Patient Care

Dear Dr. Hospitalist:

We have several physicians in our large academic group whom I hate to follow when picking up teams. There have only been a few situations when I thought there was a clear knowledge deficit, but the most irritating problem is that they don’t discharge patients. I’ve only been in the group for several years, so I don’t want to come across as a complainer. However, I am concerned about poor patient care and the work left to me to discharge patients. How can I help these physicians improve without damaging my relationship with them?

Dr. Frustrated

Dr. Hospitalist responds:

You bring up a problem that I’m certain many of us in hospital medicine have experienced at some point in our career. Since the “practice” of medicine can often be done with much variability, there are many gray areas that occur during the care of patients. However, we all know it is the transitioning of patients into and out of the hospital that is the most labor-intensive period of their care. If at all possible, the discharge process is best performed by the person with the most longitudinal knowledge of the patient’s hospital course.

Your leadership team has the responsibility to assess the quality and quantity of work of all team members. The periodic assessment of a clinician’s skill and aptitude, as well as the safety of care delivered to patients, can be done in several ways. Typically, the initial assessment is done by focused professional practice evaluations (FPPEs) and later by ongoing professional practice evaluations (OPPEs). The Joint Commission created these tools in 2007 to help determine if the quality of care by clinicians fell below an acceptable level.

FPPEs, as defined by the commission, are “the time limited evaluation of practitioner competence in performing a specific privilege.” They are usually done three to six months after the initial credentialing period, when a new or additional privilege is requested after the initial appointment, or when a condition or issue affecting the delivery of safe and high-quality care is identified.

OPPEs, as the name suggests, are typically done on an ongoing basis (usually annually). These practitioner-specific reports are best utilized as screening tools, and when unusual or aberrant tendencies are observed, a more detailed analysis typically is required.

Although these formal evaluations are carried out by chart review and analysis of data collected by the hospital, they should always be supported by discreet and candid conversations with other frontline team members. It is during these sessions that individuals should take the opportunity to express their opinions regarding the care delivered by their colleagues. From my experience, because of the shared care of patients in hospital medicine, if there is a problem with an individual’s professionalism or clinical abilities, it is usually well-known by others in the group.

If for some reason group leaders are not performing these mandated evaluations (and thus risking regulatory sanctions) or don’t have a formal mechanism in place, I would encourage them to establish one. In the interim, I would discreetly address the individuals and share your concerns. Many times, the problems you mention can be resolved with awareness, mentoring, and/or proctoring, but like any needed corrective actions, they must first be acknowledged.

Good luck! TH

Dear Dr. Hospitalist:

We have several physicians in our large academic group whom I hate to follow when picking up teams. There have only been a few situations when I thought there was a clear knowledge deficit, but the most irritating problem is that they don’t discharge patients. I’ve only been in the group for several years, so I don’t want to come across as a complainer. However, I am concerned about poor patient care and the work left to me to discharge patients. How can I help these physicians improve without damaging my relationship with them?

Dr. Frustrated

Dr. Hospitalist responds:

You bring up a problem that I’m certain many of us in hospital medicine have experienced at some point in our career. Since the “practice” of medicine can often be done with much variability, there are many gray areas that occur during the care of patients. However, we all know it is the transitioning of patients into and out of the hospital that is the most labor-intensive period of their care. If at all possible, the discharge process is best performed by the person with the most longitudinal knowledge of the patient’s hospital course.

Your leadership team has the responsibility to assess the quality and quantity of work of all team members. The periodic assessment of a clinician’s skill and aptitude, as well as the safety of care delivered to patients, can be done in several ways. Typically, the initial assessment is done by focused professional practice evaluations (FPPEs) and later by ongoing professional practice evaluations (OPPEs). The Joint Commission created these tools in 2007 to help determine if the quality of care by clinicians fell below an acceptable level.

FPPEs, as defined by the commission, are “the time limited evaluation of practitioner competence in performing a specific privilege.” They are usually done three to six months after the initial credentialing period, when a new or additional privilege is requested after the initial appointment, or when a condition or issue affecting the delivery of safe and high-quality care is identified.

OPPEs, as the name suggests, are typically done on an ongoing basis (usually annually). These practitioner-specific reports are best utilized as screening tools, and when unusual or aberrant tendencies are observed, a more detailed analysis typically is required.

Although these formal evaluations are carried out by chart review and analysis of data collected by the hospital, they should always be supported by discreet and candid conversations with other frontline team members. It is during these sessions that individuals should take the opportunity to express their opinions regarding the care delivered by their colleagues. From my experience, because of the shared care of patients in hospital medicine, if there is a problem with an individual’s professionalism or clinical abilities, it is usually well-known by others in the group.

If for some reason group leaders are not performing these mandated evaluations (and thus risking regulatory sanctions) or don’t have a formal mechanism in place, I would encourage them to establish one. In the interim, I would discreetly address the individuals and share your concerns. Many times, the problems you mention can be resolved with awareness, mentoring, and/or proctoring, but like any needed corrective actions, they must first be acknowledged.

Good luck! TH

Dear Dr. Hospitalist:

We have several physicians in our large academic group whom I hate to follow when picking up teams. There have only been a few situations when I thought there was a clear knowledge deficit, but the most irritating problem is that they don’t discharge patients. I’ve only been in the group for several years, so I don’t want to come across as a complainer. However, I am concerned about poor patient care and the work left to me to discharge patients. How can I help these physicians improve without damaging my relationship with them?

Dr. Frustrated

Dr. Hospitalist responds:

You bring up a problem that I’m certain many of us in hospital medicine have experienced at some point in our career. Since the “practice” of medicine can often be done with much variability, there are many gray areas that occur during the care of patients. However, we all know it is the transitioning of patients into and out of the hospital that is the most labor-intensive period of their care. If at all possible, the discharge process is best performed by the person with the most longitudinal knowledge of the patient’s hospital course.

Your leadership team has the responsibility to assess the quality and quantity of work of all team members. The periodic assessment of a clinician’s skill and aptitude, as well as the safety of care delivered to patients, can be done in several ways. Typically, the initial assessment is done by focused professional practice evaluations (FPPEs) and later by ongoing professional practice evaluations (OPPEs). The Joint Commission created these tools in 2007 to help determine if the quality of care by clinicians fell below an acceptable level.

FPPEs, as defined by the commission, are “the time limited evaluation of practitioner competence in performing a specific privilege.” They are usually done three to six months after the initial credentialing period, when a new or additional privilege is requested after the initial appointment, or when a condition or issue affecting the delivery of safe and high-quality care is identified.

OPPEs, as the name suggests, are typically done on an ongoing basis (usually annually). These practitioner-specific reports are best utilized as screening tools, and when unusual or aberrant tendencies are observed, a more detailed analysis typically is required.

Although these formal evaluations are carried out by chart review and analysis of data collected by the hospital, they should always be supported by discreet and candid conversations with other frontline team members. It is during these sessions that individuals should take the opportunity to express their opinions regarding the care delivered by their colleagues. From my experience, because of the shared care of patients in hospital medicine, if there is a problem with an individual’s professionalism or clinical abilities, it is usually well-known by others in the group.

If for some reason group leaders are not performing these mandated evaluations (and thus risking regulatory sanctions) or don’t have a formal mechanism in place, I would encourage them to establish one. In the interim, I would discreetly address the individuals and share your concerns. Many times, the problems you mention can be resolved with awareness, mentoring, and/or proctoring, but like any needed corrective actions, they must first be acknowledged.

Good luck! TH

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Stent-retriever therapy for the treatment of acute ischemic stroke improves the rate of functional independence at 90 days, according to a systematic

review and meta-analysis.

Stent retrievers are deployed in an occluded vessel, temporarily expanded into the body of a thrombus, and then retracted along with the thrombus.

Dr. Mark J. Eisenberg, from Jewish General Hospital/McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, and colleagues compared stent retrievers with intravenous recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rtPA) versus rtPA alone for the treatment of acute ischemic stroke in their systematic review and meta-analysis of five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with a total of 1,287 patients.

In all five trials, patients randomized to stent-retriever therapy had significantly better functional independence (a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0-2) at 90 days than did patients randomized to rtPA alone.

Stent-retriever therapy also doubled the likelihood of a one-unit improvement in mRS score at 90 days, according to the January 25 JAMA Neurology online report.

In pooled analyses, there were no significant differences between treatment groups in all-cause mortality, intracranial hemorrhage, or parenchymal hematoma rates at 90 days.

The number needed to treat to achieve an mRS score of 0 to 2 at 90 days was six.

"Given the totality of the evidence regarding the benefits and risks of stent retrievers, our results suggest that the use of these devices in patients with acute ischemic stroke is warranted," the researchers conclude.

Dr. Raphael A. Carandang, from the University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, who wrote an editorial related to this report, told Reuters Health by email, "The data from these five RCTs (as the meta-analysis confirms) provides level 1 class A evidence that in the properly selected patients, stent retriever treatment is superior to the current standard of care with intravenous rtPA and would endorse that it should be considered in all acute ischemic stroke patients that are eligible for it. As with any therapy, proper patient selection is needed, but I do think it changes the landscape of acute stroke treatment going forward. I think that systems of care should be organized in stroke centers around this new therapy."

"The current technology for acute stroke care has reached the point where effective interventional therapies are clearly and unequivocally beneficial in the properly selected patients, but the key takeaway is still that the patients need to be selected properly, and the biggest factor continues to be time to recanalization, which means that all practitioners and systems of care need to focus on getting patients to treatment sooner than ever before," Dr. Carandang concluded.

Dr. Woong Yoon, from Chonnam National University Hospital, Gwangju, Korea, recently found no improvement in outcomes with stent-retriever therapy for patients with acute anterior circulation stroke (http://bit.ly/1OT7M5I). He told Reuters Health by email, "Not all patients with acute ischemic stroke can benefit from this new treatment. Patients with acute stroke due to occlusions of intracranial large vessels such as internal carotid artery, middle cerebral artery, or basilar artery and who presented within six-eight hours of stroke onset can benefit from thrombectomy with stent retrievers."

"We should realize that we are facing the moment of change in the paradigm for acute stroke treatment," Dr. Yoon concluded."Further refinement in the patient selection for stent retrieverthrombectomy is needed in the near future."

Dr. Mayank Goyal, from the University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, coauthored two of the studies included in the current review. He told Reuters Health by email," There are several additional data coming out on this issue in the near future, which will in fact be more powerful than what is mentioned in this study."

Dr. Goyal said, "However, the key issues going into the future are: how should those patients who were not included in the current trials be treated; how should we as a collective evaluate new devices/technologies; and how do societies/countries who cannot afford stent retrievers implement endovascular stroke treatment."

Dr. Eisenberg was unavailable for comment.

The authors reported no funding. Three coauthors reported disclosures.

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Stent-retriever therapy for the treatment of acute ischemic stroke improves the rate of functional independence at 90 days, according to a systematic

review and meta-analysis.

Stent retrievers are deployed in an occluded vessel, temporarily expanded into the body of a thrombus, and then retracted along with the thrombus.

Dr. Mark J. Eisenberg, from Jewish General Hospital/McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, and colleagues compared stent retrievers with intravenous recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rtPA) versus rtPA alone for the treatment of acute ischemic stroke in their systematic review and meta-analysis of five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with a total of 1,287 patients.

In all five trials, patients randomized to stent-retriever therapy had significantly better functional independence (a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0-2) at 90 days than did patients randomized to rtPA alone.

Stent-retriever therapy also doubled the likelihood of a one-unit improvement in mRS score at 90 days, according to the January 25 JAMA Neurology online report.

In pooled analyses, there were no significant differences between treatment groups in all-cause mortality, intracranial hemorrhage, or parenchymal hematoma rates at 90 days.

The number needed to treat to achieve an mRS score of 0 to 2 at 90 days was six.

"Given the totality of the evidence regarding the benefits and risks of stent retrievers, our results suggest that the use of these devices in patients with acute ischemic stroke is warranted," the researchers conclude.

Dr. Raphael A. Carandang, from the University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, who wrote an editorial related to this report, told Reuters Health by email, "The data from these five RCTs (as the meta-analysis confirms) provides level 1 class A evidence that in the properly selected patients, stent retriever treatment is superior to the current standard of care with intravenous rtPA and would endorse that it should be considered in all acute ischemic stroke patients that are eligible for it. As with any therapy, proper patient selection is needed, but I do think it changes the landscape of acute stroke treatment going forward. I think that systems of care should be organized in stroke centers around this new therapy."

"The current technology for acute stroke care has reached the point where effective interventional therapies are clearly and unequivocally beneficial in the properly selected patients, but the key takeaway is still that the patients need to be selected properly, and the biggest factor continues to be time to recanalization, which means that all practitioners and systems of care need to focus on getting patients to treatment sooner than ever before," Dr. Carandang concluded.

Dr. Woong Yoon, from Chonnam National University Hospital, Gwangju, Korea, recently found no improvement in outcomes with stent-retriever therapy for patients with acute anterior circulation stroke (http://bit.ly/1OT7M5I). He told Reuters Health by email, "Not all patients with acute ischemic stroke can benefit from this new treatment. Patients with acute stroke due to occlusions of intracranial large vessels such as internal carotid artery, middle cerebral artery, or basilar artery and who presented within six-eight hours of stroke onset can benefit from thrombectomy with stent retrievers."

"We should realize that we are facing the moment of change in the paradigm for acute stroke treatment," Dr. Yoon concluded."Further refinement in the patient selection for stent retrieverthrombectomy is needed in the near future."

Dr. Mayank Goyal, from the University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, coauthored two of the studies included in the current review. He told Reuters Health by email," There are several additional data coming out on this issue in the near future, which will in fact be more powerful than what is mentioned in this study."

Dr. Goyal said, "However, the key issues going into the future are: how should those patients who were not included in the current trials be treated; how should we as a collective evaluate new devices/technologies; and how do societies/countries who cannot afford stent retrievers implement endovascular stroke treatment."

Dr. Eisenberg was unavailable for comment.

The authors reported no funding. Three coauthors reported disclosures.

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Stent-retriever therapy for the treatment of acute ischemic stroke improves the rate of functional independence at 90 days, according to a systematic

review and meta-analysis.

Stent retrievers are deployed in an occluded vessel, temporarily expanded into the body of a thrombus, and then retracted along with the thrombus.

Dr. Mark J. Eisenberg, from Jewish General Hospital/McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, and colleagues compared stent retrievers with intravenous recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rtPA) versus rtPA alone for the treatment of acute ischemic stroke in their systematic review and meta-analysis of five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with a total of 1,287 patients.

In all five trials, patients randomized to stent-retriever therapy had significantly better functional independence (a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 0-2) at 90 days than did patients randomized to rtPA alone.

Stent-retriever therapy also doubled the likelihood of a one-unit improvement in mRS score at 90 days, according to the January 25 JAMA Neurology online report.

In pooled analyses, there were no significant differences between treatment groups in all-cause mortality, intracranial hemorrhage, or parenchymal hematoma rates at 90 days.

The number needed to treat to achieve an mRS score of 0 to 2 at 90 days was six.

"Given the totality of the evidence regarding the benefits and risks of stent retrievers, our results suggest that the use of these devices in patients with acute ischemic stroke is warranted," the researchers conclude.

Dr. Raphael A. Carandang, from the University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, who wrote an editorial related to this report, told Reuters Health by email, "The data from these five RCTs (as the meta-analysis confirms) provides level 1 class A evidence that in the properly selected patients, stent retriever treatment is superior to the current standard of care with intravenous rtPA and would endorse that it should be considered in all acute ischemic stroke patients that are eligible for it. As with any therapy, proper patient selection is needed, but I do think it changes the landscape of acute stroke treatment going forward. I think that systems of care should be organized in stroke centers around this new therapy."

"The current technology for acute stroke care has reached the point where effective interventional therapies are clearly and unequivocally beneficial in the properly selected patients, but the key takeaway is still that the patients need to be selected properly, and the biggest factor continues to be time to recanalization, which means that all practitioners and systems of care need to focus on getting patients to treatment sooner than ever before," Dr. Carandang concluded.

Dr. Woong Yoon, from Chonnam National University Hospital, Gwangju, Korea, recently found no improvement in outcomes with stent-retriever therapy for patients with acute anterior circulation stroke (http://bit.ly/1OT7M5I). He told Reuters Health by email, "Not all patients with acute ischemic stroke can benefit from this new treatment. Patients with acute stroke due to occlusions of intracranial large vessels such as internal carotid artery, middle cerebral artery, or basilar artery and who presented within six-eight hours of stroke onset can benefit from thrombectomy with stent retrievers."

"We should realize that we are facing the moment of change in the paradigm for acute stroke treatment," Dr. Yoon concluded."Further refinement in the patient selection for stent retrieverthrombectomy is needed in the near future."

Dr. Mayank Goyal, from the University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, coauthored two of the studies included in the current review. He told Reuters Health by email," There are several additional data coming out on this issue in the near future, which will in fact be more powerful than what is mentioned in this study."

Dr. Goyal said, "However, the key issues going into the future are: how should those patients who were not included in the current trials be treated; how should we as a collective evaluate new devices/technologies; and how do societies/countries who cannot afford stent retrievers implement endovascular stroke treatment."

Dr. Eisenberg was unavailable for comment.

The authors reported no funding. Three coauthors reported disclosures.

As Karen Smith, MD, SFHM, chief of hospital medicine at Children’s National Health System in Washington, D.C., sees it, communication problems often arise at the first possible opportunity, when she’s trying to find out whom to call when she needs to inform a primary care physician or specialist about a hospitalized patient. Sometimes, that information isn’t readily available.

“Which specialist is on and available to talk?” she says.

Then there’s timing.

“By the time we can set up a time to actually talk to people, it’s after normal business hours,” Dr. Smith says. “People aren’t answering their office phones after five. …Your other choice is going through the answering service, but then you get a variety of people and not the person who knows this patient.”

Dr. Smith spearheaded an effort to reach out in a more reliable fashion to community physicians, with a goal of speaking to—or, more commonly, leaving messages with—at least 90% of hospitalized patients’ physicians. They reached the goal, but it was an eye-opening effort.

“The feedback I got from the hospitalists was it’s ‘just so difficult,’” Dr. Smith says. “I’m sitting on the phone waiting to get ahold of someone. Even trying to use administrative people and have them call and contact us, which is kind of complicated to do.”

Yul Ejnes, MD, MACP, a past chair of the board of regents of the American College of Physicians and an internist at Coastal Medical in R.I., says that if he were grading hospitalist communication with primary care providers on a poor-fair-good-excellent scale, he would give it a “fair.”

“It runs the spectrum from getting nothing—which is rare, I have to say—to getting at least a notification that your patient is in the hospital: ‘Here’s a contact number,’ sometimes with diagnosis,” he says. “And, much less commonly, getting a phone call. That usually occurs when there are questions.”

Dr. Ejnes says consistent communication is not as “robust as I would like it to be.”

“Some institutions do much better than others, in terms of the hospitalist always letting us know patients have come in,” he says. “With others, it doesn’t seem to be part of the institutional culture.”

There has to be a better way.

And, in fact, Dr. Smith and many other hospitalists are developing ways to better use technology to communicate more effectively with primary care, specialists, nurses, and patients. The goal is to make communication more routine, more effective, and more convenient for both parties, all the while—hopefully—improving patient care and strengthening working relationships.

Most of the approaches are not ultra-high tech. Too high tech might, in itself, be a potential barrier to communication for those who might be uncomfortable with new technology. Instead, the initiatives are mostly common sense tweaks to—or new, logical uses of—existing technology.

EHR-Embedded Communication

At Children’s National, Dr. Smith and colleagues use a standardized letter as part of a patient’s electronic health record (EHR). In addition to facts about the patient’s condition, the EHR includes information that makes it easier for physicians to communicate.

“What’s lovely with that is that [the letter] tells the provider the team that they’re on,” she said, adding that teams are divided by letter and color. “It has information on how you can reach the doctor. All of our doctors carry a phone around with them, and so it’s got that number.”

The EHR also includes a note suggesting that physicians avoid calling during rounds and gives them information on how to access the portal, so they can follow along with the patient’s care, should they choose to do so.

The amount of actual contact from primary care physicians? Scarce. Maybe one of 20 pediatricians will actually place a call to the hospitalist, but the response she has received has been positive, Dr. Smith says.

The EHR note also includes a sentence further characterizing the patient’s care, such as: Bobby C. was admitted with bronchiolitis. He’s doing fine; I anticipate he will go home tomorrow.

“Pediatricians have loved that,” she says. “They say, ‘I know exactly what my patient’s there for. I had the ability to call if I want.’”

Smarter Pages

At Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., hospitalists noticed a frequent occurrence with pages: Many times, the hospitalist would only receive a phone number.

“With that, you don’t know which patient it’s about, who called you, how urgent it is, or what they need,” says researcher Sunil Kripalani, MD, MSc, SFHM, associate professor and chief of the section of hospital medicine at Vanderbilt.

It’s a tough spot for a busy hospitalist, who might be on the phone or at a bedside with another patient when three, four, or even five pages come through. The page might just be an FYI requiring no callback. It might be urgent. It might be the same page sent multiple times from different numbers (e.g. nursing moving to various phones). Many times, Dr. Kripalani and his hospitalists have had no way to know.

Now, Vanderbilt has established an online template for text pages, with the following basic information:

• Patient;
• Room number;
• Urgency level;
• Name of the sender;
• Callback number;
• Message; and
• Whether or not a callback is needed.

“That structure is very helpful for allowing physicians to triage which pages to call back and how quickly,” Dr. Kripalani says.

He acknowledges it isn’t “fancy bells and whistles.”

“Sometimes it’s doing the basic things well that makes the difference,” he adds.

The “structured pages” have allowed the nature of pages to be analyzed. Dr. Kripalani and colleagues have found that approximately 5% of pages were about a patient’s dietary status. If the patient was ordered not to receive anything by mouth, pages asked, when did that order expire and what diet should the patient resume?

Now, a prompt for that information is included in the hospital’s order entry system, which has cut the number of pages sent.

Vanderbilt is now looking at other, similar ways to streamline communication.

Patients and iPads

At the University of Colorado Hospital in Denver, researchers had an idea to facilitate communication and patient education: Patients are always inquiring about their discharge status and other facets of their hospitalization; what if they got their own tablet to follow along with everything in real time?1

The only real requirements for the study were that patients had to have Internet access at home and an understanding of how to work a web browser, says Jonathan Pell, MD, SFHM, assistant professor of internal medicine at the University of Colorado in Aurora and a hospitalist at University of Colorado Hospital. Patients were shown how to access their schedule for the day, their medication list and dosing schedule, and test results. Much of the information was delivered in real time, so patients who were told that if a lab result came back at a certain level they could be discharged could perhaps start preparing for that possibility earlier than they might have otherwise.

Researchers found that their patients worried less and reported less confusion. They also found that providing the tablets didn’t cause any increase in workload for doctors or nurses.

Providers and nurses expected that patients would notice medication errors, but that endpoint was not significant. Surprisingly, patients’ understanding of discharge times did not live up to expectations. But the results overall were encouraging enough that the effort will continue.

“We have these mixed results,” Dr. Pell says. “I think it’s good to get something out there in the literature and see what else people may be interested in doing. Our next step is to potentially open up notes to patients and let them see their doctor’s and nurse’s notes during their hospitalization.”

He says that, in some cases, communication with patients is the most crucial channel for hospitalists.

“For the very engaged patient [who has] a busy primary care doctor who’s hard to get in touch with,” he explains, “using the patient, informing them well, and getting them all the information they need is actually the best way to make sure that transition of care is smooth.”

Discharge, Facebook-Style

New England Inpatient Specialists (NEIS), a hospitalist group in North Andover, Mass., has an interesting approach to discharge. Instead of a nurse picking up the phone to make a follow-up appointment for a patient leaving the hospital, a secretary posts a message on “Chatter,” a secure tool similar to Facebook. The technology was developed by Salesforce.com, which offers platforms mainly designed to assist businesses with communication.

The idea behind Chatter is that the primary care office personnel can respond to a post at a time that’s convenient to them.

“All of this is so time-consuming. Why would you want somebody like an RN spending 15 to 20 minutes on the phone setting up an appointment when she could be on the floor?” says Sawad Thotathil, MD, vice president of performance and physician recruitment at NEIS. “Our program secretary will just post a discharge, and then somebody at the practice will look at it when they can and find out what associated information is needed and answer at their own convenience.”

Dr. Thotathil’s group also has been using the Imprivata Cortext secure text messaging system for more than a year, with what he deems “overall positive” results. About 60% of the practices with which NEIS staff need to communicate have signed on to the system.

“That kind of helps in management,” he says. “Sometimes, a patient is in the hospital and you can text the cardiologist, asking if the patient can be taken on for a procedure. That kind of communication, which would have taken longer or would not have happened, is happening now.

“Have we been able to directly link it to better outcomes?” he adds. “No, we haven’t looked at it that way. But what we have seen is that there’s always going to be a variation in how many people in a network actually will use it. ... There are going to be those high users, and there are going to be those providers who are going to be minimally using it.”

Videoconferencing

Pediatric hospitalists at the main hospital at Children’s National have been helping to provide care to children who are seen at five community sites. Dr. Smith says the communication at these sites, mostly from the ED, in which the pediatric hospitalists are helping make medical decisions, has been dramatically enhanced.

“The visual aspect of it changes the whole conversation,” she says. “You could tell them the exact same thing verbally and they are like, ‘OK, that’s fine,’ and there doesn’t seem to be a true understanding of what I’m trying to impart to you. Once people look at the child, all of a sudden there is a true shared mental model of, ‘OK, I understand what you’re doing. What’s going on?’”

Hospitalists also have been spearheading videoconferencing at diabetes clinics, to provide better care at community sites.

“We know what the need is. We know the gap in care,” Dr. Smith says. “We’ve been able to advocate and get those specialists brought out to the community via telemedicine, if it’s too difficult to get out on a regular basis.”

There are no hard data on the effects of the programs, but Dr. Smith says the improvement is noticeable.

“Anecdotally, we’ve seen a decrease in kids coming in with DKA (diabetic ketoacidosis) to the emergency room, so we’ve been able to change some of the trajectory. Many of those kids just didn’t have access to care. [For some], it would be a day’s trip for them to get to one of the academic centers to get follow up. They just wouldn’t go.”

EHR-Facilitated Calls

At Cincinnati Children’s, phone contact with community pediatricians at discharge is established with remarkable consistency: 98% to 99% of the time. The reason? A communication system, “Priority Link,” is connected to the EHR.

When the hospitalist signs a discharge order, the patient’s name is put in a queue. An operator sends out a page to inform the resident that the call is about to be made to the outpatient physician, making sure they’re ready for the call to be made.

“The key innovation was that we were trying to make sure that the inpatient side of it was really ready for the call, so we weren’t placing calls out to doctors and then we weren’t ready,” says Jeffrey Simmons, MD, MSc, associate director of clinical operations and quality in Cincinnati Children’s hospital medicine division.

He says there has been some pushback from pediatricians who feel the calls don’t provide any more value than the discharge summary itself. But the opportunity for questions and for a dialogue makes the calls worthwhile, Dr. Simmons notes. The system could be improved by tailoring communications to the community physicians’ preference—via fax or email, perhaps—and by having the call placed by physicians who are more knowledgeable about the details of the case.

Priority Link also is used to help community physicians with direct admissions for patients who don’t need to go to the ED. The operator coordinates a three-way call among the community physician, the hospitalist, and a nurse familiar with the bed situation.

“That three-way call is really great because we’re big and busy enough that sometimes we need that nurse manager on the phone, too, to No. 1, let us know if there really is a bed and, No. 2, coordinate with the nursing unit,” he says. TH

Tom Collins is a freelance writer in South Florida.

Reference

Pell JM, Mancuso M, Limon S, Oman K, Lin CT. Patient access to electronic health records during hospitalization. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(5):856-858. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.121.

Sometimes, Communication Outside the Hospital Is the Problem

Yul Ejnes, MD, MACP, an internist at Coastal Medicine in R.I., and a past chair of the American College of Physician’s Board of Regents, points to the ACP’s “High Value Care” toolkit as a model for how primary care-hospitalist communication should take place.

The toolkit includes a suggested “agreement” between PCPs and the hospital care team, which calls for PCPs to provide pertinent information (i.e., reconciled medications lists, medical history, and advanced directives) to hospital teams upon notification of an admission. It also calls for establishing standard communication methods and discharge notifications and encourages hospitalists to keep PCPs updated on new developments, provide appropriate information to patients at discharge, and send a “concise discharge summary” to the PCP within 48 to 72 hours of discharge.

It’s a two-way street, Dr. Ejnes says. He also acknowledges that sometimes the problems are on the community physicians’ side. Phone calls can be highly valuable in this dynamic, but it is often difficult for internists to make or take those calls.

“Sitting where I am, in my office, I am certainly interested in what’s going on with my patients,” he says. “On the other hand, the inertia I have to overcome in order to get that information, when I’m in the middle of seeing a whole bunch of patients during my day, involves getting on the phone, punching some numbers, waiting for a call back, as opposed to having the information available on my screen automatically through some information technology solution.”

He has provided his staff with a list of contacts, including hospitalists, for whom he is to be interrupted in order to take calls.

Jeffrey Simmons, MD, MSc, of Cincinnati Children’s, says that in their effort to boost the reliability of placing calls to PCPs, his hospitalists found that confusion within primary care offices is a stumbling block.

“About half the time when we get complaints about this process, when we investigate, we learn that the major problem has been within the practice,” he says. “We may have made a call to Partner X and had a good conversation … [but] between then and when the patient sees Dr. Y, there’s been very little communication between Partner X and Partner Y.”

Setting up the right system is the key—on both ends, Dr. Ejnes says.

“It’s all about workflow,” he says. “If you can integrate these communications into the regular workflow of the physician, either community-based or hospitalist, it’s more likely to happen. Having the will to do it is the first step. But I think it’s got to be facilitated as much as possible.”

— Thomas R. Collins

As Karen Smith, MD, SFHM, chief of hospital medicine at Children’s National Health System in Washington, D.C., sees it, communication problems often arise at the first possible opportunity, when she’s trying to find out whom to call when she needs to inform a primary care physician or specialist about a hospitalized patient. Sometimes, that information isn’t readily available.

“Which specialist is on and available to talk?” she says.

Then there’s timing.

“By the time we can set up a time to actually talk to people, it’s after normal business hours,” Dr. Smith says. “People aren’t answering their office phones after five. …Your other choice is going through the answering service, but then you get a variety of people and not the person who knows this patient.”

Dr. Smith spearheaded an effort to reach out in a more reliable fashion to community physicians, with a goal of speaking to—or, more commonly, leaving messages with—at least 90% of hospitalized patients’ physicians. They reached the goal, but it was an eye-opening effort.

“The feedback I got from the hospitalists was it’s ‘just so difficult,’” Dr. Smith says. “I’m sitting on the phone waiting to get ahold of someone. Even trying to use administrative people and have them call and contact us, which is kind of complicated to do.”

Yul Ejnes, MD, MACP, a past chair of the board of regents of the American College of Physicians and an internist at Coastal Medical in R.I., says that if he were grading hospitalist communication with primary care providers on a poor-fair-good-excellent scale, he would give it a “fair.”

“It runs the spectrum from getting nothing—which is rare, I have to say—to getting at least a notification that your patient is in the hospital: ‘Here’s a contact number,’ sometimes with diagnosis,” he says. “And, much less commonly, getting a phone call. That usually occurs when there are questions.”

Dr. Ejnes says consistent communication is not as “robust as I would like it to be.”

“Some institutions do much better than others, in terms of the hospitalist always letting us know patients have come in,” he says. “With others, it doesn’t seem to be part of the institutional culture.”

There has to be a better way.

And, in fact, Dr. Smith and many other hospitalists are developing ways to better use technology to communicate more effectively with primary care, specialists, nurses, and patients. The goal is to make communication more routine, more effective, and more convenient for both parties, all the while—hopefully—improving patient care and strengthening working relationships.

Most of the approaches are not ultra-high tech. Too high tech might, in itself, be a potential barrier to communication for those who might be uncomfortable with new technology. Instead, the initiatives are mostly common sense tweaks to—or new, logical uses of—existing technology.

EHR-Embedded Communication

At Children’s National, Dr. Smith and colleagues use a standardized letter as part of a patient’s electronic health record (EHR). In addition to facts about the patient’s condition, the EHR includes information that makes it easier for physicians to communicate.

“What’s lovely with that is that [the letter] tells the provider the team that they’re on,” she said, adding that teams are divided by letter and color. “It has information on how you can reach the doctor. All of our doctors carry a phone around with them, and so it’s got that number.”

The EHR also includes a note suggesting that physicians avoid calling during rounds and gives them information on how to access the portal, so they can follow along with the patient’s care, should they choose to do so.

The amount of actual contact from primary care physicians? Scarce. Maybe one of 20 pediatricians will actually place a call to the hospitalist, but the response she has received has been positive, Dr. Smith says.

The EHR note also includes a sentence further characterizing the patient’s care, such as: Bobby C. was admitted with bronchiolitis. He’s doing fine; I anticipate he will go home tomorrow.

“Pediatricians have loved that,” she says. “They say, ‘I know exactly what my patient’s there for. I had the ability to call if I want.’”

Smarter Pages

At Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., hospitalists noticed a frequent occurrence with pages: Many times, the hospitalist would only receive a phone number.

“With that, you don’t know which patient it’s about, who called you, how urgent it is, or what they need,” says researcher Sunil Kripalani, MD, MSc, SFHM, associate professor and chief of the section of hospital medicine at Vanderbilt.

It’s a tough spot for a busy hospitalist, who might be on the phone or at a bedside with another patient when three, four, or even five pages come through. The page might just be an FYI requiring no callback. It might be urgent. It might be the same page sent multiple times from different numbers (e.g. nursing moving to various phones). Many times, Dr. Kripalani and his hospitalists have had no way to know.

Now, Vanderbilt has established an online template for text pages, with the following basic information:

• Patient;
• Room number;
• Urgency level;
• Name of the sender;
• Callback number;
• Message; and
• Whether or not a callback is needed.

“That structure is very helpful for allowing physicians to triage which pages to call back and how quickly,” Dr. Kripalani says.

He acknowledges it isn’t “fancy bells and whistles.”

“Sometimes it’s doing the basic things well that makes the difference,” he adds.

The “structured pages” have allowed the nature of pages to be analyzed. Dr. Kripalani and colleagues have found that approximately 5% of pages were about a patient’s dietary status. If the patient was ordered not to receive anything by mouth, pages asked, when did that order expire and what diet should the patient resume?

Now, a prompt for that information is included in the hospital’s order entry system, which has cut the number of pages sent.

Vanderbilt is now looking at other, similar ways to streamline communication.

Patients and iPads

At the University of Colorado Hospital in Denver, researchers had an idea to facilitate communication and patient education: Patients are always inquiring about their discharge status and other facets of their hospitalization; what if they got their own tablet to follow along with everything in real time?1

The only real requirements for the study were that patients had to have Internet access at home and an understanding of how to work a web browser, says Jonathan Pell, MD, SFHM, assistant professor of internal medicine at the University of Colorado in Aurora and a hospitalist at University of Colorado Hospital. Patients were shown how to access their schedule for the day, their medication list and dosing schedule, and test results. Much of the information was delivered in real time, so patients who were told that if a lab result came back at a certain level they could be discharged could perhaps start preparing for that possibility earlier than they might have otherwise.

Researchers found that their patients worried less and reported less confusion. They also found that providing the tablets didn’t cause any increase in workload for doctors or nurses.

Providers and nurses expected that patients would notice medication errors, but that endpoint was not significant. Surprisingly, patients’ understanding of discharge times did not live up to expectations. But the results overall were encouraging enough that the effort will continue.

“We have these mixed results,” Dr. Pell says. “I think it’s good to get something out there in the literature and see what else people may be interested in doing. Our next step is to potentially open up notes to patients and let them see their doctor’s and nurse’s notes during their hospitalization.”

He says that, in some cases, communication with patients is the most crucial channel for hospitalists.

“For the very engaged patient [who has] a busy primary care doctor who’s hard to get in touch with,” he explains, “using the patient, informing them well, and getting them all the information they need is actually the best way to make sure that transition of care is smooth.”

Discharge, Facebook-Style

New England Inpatient Specialists (NEIS), a hospitalist group in North Andover, Mass., has an interesting approach to discharge. Instead of a nurse picking up the phone to make a follow-up appointment for a patient leaving the hospital, a secretary posts a message on “Chatter,” a secure tool similar to Facebook. The technology was developed by Salesforce.com, which offers platforms mainly designed to assist businesses with communication.

The idea behind Chatter is that the primary care office personnel can respond to a post at a time that’s convenient to them.

“All of this is so time-consuming. Why would you want somebody like an RN spending 15 to 20 minutes on the phone setting up an appointment when she could be on the floor?” says Sawad Thotathil, MD, vice president of performance and physician recruitment at NEIS. “Our program secretary will just post a discharge, and then somebody at the practice will look at it when they can and find out what associated information is needed and answer at their own convenience.”

Dr. Thotathil’s group also has been using the Imprivata Cortext secure text messaging system for more than a year, with what he deems “overall positive” results. About 60% of the practices with which NEIS staff need to communicate have signed on to the system.

“That kind of helps in management,” he says. “Sometimes, a patient is in the hospital and you can text the cardiologist, asking if the patient can be taken on for a procedure. That kind of communication, which would have taken longer or would not have happened, is happening now.

“Have we been able to directly link it to better outcomes?” he adds. “No, we haven’t looked at it that way. But what we have seen is that there’s always going to be a variation in how many people in a network actually will use it. ... There are going to be those high users, and there are going to be those providers who are going to be minimally using it.”

Videoconferencing

Pediatric hospitalists at the main hospital at Children’s National have been helping to provide care to children who are seen at five community sites. Dr. Smith says the communication at these sites, mostly from the ED, in which the pediatric hospitalists are helping make medical decisions, has been dramatically enhanced.

“The visual aspect of it changes the whole conversation,” she says. “You could tell them the exact same thing verbally and they are like, ‘OK, that’s fine,’ and there doesn’t seem to be a true understanding of what I’m trying to impart to you. Once people look at the child, all of a sudden there is a true shared mental model of, ‘OK, I understand what you’re doing. What’s going on?’”

Hospitalists also have been spearheading videoconferencing at diabetes clinics, to provide better care at community sites.

“We know what the need is. We know the gap in care,” Dr. Smith says. “We’ve been able to advocate and get those specialists brought out to the community via telemedicine, if it’s too difficult to get out on a regular basis.”

There are no hard data on the effects of the programs, but Dr. Smith says the improvement is noticeable.

“Anecdotally, we’ve seen a decrease in kids coming in with DKA (diabetic ketoacidosis) to the emergency room, so we’ve been able to change some of the trajectory. Many of those kids just didn’t have access to care. [For some], it would be a day’s trip for them to get to one of the academic centers to get follow up. They just wouldn’t go.”

EHR-Facilitated Calls

At Cincinnati Children’s, phone contact with community pediatricians at discharge is established with remarkable consistency: 98% to 99% of the time. The reason? A communication system, “Priority Link,” is connected to the EHR.

When the hospitalist signs a discharge order, the patient’s name is put in a queue. An operator sends out a page to inform the resident that the call is about to be made to the outpatient physician, making sure they’re ready for the call to be made.

“The key innovation was that we were trying to make sure that the inpatient side of it was really ready for the call, so we weren’t placing calls out to doctors and then we weren’t ready,” says Jeffrey Simmons, MD, MSc, associate director of clinical operations and quality in Cincinnati Children’s hospital medicine division.

He says there has been some pushback from pediatricians who feel the calls don’t provide any more value than the discharge summary itself. But the opportunity for questions and for a dialogue makes the calls worthwhile, Dr. Simmons notes. The system could be improved by tailoring communications to the community physicians’ preference—via fax or email, perhaps—and by having the call placed by physicians who are more knowledgeable about the details of the case.

Priority Link also is used to help community physicians with direct admissions for patients who don’t need to go to the ED. The operator coordinates a three-way call among the community physician, the hospitalist, and a nurse familiar with the bed situation.

“That three-way call is really great because we’re big and busy enough that sometimes we need that nurse manager on the phone, too, to No. 1, let us know if there really is a bed and, No. 2, coordinate with the nursing unit,” he says. TH

Tom Collins is a freelance writer in South Florida.

Reference

Pell JM, Mancuso M, Limon S, Oman K, Lin CT. Patient access to electronic health records during hospitalization. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(5):856-858. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.121.

Sometimes, Communication Outside the Hospital Is the Problem

Yul Ejnes, MD, MACP, an internist at Coastal Medicine in R.I., and a past chair of the American College of Physician’s Board of Regents, points to the ACP’s “High Value Care” toolkit as a model for how primary care-hospitalist communication should take place.

The toolkit includes a suggested “agreement” between PCPs and the hospital care team, which calls for PCPs to provide pertinent information (i.e., reconciled medications lists, medical history, and advanced directives) to hospital teams upon notification of an admission. It also calls for establishing standard communication methods and discharge notifications and encourages hospitalists to keep PCPs updated on new developments, provide appropriate information to patients at discharge, and send a “concise discharge summary” to the PCP within 48 to 72 hours of discharge.

It’s a two-way street, Dr. Ejnes says. He also acknowledges that sometimes the problems are on the community physicians’ side. Phone calls can be highly valuable in this dynamic, but it is often difficult for internists to make or take those calls.

“Sitting where I am, in my office, I am certainly interested in what’s going on with my patients,” he says. “On the other hand, the inertia I have to overcome in order to get that information, when I’m in the middle of seeing a whole bunch of patients during my day, involves getting on the phone, punching some numbers, waiting for a call back, as opposed to having the information available on my screen automatically through some information technology solution.”

He has provided his staff with a list of contacts, including hospitalists, for whom he is to be interrupted in order to take calls.

Jeffrey Simmons, MD, MSc, of Cincinnati Children’s, says that in their effort to boost the reliability of placing calls to PCPs, his hospitalists found that confusion within primary care offices is a stumbling block.

“About half the time when we get complaints about this process, when we investigate, we learn that the major problem has been within the practice,” he says. “We may have made a call to Partner X and had a good conversation … [but] between then and when the patient sees Dr. Y, there’s been very little communication between Partner X and Partner Y.”

Setting up the right system is the key—on both ends, Dr. Ejnes says.

“It’s all about workflow,” he says. “If you can integrate these communications into the regular workflow of the physician, either community-based or hospitalist, it’s more likely to happen. Having the will to do it is the first step. But I think it’s got to be facilitated as much as possible.”

— Thomas R. Collins

As Karen Smith, MD, SFHM, chief of hospital medicine at Children’s National Health System in Washington, D.C., sees it, communication problems often arise at the first possible opportunity, when she’s trying to find out whom to call when she needs to inform a primary care physician or specialist about a hospitalized patient. Sometimes, that information isn’t readily available.

“Which specialist is on and available to talk?” she says.

Then there’s timing.

“By the time we can set up a time to actually talk to people, it’s after normal business hours,” Dr. Smith says. “People aren’t answering their office phones after five. …Your other choice is going through the answering service, but then you get a variety of people and not the person who knows this patient.”

Dr. Smith spearheaded an effort to reach out in a more reliable fashion to community physicians, with a goal of speaking to—or, more commonly, leaving messages with—at least 90% of hospitalized patients’ physicians. They reached the goal, but it was an eye-opening effort.

“The feedback I got from the hospitalists was it’s ‘just so difficult,’” Dr. Smith says. “I’m sitting on the phone waiting to get ahold of someone. Even trying to use administrative people and have them call and contact us, which is kind of complicated to do.”

Yul Ejnes, MD, MACP, a past chair of the board of regents of the American College of Physicians and an internist at Coastal Medical in R.I., says that if he were grading hospitalist communication with primary care providers on a poor-fair-good-excellent scale, he would give it a “fair.”

“It runs the spectrum from getting nothing—which is rare, I have to say—to getting at least a notification that your patient is in the hospital: ‘Here’s a contact number,’ sometimes with diagnosis,” he says. “And, much less commonly, getting a phone call. That usually occurs when there are questions.”

Dr. Ejnes says consistent communication is not as “robust as I would like it to be.”

“Some institutions do much better than others, in terms of the hospitalist always letting us know patients have come in,” he says. “With others, it doesn’t seem to be part of the institutional culture.”

There has to be a better way.

And, in fact, Dr. Smith and many other hospitalists are developing ways to better use technology to communicate more effectively with primary care, specialists, nurses, and patients. The goal is to make communication more routine, more effective, and more convenient for both parties, all the while—hopefully—improving patient care and strengthening working relationships.

Most of the approaches are not ultra-high tech. Too high tech might, in itself, be a potential barrier to communication for those who might be uncomfortable with new technology. Instead, the initiatives are mostly common sense tweaks to—or new, logical uses of—existing technology.

EHR-Embedded Communication

At Children’s National, Dr. Smith and colleagues use a standardized letter as part of a patient’s electronic health record (EHR). In addition to facts about the patient’s condition, the EHR includes information that makes it easier for physicians to communicate.

“What’s lovely with that is that [the letter] tells the provider the team that they’re on,” she said, adding that teams are divided by letter and color. “It has information on how you can reach the doctor. All of our doctors carry a phone around with them, and so it’s got that number.”

The EHR also includes a note suggesting that physicians avoid calling during rounds and gives them information on how to access the portal, so they can follow along with the patient’s care, should they choose to do so.

The amount of actual contact from primary care physicians? Scarce. Maybe one of 20 pediatricians will actually place a call to the hospitalist, but the response she has received has been positive, Dr. Smith says.

The EHR note also includes a sentence further characterizing the patient’s care, such as: Bobby C. was admitted with bronchiolitis. He’s doing fine; I anticipate he will go home tomorrow.

“Pediatricians have loved that,” she says. “They say, ‘I know exactly what my patient’s there for. I had the ability to call if I want.’”

Smarter Pages

At Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., hospitalists noticed a frequent occurrence with pages: Many times, the hospitalist would only receive a phone number.

“With that, you don’t know which patient it’s about, who called you, how urgent it is, or what they need,” says researcher Sunil Kripalani, MD, MSc, SFHM, associate professor and chief of the section of hospital medicine at Vanderbilt.

It’s a tough spot for a busy hospitalist, who might be on the phone or at a bedside with another patient when three, four, or even five pages come through. The page might just be an FYI requiring no callback. It might be urgent. It might be the same page sent multiple times from different numbers (e.g. nursing moving to various phones). Many times, Dr. Kripalani and his hospitalists have had no way to know.

Now, Vanderbilt has established an online template for text pages, with the following basic information:

• Patient;
• Room number;
• Urgency level;
• Name of the sender;
• Callback number;
• Message; and
• Whether or not a callback is needed.

“That structure is very helpful for allowing physicians to triage which pages to call back and how quickly,” Dr. Kripalani says.

He acknowledges it isn’t “fancy bells and whistles.”

“Sometimes it’s doing the basic things well that makes the difference,” he adds.

The “structured pages” have allowed the nature of pages to be analyzed. Dr. Kripalani and colleagues have found that approximately 5% of pages were about a patient’s dietary status. If the patient was ordered not to receive anything by mouth, pages asked, when did that order expire and what diet should the patient resume?

Now, a prompt for that information is included in the hospital’s order entry system, which has cut the number of pages sent.

Vanderbilt is now looking at other, similar ways to streamline communication.

Patients and iPads

At the University of Colorado Hospital in Denver, researchers had an idea to facilitate communication and patient education: Patients are always inquiring about their discharge status and other facets of their hospitalization; what if they got their own tablet to follow along with everything in real time?1

The only real requirements for the study were that patients had to have Internet access at home and an understanding of how to work a web browser, says Jonathan Pell, MD, SFHM, assistant professor of internal medicine at the University of Colorado in Aurora and a hospitalist at University of Colorado Hospital. Patients were shown how to access their schedule for the day, their medication list and dosing schedule, and test results. Much of the information was delivered in real time, so patients who were told that if a lab result came back at a certain level they could be discharged could perhaps start preparing for that possibility earlier than they might have otherwise.

Researchers found that their patients worried less and reported less confusion. They also found that providing the tablets didn’t cause any increase in workload for doctors or nurses.

Providers and nurses expected that patients would notice medication errors, but that endpoint was not significant. Surprisingly, patients’ understanding of discharge times did not live up to expectations. But the results overall were encouraging enough that the effort will continue.

“We have these mixed results,” Dr. Pell says. “I think it’s good to get something out there in the literature and see what else people may be interested in doing. Our next step is to potentially open up notes to patients and let them see their doctor’s and nurse’s notes during their hospitalization.”

He says that, in some cases, communication with patients is the most crucial channel for hospitalists.

“For the very engaged patient [who has] a busy primary care doctor who’s hard to get in touch with,” he explains, “using the patient, informing them well, and getting them all the information they need is actually the best way to make sure that transition of care is smooth.”

Discharge, Facebook-Style

New England Inpatient Specialists (NEIS), a hospitalist group in North Andover, Mass., has an interesting approach to discharge. Instead of a nurse picking up the phone to make a follow-up appointment for a patient leaving the hospital, a secretary posts a message on “Chatter,” a secure tool similar to Facebook. The technology was developed by Salesforce.com, which offers platforms mainly designed to assist businesses with communication.

The idea behind Chatter is that the primary care office personnel can respond to a post at a time that’s convenient to them.

“All of this is so time-consuming. Why would you want somebody like an RN spending 15 to 20 minutes on the phone setting up an appointment when she could be on the floor?” says Sawad Thotathil, MD, vice president of performance and physician recruitment at NEIS. “Our program secretary will just post a discharge, and then somebody at the practice will look at it when they can and find out what associated information is needed and answer at their own convenience.”

Dr. Thotathil’s group also has been using the Imprivata Cortext secure text messaging system for more than a year, with what he deems “overall positive” results. About 60% of the practices with which NEIS staff need to communicate have signed on to the system.

“That kind of helps in management,” he says. “Sometimes, a patient is in the hospital and you can text the cardiologist, asking if the patient can be taken on for a procedure. That kind of communication, which would have taken longer or would not have happened, is happening now.

“Have we been able to directly link it to better outcomes?” he adds. “No, we haven’t looked at it that way. But what we have seen is that there’s always going to be a variation in how many people in a network actually will use it. ... There are going to be those high users, and there are going to be those providers who are going to be minimally using it.”

Videoconferencing

Pediatric hospitalists at the main hospital at Children’s National have been helping to provide care to children who are seen at five community sites. Dr. Smith says the communication at these sites, mostly from the ED, in which the pediatric hospitalists are helping make medical decisions, has been dramatically enhanced.

“The visual aspect of it changes the whole conversation,” she says. “You could tell them the exact same thing verbally and they are like, ‘OK, that’s fine,’ and there doesn’t seem to be a true understanding of what I’m trying to impart to you. Once people look at the child, all of a sudden there is a true shared mental model of, ‘OK, I understand what you’re doing. What’s going on?’”

Hospitalists also have been spearheading videoconferencing at diabetes clinics, to provide better care at community sites.

“We know what the need is. We know the gap in care,” Dr. Smith says. “We’ve been able to advocate and get those specialists brought out to the community via telemedicine, if it’s too difficult to get out on a regular basis.”

There are no hard data on the effects of the programs, but Dr. Smith says the improvement is noticeable.

“Anecdotally, we’ve seen a decrease in kids coming in with DKA (diabetic ketoacidosis) to the emergency room, so we’ve been able to change some of the trajectory. Many of those kids just didn’t have access to care. [For some], it would be a day’s trip for them to get to one of the academic centers to get follow up. They just wouldn’t go.”

EHR-Facilitated Calls

At Cincinnati Children’s, phone contact with community pediatricians at discharge is established with remarkable consistency: 98% to 99% of the time. The reason? A communication system, “Priority Link,” is connected to the EHR.

When the hospitalist signs a discharge order, the patient’s name is put in a queue. An operator sends out a page to inform the resident that the call is about to be made to the outpatient physician, making sure they’re ready for the call to be made.

“The key innovation was that we were trying to make sure that the inpatient side of it was really ready for the call, so we weren’t placing calls out to doctors and then we weren’t ready,” says Jeffrey Simmons, MD, MSc, associate director of clinical operations and quality in Cincinnati Children’s hospital medicine division.

He says there has been some pushback from pediatricians who feel the calls don’t provide any more value than the discharge summary itself. But the opportunity for questions and for a dialogue makes the calls worthwhile, Dr. Simmons notes. The system could be improved by tailoring communications to the community physicians’ preference—via fax or email, perhaps—and by having the call placed by physicians who are more knowledgeable about the details of the case.

Priority Link also is used to help community physicians with direct admissions for patients who don’t need to go to the ED. The operator coordinates a three-way call among the community physician, the hospitalist, and a nurse familiar with the bed situation.

“That three-way call is really great because we’re big and busy enough that sometimes we need that nurse manager on the phone, too, to No. 1, let us know if there really is a bed and, No. 2, coordinate with the nursing unit,” he says. TH

Tom Collins is a freelance writer in South Florida.

Reference

Pell JM, Mancuso M, Limon S, Oman K, Lin CT. Patient access to electronic health records during hospitalization. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(5):856-858. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.121.

Sometimes, Communication Outside the Hospital Is the Problem

Yul Ejnes, MD, MACP, an internist at Coastal Medicine in R.I., and a past chair of the American College of Physician’s Board of Regents, points to the ACP’s “High Value Care” toolkit as a model for how primary care-hospitalist communication should take place.

The toolkit includes a suggested “agreement” between PCPs and the hospital care team, which calls for PCPs to provide pertinent information (i.e., reconciled medications lists, medical history, and advanced directives) to hospital teams upon notification of an admission. It also calls for establishing standard communication methods and discharge notifications and encourages hospitalists to keep PCPs updated on new developments, provide appropriate information to patients at discharge, and send a “concise discharge summary” to the PCP within 48 to 72 hours of discharge.

It’s a two-way street, Dr. Ejnes says. He also acknowledges that sometimes the problems are on the community physicians’ side. Phone calls can be highly valuable in this dynamic, but it is often difficult for internists to make or take those calls.

“Sitting where I am, in my office, I am certainly interested in what’s going on with my patients,” he says. “On the other hand, the inertia I have to overcome in order to get that information, when I’m in the middle of seeing a whole bunch of patients during my day, involves getting on the phone, punching some numbers, waiting for a call back, as opposed to having the information available on my screen automatically through some information technology solution.”

He has provided his staff with a list of contacts, including hospitalists, for whom he is to be interrupted in order to take calls.

Jeffrey Simmons, MD, MSc, of Cincinnati Children’s, says that in their effort to boost the reliability of placing calls to PCPs, his hospitalists found that confusion within primary care offices is a stumbling block.

“About half the time when we get complaints about this process, when we investigate, we learn that the major problem has been within the practice,” he says. “We may have made a call to Partner X and had a good conversation … [but] between then and when the patient sees Dr. Y, there’s been very little communication between Partner X and Partner Y.”

Setting up the right system is the key—on both ends, Dr. Ejnes says.

“It’s all about workflow,” he says. “If you can integrate these communications into the regular workflow of the physician, either community-based or hospitalist, it’s more likely to happen. Having the will to do it is the first step. But I think it’s got to be facilitated as much as possible.”

— Thomas R. Collins

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - An early invasive strategy provides better outcomes than a conservative strategy in octogenarians with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction

(NSTEMI) or unstable angina, according to the After Eighty clinical trial.

"Management of the very elderly with myocardial infarction (NSTE-ACS) is challenging, because they often present later, have atypical symptoms, and are a more heterogeneous group dueto comorbidities," Dr. Bjorn Bendz and Dr. Nicolai Tegn from Oslo University Hospital in Norway told Reuters Health in a joint email. "These factors may reduce the benefits and increase the risk of complications from invasive treatment."

Large randomized trials have demonstrated the superiority of an invasive strategy in this setting, but patients aged 80 years and over are underrepresented in these studies.

Dr. Bendz and Dr. Tegn and colleagues from 16 hospitals in Norway investigated whether patients aged 80 years or older would benefit from an early invasive strategy versus a

conservative strategy in terms of a composite primary endpoint of MI, need for urgent revascularization, and death.

The invasive strategy (n=229) included early coronary angiography with immediate assessment for ad hoc percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), or optimal medical treatment, whereas the conservative strategy (n=228) included optimal medical treatment alone.

In the invasive group, 107 underwent PCI and six had CABG, the researchers report in The Lancet, online January 12.

During follow-up, patients in the invasive group were significantly less likely to experience the primary endpoint (41% vs. 61%, p=0.0001).

Compared with patients in the conservative-strategy group, those in the invasive-strategy group were 48% less likely to experience MI and 81% less likely to require urgent revascularization. They were also 40% less likely to have a stroke and 11% less likely to die, but these latter differences were not significant.

Minor bleeding complications (but not major bleeding complications) were somewhat more common in the invasive strategy group (10%) than in the conservative strategy group (7%).

"The present results support an invasive strategy in patients over 80 years with NSTEMI and unstable angina," Dr.Bendz and Dr. Tegn said. "However, the efficacy was less with increasing age, and for patients older than 90 years we cannot conclude if an invasive strategy is beneficial. Thus, management of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients over 90 must be individually tailored, considering life expectancy, comorbid illnesses, bleeding risk, cognitive and functional status, and patient preference."

Dr. Peter Psaltis from the University of Adelaide in South Australia, who co-wrote an accompanying editorial, told Reuters Health by email, "The After-80 study now provides the direct

evidence we needed to support this 'early invasive' approach. Given how difficult it is to recruit very elderly patients to clinical studies - and this was reflected by the fact that almost 80% of screened patients were not actually enrolled into After-80 - the investigators deserve credit for taking this study on. Their study is especially important because in developed countries, we see so many 'very old' patients admitted to our cardiology and general medicine wards with ACS."

"In extrapolating the results of After-80 to real-world clinical practice, we firstly have to remember that 70-80% of patients who were screened for this study were ultimately not

enrolled," he reiterated. "There would have been many reasons why so many patients were excluded, but it does emphasize that the study's findings won't apply to everyone over the age of 80 who presents with ACS."

"As always, the decision making process needs to be individually tailored," Dr. Psaltis said. "The patient's pre-existing comorbid status, quality of life, cognitive function and personal wishes are all important factors that need to be taken into account."

"Moreover, we should not just consider its potential benefits in terms of whether it will reduce mortality or risk of recurrent infarcts," Dr. Psaltis added. "In certain individuals >90, an invasive approach may be taken to improve quality of life and symptom burden, help to keep patients in independent living at home, or reduce readmission rates to hospital or even

the use of anti-anginal medications that can be associated with debilitating side-effects."

Dr. Paul Erne from the University of Zurich in Switzerland, who heads the steering committee of the Acute Myocardial Infarction in Sweden (AMIS), stressed, "Conservative treatment

does not result in a poor outcome in every patient and we need to know much more about differential approach."

"However, active treatment remains a great option for part of the elderly patients," regardless of age, he told Reuters Health by email. "Please note the increasing number of patients

treated at age above 100 years which proves to be a good option if the patients want to live actively."

Dr. Rahul Potluri, founder of the ACALM (Algorithm for Comorbidities, Associations, Length of Stay and Mortality) Study Unit, Birmingham, U.K., recently reviewed the role of

angioplasty in octogenarian ACS patients.

He told Reuters Health by email, "This study is the most conclusive evidence to date, showing the benefits of an invasive approach in patients above the age of 80 with the most common types of ACS (namely NSTEMI and unstable angina). The findings are most surprising given that both the groups were very similar in terms of patient characteristics and medications taken, thus delineating the true benefit of the invasive strategy in the most controlled fashion and in a short follow-up period."

The study did not have commercial funding and the researchers declared no competing interests.

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - An early invasive strategy provides better outcomes than a conservative strategy in octogenarians with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction

(NSTEMI) or unstable angina, according to the After Eighty clinical trial.

"Management of the very elderly with myocardial infarction (NSTE-ACS) is challenging, because they often present later, have atypical symptoms, and are a more heterogeneous group dueto comorbidities," Dr. Bjorn Bendz and Dr. Nicolai Tegn from Oslo University Hospital in Norway told Reuters Health in a joint email. "These factors may reduce the benefits and increase the risk of complications from invasive treatment."

Large randomized trials have demonstrated the superiority of an invasive strategy in this setting, but patients aged 80 years and over are underrepresented in these studies.

Dr. Bendz and Dr. Tegn and colleagues from 16 hospitals in Norway investigated whether patients aged 80 years or older would benefit from an early invasive strategy versus a

conservative strategy in terms of a composite primary endpoint of MI, need for urgent revascularization, and death.

The invasive strategy (n=229) included early coronary angiography with immediate assessment for ad hoc percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), or optimal medical treatment, whereas the conservative strategy (n=228) included optimal medical treatment alone.

In the invasive group, 107 underwent PCI and six had CABG, the researchers report in The Lancet, online January 12.

During follow-up, patients in the invasive group were significantly less likely to experience the primary endpoint (41% vs. 61%, p=0.0001).

Compared with patients in the conservative-strategy group, those in the invasive-strategy group were 48% less likely to experience MI and 81% less likely to require urgent revascularization. They were also 40% less likely to have a stroke and 11% less likely to die, but these latter differences were not significant.

Minor bleeding complications (but not major bleeding complications) were somewhat more common in the invasive strategy group (10%) than in the conservative strategy group (7%).

"The present results support an invasive strategy in patients over 80 years with NSTEMI and unstable angina," Dr.Bendz and Dr. Tegn said. "However, the efficacy was less with increasing age, and for patients older than 90 years we cannot conclude if an invasive strategy is beneficial. Thus, management of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients over 90 must be individually tailored, considering life expectancy, comorbid illnesses, bleeding risk, cognitive and functional status, and patient preference."

Dr. Peter Psaltis from the University of Adelaide in South Australia, who co-wrote an accompanying editorial, told Reuters Health by email, "The After-80 study now provides the direct

evidence we needed to support this 'early invasive' approach. Given how difficult it is to recruit very elderly patients to clinical studies - and this was reflected by the fact that almost 80% of screened patients were not actually enrolled into After-80 - the investigators deserve credit for taking this study on. Their study is especially important because in developed countries, we see so many 'very old' patients admitted to our cardiology and general medicine wards with ACS."

"In extrapolating the results of After-80 to real-world clinical practice, we firstly have to remember that 70-80% of patients who were screened for this study were ultimately not

enrolled," he reiterated. "There would have been many reasons why so many patients were excluded, but it does emphasize that the study's findings won't apply to everyone over the age of 80 who presents with ACS."

"As always, the decision making process needs to be individually tailored," Dr. Psaltis said. "The patient's pre-existing comorbid status, quality of life, cognitive function and personal wishes are all important factors that need to be taken into account."

"Moreover, we should not just consider its potential benefits in terms of whether it will reduce mortality or risk of recurrent infarcts," Dr. Psaltis added. "In certain individuals >90, an invasive approach may be taken to improve quality of life and symptom burden, help to keep patients in independent living at home, or reduce readmission rates to hospital or even

the use of anti-anginal medications that can be associated with debilitating side-effects."

Dr. Paul Erne from the University of Zurich in Switzerland, who heads the steering committee of the Acute Myocardial Infarction in Sweden (AMIS), stressed, "Conservative treatment

does not result in a poor outcome in every patient and we need to know much more about differential approach."

"However, active treatment remains a great option for part of the elderly patients," regardless of age, he told Reuters Health by email. "Please note the increasing number of patients

treated at age above 100 years which proves to be a good option if the patients want to live actively."

Dr. Rahul Potluri, founder of the ACALM (Algorithm for Comorbidities, Associations, Length of Stay and Mortality) Study Unit, Birmingham, U.K., recently reviewed the role of

angioplasty in octogenarian ACS patients.

He told Reuters Health by email, "This study is the most conclusive evidence to date, showing the benefits of an invasive approach in patients above the age of 80 with the most common types of ACS (namely NSTEMI and unstable angina). The findings are most surprising given that both the groups were very similar in terms of patient characteristics and medications taken, thus delineating the true benefit of the invasive strategy in the most controlled fashion and in a short follow-up period."

The study did not have commercial funding and the researchers declared no competing interests.

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - An early invasive strategy provides better outcomes than a conservative strategy in octogenarians with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction

(NSTEMI) or unstable angina, according to the After Eighty clinical trial.

"Management of the very elderly with myocardial infarction (NSTE-ACS) is challenging, because they often present later, have atypical symptoms, and are a more heterogeneous group dueto comorbidities," Dr. Bjorn Bendz and Dr. Nicolai Tegn from Oslo University Hospital in Norway told Reuters Health in a joint email. "These factors may reduce the benefits and increase the risk of complications from invasive treatment."

Large randomized trials have demonstrated the superiority of an invasive strategy in this setting, but patients aged 80 years and over are underrepresented in these studies.

Dr. Bendz and Dr. Tegn and colleagues from 16 hospitals in Norway investigated whether patients aged 80 years or older would benefit from an early invasive strategy versus a

conservative strategy in terms of a composite primary endpoint of MI, need for urgent revascularization, and death.

The invasive strategy (n=229) included early coronary angiography with immediate assessment for ad hoc percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), or optimal medical treatment, whereas the conservative strategy (n=228) included optimal medical treatment alone.

In the invasive group, 107 underwent PCI and six had CABG, the researchers report in The Lancet, online January 12.

During follow-up, patients in the invasive group were significantly less likely to experience the primary endpoint (41% vs. 61%, p=0.0001).

Compared with patients in the conservative-strategy group, those in the invasive-strategy group were 48% less likely to experience MI and 81% less likely to require urgent revascularization. They were also 40% less likely to have a stroke and 11% less likely to die, but these latter differences were not significant.

Minor bleeding complications (but not major bleeding complications) were somewhat more common in the invasive strategy group (10%) than in the conservative strategy group (7%).

"The present results support an invasive strategy in patients over 80 years with NSTEMI and unstable angina," Dr.Bendz and Dr. Tegn said. "However, the efficacy was less with increasing age, and for patients older than 90 years we cannot conclude if an invasive strategy is beneficial. Thus, management of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients over 90 must be individually tailored, considering life expectancy, comorbid illnesses, bleeding risk, cognitive and functional status, and patient preference."

Dr. Peter Psaltis from the University of Adelaide in South Australia, who co-wrote an accompanying editorial, told Reuters Health by email, "The After-80 study now provides the direct

evidence we needed to support this 'early invasive' approach. Given how difficult it is to recruit very elderly patients to clinical studies - and this was reflected by the fact that almost 80% of screened patients were not actually enrolled into After-80 - the investigators deserve credit for taking this study on. Their study is especially important because in developed countries, we see so many 'very old' patients admitted to our cardiology and general medicine wards with ACS."

"In extrapolating the results of After-80 to real-world clinical practice, we firstly have to remember that 70-80% of patients who were screened for this study were ultimately not

enrolled," he reiterated. "There would have been many reasons why so many patients were excluded, but it does emphasize that the study's findings won't apply to everyone over the age of 80 who presents with ACS."

"As always, the decision making process needs to be individually tailored," Dr. Psaltis said. "The patient's pre-existing comorbid status, quality of life, cognitive function and personal wishes are all important factors that need to be taken into account."

"Moreover, we should not just consider its potential benefits in terms of whether it will reduce mortality or risk of recurrent infarcts," Dr. Psaltis added. "In certain individuals >90, an invasive approach may be taken to improve quality of life and symptom burden, help to keep patients in independent living at home, or reduce readmission rates to hospital or even

the use of anti-anginal medications that can be associated with debilitating side-effects."

Dr. Paul Erne from the University of Zurich in Switzerland, who heads the steering committee of the Acute Myocardial Infarction in Sweden (AMIS), stressed, "Conservative treatment

does not result in a poor outcome in every patient and we need to know much more about differential approach."

"However, active treatment remains a great option for part of the elderly patients," regardless of age, he told Reuters Health by email. "Please note the increasing number of patients

treated at age above 100 years which proves to be a good option if the patients want to live actively."

Dr. Rahul Potluri, founder of the ACALM (Algorithm for Comorbidities, Associations, Length of Stay and Mortality) Study Unit, Birmingham, U.K., recently reviewed the role of

angioplasty in octogenarian ACS patients.

He told Reuters Health by email, "This study is the most conclusive evidence to date, showing the benefits of an invasive approach in patients above the age of 80 with the most common types of ACS (namely NSTEMI and unstable angina). The findings are most surprising given that both the groups were very similar in terms of patient characteristics and medications taken, thus delineating the true benefit of the invasive strategy in the most controlled fashion and in a short follow-up period."

The study did not have commercial funding and the researchers declared no competing interests.

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Rates of kidney stones have increased substantially over the past 20 years, particularly among children, adolescents, females, and blacks, according to a population-based study in South Carolina.

Historically, the highest rates of kidney stone disease have been in middle-aged white men, but the new findings underscore emerging changes in this pattern. Prior studies have found that prevalent kidney stone disease has nearly doubled in the United States over the past two decades. The extent to which specific groups of patients have been affected has been less clear, although there have been reports of increasing frequency of kidney stones among youth.

"My colleagues and I wondered if kidney stones were increasing preferentially among adolescents more than in other age groups," lead researcher Dr. Gregory Tasian, of the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine in Philadelphia, told Reuters Health by email.

To estimate the annual kidney stone incidence in South Carolina in their repeated cross-sectional study, the researchers used U.S. Census data and data from the South Carolina Medical Encounter Data and Financial Reports, which includes information on all surgeries, emergency department visits, and inpatient hospitalizations in the state from 1997 to 2012. Using linear mixed models, they also sought to identify the patient groups in whom the rate of stones has increased the most.

Nearly 153,000 adult and pediatric patients among a state population of about 4.6 million received care for kidney stones from 1997 to 2012, the researchers reported online January 14 in the Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.

The annual incidence increased 16% during that time, with the largest increases occurring in teens, blacks, and women.  Teens 15 to 19 years comprised the age group with the largest increase in incidence of kidney stones from 1997 (an age-specific rate of nearly 80 per 100,000) to 2012 (about 155 per 100,000).

Overall, teens 15 to 19 experienced a 26% increase per five years (incidence rate ratio, 1.26), after adjusting for sex and race. The increase was substantially greater among teen girls,

with an annual incidence 52% higher than for teen boys.

Increases in cumulative risk of kidney stones during childhood were similar for girls (87%) and boys (90%), although the risks in 2012 were "modest," at 0.9% (for girls) and 0.6% (for boys), the researchers say. They note that the "emergence of nephrolithiasis as a disease that begins in childhood is worrisome because there is limited evidence about how to best treat children" with the condition.

After adjusting for age and race, incidence of kidney stones  increased an estimated 15% per five years (IRR, 1.15) among females of all ages during the study period, but was stable among males (IRR, 0.99). The estimated lifetime risk for women increased from 10.5% in 1997 to 15.2% in 2012, but remained unchanged for men at about 23%. Incidence of kidney stones among blacks rose an estimated 15% per five years (IRR, 1.15) during the study period, compared with an estimated 3% among whites (IRR, 1.03).

"We were not surprised by the high occurrence of kidney  stones among adolescents and females (5% and 3% per year), which is consistent with other studies reported to date," Dr. Tasian

said. "We were, however, surprised by how much kidney stones were increasing in African-Americans, as previous studies have not really studied differences in kidney stone occurrence among different racial groups."

Although the study focused on kidney stone disease in South Carolina, it's likely that similar patterns exist across the nation, he said.

"Kidney stones have increased 70% over the last 30 years in adults in the U.S., and we are also seeing higher rates of kidney stones in children across the U.S.," Dr. Tasian said.

However, even though kidney stones are also increasing in many areas in the world, for many reasons, the results should not be generalized beyond the United States, he noted.

"This study is an important step forward in understanding the changing epidemiology of kidney stone disease," Dr. Charles D. Scales, of Duke University Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina, told Reuters Health by email. The underlying causes of the increase are unclear. "In adults, it may be related to the tidal wave of obesity and diabetes in the United States," said Dr. Scales, an expert in kidney stones who was not involved with the study.

These epidemiologic trends provide more support for the concept that "chronic and poorly understood metabolic derangements are likely causing all of these new stones in previously low-risk individuals," he said.

Increased consumption of high-sodium processed food and dehydration also may be contributing factors, he added. "Emerging evidence suggests that a kidney stone may foreshadow future medical problems, such as heart disease, bone density loss, and chronic kidney disease," Dr. Scales said. "So from the public-health perspective, the worst may be yet to come as these teenagers with stones become adults."

The study had no commercial funding and the authors reported no disclosures.

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Rates of kidney stones have increased substantially over the past 20 years, particularly among children, adolescents, females, and blacks, according to a population-based study in South Carolina.

Historically, the highest rates of kidney stone disease have been in middle-aged white men, but the new findings underscore emerging changes in this pattern. Prior studies have found that prevalent kidney stone disease has nearly doubled in the United States over the past two decades. The extent to which specific groups of patients have been affected has been less clear, although there have been reports of increasing frequency of kidney stones among youth.

"My colleagues and I wondered if kidney stones were increasing preferentially among adolescents more than in other age groups," lead researcher Dr. Gregory Tasian, of the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine in Philadelphia, told Reuters Health by email.

To estimate the annual kidney stone incidence in South Carolina in their repeated cross-sectional study, the researchers used U.S. Census data and data from the South Carolina Medical Encounter Data and Financial Reports, which includes information on all surgeries, emergency department visits, and inpatient hospitalizations in the state from 1997 to 2012. Using linear mixed models, they also sought to identify the patient groups in whom the rate of stones has increased the most.

Nearly 153,000 adult and pediatric patients among a state population of about 4.6 million received care for kidney stones from 1997 to 2012, the researchers reported online January 14 in the Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.

The annual incidence increased 16% during that time, with the largest increases occurring in teens, blacks, and women.  Teens 15 to 19 years comprised the age group with the largest increase in incidence of kidney stones from 1997 (an age-specific rate of nearly 80 per 100,000) to 2012 (about 155 per 100,000).

Overall, teens 15 to 19 experienced a 26% increase per five years (incidence rate ratio, 1.26), after adjusting for sex and race. The increase was substantially greater among teen girls,

with an annual incidence 52% higher than for teen boys.

Increases in cumulative risk of kidney stones during childhood were similar for girls (87%) and boys (90%), although the risks in 2012 were "modest," at 0.9% (for girls) and 0.6% (for boys), the researchers say. They note that the "emergence of nephrolithiasis as a disease that begins in childhood is worrisome because there is limited evidence about how to best treat children" with the condition.

After adjusting for age and race, incidence of kidney stones  increased an estimated 15% per five years (IRR, 1.15) among females of all ages during the study period, but was stable among males (IRR, 0.99). The estimated lifetime risk for women increased from 10.5% in 1997 to 15.2% in 2012, but remained unchanged for men at about 23%. Incidence of kidney stones among blacks rose an estimated 15% per five years (IRR, 1.15) during the study period, compared with an estimated 3% among whites (IRR, 1.03).

"We were not surprised by the high occurrence of kidney  stones among adolescents and females (5% and 3% per year), which is consistent with other studies reported to date," Dr. Tasian

said. "We were, however, surprised by how much kidney stones were increasing in African-Americans, as previous studies have not really studied differences in kidney stone occurrence among different racial groups."

Although the study focused on kidney stone disease in South Carolina, it's likely that similar patterns exist across the nation, he said.

"Kidney stones have increased 70% over the last 30 years in adults in the U.S., and we are also seeing higher rates of kidney stones in children across the U.S.," Dr. Tasian said.

However, even though kidney stones are also increasing in many areas in the world, for many reasons, the results should not be generalized beyond the United States, he noted.

"This study is an important step forward in understanding the changing epidemiology of kidney stone disease," Dr. Charles D. Scales, of Duke University Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina, told Reuters Health by email. The underlying causes of the increase are unclear. "In adults, it may be related to the tidal wave of obesity and diabetes in the United States," said Dr. Scales, an expert in kidney stones who was not involved with the study.

These epidemiologic trends provide more support for the concept that "chronic and poorly understood metabolic derangements are likely causing all of these new stones in previously low-risk individuals," he said.

Increased consumption of high-sodium processed food and dehydration also may be contributing factors, he added. "Emerging evidence suggests that a kidney stone may foreshadow future medical problems, such as heart disease, bone density loss, and chronic kidney disease," Dr. Scales said. "So from the public-health perspective, the worst may be yet to come as these teenagers with stones become adults."

The study had no commercial funding and the authors reported no disclosures.

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Rates of kidney stones have increased substantially over the past 20 years, particularly among children, adolescents, females, and blacks, according to a population-based study in South Carolina.

Historically, the highest rates of kidney stone disease have been in middle-aged white men, but the new findings underscore emerging changes in this pattern. Prior studies have found that prevalent kidney stone disease has nearly doubled in the United States over the past two decades. The extent to which specific groups of patients have been affected has been less clear, although there have been reports of increasing frequency of kidney stones among youth.

"My colleagues and I wondered if kidney stones were increasing preferentially among adolescents more than in other age groups," lead researcher Dr. Gregory Tasian, of the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine in Philadelphia, told Reuters Health by email.

To estimate the annual kidney stone incidence in South Carolina in their repeated cross-sectional study, the researchers used U.S. Census data and data from the South Carolina Medical Encounter Data and Financial Reports, which includes information on all surgeries, emergency department visits, and inpatient hospitalizations in the state from 1997 to 2012. Using linear mixed models, they also sought to identify the patient groups in whom the rate of stones has increased the most.

Nearly 153,000 adult and pediatric patients among a state population of about 4.6 million received care for kidney stones from 1997 to 2012, the researchers reported online January 14 in the Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology.

The annual incidence increased 16% during that time, with the largest increases occurring in teens, blacks, and women.  Teens 15 to 19 years comprised the age group with the largest increase in incidence of kidney stones from 1997 (an age-specific rate of nearly 80 per 100,000) to 2012 (about 155 per 100,000).

Overall, teens 15 to 19 experienced a 26% increase per five years (incidence rate ratio, 1.26), after adjusting for sex and race. The increase was substantially greater among teen girls,

with an annual incidence 52% higher than for teen boys.

Increases in cumulative risk of kidney stones during childhood were similar for girls (87%) and boys (90%), although the risks in 2012 were "modest," at 0.9% (for girls) and 0.6% (for boys), the researchers say. They note that the "emergence of nephrolithiasis as a disease that begins in childhood is worrisome because there is limited evidence about how to best treat children" with the condition.

After adjusting for age and race, incidence of kidney stones  increased an estimated 15% per five years (IRR, 1.15) among females of all ages during the study period, but was stable among males (IRR, 0.99). The estimated lifetime risk for women increased from 10.5% in 1997 to 15.2% in 2012, but remained unchanged for men at about 23%. Incidence of kidney stones among blacks rose an estimated 15% per five years (IRR, 1.15) during the study period, compared with an estimated 3% among whites (IRR, 1.03).

"We were not surprised by the high occurrence of kidney  stones among adolescents and females (5% and 3% per year), which is consistent with other studies reported to date," Dr. Tasian

said. "We were, however, surprised by how much kidney stones were increasing in African-Americans, as previous studies have not really studied differences in kidney stone occurrence among different racial groups."

Although the study focused on kidney stone disease in South Carolina, it's likely that similar patterns exist across the nation, he said.

"Kidney stones have increased 70% over the last 30 years in adults in the U.S., and we are also seeing higher rates of kidney stones in children across the U.S.," Dr. Tasian said.

However, even though kidney stones are also increasing in many areas in the world, for many reasons, the results should not be generalized beyond the United States, he noted.

"This study is an important step forward in understanding the changing epidemiology of kidney stone disease," Dr. Charles D. Scales, of Duke University Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina, told Reuters Health by email. The underlying causes of the increase are unclear. "In adults, it may be related to the tidal wave of obesity and diabetes in the United States," said Dr. Scales, an expert in kidney stones who was not involved with the study.

These epidemiologic trends provide more support for the concept that "chronic and poorly understood metabolic derangements are likely causing all of these new stones in previously low-risk individuals," he said.

Increased consumption of high-sodium processed food and dehydration also may be contributing factors, he added. "Emerging evidence suggests that a kidney stone may foreshadow future medical problems, such as heart disease, bone density loss, and chronic kidney disease," Dr. Scales said. "So from the public-health perspective, the worst may be yet to come as these teenagers with stones become adults."

The study had no commercial funding and the authors reported no disclosures.

Clinical question: Have the Choosing Wisely campaign recommendations led to changes in practice?

Background: The Choosing Wisely campaign aims to reduce the incidence of low-value care by providing evidence-based recommendations for common clinical situations. The rate of adoption of these recommendations is unknown.

Study design: Retrospective review.

Setting: Anthem insurance members.

Synopsis: The study examined the claims data from 25 million Anthem insurance members to compare the rate of services that were targeted by seven Choosing Wisely campaign recommendations before and after the recommendations were published in 2012.

Investigators found the incidence of two of the services declined after the Choosing Wisely recommendations were published; the other five services remained stable or increased slightly. Furthermore, the declines were statistically significant but not a marked absolute difference, with the incidence of head imaging in patients with uncomplicated headaches going down to 13.4% from 14.9% and the use of cardiac imaging in the absence of cardiac disease declining to 9.7% from 10.8%.

The main limitations are the narrow population of Anthem insurance members and the lack of specific data that could help answer why clinical practice has not changed, but that could be the aim of future studies.

Bottom line: Choosing Wisely recommendations have not been adopted on a population level; widespread implementation likely will require financial incentives, provider-level data feedback, and systems interventions.

Citation: Rosenberg A, Agiro A, Gottlieb M, et al. Early trends among seven recommendations from the Choosing Wisely campaign. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(12):1913-1920. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.5441.

Clinical question: Have the Choosing Wisely campaign recommendations led to changes in practice?

Background: The Choosing Wisely campaign aims to reduce the incidence of low-value care by providing evidence-based recommendations for common clinical situations. The rate of adoption of these recommendations is unknown.

Study design: Retrospective review.

Setting: Anthem insurance members.

Synopsis: The study examined the claims data from 25 million Anthem insurance members to compare the rate of services that were targeted by seven Choosing Wisely campaign recommendations before and after the recommendations were published in 2012.

Investigators found the incidence of two of the services declined after the Choosing Wisely recommendations were published; the other five services remained stable or increased slightly. Furthermore, the declines were statistically significant but not a marked absolute difference, with the incidence of head imaging in patients with uncomplicated headaches going down to 13.4% from 14.9% and the use of cardiac imaging in the absence of cardiac disease declining to 9.7% from 10.8%.

The main limitations are the narrow population of Anthem insurance members and the lack of specific data that could help answer why clinical practice has not changed, but that could be the aim of future studies.

Bottom line: Choosing Wisely recommendations have not been adopted on a population level; widespread implementation likely will require financial incentives, provider-level data feedback, and systems interventions.

Citation: Rosenberg A, Agiro A, Gottlieb M, et al. Early trends among seven recommendations from the Choosing Wisely campaign. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(12):1913-1920. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.5441.

Clinical question: Have the Choosing Wisely campaign recommendations led to changes in practice?

Background: The Choosing Wisely campaign aims to reduce the incidence of low-value care by providing evidence-based recommendations for common clinical situations. The rate of adoption of these recommendations is unknown.

Study design: Retrospective review.

Setting: Anthem insurance members.

Synopsis: The study examined the claims data from 25 million Anthem insurance members to compare the rate of services that were targeted by seven Choosing Wisely campaign recommendations before and after the recommendations were published in 2012.

Investigators found the incidence of two of the services declined after the Choosing Wisely recommendations were published; the other five services remained stable or increased slightly. Furthermore, the declines were statistically significant but not a marked absolute difference, with the incidence of head imaging in patients with uncomplicated headaches going down to 13.4% from 14.9% and the use of cardiac imaging in the absence of cardiac disease declining to 9.7% from 10.8%.

The main limitations are the narrow population of Anthem insurance members and the lack of specific data that could help answer why clinical practice has not changed, but that could be the aim of future studies.

Bottom line: Choosing Wisely recommendations have not been adopted on a population level; widespread implementation likely will require financial incentives, provider-level data feedback, and systems interventions.

Citation: Rosenberg A, Agiro A, Gottlieb M, et al. Early trends among seven recommendations from the Choosing Wisely campaign. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(12):1913-1920. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.5441.

Case No. 1

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

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

Case No. 2

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

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

Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

References

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

Case No. 1

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

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

Case No. 2

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

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

Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

References

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

Case No. 1

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

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

Case No. 2

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

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

Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 1.

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

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

Study design: Retrospective cohort analysis.

Setting: University of Chicago Medical Center.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Study design: Retrospective cohort analysis.

Setting: University of Chicago Medical Center.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Study design: Retrospective cohort analysis.

Setting: University of Chicago Medical Center.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Study design: Retrospective cohort.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Study design: Retrospective cohort.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Study design: Retrospective cohort.

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

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

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

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

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