Patient Care

Clinical question: What is the value of ultra-brief cognitive assessments in predicting hospital outcomes?

Background: Cognitive assessment tools can be used to predict patient outcomes in the hospital setting. Physician time constraints limit use of longer traditional cognitive testing, and little is known about the effectiveness of ultra-brief (less than one minute) assessments and their predictive value.

Study design: Secondary data analysis of a quality improvement project.

Setting: Tertiary, Veterans Administration hospital.

Synopsis: Using data from a prior inpatient database, 3,232 patients over the age of 60 were screened on admission using the modified Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale (mRASS) for arousal and the months of the year backwards (MOTYB) for attention. Abnormal mRASS and incorrect MOTYB predicted negative hospital outcomes: increased length of stay (incident rate ratio 1.23, 95% CI 1.17-1.3); increased restraint use (risk ratio 5.05, 95% CI); increased hospital mortality (RR 3.46, 95% CI 1.24-9.63); and decreased rates of being discharged home (RR 2.97, 95% CI: 2.42-3.64).

This study highlights the value of two ultra-brief cognitive assessment tools in the prediction of potential poor outcomes during inpatient admission. Hospitalists need to identify high-risk patients, and these tools allow for rapid assessment at the time of admission, without a significant time constraint for the busy hospitalist.

Bottom Line: The use of ultra-brief cognitive assessment tools in patients over age 60 can predict negative inpatient outcomes.

Citation: Yevchak AM, Doherty K, Archambault EG, Kelly B, Fonda JR, Rudolph JL. The association between an ultra-brief cognitive screening in older adults and hospital outcomes. J Hosp Med. 2015;10(10):651-657.

Clinical question: What is the value of ultra-brief cognitive assessments in predicting hospital outcomes?

Background: Cognitive assessment tools can be used to predict patient outcomes in the hospital setting. Physician time constraints limit use of longer traditional cognitive testing, and little is known about the effectiveness of ultra-brief (less than one minute) assessments and their predictive value.

Study design: Secondary data analysis of a quality improvement project.

Setting: Tertiary, Veterans Administration hospital.

Synopsis: Using data from a prior inpatient database, 3,232 patients over the age of 60 were screened on admission using the modified Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale (mRASS) for arousal and the months of the year backwards (MOTYB) for attention. Abnormal mRASS and incorrect MOTYB predicted negative hospital outcomes: increased length of stay (incident rate ratio 1.23, 95% CI 1.17-1.3); increased restraint use (risk ratio 5.05, 95% CI); increased hospital mortality (RR 3.46, 95% CI 1.24-9.63); and decreased rates of being discharged home (RR 2.97, 95% CI: 2.42-3.64).

This study highlights the value of two ultra-brief cognitive assessment tools in the prediction of potential poor outcomes during inpatient admission. Hospitalists need to identify high-risk patients, and these tools allow for rapid assessment at the time of admission, without a significant time constraint for the busy hospitalist.

Bottom Line: The use of ultra-brief cognitive assessment tools in patients over age 60 can predict negative inpatient outcomes.

Citation: Yevchak AM, Doherty K, Archambault EG, Kelly B, Fonda JR, Rudolph JL. The association between an ultra-brief cognitive screening in older adults and hospital outcomes. J Hosp Med. 2015;10(10):651-657.

Clinical question: What is the value of ultra-brief cognitive assessments in predicting hospital outcomes?

Background: Cognitive assessment tools can be used to predict patient outcomes in the hospital setting. Physician time constraints limit use of longer traditional cognitive testing, and little is known about the effectiveness of ultra-brief (less than one minute) assessments and their predictive value.

Study design: Secondary data analysis of a quality improvement project.

Setting: Tertiary, Veterans Administration hospital.

Synopsis: Using data from a prior inpatient database, 3,232 patients over the age of 60 were screened on admission using the modified Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale (mRASS) for arousal and the months of the year backwards (MOTYB) for attention. Abnormal mRASS and incorrect MOTYB predicted negative hospital outcomes: increased length of stay (incident rate ratio 1.23, 95% CI 1.17-1.3); increased restraint use (risk ratio 5.05, 95% CI); increased hospital mortality (RR 3.46, 95% CI 1.24-9.63); and decreased rates of being discharged home (RR 2.97, 95% CI: 2.42-3.64).

This study highlights the value of two ultra-brief cognitive assessment tools in the prediction of potential poor outcomes during inpatient admission. Hospitalists need to identify high-risk patients, and these tools allow for rapid assessment at the time of admission, without a significant time constraint for the busy hospitalist.

Bottom Line: The use of ultra-brief cognitive assessment tools in patients over age 60 can predict negative inpatient outcomes.

Citation: Yevchak AM, Doherty K, Archambault EG, Kelly B, Fonda JR, Rudolph JL. The association between an ultra-brief cognitive screening in older adults and hospital outcomes. J Hosp Med. 2015;10(10):651-657.

Clinical question: What are criteria for appropriate and inappropriate use of PICCs?

Background: PICCs are commonly used in medical care in a variety of clinical contexts; however, criteria defining the appropriate use of PICCs and practices related to PICC placement have not been previously established.

Study design: A multispecialty panel classified indications for PICC use as appropriate or inappropriate using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method.

Synopsis: Selected appropriate PICC uses include:

• Infusion of peripherally compatible infusates, intermittent infusions, or infrequent phlebotomy in patients with poor or difficult venous access when the expected duration of use is at least six days;
• Phlebotomy at least every eight hours when the expected duration of use is at least six days; and
• Invasive hemodynamic monitoring in a critically ill patient only if the duration of use is expected to exceed 15 days.

  Selected appropriate PICC-related practices:

• Verify PICC tip position using a chest radiograph only after non-ECG or non-fluoroscopically guided PICC insertion;
• Provide an interval without a PICC to allow resolution of bacteremia when managing PICC-related bloodstream infections; and
• For PICC-related DVT, provide at least three months of systemic anticoagulation if not otherwise contraindicated.

Selected inappropriate PICC-related practices:

• Adjustment of PICC tips that reside in the lower third of the superior vena cava, cavoatrial junction, or right atrium; and
• Removal or replacement of PICCs that are clinically necessary, well positioned, and functional in the setting of PICC-related DVT or without evidence of catheter-associated bloodstream infection.

Bottom line: A multispecialty expert panel provides guidance for appropriate use of PICCs and PICC-related practices.

Citation: Chopra V, Flanders SA, Saint S, et al. The Michigan appropriateness guide for intravenous catheters (MAGIC): results from a multispecialty panel using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method. Ann Intern Med. 2015;163(6):S1-S40.

Clinical question: What are criteria for appropriate and inappropriate use of PICCs?

Background: PICCs are commonly used in medical care in a variety of clinical contexts; however, criteria defining the appropriate use of PICCs and practices related to PICC placement have not been previously established.

Study design: A multispecialty panel classified indications for PICC use as appropriate or inappropriate using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method.

Synopsis: Selected appropriate PICC uses include:

• Infusion of peripherally compatible infusates, intermittent infusions, or infrequent phlebotomy in patients with poor or difficult venous access when the expected duration of use is at least six days;
• Phlebotomy at least every eight hours when the expected duration of use is at least six days; and
• Invasive hemodynamic monitoring in a critically ill patient only if the duration of use is expected to exceed 15 days.

  Selected appropriate PICC-related practices:

• Verify PICC tip position using a chest radiograph only after non-ECG or non-fluoroscopically guided PICC insertion;
• Provide an interval without a PICC to allow resolution of bacteremia when managing PICC-related bloodstream infections; and
• For PICC-related DVT, provide at least three months of systemic anticoagulation if not otherwise contraindicated.

Selected inappropriate PICC-related practices:

• Adjustment of PICC tips that reside in the lower third of the superior vena cava, cavoatrial junction, or right atrium; and
• Removal or replacement of PICCs that are clinically necessary, well positioned, and functional in the setting of PICC-related DVT or without evidence of catheter-associated bloodstream infection.

Bottom line: A multispecialty expert panel provides guidance for appropriate use of PICCs and PICC-related practices.

Citation: Chopra V, Flanders SA, Saint S, et al. The Michigan appropriateness guide for intravenous catheters (MAGIC): results from a multispecialty panel using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method. Ann Intern Med. 2015;163(6):S1-S40.

Clinical question: What are criteria for appropriate and inappropriate use of PICCs?

Background: PICCs are commonly used in medical care in a variety of clinical contexts; however, criteria defining the appropriate use of PICCs and practices related to PICC placement have not been previously established.

Study design: A multispecialty panel classified indications for PICC use as appropriate or inappropriate using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method.

Synopsis: Selected appropriate PICC uses include:

• Infusion of peripherally compatible infusates, intermittent infusions, or infrequent phlebotomy in patients with poor or difficult venous access when the expected duration of use is at least six days;
• Phlebotomy at least every eight hours when the expected duration of use is at least six days; and
• Invasive hemodynamic monitoring in a critically ill patient only if the duration of use is expected to exceed 15 days.

  Selected appropriate PICC-related practices:

• Verify PICC tip position using a chest radiograph only after non-ECG or non-fluoroscopically guided PICC insertion;
• Provide an interval without a PICC to allow resolution of bacteremia when managing PICC-related bloodstream infections; and
• For PICC-related DVT, provide at least three months of systemic anticoagulation if not otherwise contraindicated.

Selected inappropriate PICC-related practices:

• Adjustment of PICC tips that reside in the lower third of the superior vena cava, cavoatrial junction, or right atrium; and
• Removal or replacement of PICCs that are clinically necessary, well positioned, and functional in the setting of PICC-related DVT or without evidence of catheter-associated bloodstream infection.

Bottom line: A multispecialty expert panel provides guidance for appropriate use of PICCs and PICC-related practices.

Citation: Chopra V, Flanders SA, Saint S, et al. The Michigan appropriateness guide for intravenous catheters (MAGIC): results from a multispecialty panel using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method. Ann Intern Med. 2015;163(6):S1-S40.

Clinical question: What are best practices for evaluating patients with suspected acute pulmonary embolism (PE)?

Background: Use of CT in the evaluation of PE has increased across all clinical settings without improving mortality. Contrast CT carries the risks of radiation exposure, contrast-induced nephropathy, and incidental findings that require further investigation. The authors highlight evidence-based strategies for evaluation of PE, focusing on delivering high-value care.

Study design: Clinical guideline.

Setting: Literature review of studies across all adult clinical settings.

Synopsis: The clinical guidelines committee of the American College of Physicians conducted a literature search surrounding evaluation of suspected acute PE. From their review, they concluded:

• Pretest probability should initially be determined based on validated prediction tools (Wells score, Revised Geneva);
• In patients found to have low pretest probability and meeting the pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria (PERC), clinicians can forego d-dimer testing;
• In those with intermediate pretest probability or those with low pre-test probability who do not pass PERC, d-dimer measurement should be obtained;
• The d-dimer threshold should be age adjusted and imaging should not be pursued in patients whose d-dimer level falls below this cutoff, while those with positive d-dimers should receive CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA); and
• Patients with high pretest probability should undergo CTPA (or V/Q scan if CTPA is contraindicated) without d-dimer testing.

Bottom line: In suspected acute PE, first determine pretest probability using Wells and Revised Geneva, and then use this probability in conjunction with the PERC and d-dimer (as indicated) to guide decisions about imaging.

Citation: Raja AS, Greenberg JO, Qaseem A, Denberg TD, Fitterman N, Schuur JD. Evaluation of patients with suspected acute pulmonary embolism: best practice advice from the clinical guidelines committee of the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2015;163(9):701-711.

Clinical question: What are best practices for evaluating patients with suspected acute pulmonary embolism (PE)?

Background: Use of CT in the evaluation of PE has increased across all clinical settings without improving mortality. Contrast CT carries the risks of radiation exposure, contrast-induced nephropathy, and incidental findings that require further investigation. The authors highlight evidence-based strategies for evaluation of PE, focusing on delivering high-value care.

Study design: Clinical guideline.

Setting: Literature review of studies across all adult clinical settings.

Synopsis: The clinical guidelines committee of the American College of Physicians conducted a literature search surrounding evaluation of suspected acute PE. From their review, they concluded:

• Pretest probability should initially be determined based on validated prediction tools (Wells score, Revised Geneva);
• In patients found to have low pretest probability and meeting the pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria (PERC), clinicians can forego d-dimer testing;
• In those with intermediate pretest probability or those with low pre-test probability who do not pass PERC, d-dimer measurement should be obtained;
• The d-dimer threshold should be age adjusted and imaging should not be pursued in patients whose d-dimer level falls below this cutoff, while those with positive d-dimers should receive CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA); and
• Patients with high pretest probability should undergo CTPA (or V/Q scan if CTPA is contraindicated) without d-dimer testing.

Bottom line: In suspected acute PE, first determine pretest probability using Wells and Revised Geneva, and then use this probability in conjunction with the PERC and d-dimer (as indicated) to guide decisions about imaging.

Citation: Raja AS, Greenberg JO, Qaseem A, Denberg TD, Fitterman N, Schuur JD. Evaluation of patients with suspected acute pulmonary embolism: best practice advice from the clinical guidelines committee of the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2015;163(9):701-711.

Clinical question: What are best practices for evaluating patients with suspected acute pulmonary embolism (PE)?

Background: Use of CT in the evaluation of PE has increased across all clinical settings without improving mortality. Contrast CT carries the risks of radiation exposure, contrast-induced nephropathy, and incidental findings that require further investigation. The authors highlight evidence-based strategies for evaluation of PE, focusing on delivering high-value care.

Study design: Clinical guideline.

Setting: Literature review of studies across all adult clinical settings.

Synopsis: The clinical guidelines committee of the American College of Physicians conducted a literature search surrounding evaluation of suspected acute PE. From their review, they concluded:

• Pretest probability should initially be determined based on validated prediction tools (Wells score, Revised Geneva);
• In patients found to have low pretest probability and meeting the pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria (PERC), clinicians can forego d-dimer testing;
• In those with intermediate pretest probability or those with low pre-test probability who do not pass PERC, d-dimer measurement should be obtained;
• The d-dimer threshold should be age adjusted and imaging should not be pursued in patients whose d-dimer level falls below this cutoff, while those with positive d-dimers should receive CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA); and
• Patients with high pretest probability should undergo CTPA (or V/Q scan if CTPA is contraindicated) without d-dimer testing.

Bottom line: In suspected acute PE, first determine pretest probability using Wells and Revised Geneva, and then use this probability in conjunction with the PERC and d-dimer (as indicated) to guide decisions about imaging.

Citation: Raja AS, Greenberg JO, Qaseem A, Denberg TD, Fitterman N, Schuur JD. Evaluation of patients with suspected acute pulmonary embolism: best practice advice from the clinical guidelines committee of the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2015;163(9):701-711.

Clinical question: Does time to consult after admission change the effect palliative care consultation has on cost of care?

Background: Studies have shown that early palliative care involvement improves quality of life and survival among cancer patients while reducing the cost of care. Little is known about the optimal timing of palliative care consultation and its effect on cost.

Study design: Prospective, observational study.

Setting: Multi-site, high-volume, tertiary care hospitals with established palliative care teams.

Synopsis: Clinical and cost data were collected for 969 adult patients with advanced cancer admitted to the five participating hospitals. Among those, 256 patients received palliative care consultation and 713 received usual care. Subsamples were created based on time to consultation after admission.

The study found that earlier consultation yielded larger effects on cost savings. There was a 24% reduction in total cost if consultation occurred within two days (95% CI, -$3,438 to -$1,122; P<0.001), with estimated savings of $2,280. For consultation within six days of admission, there was a $1,312 savings (95% CI, -$2,568 to -$ 1,122; P<0.04), consistent with a 14% reduction in total cost.

There are notable limitations to this study. Half of eligible patients were excluded due to incomplete data collection, resulting in a small sample size. Further, these results can be generalized only to inpatients with advanced cancer.

Bottom line: Reducing the time to consultation with palliative care increases cost savings. In advanced cancer patients, a 24% reduction in total costs was realized for consultation within two days following admission.

Citation: May P, Garrido MM, Cassel JB, et al. Prospective cohort study of hospital palliative care teams for inpatients with advanced cancer: earlier consultation is associated with larger cost-saving effect. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(25):2745-2752.

Clinical question: Does time to consult after admission change the effect palliative care consultation has on cost of care?

Background: Studies have shown that early palliative care involvement improves quality of life and survival among cancer patients while reducing the cost of care. Little is known about the optimal timing of palliative care consultation and its effect on cost.

Study design: Prospective, observational study.

Setting: Multi-site, high-volume, tertiary care hospitals with established palliative care teams.

Synopsis: Clinical and cost data were collected for 969 adult patients with advanced cancer admitted to the five participating hospitals. Among those, 256 patients received palliative care consultation and 713 received usual care. Subsamples were created based on time to consultation after admission.

The study found that earlier consultation yielded larger effects on cost savings. There was a 24% reduction in total cost if consultation occurred within two days (95% CI, -$3,438 to -$1,122; P<0.001), with estimated savings of $2,280. For consultation within six days of admission, there was a $1,312 savings (95% CI, -$2,568 to -$ 1,122; P<0.04), consistent with a 14% reduction in total cost.

There are notable limitations to this study. Half of eligible patients were excluded due to incomplete data collection, resulting in a small sample size. Further, these results can be generalized only to inpatients with advanced cancer.

Bottom line: Reducing the time to consultation with palliative care increases cost savings. In advanced cancer patients, a 24% reduction in total costs was realized for consultation within two days following admission.

Citation: May P, Garrido MM, Cassel JB, et al. Prospective cohort study of hospital palliative care teams for inpatients with advanced cancer: earlier consultation is associated with larger cost-saving effect. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(25):2745-2752.

Clinical question: Does time to consult after admission change the effect palliative care consultation has on cost of care?

Background: Studies have shown that early palliative care involvement improves quality of life and survival among cancer patients while reducing the cost of care. Little is known about the optimal timing of palliative care consultation and its effect on cost.

Study design: Prospective, observational study.

Setting: Multi-site, high-volume, tertiary care hospitals with established palliative care teams.

Synopsis: Clinical and cost data were collected for 969 adult patients with advanced cancer admitted to the five participating hospitals. Among those, 256 patients received palliative care consultation and 713 received usual care. Subsamples were created based on time to consultation after admission.

The study found that earlier consultation yielded larger effects on cost savings. There was a 24% reduction in total cost if consultation occurred within two days (95% CI, -$3,438 to -$1,122; P<0.001), with estimated savings of $2,280. For consultation within six days of admission, there was a $1,312 savings (95% CI, -$2,568 to -$ 1,122; P<0.04), consistent with a 14% reduction in total cost.

There are notable limitations to this study. Half of eligible patients were excluded due to incomplete data collection, resulting in a small sample size. Further, these results can be generalized only to inpatients with advanced cancer.

Bottom line: Reducing the time to consultation with palliative care increases cost savings. In advanced cancer patients, a 24% reduction in total costs was realized for consultation within two days following admission.

Citation: May P, Garrido MM, Cassel JB, et al. Prospective cohort study of hospital palliative care teams for inpatients with advanced cancer: earlier consultation is associated with larger cost-saving effect. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(25):2745-2752.

Clinical question: How does parental perception of overnight pediatric inpatient care affect the overall patient experience?

Background: Restrictions on resident duty hours have become progressively more stringent as attention to the effects of resident fatigue on patient safety has increased. In 2011, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) limited total weekly duty hours to 80 and reduced shifts for junior trainees to a maximum of 16 hours. As a result, a majority of teaching hospitals have instituted “night float,” or night team models, for overnight coverage of pediatric inpatients. The rapid adoption of night float inpatient coverage models has raised concerns about training residents in a structure that may not foster patient ownership and may promote shift worker mentality. Although communication between healthcare providers and patients/caregivers is known to be a key driver of patient satisfaction, little is known about the quality of communication overnight in the era of night float teams.

Study design: Prospective cohort study utilizing survey methodology.

Setting: Two general pediatric units at a 395-bed, urban, freestanding children’s teaching hospital.

Synopsis: A randomly selected subset of children (0-17 years) with English-speaking parents/caregivers admitted to two general pediatric units was studied over an 18-month period. Both general pediatric and subspecialty service patients, including adolescent, immunology, hematology, and rheumatology, were included. Researchers administered written surveys on weekday (Monday-Thursday) evenings prior to discharge, and surveys were collected either later that evening or in the morning. The surveys included 29 questions that used a five-point Likert scale to assess communication and experience.

These questions covered the following constructs:

1. Parent understanding of the medical plan;
2. Parent communication and experience with nighttime doctors;
3. Parent communication and experience with nighttime nurses;
4. Parent perceptions of nighttime interactions between doctors and nurses; and
5. Parent overall experience of care during hospitalization.

An open question addressing whether parents had anything else to share about communication during the hospitalization was included. The primary outcome measure was the so-called “top-box” rating of overall experience of care during the hospitalization (from construct five). This outcome was dichotomous based on whether the parent had given the highest rating or not for all five questions in that construct (either “excellent” or “strongly agree”).

A top-box rating of overall experience of care was found to be associated with high mean construct scores regarding communication and experience with doctors (4.85) and nurses (4.87). Top-box overall experience ratings were also associated with top ratings for coordination between daytime and nighttime nurses and for teamwork between nighttime doctors and nurses. Multivariable analysis showed that parents’ rating of direct communications with doctors and nurses and perceived teamwork and communication between doctors and nurses were significant predictors of top-box overall experience.

Bottom line: Parents’ perceptions of direct communications with nighttime doctors and nurses and their perceived teamwork and communication were strong predictors of overall experience of care during pediatric hospitalization.

Citation: Khan A, Rogers JE, Melvin P, et al. Physician and nurse nighttime communication and parents’ hospital experience. Pediatrics. 2015;136(5):e1249-1258.

---

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

Clinical question: How does parental perception of overnight pediatric inpatient care affect the overall patient experience?

Background: Restrictions on resident duty hours have become progressively more stringent as attention to the effects of resident fatigue on patient safety has increased. In 2011, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) limited total weekly duty hours to 80 and reduced shifts for junior trainees to a maximum of 16 hours. As a result, a majority of teaching hospitals have instituted “night float,” or night team models, for overnight coverage of pediatric inpatients. The rapid adoption of night float inpatient coverage models has raised concerns about training residents in a structure that may not foster patient ownership and may promote shift worker mentality. Although communication between healthcare providers and patients/caregivers is known to be a key driver of patient satisfaction, little is known about the quality of communication overnight in the era of night float teams.

Study design: Prospective cohort study utilizing survey methodology.

Setting: Two general pediatric units at a 395-bed, urban, freestanding children’s teaching hospital.

Synopsis: A randomly selected subset of children (0-17 years) with English-speaking parents/caregivers admitted to two general pediatric units was studied over an 18-month period. Both general pediatric and subspecialty service patients, including adolescent, immunology, hematology, and rheumatology, were included. Researchers administered written surveys on weekday (Monday-Thursday) evenings prior to discharge, and surveys were collected either later that evening or in the morning. The surveys included 29 questions that used a five-point Likert scale to assess communication and experience.

These questions covered the following constructs:

1. Parent understanding of the medical plan;
2. Parent communication and experience with nighttime doctors;
3. Parent communication and experience with nighttime nurses;
4. Parent perceptions of nighttime interactions between doctors and nurses; and
5. Parent overall experience of care during hospitalization.

An open question addressing whether parents had anything else to share about communication during the hospitalization was included. The primary outcome measure was the so-called “top-box” rating of overall experience of care during the hospitalization (from construct five). This outcome was dichotomous based on whether the parent had given the highest rating or not for all five questions in that construct (either “excellent” or “strongly agree”).

A top-box rating of overall experience of care was found to be associated with high mean construct scores regarding communication and experience with doctors (4.85) and nurses (4.87). Top-box overall experience ratings were also associated with top ratings for coordination between daytime and nighttime nurses and for teamwork between nighttime doctors and nurses. Multivariable analysis showed that parents’ rating of direct communications with doctors and nurses and perceived teamwork and communication between doctors and nurses were significant predictors of top-box overall experience.

Bottom line: Parents’ perceptions of direct communications with nighttime doctors and nurses and their perceived teamwork and communication were strong predictors of overall experience of care during pediatric hospitalization.

Citation: Khan A, Rogers JE, Melvin P, et al. Physician and nurse nighttime communication and parents’ hospital experience. Pediatrics. 2015;136(5):e1249-1258.

---

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

Clinical question: How does parental perception of overnight pediatric inpatient care affect the overall patient experience?

Background: Restrictions on resident duty hours have become progressively more stringent as attention to the effects of resident fatigue on patient safety has increased. In 2011, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) limited total weekly duty hours to 80 and reduced shifts for junior trainees to a maximum of 16 hours. As a result, a majority of teaching hospitals have instituted “night float,” or night team models, for overnight coverage of pediatric inpatients. The rapid adoption of night float inpatient coverage models has raised concerns about training residents in a structure that may not foster patient ownership and may promote shift worker mentality. Although communication between healthcare providers and patients/caregivers is known to be a key driver of patient satisfaction, little is known about the quality of communication overnight in the era of night float teams.

Study design: Prospective cohort study utilizing survey methodology.

Setting: Two general pediatric units at a 395-bed, urban, freestanding children’s teaching hospital.

Synopsis: A randomly selected subset of children (0-17 years) with English-speaking parents/caregivers admitted to two general pediatric units was studied over an 18-month period. Both general pediatric and subspecialty service patients, including adolescent, immunology, hematology, and rheumatology, were included. Researchers administered written surveys on weekday (Monday-Thursday) evenings prior to discharge, and surveys were collected either later that evening or in the morning. The surveys included 29 questions that used a five-point Likert scale to assess communication and experience.

These questions covered the following constructs:

1. Parent understanding of the medical plan;
2. Parent communication and experience with nighttime doctors;
3. Parent communication and experience with nighttime nurses;
4. Parent perceptions of nighttime interactions between doctors and nurses; and
5. Parent overall experience of care during hospitalization.

An open question addressing whether parents had anything else to share about communication during the hospitalization was included. The primary outcome measure was the so-called “top-box” rating of overall experience of care during the hospitalization (from construct five). This outcome was dichotomous based on whether the parent had given the highest rating or not for all five questions in that construct (either “excellent” or “strongly agree”).

A top-box rating of overall experience of care was found to be associated with high mean construct scores regarding communication and experience with doctors (4.85) and nurses (4.87). Top-box overall experience ratings were also associated with top ratings for coordination between daytime and nighttime nurses and for teamwork between nighttime doctors and nurses. Multivariable analysis showed that parents’ rating of direct communications with doctors and nurses and perceived teamwork and communication between doctors and nurses were significant predictors of top-box overall experience.

Bottom line: Parents’ perceptions of direct communications with nighttime doctors and nurses and their perceived teamwork and communication were strong predictors of overall experience of care during pediatric hospitalization.

Citation: Khan A, Rogers JE, Melvin P, et al. Physician and nurse nighttime communication and parents’ hospital experience. Pediatrics. 2015;136(5):e1249-1258.

---

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

Clinical questions: Are antipsychotics for the treatment of delirium safe and effective? Does efficacy differ between ICU and non-ICU settings? Does efficacy differ between first- and second-generation antipsychotics (SGA)?

Background: Delirium is common in hospitalized patients. Data are mixed about the use of antipsychotics for treatment of delirium, and safety concerns are well founded. A 2007 Cochrane review failed to show compelling evidence for their efficacy, yet they remain widely used for this purpose.

Study design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Setting: Fifteen RCTs of adults with delirium.

Synopsis: The primary outcome measure was response rate at the study endpoint, defined using severity of delirium and global scales.

In a comparison of pooled or individual antipsychotics vs. placebo or usual care (UC), antipsychotics were found to be superior, with a response rate of 0.22 (95% CI, 0.15-0.34, P<.00001), NNT=2. Subgroup analysis revealed this superiority to be greater in non-ICU settings, with ICU antipsychotic use only marginally better than UC. Antipsychotics were superior in time to response (TTR). Mortality rates were no different.

There were no differences between chlorpromazine and haloperidol in any outcomes. Among head-to-head comparisons of SGAs, no differences were found. Pooled or individual SGAs, however, had the same overall efficacy as haloperidol but shorter TTR and fewer extrapyramidal side effects. Subgroup analysis showed a small but significant advantage in the use of SGAs over haloperidol in the ICU.

Bottom line: Antipsychotics are more effective than placebo or usual care in the treatment of delirium. There appears to be a benefit to using second-generation antipsychotics over haloperidol.

Citation: Kishi T, Hirota T, Matsunaga S, Iwata N. Antipsychotic medications for the treatment of delirium: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2015;0:1-8.

Clinical questions: Are antipsychotics for the treatment of delirium safe and effective? Does efficacy differ between ICU and non-ICU settings? Does efficacy differ between first- and second-generation antipsychotics (SGA)?

Background: Delirium is common in hospitalized patients. Data are mixed about the use of antipsychotics for treatment of delirium, and safety concerns are well founded. A 2007 Cochrane review failed to show compelling evidence for their efficacy, yet they remain widely used for this purpose.

Study design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Setting: Fifteen RCTs of adults with delirium.

Synopsis: The primary outcome measure was response rate at the study endpoint, defined using severity of delirium and global scales.

In a comparison of pooled or individual antipsychotics vs. placebo or usual care (UC), antipsychotics were found to be superior, with a response rate of 0.22 (95% CI, 0.15-0.34, P<.00001), NNT=2. Subgroup analysis revealed this superiority to be greater in non-ICU settings, with ICU antipsychotic use only marginally better than UC. Antipsychotics were superior in time to response (TTR). Mortality rates were no different.

There were no differences between chlorpromazine and haloperidol in any outcomes. Among head-to-head comparisons of SGAs, no differences were found. Pooled or individual SGAs, however, had the same overall efficacy as haloperidol but shorter TTR and fewer extrapyramidal side effects. Subgroup analysis showed a small but significant advantage in the use of SGAs over haloperidol in the ICU.

Bottom line: Antipsychotics are more effective than placebo or usual care in the treatment of delirium. There appears to be a benefit to using second-generation antipsychotics over haloperidol.

Citation: Kishi T, Hirota T, Matsunaga S, Iwata N. Antipsychotic medications for the treatment of delirium: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2015;0:1-8.

Clinical questions: Are antipsychotics for the treatment of delirium safe and effective? Does efficacy differ between ICU and non-ICU settings? Does efficacy differ between first- and second-generation antipsychotics (SGA)?

Background: Delirium is common in hospitalized patients. Data are mixed about the use of antipsychotics for treatment of delirium, and safety concerns are well founded. A 2007 Cochrane review failed to show compelling evidence for their efficacy, yet they remain widely used for this purpose.

Study design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Setting: Fifteen RCTs of adults with delirium.

Synopsis: The primary outcome measure was response rate at the study endpoint, defined using severity of delirium and global scales.

In a comparison of pooled or individual antipsychotics vs. placebo or usual care (UC), antipsychotics were found to be superior, with a response rate of 0.22 (95% CI, 0.15-0.34, P<.00001), NNT=2. Subgroup analysis revealed this superiority to be greater in non-ICU settings, with ICU antipsychotic use only marginally better than UC. Antipsychotics were superior in time to response (TTR). Mortality rates were no different.

There were no differences between chlorpromazine and haloperidol in any outcomes. Among head-to-head comparisons of SGAs, no differences were found. Pooled or individual SGAs, however, had the same overall efficacy as haloperidol but shorter TTR and fewer extrapyramidal side effects. Subgroup analysis showed a small but significant advantage in the use of SGAs over haloperidol in the ICU.

Bottom line: Antipsychotics are more effective than placebo or usual care in the treatment of delirium. There appears to be a benefit to using second-generation antipsychotics over haloperidol.

Citation: Kishi T, Hirota T, Matsunaga S, Iwata N. Antipsychotic medications for the treatment of delirium: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2015;0:1-8.

Clinical question: Are there clinical or computerized tomography (CT) findings that identify which patients will need early surgical management in adhesive small bowel obstruction (ASBO)?

Background: Previous studies determined adverse outcomes resulting from delayed surgery in patients with ASBO: increased length of stay (LOS), complications, and mortality. Most patients respond to nonoperative management, however.

Study design: Prospective observational study.

Setting: Three academic and tertiary referral medical centers.

Synopsis: Using multivariate analysis of 202 patients admitted with presumed adhesive ASBO without immediate surgical need, of whom 52 required eventual surgical intervention, this study found three predictors for needing operative care: no flatus (odds ratio [OR], 3.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.51-7.12; P=0.003), as well as the CT findings of a high-grade obstruction, defined as only minimal passage of air and fluid into the distal small bowel or colon (OR, 2.44; 95% CI, 1.10-5.43; P=0.028) or the presence of free fluid (OR, 2.59; 95% CI, 1.13-5.90; P=0.023).

Despite these associations, clinicians should not view these findings as indications for surgery. Of the patients who responded to nonoperative management, one-third had no flatus, and on CT one-third had high-grade obstruction and half had free fluid. Instead, because patients with these findings are at an increased risk of failing nonoperative management, they should be observed more closely and reassessed more frequently.

Bottom line: Patients without flatus or with the presence of free fluid or high-grade obstruction on CT are at an increased risk of requiring surgical management for ASBO.

Citation: Kulvatunyou N, Pandit V, Moutamn S, et al. A multi-institution prospective observational study of small bowel obstruction: clinical and computerized tomography predictors of which patients may require early surgery. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2015;79(3):393-398.

Clinical question: Are there clinical or computerized tomography (CT) findings that identify which patients will need early surgical management in adhesive small bowel obstruction (ASBO)?

Background: Previous studies determined adverse outcomes resulting from delayed surgery in patients with ASBO: increased length of stay (LOS), complications, and mortality. Most patients respond to nonoperative management, however.

Study design: Prospective observational study.

Setting: Three academic and tertiary referral medical centers.

Synopsis: Using multivariate analysis of 202 patients admitted with presumed adhesive ASBO without immediate surgical need, of whom 52 required eventual surgical intervention, this study found three predictors for needing operative care: no flatus (odds ratio [OR], 3.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.51-7.12; P=0.003), as well as the CT findings of a high-grade obstruction, defined as only minimal passage of air and fluid into the distal small bowel or colon (OR, 2.44; 95% CI, 1.10-5.43; P=0.028) or the presence of free fluid (OR, 2.59; 95% CI, 1.13-5.90; P=0.023).

Despite these associations, clinicians should not view these findings as indications for surgery. Of the patients who responded to nonoperative management, one-third had no flatus, and on CT one-third had high-grade obstruction and half had free fluid. Instead, because patients with these findings are at an increased risk of failing nonoperative management, they should be observed more closely and reassessed more frequently.

Bottom line: Patients without flatus or with the presence of free fluid or high-grade obstruction on CT are at an increased risk of requiring surgical management for ASBO.

Citation: Kulvatunyou N, Pandit V, Moutamn S, et al. A multi-institution prospective observational study of small bowel obstruction: clinical and computerized tomography predictors of which patients may require early surgery. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2015;79(3):393-398.

Clinical question: Are there clinical or computerized tomography (CT) findings that identify which patients will need early surgical management in adhesive small bowel obstruction (ASBO)?

Background: Previous studies determined adverse outcomes resulting from delayed surgery in patients with ASBO: increased length of stay (LOS), complications, and mortality. Most patients respond to nonoperative management, however.

Study design: Prospective observational study.

Setting: Three academic and tertiary referral medical centers.

Synopsis: Using multivariate analysis of 202 patients admitted with presumed adhesive ASBO without immediate surgical need, of whom 52 required eventual surgical intervention, this study found three predictors for needing operative care: no flatus (odds ratio [OR], 3.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.51-7.12; P=0.003), as well as the CT findings of a high-grade obstruction, defined as only minimal passage of air and fluid into the distal small bowel or colon (OR, 2.44; 95% CI, 1.10-5.43; P=0.028) or the presence of free fluid (OR, 2.59; 95% CI, 1.13-5.90; P=0.023).

Despite these associations, clinicians should not view these findings as indications for surgery. Of the patients who responded to nonoperative management, one-third had no flatus, and on CT one-third had high-grade obstruction and half had free fluid. Instead, because patients with these findings are at an increased risk of failing nonoperative management, they should be observed more closely and reassessed more frequently.

Bottom line: Patients without flatus or with the presence of free fluid or high-grade obstruction on CT are at an increased risk of requiring surgical management for ASBO.

Citation: Kulvatunyou N, Pandit V, Moutamn S, et al. A multi-institution prospective observational study of small bowel obstruction: clinical and computerized tomography predictors of which patients may require early surgery. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2015;79(3):393-398.

Clinical question: Does the addition of rapid multiplex polymerase chain reaction molecular techniques to standard blood culture bottle (BCB) processing, with or without antimicrobial stewardship recommendations, affect antimicrobial utilization and patient outcomes?

Background: Standard BCB processing typically requires two days to provide identification and susceptibility testing results. PCR-based molecular testing is available to test positive BCB and deliver specific susceptibility results more rapidly, typically within one hour. Earlier results could improve antimicrobial utilization, limit antimicrobial resistance, decrease the risk of Clostridium difficile colitis, improve patient outcomes, and decrease healthcare costs. The impact of these techniques on outcomes is uncertain.

Study design: Prospective, randomized controlled trial (RCT).

Setting: Single large tertiary academic medical center.

Synopsis: Nearly 750 patients were randomized to conventional BCB processing (control), BCB with rapid multiplex PCR and templated recommendations (rmPCR), or BCB with rapid multiplex PCR and real-time antimicrobial stewardship provided by an infectious disease physician or specially trained pharmacist (rmPCR/AS). Time to microorganism identification was reduced from 22.3 hours in the control arm to 1.3 hours in the intervention arms. Both intervention groups had decreased use of broad spectrum piperacillin-tazobactam, increased use of narrow spectrum β-lactam, and decreased treatment of contaminants. Time to appropriate empiric treatment modification was shortest in the rmPCR/AS group.

Groups did not differ in mortality, length of stay, or cost, although an adequately powered study may show beneficial effects in these outcomes.

Bottom line: The addition of rapid multiplex PCR, ideally combined with antimicrobial stewardship, improves antimicrobial utilization in patients with positive blood cultures.

Citation: Banerjee R, Teng CB, Cunningham SA, et al. Randomized trial of rapid multiplex polymerase chain reaction-based blood culture identification and susceptibility testing. Clin Infect Dis. 2015;61(7):1071-1080.

Clinical question: Does the addition of rapid multiplex polymerase chain reaction molecular techniques to standard blood culture bottle (BCB) processing, with or without antimicrobial stewardship recommendations, affect antimicrobial utilization and patient outcomes?

Background: Standard BCB processing typically requires two days to provide identification and susceptibility testing results. PCR-based molecular testing is available to test positive BCB and deliver specific susceptibility results more rapidly, typically within one hour. Earlier results could improve antimicrobial utilization, limit antimicrobial resistance, decrease the risk of Clostridium difficile colitis, improve patient outcomes, and decrease healthcare costs. The impact of these techniques on outcomes is uncertain.

Study design: Prospective, randomized controlled trial (RCT).

Setting: Single large tertiary academic medical center.

Synopsis: Nearly 750 patients were randomized to conventional BCB processing (control), BCB with rapid multiplex PCR and templated recommendations (rmPCR), or BCB with rapid multiplex PCR and real-time antimicrobial stewardship provided by an infectious disease physician or specially trained pharmacist (rmPCR/AS). Time to microorganism identification was reduced from 22.3 hours in the control arm to 1.3 hours in the intervention arms. Both intervention groups had decreased use of broad spectrum piperacillin-tazobactam, increased use of narrow spectrum β-lactam, and decreased treatment of contaminants. Time to appropriate empiric treatment modification was shortest in the rmPCR/AS group.

Groups did not differ in mortality, length of stay, or cost, although an adequately powered study may show beneficial effects in these outcomes.

Bottom line: The addition of rapid multiplex PCR, ideally combined with antimicrobial stewardship, improves antimicrobial utilization in patients with positive blood cultures.

Citation: Banerjee R, Teng CB, Cunningham SA, et al. Randomized trial of rapid multiplex polymerase chain reaction-based blood culture identification and susceptibility testing. Clin Infect Dis. 2015;61(7):1071-1080.

Clinical question: Does the addition of rapid multiplex polymerase chain reaction molecular techniques to standard blood culture bottle (BCB) processing, with or without antimicrobial stewardship recommendations, affect antimicrobial utilization and patient outcomes?

Background: Standard BCB processing typically requires two days to provide identification and susceptibility testing results. PCR-based molecular testing is available to test positive BCB and deliver specific susceptibility results more rapidly, typically within one hour. Earlier results could improve antimicrobial utilization, limit antimicrobial resistance, decrease the risk of Clostridium difficile colitis, improve patient outcomes, and decrease healthcare costs. The impact of these techniques on outcomes is uncertain.

Study design: Prospective, randomized controlled trial (RCT).

Setting: Single large tertiary academic medical center.

Synopsis: Nearly 750 patients were randomized to conventional BCB processing (control), BCB with rapid multiplex PCR and templated recommendations (rmPCR), or BCB with rapid multiplex PCR and real-time antimicrobial stewardship provided by an infectious disease physician or specially trained pharmacist (rmPCR/AS). Time to microorganism identification was reduced from 22.3 hours in the control arm to 1.3 hours in the intervention arms. Both intervention groups had decreased use of broad spectrum piperacillin-tazobactam, increased use of narrow spectrum β-lactam, and decreased treatment of contaminants. Time to appropriate empiric treatment modification was shortest in the rmPCR/AS group.

Groups did not differ in mortality, length of stay, or cost, although an adequately powered study may show beneficial effects in these outcomes.

Bottom line: The addition of rapid multiplex PCR, ideally combined with antimicrobial stewardship, improves antimicrobial utilization in patients with positive blood cultures.

Citation: Banerjee R, Teng CB, Cunningham SA, et al. Randomized trial of rapid multiplex polymerase chain reaction-based blood culture identification and susceptibility testing. Clin Infect Dis. 2015;61(7):1071-1080.

Clinical question: Are there patient characteristics not currently measured by the Medicare readmission program that account for differences in hospital readmission rates?

Background: The Medicare Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) financially penalizes hospitals with higher than expected 30-day readmission rates. During 2014, more than 2,000 U.S. hospitals were fined $480 million for high readmission rates. HRRP accounts for differences in patient age, gender, discharge diagnosis, and diagnoses identified in Medicare claims over the previous 12 months; however, the impact of other factors is uncertain.

Study design: Survey data from the Health and Retirement Study, with linked Medicare claims.

Setting: Community-dwelling U.S. adults, older than 50 years.

Synopsis: Investigators analyzed more than 33,000 admissions from 2000 to 2012. They found 22 patient characteristics not included in the HRRP calculation that were statistically significantly predictive of hospital-wide, 30-day readmission and were more likely to be present among patients cared for in hospitals in the highest quintile of readmission rates. These characteristics reduced by 48% the differences in readmission rate between the highest- and lowest-performing quintiles. Examples include patient ethnicity, education level, personal as well as household income level, presence of prescription drug plan, Medicaid enrollment, cognitive status, and numerous others.

Bottom line: Patient characteristics account for much of the difference in readmission rates between high- and low-performing hospitals, suggesting that HRRP penalties reflect who hospitals treat as much as how well they treat them.

Citation: Barnett ML, Hsu J, McWilliams JM. Patient characteristics and differences in hospital readmission rates. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(11):1803-1812.

Clinical question: Are there patient characteristics not currently measured by the Medicare readmission program that account for differences in hospital readmission rates?

Background: The Medicare Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) financially penalizes hospitals with higher than expected 30-day readmission rates. During 2014, more than 2,000 U.S. hospitals were fined $480 million for high readmission rates. HRRP accounts for differences in patient age, gender, discharge diagnosis, and diagnoses identified in Medicare claims over the previous 12 months; however, the impact of other factors is uncertain.

Study design: Survey data from the Health and Retirement Study, with linked Medicare claims.

Setting: Community-dwelling U.S. adults, older than 50 years.

Synopsis: Investigators analyzed more than 33,000 admissions from 2000 to 2012. They found 22 patient characteristics not included in the HRRP calculation that were statistically significantly predictive of hospital-wide, 30-day readmission and were more likely to be present among patients cared for in hospitals in the highest quintile of readmission rates. These characteristics reduced by 48% the differences in readmission rate between the highest- and lowest-performing quintiles. Examples include patient ethnicity, education level, personal as well as household income level, presence of prescription drug plan, Medicaid enrollment, cognitive status, and numerous others.

Bottom line: Patient characteristics account for much of the difference in readmission rates between high- and low-performing hospitals, suggesting that HRRP penalties reflect who hospitals treat as much as how well they treat them.

Citation: Barnett ML, Hsu J, McWilliams JM. Patient characteristics and differences in hospital readmission rates. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(11):1803-1812.

Clinical question: Are there patient characteristics not currently measured by the Medicare readmission program that account for differences in hospital readmission rates?

Background: The Medicare Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) financially penalizes hospitals with higher than expected 30-day readmission rates. During 2014, more than 2,000 U.S. hospitals were fined $480 million for high readmission rates. HRRP accounts for differences in patient age, gender, discharge diagnosis, and diagnoses identified in Medicare claims over the previous 12 months; however, the impact of other factors is uncertain.

Study design: Survey data from the Health and Retirement Study, with linked Medicare claims.

Setting: Community-dwelling U.S. adults, older than 50 years.

Synopsis: Investigators analyzed more than 33,000 admissions from 2000 to 2012. They found 22 patient characteristics not included in the HRRP calculation that were statistically significantly predictive of hospital-wide, 30-day readmission and were more likely to be present among patients cared for in hospitals in the highest quintile of readmission rates. These characteristics reduced by 48% the differences in readmission rate between the highest- and lowest-performing quintiles. Examples include patient ethnicity, education level, personal as well as household income level, presence of prescription drug plan, Medicaid enrollment, cognitive status, and numerous others.

Bottom line: Patient characteristics account for much of the difference in readmission rates between high- and low-performing hospitals, suggesting that HRRP penalties reflect who hospitals treat as much as how well they treat them.

Citation: Barnett ML, Hsu J, McWilliams JM. Patient characteristics and differences in hospital readmission rates. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(11):1803-1812.

When a patient must remain in the acute care hospital setting—despite being well enough to transition to a lower level of care, costs continue to mount as the patient receives care at the most expensive level.

“But policymakers must understand that reducing support for essential hospitals might save dollars in the short term but ultimately threatens access to care and creates greater costs in the long run,” says Beth Feldpush, DrPH, senior vice president of policy and advocacy for America’s Essential Hospitals in Washington, D.C. The group represents more than 250 essential hospitals, which fill a safety net role and provide communitywide services, such as trauma, neonatal intensive care, and disaster response.

“Our hospitals, which already operate at a loss on average, cannot continue to sustain federal and state funding cuts,” Dr. Feldpush says. “Access to care for vulnerable patients and entire communities will suffer if we continue to chip away at crucial sources of support, such as Medicaid and Medicare disproportionate share hospital funding and payment for outpatient services.”

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) makes many changes to the healthcare system that are designed to improve the quality, value of, and access to healthcare services.

“While many are good in theory, they have faced challenges in practice,” Dr. Feldpush says.

For example, the law’s authors included deep cuts to Medicaid and Medicare disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments, which support hospitals that provide a large volume of uncompensated care. They made these cuts with the assumption that Medicare expansion and the ACA health insurance marketplace would significantly increase coverage, lessening the need for DSH payments. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to give states the option of expanding Medicaid has resulted in expansion in only about half of the states, however.

“But the DSH cuts remain, meaning our hospitals are getting significantly less support for the same or more uncompensated care,” Dr. Feldpush says.

Likewise, the ACA put into place many quality incentive programs for Medicare, including those designed to reduce preventable readmissions and hospital-acquired conditions and to encourage more value-based purchasing.

“The goals are obviously good ones, but the quality measures used to calculate incentive payments or penalties fail to account for the sociodemographic challenges our patients face—and that our hospitals can’t control,” she says. “So, these programs disproportionately penalize our hospitals, which, in turn, creates a vicious circle that reduces the funding they need to make improvements.”

Access to equitable healthcare for low-income, uninsured, and other vulnerable patients is a national problem, Dr. Feldpush continues. But the severity of the problem can vary by community and region—in states that have chosen not to expand their Medicaid programs, for example, or in economically depressed areas. TH

When a patient must remain in the acute care hospital setting—despite being well enough to transition to a lower level of care, costs continue to mount as the patient receives care at the most expensive level.

“But policymakers must understand that reducing support for essential hospitals might save dollars in the short term but ultimately threatens access to care and creates greater costs in the long run,” says Beth Feldpush, DrPH, senior vice president of policy and advocacy for America’s Essential Hospitals in Washington, D.C. The group represents more than 250 essential hospitals, which fill a safety net role and provide communitywide services, such as trauma, neonatal intensive care, and disaster response.

“Our hospitals, which already operate at a loss on average, cannot continue to sustain federal and state funding cuts,” Dr. Feldpush says. “Access to care for vulnerable patients and entire communities will suffer if we continue to chip away at crucial sources of support, such as Medicaid and Medicare disproportionate share hospital funding and payment for outpatient services.”

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) makes many changes to the healthcare system that are designed to improve the quality, value of, and access to healthcare services.

“While many are good in theory, they have faced challenges in practice,” Dr. Feldpush says.

For example, the law’s authors included deep cuts to Medicaid and Medicare disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments, which support hospitals that provide a large volume of uncompensated care. They made these cuts with the assumption that Medicare expansion and the ACA health insurance marketplace would significantly increase coverage, lessening the need for DSH payments. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to give states the option of expanding Medicaid has resulted in expansion in only about half of the states, however.

“But the DSH cuts remain, meaning our hospitals are getting significantly less support for the same or more uncompensated care,” Dr. Feldpush says.

Likewise, the ACA put into place many quality incentive programs for Medicare, including those designed to reduce preventable readmissions and hospital-acquired conditions and to encourage more value-based purchasing.

“The goals are obviously good ones, but the quality measures used to calculate incentive payments or penalties fail to account for the sociodemographic challenges our patients face—and that our hospitals can’t control,” she says. “So, these programs disproportionately penalize our hospitals, which, in turn, creates a vicious circle that reduces the funding they need to make improvements.”

Access to equitable healthcare for low-income, uninsured, and other vulnerable patients is a national problem, Dr. Feldpush continues. But the severity of the problem can vary by community and region—in states that have chosen not to expand their Medicaid programs, for example, or in economically depressed areas. TH

When a patient must remain in the acute care hospital setting—despite being well enough to transition to a lower level of care, costs continue to mount as the patient receives care at the most expensive level.

“But policymakers must understand that reducing support for essential hospitals might save dollars in the short term but ultimately threatens access to care and creates greater costs in the long run,” says Beth Feldpush, DrPH, senior vice president of policy and advocacy for America’s Essential Hospitals in Washington, D.C. The group represents more than 250 essential hospitals, which fill a safety net role and provide communitywide services, such as trauma, neonatal intensive care, and disaster response.

“Our hospitals, which already operate at a loss on average, cannot continue to sustain federal and state funding cuts,” Dr. Feldpush says. “Access to care for vulnerable patients and entire communities will suffer if we continue to chip away at crucial sources of support, such as Medicaid and Medicare disproportionate share hospital funding and payment for outpatient services.”

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) makes many changes to the healthcare system that are designed to improve the quality, value of, and access to healthcare services.

“While many are good in theory, they have faced challenges in practice,” Dr. Feldpush says.

For example, the law’s authors included deep cuts to Medicaid and Medicare disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments, which support hospitals that provide a large volume of uncompensated care. They made these cuts with the assumption that Medicare expansion and the ACA health insurance marketplace would significantly increase coverage, lessening the need for DSH payments. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to give states the option of expanding Medicaid has resulted in expansion in only about half of the states, however.

“But the DSH cuts remain, meaning our hospitals are getting significantly less support for the same or more uncompensated care,” Dr. Feldpush says.

Likewise, the ACA put into place many quality incentive programs for Medicare, including those designed to reduce preventable readmissions and hospital-acquired conditions and to encourage more value-based purchasing.

“The goals are obviously good ones, but the quality measures used to calculate incentive payments or penalties fail to account for the sociodemographic challenges our patients face—and that our hospitals can’t control,” she says. “So, these programs disproportionately penalize our hospitals, which, in turn, creates a vicious circle that reduces the funding they need to make improvements.”

Access to equitable healthcare for low-income, uninsured, and other vulnerable patients is a national problem, Dr. Feldpush continues. But the severity of the problem can vary by community and region—in states that have chosen not to expand their Medicaid programs, for example, or in economically depressed areas. TH