical conditions, patient issues, and administrative situations that often are outside a resident’s scope quickly come into focus for a new hospitalist. When Mona Patel, DO, associate director of hospitalist services at Staten Island University Hospital in New York, chose an HM career five years ago, the diversity in opportunities was a major draw. Like many hospitalists, she knew she would enjoy the type of care she provides to patients.

“I liked the acuity of the patients and disease processes; it was much more interesting and exciting for me than ongoing outpatient care of chronic diseases,” Dr. Patel says. “I liked the interaction with the hospital house staff and lots of consultants. If I had questions about a patient, I could easily consult with a specialist within the hospital.”

In addition to providing bedside care, new hospitalists often find themselves at the forefront of a monumental change in how healthcare is provided nationwide. Quality improvement (QI) initiatives, such as reducing preventable diseases in the hospital and reducing readmission rates, attracted Bryan Huang, MD, to hospital medicine at the University of California at San Diego.

“When I interviewed at UCSD, I was very interested in quality improvement,” says Dr. Huang, an assistant clinical professor at UCSD’s Division of Hospital Medicine. “UCSD is well known for glycemic control and VTE prophylaxis. We’re now working on quality improvement for treating delirium and hospital discharge.”

His experience as an academic hospitalist has opened up the QI world to him. “Before this job, I was almost not familiar at all with quality improvement,” Dr. Huang says. “As a resident, I did some quality-improvement work, but not much. Quality improvement was missing from residency training, but it’s getting better.”

Dr. Patel says HM’s biggest selling point is the variety of settings available to a new hospitalist. She’s been working for the past two years in an academic hospital program in a community hospital setting with 20 hospitalists. Before that, she worked in private practice as a hospitalist. Now, when she talks with residents, she talks about their options.

“It’s really important that you figure out what kind of setting you want,” Dr. Patel says. “Hospital medicine has a diversity of settings, from a small community hospital where you do a broad range of inpatient care to a larger academic teaching environment or a private practice group.”

Leadership Opportunities

The continuing demand for hospitalists affords young physicians who are considering an HM career additional freedom in the job market. In comparison to more traditional primary-care models, hospitalist jobs offer flexible hours and competitive salaries.

Dr. Chacko points to another benefit that is a direct result of the high demand for hospitalists: increased opportunities to launch management careers. The average age of a hospitalist is 37 and the average age of an HM group leader is 41, according to SHM’s 2007-2008 Bi-Annual Survey on the State of the Hospital Medicine Movement.

 

“That’s not that much of a difference,” Dr. Chacko says. “Early-career hospitalists find ample leadership opportunities in the specialty. There are lots of opportunities for young hospitalists.”

How to Get Started

Because most teaching hospitals have hospitalists, most residents are exposed to HM. Many hospitalists relish the opportunity to mentor and provide early-career counseling. “Sometimes, a resident will ask to grab coffee and learn more about hospital medicine,” Dr. Huang says. “I tell them what my job is like. Many ask, ‘How do I get started looking for a job?’ I tell them that connections really help. Word of mouth is very important, so I refer people to other people.”

Margaret Fang, MD, MPH, FHM, assistant professor of medicine at the University of California at San Francisco’s division of hospital medicine and a founding member of the Young Physicians Committee, recommends that residents begin with a vision and work backward. “On a broad level, if you’re a resident, you should think about where you want to be in five years,” she says. “Look around your hospital and find a few people whose job you want.”

For some young physicians, looking ahead five years could mean being part of the healthcare revolution of tomorrow. TH

Brendon Shank is a freelance writer based in Philadelphia.

SHM elects board members

SHM has elected three new members to its Board of Directors and re-elected two members. Board members are nominated and elected by the membership and serve a three-year term.The newly elected members of the board are:

Eric Howell, MD, FHM, associate professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and director of the hospitalist division and hospital care at Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center in Baltimore. Dr. Howell is a member of the Leadership Academy faculty and received the 2009 Award for Excellence in Teaching.

 

Burke Kealey, MD, FHM, assistant medical director of Health Partners Medical Group in Minneapolis and adjunct assistant professor of internal medicine at the University of Minnesota. Dr. Kealey has been an active member of SHM for more than 10 years and earned the society’s 2003 Award for Clinical Excellence.

 

 

Dan Dressler, MD, MSc, FHM, director of education at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta. A member of SHM’s Education Committee and Leadership Academy faculty, Dr. Dressler received Emory’s Hospital Medicine Leadership Award in 2006 and Hospital Medicine Teaching Award in 2007.

 

Re-elected board members:

Jeffrey Wiese, MD, FHM, professor of medicine, associate dean for graduate medical education, and associate professor of medicine at Tulane University Health Sciences Center in New Orleans. Dr. Wiese also was voted 2010-2011 board president-elect.

 

Jack Percelay, MD, MPH, FHM, FAAP, pediatric hospitalist with ELMO Pediatrics in New York City. Dr. Percelay was first elected to the board in 2005 and represents pediatric hospitalists.

Younger generations blaze new paths through the American economy. Fifteen years ago, Generation X was fresh out of college and flush with the unimagined potential of the Internet. They helped change the way the world shared information and conducted business. The impact of such innovation and enthusiasm for new technology is still felt today.

The healthcare sector possesses pioneers of its own, many with the same kind of drive and vision as the dot-com entrepreneurs of the 1990s. Fifteen years from now, today’s young hospitalists—shaped by ever-changing demands and healthcare hurdles—will be recognized as an authority in the new ways patient care is delivered.

Bijo Chacko, MD, FHM, former chair of SHM’s Young Physicians Committee, sees energy in the newest generation of hospitalists. He also sees great potential from residents who are finishing their training and considering their job options. Until recently, SHM’s Young Physicians Committee operated as a task force. The group’s growth and increased young-physician representation throughout the society prompted SHM leadership to promote the task force to full committee status.

“The wonderful thing is that we have received lots of input from around the country and dramatically increased membership in the past few years,” says Dr. Chacko, hospital medicine medical director for Preferred Health Partners in New York City. “We have moved from simply gathering information about young physicians in hospital medicine to actively disseminating it, including the new Resident’s Corner [department in The Hospitalist]. It addresses the needs of residents and introduces them to the nuances and specifics of hospital medicine.”

The demand for information has spurred the launch of a young physicians section (www.hospitalmedicine.org/youngdoctor) on SHM’s Web site. Combined with SHM’s online career center (www.hospitalmedicine.org/careercenter), the new microsites provide young physicians a broad range of information about the specialty and—most importantly—HM career options.

Natural Progression

Four out of five large hospitals now use hospitalists, and as more hospitals implement HM programs, more residents will be exposed to the hospitalist model of care. For residents, the allure of an HM career is broad and deep. In many ways, HM is the logical extension of residency training. Brian Markoff, MD, FHM, a hospitalist and associate professor of medicine at Mount Sinai Hospitalist Group in New York City, was a chief resident when he founded the hospitalist program at the University of California at Davis Health System in Sacramento in 1998.

 

“Creating the hospitalist program at UC-Davis was pretty easy,” Dr. Markoff says. “All of the program’s founders were chief residents at the time. The people involved were warm to the idea, and we could teach without being in the fellowship program. Residents are already very comfortable treating patients in the hospital setting.”

Dr. Markoff says practicing hospitalists are a positive influence on residents who are still undecided on a career path. “If you’re a good role model, they’ll be interested in hospital medicine,” he says.

Diversity of Patients, Issues, Settings

Dr. Markoff and others caution that HM encompasses more than an expansion of a resident’s standard roles and responsibilities. “We’re not just super-residents,” he says. “We’re highly trained specialists in the care of hospitalized patients and the process of making care in hospital better.”

Medical conditions, patient issues, and administrative situations that often are outside a resident’s scope quickly come into focus for a new hospitalist. When Mona Patel, DO, associate director of hospitalist services at Staten Island University Hospital in New York, chose an HM career five years ago, the diversity in opportunities was a major draw. Like many hospitalists, she knew she would enjoy the type of care she provides to patients.

“I liked the acuity of the patients and disease processes; it was much more interesting and exciting for me than ongoing outpatient care of chronic diseases,” Dr. Patel says. “I liked the interaction with the hospital house staff and lots of consultants. If I had questions about a patient, I could easily consult with a specialist within the hospital.”

In addition to providing bedside care, new hospitalists often find themselves at the forefront of a monumental change in how healthcare is provided nationwide. Quality improvement (QI) initiatives, such as reducing preventable diseases in the hospital and reducing readmission rates, attracted Bryan Huang, MD, to hospital medicine at the University of California at San Diego.

“When I interviewed at UCSD, I was very interested in quality improvement,” says Dr. Huang, an assistant clinical professor at UCSD’s Division of Hospital Medicine. “UCSD is well known for glycemic control and VTE prophylaxis. We’re now working on quality improvement for treating delirium and hospital discharge.”

His experience as an academic hospitalist has opened up the QI world to him. “Before this job, I was almost not familiar at all with quality improvement,” Dr. Huang says. “As a resident, I did some quality-improvement work, but not much. Quality improvement was missing from residency training, but it’s getting better.”

Dr. Patel says HM’s biggest selling point is the variety of settings available to a new hospitalist. She’s been working for the past two years in an academic hospital program in a community hospital setting with 20 hospitalists. Before that, she worked in private practice as a hospitalist. Now, when she talks with residents, she talks about their options.

“It’s really important that you figure out what kind of setting you want,” Dr. Patel says. “Hospital medicine has a diversity of settings, from a small community hospital where you do a broad range of inpatient care to a larger academic teaching environment or a private practice group.”

Leadership Opportunities

The continuing demand for hospitalists affords young physicians who are considering an HM career additional freedom in the job market. In comparison to more traditional primary-care models, hospitalist jobs offer flexible hours and competitive salaries.

Dr. Chacko points to another benefit that is a direct result of the high demand for hospitalists: increased opportunities to launch management careers. The average age of a hospitalist is 37 and the average age of an HM group leader is 41, according to SHM’s 2007-2008 Bi-Annual Survey on the State of the Hospital Medicine Movement.

 

“That’s not that much of a difference,” Dr. Chacko says. “Early-career hospitalists find ample leadership opportunities in the specialty. There are lots of opportunities for young hospitalists.”

How to Get Started

Because most teaching hospitals have hospitalists, most residents are exposed to HM. Many hospitalists relish the opportunity to mentor and provide early-career counseling. “Sometimes, a resident will ask to grab coffee and learn more about hospital medicine,” Dr. Huang says. “I tell them what my job is like. Many ask, ‘How do I get started looking for a job?’ I tell them that connections really help. Word of mouth is very important, so I refer people to other people.”

Margaret Fang, MD, MPH, FHM, assistant professor of medicine at the University of California at San Francisco’s division of hospital medicine and a founding member of the Young Physicians Committee, recommends that residents begin with a vision and work backward. “On a broad level, if you’re a resident, you should think about where you want to be in five years,” she says. “Look around your hospital and find a few people whose job you want.”

For some young physicians, looking ahead five years could mean being part of the healthcare revolution of tomorrow. TH

Brendon Shank is a freelance writer based in Philadelphia.

SHM elects board members

SHM has elected three new members to its Board of Directors and re-elected two members. Board members are nominated and elected by the membership and serve a three-year term.The newly elected members of the board are:

Eric Howell, MD, FHM, associate professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and director of the hospitalist division and hospital care at Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center in Baltimore. Dr. Howell is a member of the Leadership Academy faculty and received the 2009 Award for Excellence in Teaching.

 

Burke Kealey, MD, FHM, assistant medical director of Health Partners Medical Group in Minneapolis and adjunct assistant professor of internal medicine at the University of Minnesota. Dr. Kealey has been an active member of SHM for more than 10 years and earned the society’s 2003 Award for Clinical Excellence.

 

 

Dan Dressler, MD, MSc, FHM, director of education at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta. A member of SHM’s Education Committee and Leadership Academy faculty, Dr. Dressler received Emory’s Hospital Medicine Leadership Award in 2006 and Hospital Medicine Teaching Award in 2007.

 

Re-elected board members:

Jeffrey Wiese, MD, FHM, professor of medicine, associate dean for graduate medical education, and associate professor of medicine at Tulane University Health Sciences Center in New Orleans. Dr. Wiese also was voted 2010-2011 board president-elect.

 

Jack Percelay, MD, MPH, FHM, FAAP, pediatric hospitalist with ELMO Pediatrics in New York City. Dr. Percelay was first elected to the board in 2005 and represents pediatric hospitalists.

Younger generations blaze new paths through the American economy. Fifteen years ago, Generation X was fresh out of college and flush with the unimagined potential of the Internet. They helped change the way the world shared information and conducted business. The impact of such innovation and enthusiasm for new technology is still felt today.

The healthcare sector possesses pioneers of its own, many with the same kind of drive and vision as the dot-com entrepreneurs of the 1990s. Fifteen years from now, today’s young hospitalists—shaped by ever-changing demands and healthcare hurdles—will be recognized as an authority in the new ways patient care is delivered.

Bijo Chacko, MD, FHM, former chair of SHM’s Young Physicians Committee, sees energy in the newest generation of hospitalists. He also sees great potential from residents who are finishing their training and considering their job options. Until recently, SHM’s Young Physicians Committee operated as a task force. The group’s growth and increased young-physician representation throughout the society prompted SHM leadership to promote the task force to full committee status.

“The wonderful thing is that we have received lots of input from around the country and dramatically increased membership in the past few years,” says Dr. Chacko, hospital medicine medical director for Preferred Health Partners in New York City. “We have moved from simply gathering information about young physicians in hospital medicine to actively disseminating it, including the new Resident’s Corner [department in The Hospitalist]. It addresses the needs of residents and introduces them to the nuances and specifics of hospital medicine.”

The demand for information has spurred the launch of a young physicians section (www.hospitalmedicine.org/youngdoctor) on SHM’s Web site. Combined with SHM’s online career center (www.hospitalmedicine.org/careercenter), the new microsites provide young physicians a broad range of information about the specialty and—most importantly—HM career options.

Natural Progression

Four out of five large hospitals now use hospitalists, and as more hospitals implement HM programs, more residents will be exposed to the hospitalist model of care. For residents, the allure of an HM career is broad and deep. In many ways, HM is the logical extension of residency training. Brian Markoff, MD, FHM, a hospitalist and associate professor of medicine at Mount Sinai Hospitalist Group in New York City, was a chief resident when he founded the hospitalist program at the University of California at Davis Health System in Sacramento in 1998.

 

“Creating the hospitalist program at UC-Davis was pretty easy,” Dr. Markoff says. “All of the program’s founders were chief residents at the time. The people involved were warm to the idea, and we could teach without being in the fellowship program. Residents are already very comfortable treating patients in the hospital setting.”

Dr. Markoff says practicing hospitalists are a positive influence on residents who are still undecided on a career path. “If you’re a good role model, they’ll be interested in hospital medicine,” he says.

Diversity of Patients, Issues, Settings

Dr. Markoff and others caution that HM encompasses more than an expansion of a resident’s standard roles and responsibilities. “We’re not just super-residents,” he says. “We’re highly trained specialists in the care of hospitalized patients and the process of making care in hospital better.”

Medical conditions, patient issues, and administrative situations that often are outside a resident’s scope quickly come into focus for a new hospitalist. When Mona Patel, DO, associate director of hospitalist services at Staten Island University Hospital in New York, chose an HM career five years ago, the diversity in opportunities was a major draw. Like many hospitalists, she knew she would enjoy the type of care she provides to patients.

“I liked the acuity of the patients and disease processes; it was much more interesting and exciting for me than ongoing outpatient care of chronic diseases,” Dr. Patel says. “I liked the interaction with the hospital house staff and lots of consultants. If I had questions about a patient, I could easily consult with a specialist within the hospital.”

In addition to providing bedside care, new hospitalists often find themselves at the forefront of a monumental change in how healthcare is provided nationwide. Quality improvement (QI) initiatives, such as reducing preventable diseases in the hospital and reducing readmission rates, attracted Bryan Huang, MD, to hospital medicine at the University of California at San Diego.

“When I interviewed at UCSD, I was very interested in quality improvement,” says Dr. Huang, an assistant clinical professor at UCSD’s Division of Hospital Medicine. “UCSD is well known for glycemic control and VTE prophylaxis. We’re now working on quality improvement for treating delirium and hospital discharge.”

His experience as an academic hospitalist has opened up the QI world to him. “Before this job, I was almost not familiar at all with quality improvement,” Dr. Huang says. “As a resident, I did some quality-improvement work, but not much. Quality improvement was missing from residency training, but it’s getting better.”

Dr. Patel says HM’s biggest selling point is the variety of settings available to a new hospitalist. She’s been working for the past two years in an academic hospital program in a community hospital setting with 20 hospitalists. Before that, she worked in private practice as a hospitalist. Now, when she talks with residents, she talks about their options.

“It’s really important that you figure out what kind of setting you want,” Dr. Patel says. “Hospital medicine has a diversity of settings, from a small community hospital where you do a broad range of inpatient care to a larger academic teaching environment or a private practice group.”

Leadership Opportunities

The continuing demand for hospitalists affords young physicians who are considering an HM career additional freedom in the job market. In comparison to more traditional primary-care models, hospitalist jobs offer flexible hours and competitive salaries.

Dr. Chacko points to another benefit that is a direct result of the high demand for hospitalists: increased opportunities to launch management careers. The average age of a hospitalist is 37 and the average age of an HM group leader is 41, according to SHM’s 2007-2008 Bi-Annual Survey on the State of the Hospital Medicine Movement.

 

“That’s not that much of a difference,” Dr. Chacko says. “Early-career hospitalists find ample leadership opportunities in the specialty. There are lots of opportunities for young hospitalists.”

How to Get Started

Because most teaching hospitals have hospitalists, most residents are exposed to HM. Many hospitalists relish the opportunity to mentor and provide early-career counseling. “Sometimes, a resident will ask to grab coffee and learn more about hospital medicine,” Dr. Huang says. “I tell them what my job is like. Many ask, ‘How do I get started looking for a job?’ I tell them that connections really help. Word of mouth is very important, so I refer people to other people.”

Margaret Fang, MD, MPH, FHM, assistant professor of medicine at the University of California at San Francisco’s division of hospital medicine and a founding member of the Young Physicians Committee, recommends that residents begin with a vision and work backward. “On a broad level, if you’re a resident, you should think about where you want to be in five years,” she says. “Look around your hospital and find a few people whose job you want.”

For some young physicians, looking ahead five years could mean being part of the healthcare revolution of tomorrow. TH

Brendon Shank is a freelance writer based in Philadelphia.

SHM elects board members

SHM has elected three new members to its Board of Directors and re-elected two members. Board members are nominated and elected by the membership and serve a three-year term.The newly elected members of the board are:

Eric Howell, MD, FHM, associate professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and director of the hospitalist division and hospital care at Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center in Baltimore. Dr. Howell is a member of the Leadership Academy faculty and received the 2009 Award for Excellence in Teaching.

 

Burke Kealey, MD, FHM, assistant medical director of Health Partners Medical Group in Minneapolis and adjunct assistant professor of internal medicine at the University of Minnesota. Dr. Kealey has been an active member of SHM for more than 10 years and earned the society’s 2003 Award for Clinical Excellence.

 

 

Dan Dressler, MD, MSc, FHM, director of education at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta. A member of SHM’s Education Committee and Leadership Academy faculty, Dr. Dressler received Emory’s Hospital Medicine Leadership Award in 2006 and Hospital Medicine Teaching Award in 2007.

 

Re-elected board members:

Jeffrey Wiese, MD, FHM, professor of medicine, associate dean for graduate medical education, and associate professor of medicine at Tulane University Health Sciences Center in New Orleans. Dr. Wiese also was voted 2010-2011 board president-elect.

 

Jack Percelay, MD, MPH, FHM, FAAP, pediatric hospitalist with ELMO Pediatrics in New York City. Dr. Percelay was first elected to the board in 2005 and represents pediatric hospitalists.

When Kenneth Patrick, MD, joined Chestnut Hill Hospital in Philadelphia in 1982, he was known simply as a physician who practiced HM. It wasn’t until 14 years later that the term “hospitalist” appeared for the first time in a New England Journal of Medicine article.

As Dr. Patrick’s job title changed, so did his outlook on the future of the profession. “My practice was exceedingly unique and, for many years, people didn’t understand that a physician could practice exclusively in a hospital,” says Dr. Patrick, now the ICU director at Chestnut Hill. “But when I first heard the word ‘hospitalist,’ I was surprised. I remember thinking, ‘Hey, I’m one of them.’ ”

He also knew that if other physicians were recognizing the specialty, more and more physicians were going to jump on the HM bandwagon. “I knew it wasn’t just a short-lived thing,” he says.

With three decades of HM experience in the bank, Dr. Patrick offers his take on the evolution of HM, changes to the delivery of care, and the importance of communicating with patients.

Question: What drew you into the medical field?

Answer: I earned an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering [from Drexel University]. The country was going through a recession and there weren’t many job offers, so when I was a junior, I decided to switch careers. I went into medicine.

Q: Have you found any similarities between engineering and HM?

A: Very much so, particularly in the intensive-care unit (ICU). That’s what drew me to critical care and HM. You have to be very detail-oriented. You have to go through your thinking process in a very organized fashion, and you have to be prepared to solve problems that aren’t apparent when you first start caring for a patient. That’s the basis of engineering.

Q: Did you face challenges in 1982 that new hospitalists won’t face today because the field is more established?

A: No, I would say it’s the other way around, particularly in terms of regulation and monitoring. The Joint Commission existed then, but the standards of hospital care, pressures from insurers, and things like length of stay were not so much of an issue. The challenge to get people evaluated and discharged exceedingly quickly did not exist back then.

Q: How has your role as a hospitalist changed in 26 years?

A: The most significant change is speed. I remember during residency caring for a patient with an infection of the heart valves. That patient stayed in the hospital for 28 days getting antibiotics, and I went to see the person every day to listen to the heart. … Today, that patient would be in the hospital two or, at most, three days. They’d be discharged either to home on IV antibiotics or to a skilled nursing facility. They’d no longer stay in the hospital for a prolonged period of time.

Q: How has that changed the delivery of care?

A: Our job as hospitalists is to see someone who is sick enough to be in the hospital, evaluate and diagnose them exceedingly quickly, get them started on treatment exceedingly quickly, and, as soon as they start improving, the regulators or insurers say they no longer need to be in the hospital. We don’t get to follow them through their entire illness.

 

I think that is something that is lacking for young hospitalists and residents during training. They don’t see the illness from start to finish. They see it from the start until the moment the patient begins to improve and is discharged.

Q: What is the consequence of that shift?

A: Less-experienced physicians, in terms of management of a patient from the beginning to end, unless there is good communication between hospital physicians and outpatient physicians. And I just think younger physicians are less well prepared for the complications that may ensue from a given illness because they only see the illness for such a short period of time.

Q: What’s the biggest reward of being a hospitalist?

A: Making patients better, if that can be done, and helping them through illnesses that can’t be made better. The outcome may be death, permanent disability, or something tragic, but patients and their families still feel thankful if they feel you’ve been a caring physician. Without the patient and the family being satisfied, I wouldn’t have many rewards.

Q: After 26 years as a hospitalist, what’s the best advice you could offer to someone new in the field?

A: Don’t cut corners. Be as complete and as thorough as you need to be. Communicate with patients and their families, which is crucial. Be open to suggestions, because you don’t know everything. I still feel that way after 26 years. Be optimistic and enjoy what you do. And it’s very important for busy, high-pressure physician specialists to keep their mind on their family and their outside-the-hospital relationships. Don’t forget your kids are going to grow up.

Q: You often emphasize the importance of physicians communicating with patients and their families. What’s the biggest barrier to communication?

A: First, reimbursement isn’t there for explanations and counseling. You get reimbursed for the evaluation, the diagnosis, and the management of the illness. No. 2, it takes time—sometimes an inordinate amount of time. If a patient is critically ill, I can spend 30 to 90 minutes with a family, not treating the patient, but explaining what’s the matter with the patient and what the treatment options are. During that time, you’re giving up other patient-care responsibilities.

And I don’t think physicians have been well trained to communicate with someone and explain the details of an illness and the treatment options nonmedically. I’ve seen doctors try to explain to families that a patient is dead and the family didn’t know what the doctor meant. I teach residents to speak English to patients and their families, not speak medical.

Q: Should there be a greater emphasis on communication during education and residency?

A: Absolutely. I tell residents they need this training as much as they need to know what antibiotic to use for pneumonia. … My experience over the years is patients think they’re getting better care from average doctors who communicate well than doctors who are brilliant and can’t communicate.

Q: What has kept you at Chestnut Hill Hospital for 26 years?

A: Some of it is inertia. When my children were young, it was the community in which I lived. And I like working in a small, community hospital because of the personal relationships I’ve developed with the other professionals, everyone from medical records to the secretarial staff.

Q: What’s next for you?

A: As I’ve gotten older, being woken up in the middle of the night gets harder and harder, so I’ve thought of doing something where the hours are more fixed and I have a little more time. I have thought about starting satellite practices in other community hospitals that are looking to start hospitalist programs, being more of an administrator and delivering less patient care. But I still like what I’m doing, and that’s why I keep doing it. TH

 

Mark Leiser is a freelance writer based in New Jersey.

When Kenneth Patrick, MD, joined Chestnut Hill Hospital in Philadelphia in 1982, he was known simply as a physician who practiced HM. It wasn’t until 14 years later that the term “hospitalist” appeared for the first time in a New England Journal of Medicine article.

As Dr. Patrick’s job title changed, so did his outlook on the future of the profession. “My practice was exceedingly unique and, for many years, people didn’t understand that a physician could practice exclusively in a hospital,” says Dr. Patrick, now the ICU director at Chestnut Hill. “But when I first heard the word ‘hospitalist,’ I was surprised. I remember thinking, ‘Hey, I’m one of them.’ ”

He also knew that if other physicians were recognizing the specialty, more and more physicians were going to jump on the HM bandwagon. “I knew it wasn’t just a short-lived thing,” he says.

With three decades of HM experience in the bank, Dr. Patrick offers his take on the evolution of HM, changes to the delivery of care, and the importance of communicating with patients.

Question: What drew you into the medical field?

Answer: I earned an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering [from Drexel University]. The country was going through a recession and there weren’t many job offers, so when I was a junior, I decided to switch careers. I went into medicine.

Q: Have you found any similarities between engineering and HM?

A: Very much so, particularly in the intensive-care unit (ICU). That’s what drew me to critical care and HM. You have to be very detail-oriented. You have to go through your thinking process in a very organized fashion, and you have to be prepared to solve problems that aren’t apparent when you first start caring for a patient. That’s the basis of engineering.

Q: Did you face challenges in 1982 that new hospitalists won’t face today because the field is more established?

A: No, I would say it’s the other way around, particularly in terms of regulation and monitoring. The Joint Commission existed then, but the standards of hospital care, pressures from insurers, and things like length of stay were not so much of an issue. The challenge to get people evaluated and discharged exceedingly quickly did not exist back then.

Q: How has your role as a hospitalist changed in 26 years?

A: The most significant change is speed. I remember during residency caring for a patient with an infection of the heart valves. That patient stayed in the hospital for 28 days getting antibiotics, and I went to see the person every day to listen to the heart. … Today, that patient would be in the hospital two or, at most, three days. They’d be discharged either to home on IV antibiotics or to a skilled nursing facility. They’d no longer stay in the hospital for a prolonged period of time.

Q: How has that changed the delivery of care?

A: Our job as hospitalists is to see someone who is sick enough to be in the hospital, evaluate and diagnose them exceedingly quickly, get them started on treatment exceedingly quickly, and, as soon as they start improving, the regulators or insurers say they no longer need to be in the hospital. We don’t get to follow them through their entire illness.

 

I think that is something that is lacking for young hospitalists and residents during training. They don’t see the illness from start to finish. They see it from the start until the moment the patient begins to improve and is discharged.

Q: What is the consequence of that shift?

A: Less-experienced physicians, in terms of management of a patient from the beginning to end, unless there is good communication between hospital physicians and outpatient physicians. And I just think younger physicians are less well prepared for the complications that may ensue from a given illness because they only see the illness for such a short period of time.

Q: What’s the biggest reward of being a hospitalist?

A: Making patients better, if that can be done, and helping them through illnesses that can’t be made better. The outcome may be death, permanent disability, or something tragic, but patients and their families still feel thankful if they feel you’ve been a caring physician. Without the patient and the family being satisfied, I wouldn’t have many rewards.

Q: After 26 years as a hospitalist, what’s the best advice you could offer to someone new in the field?

A: Don’t cut corners. Be as complete and as thorough as you need to be. Communicate with patients and their families, which is crucial. Be open to suggestions, because you don’t know everything. I still feel that way after 26 years. Be optimistic and enjoy what you do. And it’s very important for busy, high-pressure physician specialists to keep their mind on their family and their outside-the-hospital relationships. Don’t forget your kids are going to grow up.

Q: You often emphasize the importance of physicians communicating with patients and their families. What’s the biggest barrier to communication?

A: First, reimbursement isn’t there for explanations and counseling. You get reimbursed for the evaluation, the diagnosis, and the management of the illness. No. 2, it takes time—sometimes an inordinate amount of time. If a patient is critically ill, I can spend 30 to 90 minutes with a family, not treating the patient, but explaining what’s the matter with the patient and what the treatment options are. During that time, you’re giving up other patient-care responsibilities.

And I don’t think physicians have been well trained to communicate with someone and explain the details of an illness and the treatment options nonmedically. I’ve seen doctors try to explain to families that a patient is dead and the family didn’t know what the doctor meant. I teach residents to speak English to patients and their families, not speak medical.

Q: Should there be a greater emphasis on communication during education and residency?

A: Absolutely. I tell residents they need this training as much as they need to know what antibiotic to use for pneumonia. … My experience over the years is patients think they’re getting better care from average doctors who communicate well than doctors who are brilliant and can’t communicate.

Q: What has kept you at Chestnut Hill Hospital for 26 years?

A: Some of it is inertia. When my children were young, it was the community in which I lived. And I like working in a small, community hospital because of the personal relationships I’ve developed with the other professionals, everyone from medical records to the secretarial staff.

Q: What’s next for you?

A: As I’ve gotten older, being woken up in the middle of the night gets harder and harder, so I’ve thought of doing something where the hours are more fixed and I have a little more time. I have thought about starting satellite practices in other community hospitals that are looking to start hospitalist programs, being more of an administrator and delivering less patient care. But I still like what I’m doing, and that’s why I keep doing it. TH

 

Mark Leiser is a freelance writer based in New Jersey.

When Kenneth Patrick, MD, joined Chestnut Hill Hospital in Philadelphia in 1982, he was known simply as a physician who practiced HM. It wasn’t until 14 years later that the term “hospitalist” appeared for the first time in a New England Journal of Medicine article.

As Dr. Patrick’s job title changed, so did his outlook on the future of the profession. “My practice was exceedingly unique and, for many years, people didn’t understand that a physician could practice exclusively in a hospital,” says Dr. Patrick, now the ICU director at Chestnut Hill. “But when I first heard the word ‘hospitalist,’ I was surprised. I remember thinking, ‘Hey, I’m one of them.’ ”

He also knew that if other physicians were recognizing the specialty, more and more physicians were going to jump on the HM bandwagon. “I knew it wasn’t just a short-lived thing,” he says.

With three decades of HM experience in the bank, Dr. Patrick offers his take on the evolution of HM, changes to the delivery of care, and the importance of communicating with patients.

Question: What drew you into the medical field?

Answer: I earned an undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering [from Drexel University]. The country was going through a recession and there weren’t many job offers, so when I was a junior, I decided to switch careers. I went into medicine.

Q: Have you found any similarities between engineering and HM?

A: Very much so, particularly in the intensive-care unit (ICU). That’s what drew me to critical care and HM. You have to be very detail-oriented. You have to go through your thinking process in a very organized fashion, and you have to be prepared to solve problems that aren’t apparent when you first start caring for a patient. That’s the basis of engineering.

Q: Did you face challenges in 1982 that new hospitalists won’t face today because the field is more established?

A: No, I would say it’s the other way around, particularly in terms of regulation and monitoring. The Joint Commission existed then, but the standards of hospital care, pressures from insurers, and things like length of stay were not so much of an issue. The challenge to get people evaluated and discharged exceedingly quickly did not exist back then.

Q: How has your role as a hospitalist changed in 26 years?

A: The most significant change is speed. I remember during residency caring for a patient with an infection of the heart valves. That patient stayed in the hospital for 28 days getting antibiotics, and I went to see the person every day to listen to the heart. … Today, that patient would be in the hospital two or, at most, three days. They’d be discharged either to home on IV antibiotics or to a skilled nursing facility. They’d no longer stay in the hospital for a prolonged period of time.

Q: How has that changed the delivery of care?

A: Our job as hospitalists is to see someone who is sick enough to be in the hospital, evaluate and diagnose them exceedingly quickly, get them started on treatment exceedingly quickly, and, as soon as they start improving, the regulators or insurers say they no longer need to be in the hospital. We don’t get to follow them through their entire illness.

 

I think that is something that is lacking for young hospitalists and residents during training. They don’t see the illness from start to finish. They see it from the start until the moment the patient begins to improve and is discharged.

Q: What is the consequence of that shift?

A: Less-experienced physicians, in terms of management of a patient from the beginning to end, unless there is good communication between hospital physicians and outpatient physicians. And I just think younger physicians are less well prepared for the complications that may ensue from a given illness because they only see the illness for such a short period of time.

Q: What’s the biggest reward of being a hospitalist?

A: Making patients better, if that can be done, and helping them through illnesses that can’t be made better. The outcome may be death, permanent disability, or something tragic, but patients and their families still feel thankful if they feel you’ve been a caring physician. Without the patient and the family being satisfied, I wouldn’t have many rewards.

Q: After 26 years as a hospitalist, what’s the best advice you could offer to someone new in the field?

A: Don’t cut corners. Be as complete and as thorough as you need to be. Communicate with patients and their families, which is crucial. Be open to suggestions, because you don’t know everything. I still feel that way after 26 years. Be optimistic and enjoy what you do. And it’s very important for busy, high-pressure physician specialists to keep their mind on their family and their outside-the-hospital relationships. Don’t forget your kids are going to grow up.

Q: You often emphasize the importance of physicians communicating with patients and their families. What’s the biggest barrier to communication?

A: First, reimbursement isn’t there for explanations and counseling. You get reimbursed for the evaluation, the diagnosis, and the management of the illness. No. 2, it takes time—sometimes an inordinate amount of time. If a patient is critically ill, I can spend 30 to 90 minutes with a family, not treating the patient, but explaining what’s the matter with the patient and what the treatment options are. During that time, you’re giving up other patient-care responsibilities.

And I don’t think physicians have been well trained to communicate with someone and explain the details of an illness and the treatment options nonmedically. I’ve seen doctors try to explain to families that a patient is dead and the family didn’t know what the doctor meant. I teach residents to speak English to patients and their families, not speak medical.

Q: Should there be a greater emphasis on communication during education and residency?

A: Absolutely. I tell residents they need this training as much as they need to know what antibiotic to use for pneumonia. … My experience over the years is patients think they’re getting better care from average doctors who communicate well than doctors who are brilliant and can’t communicate.

Q: What has kept you at Chestnut Hill Hospital for 26 years?

A: Some of it is inertia. When my children were young, it was the community in which I lived. And I like working in a small, community hospital because of the personal relationships I’ve developed with the other professionals, everyone from medical records to the secretarial staff.

Q: What’s next for you?

A: As I’ve gotten older, being woken up in the middle of the night gets harder and harder, so I’ve thought of doing something where the hours are more fixed and I have a little more time. I have thought about starting satellite practices in other community hospitals that are looking to start hospitalist programs, being more of an administrator and delivering less patient care. But I still like what I’m doing, and that’s why I keep doing it. TH

 

Mark Leiser is a freelance writer based in New Jersey.