Patient Care

600%

The increased likelihood of 30-day hospital readmission for hospitalized Medicare patients who have 10 or more chronic conditions, compared with those who have only one to four chronic conditions.⁴ These patients with multiple chronic conditions represent only 8.9% of Medicare beneficiaries but account for 50% of all rehospitalizations. The numbers are drawn from a 5% sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries during the first nine months of 2008. Those with five to nine chronic conditions had 2.5 times the odds for being readmitted.

Larry Beresford is a freelance writer in Alameda, Calif.

1. Shieh L, Pummer E, Tsui J, et al. Septris: improving sepsis recognition and management through a mobile educational game [abstract]. J Hosp Med. 2013;8(Suppl 1):1053.
2. Mitchell SE, Gardiner PM, Sadikova E, et al. Patient activation and 30-day post-discharge hospital utilization. J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29(2):349-355.
3. Daniels KR, Lee GC, Frei CR. Trends in catheter-associated urinary tract infections among a national cohort of hospitalized adults, 2001-2010. Am J Infect Control. 2014;42(1):17-22.
4. Berkowitz SA. Anderson GF. Medicare beneficiaries most likely to be readmitted. J Hosp Med. 2013;8(11):639-641.

600%

The increased likelihood of 30-day hospital readmission for hospitalized Medicare patients who have 10 or more chronic conditions, compared with those who have only one to four chronic conditions.⁴ These patients with multiple chronic conditions represent only 8.9% of Medicare beneficiaries but account for 50% of all rehospitalizations. The numbers are drawn from a 5% sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries during the first nine months of 2008. Those with five to nine chronic conditions had 2.5 times the odds for being readmitted.

Larry Beresford is a freelance writer in Alameda, Calif.

1. Shieh L, Pummer E, Tsui J, et al. Septris: improving sepsis recognition and management through a mobile educational game [abstract]. J Hosp Med. 2013;8(Suppl 1):1053.
2. Mitchell SE, Gardiner PM, Sadikova E, et al. Patient activation and 30-day post-discharge hospital utilization. J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29(2):349-355.
3. Daniels KR, Lee GC, Frei CR. Trends in catheter-associated urinary tract infections among a national cohort of hospitalized adults, 2001-2010. Am J Infect Control. 2014;42(1):17-22.
4. Berkowitz SA. Anderson GF. Medicare beneficiaries most likely to be readmitted. J Hosp Med. 2013;8(11):639-641.

600%

The increased likelihood of 30-day hospital readmission for hospitalized Medicare patients who have 10 or more chronic conditions, compared with those who have only one to four chronic conditions.⁴ These patients with multiple chronic conditions represent only 8.9% of Medicare beneficiaries but account for 50% of all rehospitalizations. The numbers are drawn from a 5% sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries during the first nine months of 2008. Those with five to nine chronic conditions had 2.5 times the odds for being readmitted.

Larry Beresford is a freelance writer in Alameda, Calif.

1. Shieh L, Pummer E, Tsui J, et al. Septris: improving sepsis recognition and management through a mobile educational game [abstract]. J Hosp Med. 2013;8(Suppl 1):1053.
2. Mitchell SE, Gardiner PM, Sadikova E, et al. Patient activation and 30-day post-discharge hospital utilization. J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29(2):349-355.
3. Daniels KR, Lee GC, Frei CR. Trends in catheter-associated urinary tract infections among a national cohort of hospitalized adults, 2001-2010. Am J Infect Control. 2014;42(1):17-22.
4. Berkowitz SA. Anderson GF. Medicare beneficiaries most likely to be readmitted. J Hosp Med. 2013;8(11):639-641.

Basic Principles for Pediatric Hospital Medicine Published A recent policy statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), published online in Pediatrics, urges recognition of the expanded roles and responsibilities of pediatric hospitalists and offers basic principles for pediatric hospital medicine (PHM) programs, including focusing on the unique culture of each program within its parent institution and the importance of coordinated, patient-centered care.⁴

The article outlines settings available for PHM programs, optimal processes for care transitions, and the need for leadership and goal setting.

“It is implicit in all the aforementioned recommendations that the overarching goal is always to provide the best possible care for children and protect the safety of children in the hospital setting,” the authors note.

AAP’s Section on Hospital Medicine supports a policy of voluntary referrals to pediatric hospital medicine programs.

Basic Principles for Pediatric Hospital Medicine Published A recent policy statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), published online in Pediatrics, urges recognition of the expanded roles and responsibilities of pediatric hospitalists and offers basic principles for pediatric hospital medicine (PHM) programs, including focusing on the unique culture of each program within its parent institution and the importance of coordinated, patient-centered care.⁴

The article outlines settings available for PHM programs, optimal processes for care transitions, and the need for leadership and goal setting.

“It is implicit in all the aforementioned recommendations that the overarching goal is always to provide the best possible care for children and protect the safety of children in the hospital setting,” the authors note.

AAP’s Section on Hospital Medicine supports a policy of voluntary referrals to pediatric hospital medicine programs.

Basic Principles for Pediatric Hospital Medicine Published A recent policy statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), published online in Pediatrics, urges recognition of the expanded roles and responsibilities of pediatric hospitalists and offers basic principles for pediatric hospital medicine (PHM) programs, including focusing on the unique culture of each program within its parent institution and the importance of coordinated, patient-centered care.⁴

The article outlines settings available for PHM programs, optimal processes for care transitions, and the need for leadership and goal setting.

“It is implicit in all the aforementioned recommendations that the overarching goal is always to provide the best possible care for children and protect the safety of children in the hospital setting,” the authors note.

AAP’s Section on Hospital Medicine supports a policy of voluntary referrals to pediatric hospital medicine programs.

The American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN), the Global Enteral Device Supplier Association (GEDSA) and a number of other quality-oriented groups, including the FDA, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), and the Joint Commission, are working to address tubing misconnections for medical device small-bore connectors—used for enteral, luer, neuro-cranial, respiratory, and other medical tubing equipment.²

Misconnections, although rare, can be harmful or even fatal to patients. The task force conducted a panel discussion Oct. 22 in Washington, D.C., focused on redesign issues, and is collaborating with the International Standards Organization to develop new small-bore connector standards.

GEDSA’s “Stay Connected” is an education campaign to inform and prepare the healthcare community for impending changes in standards for small-bore connectors. For more information, visit www.stayconnected2014.org.

The American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN), the Global Enteral Device Supplier Association (GEDSA) and a number of other quality-oriented groups, including the FDA, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), and the Joint Commission, are working to address tubing misconnections for medical device small-bore connectors—used for enteral, luer, neuro-cranial, respiratory, and other medical tubing equipment.²

Misconnections, although rare, can be harmful or even fatal to patients. The task force conducted a panel discussion Oct. 22 in Washington, D.C., focused on redesign issues, and is collaborating with the International Standards Organization to develop new small-bore connector standards.

GEDSA’s “Stay Connected” is an education campaign to inform and prepare the healthcare community for impending changes in standards for small-bore connectors. For more information, visit www.stayconnected2014.org.

The American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN), the Global Enteral Device Supplier Association (GEDSA) and a number of other quality-oriented groups, including the FDA, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), and the Joint Commission, are working to address tubing misconnections for medical device small-bore connectors—used for enteral, luer, neuro-cranial, respiratory, and other medical tubing equipment.²

Misconnections, although rare, can be harmful or even fatal to patients. The task force conducted a panel discussion Oct. 22 in Washington, D.C., focused on redesign issues, and is collaborating with the International Standards Organization to develop new small-bore connector standards.

GEDSA’s “Stay Connected” is an education campaign to inform and prepare the healthcare community for impending changes in standards for small-bore connectors. For more information, visit www.stayconnected2014.org.

A collaboration between hospitalists and the pain department at Beth Israel Medical Center in New York City is helping hospitalists address moderate to severe pain and complicating factors in their patients.

“The idea was to impart knowledge from a small group of experts to the hospitalists who manage pain in the majority of hospitalized patients,” says Dahlia Rizk, DO, chief of hospital medicine at Beth Israel and lead author on a poster that described the program and was presented at HM13 in Washington, D.C.¹

Dr. Rizk first approached Russell Portenoy, MD, internationally recognized chair of the Department of Pain Management and Palliative Care at Beth Israel, to draw upon his specialized knowledge. Grant funding supported protected time for two hospitalist champions and a nurse practitioner; they reviewed charts on participating units and conducted focus groups with hospitalists to identify barriers to effective pain management. Barriers were compiled into a 56-item menu and shaped the curriculum for weekly training sessions presented by the pain service.

Dr. Portenoy and the project team also established a metric for “high sustained pain,” patients reporting three or more days of three or more episodes of moderate to severe pain, according to the hospital’s standardized pain assessment scale. The information was captured in a computerized, tablet-based “Live View” tool that shows all of the patients on a unit and their incidences of high sustained pain over a week. The tool is used for rounding on patients and identifying those needing an immediate interdisciplinary focus.

Project results, Dr. Rizk reported, include improvements in high sustained pain scores on six of seven participating units and average reductions in the number of identified barriers to pain. Hospitalists reported increased comfort with adjusting pain therapies, while patient satisfaction scores with pain management also increased.

“Not everyone has access to an expert like Dr. Portenoy, but we’ve now done the root cause analysis and barriers list,” Dr. Rizk says. “I also think this approach could be applied more widely to other problem areas. We plan to try something similar with geriatrics.”

For more information about the collaborative and its pain problem list, contact Dr. Rizk at [email protected].

A collaboration between hospitalists and the pain department at Beth Israel Medical Center in New York City is helping hospitalists address moderate to severe pain and complicating factors in their patients.

“The idea was to impart knowledge from a small group of experts to the hospitalists who manage pain in the majority of hospitalized patients,” says Dahlia Rizk, DO, chief of hospital medicine at Beth Israel and lead author on a poster that described the program and was presented at HM13 in Washington, D.C.¹

Dr. Rizk first approached Russell Portenoy, MD, internationally recognized chair of the Department of Pain Management and Palliative Care at Beth Israel, to draw upon his specialized knowledge. Grant funding supported protected time for two hospitalist champions and a nurse practitioner; they reviewed charts on participating units and conducted focus groups with hospitalists to identify barriers to effective pain management. Barriers were compiled into a 56-item menu and shaped the curriculum for weekly training sessions presented by the pain service.

Dr. Portenoy and the project team also established a metric for “high sustained pain,” patients reporting three or more days of three or more episodes of moderate to severe pain, according to the hospital’s standardized pain assessment scale. The information was captured in a computerized, tablet-based “Live View” tool that shows all of the patients on a unit and their incidences of high sustained pain over a week. The tool is used for rounding on patients and identifying those needing an immediate interdisciplinary focus.

Project results, Dr. Rizk reported, include improvements in high sustained pain scores on six of seven participating units and average reductions in the number of identified barriers to pain. Hospitalists reported increased comfort with adjusting pain therapies, while patient satisfaction scores with pain management also increased.

“Not everyone has access to an expert like Dr. Portenoy, but we’ve now done the root cause analysis and barriers list,” Dr. Rizk says. “I also think this approach could be applied more widely to other problem areas. We plan to try something similar with geriatrics.”

For more information about the collaborative and its pain problem list, contact Dr. Rizk at [email protected].

A collaboration between hospitalists and the pain department at Beth Israel Medical Center in New York City is helping hospitalists address moderate to severe pain and complicating factors in their patients.

“The idea was to impart knowledge from a small group of experts to the hospitalists who manage pain in the majority of hospitalized patients,” says Dahlia Rizk, DO, chief of hospital medicine at Beth Israel and lead author on a poster that described the program and was presented at HM13 in Washington, D.C.¹

Dr. Rizk first approached Russell Portenoy, MD, internationally recognized chair of the Department of Pain Management and Palliative Care at Beth Israel, to draw upon his specialized knowledge. Grant funding supported protected time for two hospitalist champions and a nurse practitioner; they reviewed charts on participating units and conducted focus groups with hospitalists to identify barriers to effective pain management. Barriers were compiled into a 56-item menu and shaped the curriculum for weekly training sessions presented by the pain service.

Dr. Portenoy and the project team also established a metric for “high sustained pain,” patients reporting three or more days of three or more episodes of moderate to severe pain, according to the hospital’s standardized pain assessment scale. The information was captured in a computerized, tablet-based “Live View” tool that shows all of the patients on a unit and their incidences of high sustained pain over a week. The tool is used for rounding on patients and identifying those needing an immediate interdisciplinary focus.

Project results, Dr. Rizk reported, include improvements in high sustained pain scores on six of seven participating units and average reductions in the number of identified barriers to pain. Hospitalists reported increased comfort with adjusting pain therapies, while patient satisfaction scores with pain management also increased.

“Not everyone has access to an expert like Dr. Portenoy, but we’ve now done the root cause analysis and barriers list,” Dr. Rizk says. “I also think this approach could be applied more widely to other problem areas. We plan to try something similar with geriatrics.”

For more information about the collaborative and its pain problem list, contact Dr. Rizk at [email protected].

SHM’s annual meeting offers something new each year. For HM14, a timely new track dubbed “Bending the Cost Curve” will focus on hospitalists’ role in improving cost effectiveness for the healthcare system as a whole.

“The value equation has always been something that’s near and dear to us,” says HM14 course director Daniel Brotman, MD, SFHM. “What’s different now is that cost shifting to the outpatient setting is something that is now being recognized as a potential unintended consequence of rushing through hospitalizations. And as we’re moving into the accountable-care world, making sure that the cost shifting does not occur…is really important.

“That means that hospitalists need to own the care transition.”

“ The educational component particularly the practice management track—is increasingly important in this era of rapid change. I don’t think any hospitalist anywhere in the country can afford to put his or her head in the sand and pretend it’s business as usual. ”

–Leslie Flores, MHA, a partner in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants, a member of SHM’s Practice Analysis Committee, and co-director for the practice management pre-course

The debut offerings don’t stop there. Three new pre-courses are on this year’s agenda: “Cardiology: What Hospitalists Need to Know as Front-Line Providers,” “Efficient High-Value Evidence-Based Medicine for the Practicing Hospitalist,” and “NP/PA Playbook for Hospital Medicine.”

“As a pre-course director, I think the educational aspect is what sets the tone for the whole meeting,” says Leslie Flores, MHA, a partner in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants, a member of SHM’s Practice Analysis Committee, and co-director for the practice management pre-course, “Where the Rubber Meets the Road: Managing in the Era of Healthcare Reform. “People come looking to improve their clinical skills and their hospitalist groups.”

Pre-courses are critical to the meeting’s educational offerings. In that vein, HM14 is keeping pace with generational reform in care delivery and payment methodologies.

“The educational component—particularly the practice management track—is increasingly important in this era of rapid change,” Flores adds. “I don’t think any hospitalist anywhere in the country can afford to put his or her head in the sand and pretend it’s business as usual.”

To that end, another new feature at HM14 is a panel discussion titled, “Obamacare Is Here: What Does It Mean for You and Your Hospital?” The participants are a who’s who of the specialty’s thought leaders: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services chief medical officer Patrick Conway, MD, MSc, FAAP, SFHM; executive director and CEO of the Medical University of South Carolina and former SHM president Patrick Cawley, MD, MHM, FACP; veteran healthcare executive Patrick Courneya, MD; and American Enterprise Institute resident fellow Scott Gottlieb, MD.

“The SHM annual meeting is pretty much the only place a hospitalist can go to learn about these changes,” Flores says, “and how to cope with them from a hospitalist’s perspective.”

Richard Quinn is a freelance writer in New Jersey.

SHM’s annual meeting offers something new each year. For HM14, a timely new track dubbed “Bending the Cost Curve” will focus on hospitalists’ role in improving cost effectiveness for the healthcare system as a whole.

“The value equation has always been something that’s near and dear to us,” says HM14 course director Daniel Brotman, MD, SFHM. “What’s different now is that cost shifting to the outpatient setting is something that is now being recognized as a potential unintended consequence of rushing through hospitalizations. And as we’re moving into the accountable-care world, making sure that the cost shifting does not occur…is really important.

“That means that hospitalists need to own the care transition.”

“ The educational component particularly the practice management track—is increasingly important in this era of rapid change. I don’t think any hospitalist anywhere in the country can afford to put his or her head in the sand and pretend it’s business as usual. ”

–Leslie Flores, MHA, a partner in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants, a member of SHM’s Practice Analysis Committee, and co-director for the practice management pre-course

The debut offerings don’t stop there. Three new pre-courses are on this year’s agenda: “Cardiology: What Hospitalists Need to Know as Front-Line Providers,” “Efficient High-Value Evidence-Based Medicine for the Practicing Hospitalist,” and “NP/PA Playbook for Hospital Medicine.”

“As a pre-course director, I think the educational aspect is what sets the tone for the whole meeting,” says Leslie Flores, MHA, a partner in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants, a member of SHM’s Practice Analysis Committee, and co-director for the practice management pre-course, “Where the Rubber Meets the Road: Managing in the Era of Healthcare Reform. “People come looking to improve their clinical skills and their hospitalist groups.”

Pre-courses are critical to the meeting’s educational offerings. In that vein, HM14 is keeping pace with generational reform in care delivery and payment methodologies.

“The educational component—particularly the practice management track—is increasingly important in this era of rapid change,” Flores adds. “I don’t think any hospitalist anywhere in the country can afford to put his or her head in the sand and pretend it’s business as usual.”

To that end, another new feature at HM14 is a panel discussion titled, “Obamacare Is Here: What Does It Mean for You and Your Hospital?” The participants are a who’s who of the specialty’s thought leaders: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services chief medical officer Patrick Conway, MD, MSc, FAAP, SFHM; executive director and CEO of the Medical University of South Carolina and former SHM president Patrick Cawley, MD, MHM, FACP; veteran healthcare executive Patrick Courneya, MD; and American Enterprise Institute resident fellow Scott Gottlieb, MD.

“The SHM annual meeting is pretty much the only place a hospitalist can go to learn about these changes,” Flores says, “and how to cope with them from a hospitalist’s perspective.”

Richard Quinn is a freelance writer in New Jersey.

SHM’s annual meeting offers something new each year. For HM14, a timely new track dubbed “Bending the Cost Curve” will focus on hospitalists’ role in improving cost effectiveness for the healthcare system as a whole.

“The value equation has always been something that’s near and dear to us,” says HM14 course director Daniel Brotman, MD, SFHM. “What’s different now is that cost shifting to the outpatient setting is something that is now being recognized as a potential unintended consequence of rushing through hospitalizations. And as we’re moving into the accountable-care world, making sure that the cost shifting does not occur…is really important.

“That means that hospitalists need to own the care transition.”

“ The educational component particularly the practice management track—is increasingly important in this era of rapid change. I don’t think any hospitalist anywhere in the country can afford to put his or her head in the sand and pretend it’s business as usual. ”

–Leslie Flores, MHA, a partner in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants, a member of SHM’s Practice Analysis Committee, and co-director for the practice management pre-course

The debut offerings don’t stop there. Three new pre-courses are on this year’s agenda: “Cardiology: What Hospitalists Need to Know as Front-Line Providers,” “Efficient High-Value Evidence-Based Medicine for the Practicing Hospitalist,” and “NP/PA Playbook for Hospital Medicine.”

“As a pre-course director, I think the educational aspect is what sets the tone for the whole meeting,” says Leslie Flores, MHA, a partner in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants, a member of SHM’s Practice Analysis Committee, and co-director for the practice management pre-course, “Where the Rubber Meets the Road: Managing in the Era of Healthcare Reform. “People come looking to improve their clinical skills and their hospitalist groups.”

Pre-courses are critical to the meeting’s educational offerings. In that vein, HM14 is keeping pace with generational reform in care delivery and payment methodologies.

“The educational component—particularly the practice management track—is increasingly important in this era of rapid change,” Flores adds. “I don’t think any hospitalist anywhere in the country can afford to put his or her head in the sand and pretend it’s business as usual.”

To that end, another new feature at HM14 is a panel discussion titled, “Obamacare Is Here: What Does It Mean for You and Your Hospital?” The participants are a who’s who of the specialty’s thought leaders: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services chief medical officer Patrick Conway, MD, MSc, FAAP, SFHM; executive director and CEO of the Medical University of South Carolina and former SHM president Patrick Cawley, MD, MHM, FACP; veteran healthcare executive Patrick Courneya, MD; and American Enterprise Institute resident fellow Scott Gottlieb, MD.

“The SHM annual meeting is pretty much the only place a hospitalist can go to learn about these changes,” Flores says, “and how to cope with them from a hospitalist’s perspective.”

Richard Quinn is a freelance writer in New Jersey.

In This Edition

Literature At A Glance

A guide to this month’s studies

1. Antibiotic resistance threats in the United States
2. Turning for ulcer reduction: A multi-site, randomized, clinical trial in nursing homes
3. Prednisolone with or without pentoxfylline, and survival of patients with severe alcoholic hepatitis
4. Characteristics and impact of a hospitalist-staffed, post-discharge clinic
5. Higher continuity of care results in lower rate of preventable hospitalizations
6. Variation in surgical readmission rates depends on volume, mortality rates
7. Patients prefer inpatient boarding to ED boarding

Antibiotic Resistance Threats in the United States, 2013

Clinical question: What antibiotic-resistant bacteria are the greatest threats for the next 10 years?

Background: Two million people suffer antibiotic-resistant infections yearly, and 23,000 die each year as a result. Most of these infections occur in the community, but deaths usually occur in healthcare settings. Cost estimates vary but may be as high as $20 billion in excess direct healthcare costs.

Study design: The CDC used several different surveys and databanks, including the National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System, to collect data. The threat level for antibiotic-resistant bacteria was determined using several factors: clinical impact, economic impact, incidence, 10-year projection of incidence, transmissibility, availability of effective antibiotics, and barriers to prevention.

Setting: United States.

Synopsis: The CDC has three classifications of antibiotic-resistant bacteria: urgent, serious, and concerning. Urgent threats are high-consequence, antibiotic-resistant threats because of significant risks identified across several criteria. These threats might not currently be widespread but have the potential to become so and require urgent public health attention to identify infections and to limit transmission. They include carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae, drug-resistant Neisseria gonorrhoeae, and Clostridium difficile (does not have true resistance, but is a consequence of antibiotic overuse).

Serious threats are significant antibiotic-resistant threats. These threats will worsen and might become urgent without ongoing public health monitoring and prevention activities. They include multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter, drug-resistant Campylobacter, fluconazole-resistant Candida (a fungus), extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae, vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus, multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa, drug-resistant non-typhoidal Salmonella, drug-resistant Salmonella Typhimurium, drug-resistant Shigella, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, drug-resistant Streptococcus pneumonia, and drug-resistant tuberculosis.

Concerning threats are bacteria for which the threat of antibiotic resistance is low, and/ or there are multiple therapeutic options for resistant infections. These bacterial pathogens cause severe illness. Threats in this category require monitoring and, in some cases, rapid incident or outbreak response. These include vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, erythromycin-resistant Group A Streptococcus, and clindamycin-resistant Group B Streptococcus. Research has shown patients with resistant infections have significantly longer hospital stays, delayed recuperation, long-term disability, and higher mortality. As resistance to current antibiotics occurs, providers are forced to use antibiotics that are more toxic, more expensive, and less effective.

The CDC recommends four core actions to fight antibiotic resistance:

• Preventing infections from occurring and preventing resistant bacteria from spreading (immunization, infection control, screening, treatment, and education);
• Tracking resistant bacteria;
• Improving the use of antibiotics (antibiotic stewardship); and
• Promoting the development of new antibiotics and new diagnostic tests for resistant bacteria.

Bottom line: Antibiotics are a limited resource. The more antibiotics are used today, the less likely they will continue to be effective in the future. The CDC lists 18 antibiotic-resistant organisms as urgent, serious, or concerning and recommends actions to combat the spread of current organisms and emergence of new antibiotic organisms.

Citation: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Antibiotic resistance threats in the United States, 2013. CDC website. September 16, 2013. Available at: www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/threat-report-2013. Accessed Nov. 30, 2013.

Turning for Ulcer Reduction: A Multi-Site Randomized Clinical Trial in Nursing Homes

Clinical question: Is there a difference between repositioning intervals of two, three, or four hours in pressure ulcer formation in nursing home residents on high-density foam mattresses?

Background: Pressure ulcer formation in nursing home residents is a common problem. Current standard of care requires repositioning every two hours in patients who are at risk for pressure ulcer formation. Few studies have been performed to assess a difference in repositioning interval. This study was conducted to see if there is a difference in pressure ulcer formation among residents on high-density foam mattresses at moderate to high risk (according to the Braden scale).

Study design: Multi-site, randomized, clinical trial.

Setting: Twenty U.S. and seven Canadian nursing homes using high-density foam mattresses.

Synopsis: A multi-site, randomized clinical trial was executed in 20 U.S. and seven Canadian nursing homes. More than 900 residents were randomized to two-, three-, or four-hour intervals for repositioning. All participants were at either moderate (13-14) or high (10-12) risk on the Braden scale for pressure ulcer formation. All facilities used high-density foam mattresses. All participants were monitored for pressure ulcer formation on the sacrum/coccyx, heel, or trochanter for three consecutive weeks.

There was no significant difference in pressure ulcer formation between the two-, three-, or four-hour interval repositioning groups. There was no significant difference in pressure ulcer formation between the moderate or high-risk groups. Only 2% of participants developed a pressure ulcer, all stage I or II.

It is not clear if the outcomes were purely related to the repositioning intervals, as this study group had a much lower rate of pressure ulcer formation compared to national averages and previous studies. The high-density foam mattress might have improved outcomes by evenly redistributing pressure so that less frequent repositioning was required. The level of documentation may have led to earlier recognition of early stage pressure ulcers as well. This study also was limited to nursing home residents at moderate to high risk of pressure ulcer development.

Bottom line: There is no significant difference in pressure ulcer formation between repositioning intervals of two, three, or four hours among moderate and high-risk nursing home residents using high-density foam mattresses.

Citation: Bergstrom N, Horn SD, Rapp MP, Stern A, Barrett R, Watkiss M. Turning for ulcer reduction: a multisite randomized clinical trial in nursing homes. 2013;61(10):1705-1713.

Prednisolone, Pentoxifylline, and Survival of Patients with Severe Alcoholic Hepatitis

Clinical question: Does the addition of pentoxifylline to prednisolone improve six-month mortality compared to prednisolone alone in patients with severe alcoholic hepatitis?

Background: Prednisolone improves liver function and reduces inflammation in patients with alcoholic hepatitis. Pentoxifylline appears to have a protective effect against hepatorenal syndrome in patients with severe alcoholic hepatitis. The medications have different mechanisms of action; therefore, the researchers hypothesized that the combination of medication would improve outcomes.

Study design: Multi-center, randomized, double-blinded clinical trial.

Setting: One Belgian and 23 French hospitals, from December 2007 to October 2010.

Synopsis: This study randomized 270 patients to receive either prednisolone and pentoxifylline or prednisolone and placebo for 28 days. Acute alcoholic hepatitis was defined by a positive biopsy, onset of jaundice three months prior to the study, and a Maddrey’s discriminant function score of >32. All patients were assessed for response to treatment using the Lille model at seven days of treatment, occurrence of hepatorenal syndrome, and survival at six months.

Results showed no significant difference in treatment response, alcohol relapse, death, time to death, or occurrence of hepatorenal syndrome between the two treatment groups; however, there were fewer episodes of hepatorenal syndrome in the pentoxifylline group.

Patients considered responders by the Lille model and those with lower Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores had improved mortality. Patients treated with pentoxifylline had lower rates of hepatorenal syndrome at one month but no difference by six months. Patients with a lower Lille score had significantly less incidence of hepatorenal syndrome. The study may be underpowered to accurately determine outcomes other than six-month survival.

Bottom line: Adding pentoxifylline to prednisolone does not improve six-month survival in severe alcoholic hepatitis compared to prednisolone alone.

Citation: Mathurin P, Louvet A, Duhamel A, et al. Prednisolone with vs without pentoxifylline and survival of patients with severe alcoholic hepatitis: a randomized clinical trial. 2013;310(10):1033-1041.

Characteristics and Impact of Hospitalist-Staffed, Post-Discharge Clinic

Clinical question: What effect does a hospitalist-staffed, post-discharge clinic have on time to first post-hospitalization visit?

Background: Hospital discharge is a well-recognized care transition that can leave patients vulnerable to morbidity and re-hospitalization. Limited primary care access can hamper complex post-hospital follow-up. Discharge clinic models staffed by hospitalists have been developed to mitigate access issues, but research is lacking to describe their characteristics and benefits.

Study design: Single-center, prospective, observational database review.

Setting: Large, academic primary care practice affiliated with an academic medical center.

Synopsis: Between 2009 and 2011, this hospitalist-staffed, post-discharge clinic saw 596 patients, while the affiliated, large primary care practice saw 10,839 patients. Patients utilizing the hospitalist discharge clinic were more likely to be black (39% vs. 29%, <0.001) and to receive primary care from resident clinics (40% vs. 21%, <0.001). The median duration from hospital discharge to the first clinic visit was shorter for the post-discharge clinic (8.45 ± 0.43 days, <0.001).

The number of radiology and laboratory tests performed at the first post-discharge clinic visit showed similar patterns between the hospitalist discharge clinic and the primary care practice. Study design and size did not permit comparisons of readmission rates or mortality from time of discharge and also precluded evaluation of interventions on discharge-related medication errors or response time to outstanding test results.

Bottom line: A hospitalist-staffed, post-discharge clinic was associated with shorter time to first post-discharge visit, especially for patients who are black and receive primary care from resident clinics.

Citation: Doctoroff L, Nijhawan A, McNally D, Vanka A, Yu R, Mukamal KJ. The characteristics and impact of a hospitalist-staffed post-discharge clinic. 2013;126(11):1016.e9-1016.e15.

Higher Continuity of Care Results in Lower Rate of Preventable Hospitalizations

Clinical question: Is continuity of care related to preventable hospitalizations among older adults?

Background: Preventable hospitalizations cost approximately $25 billion annually in the U.S. The relationship between continuity of care and the risk of preventable hospitalization is unknown.

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Random sample of fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries, for ambulatory visits and hospital admissions.

Synopsis: This study examined 3.2 million Medicare beneficiaries using 2008-2010 claims data to measure continuity and the first preventable hospitalization. The Prevention Quality Indicators definitions and technical specifications from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality were used to identify preventable hospitalizations. Both the continuity of care score and usual provider continuity score were used to calculate continuity metrics. Baseline risk of preventable hospitalization included age, sex, race, Medicaid dual-eligible status, and residential zip code.

During a two-year period, 12.6% of patients had a preventable hospitalization. After adjusting for variables, a 0.1 increase in continuity of care was associated with about a 2% lower rate of preventable hospitalization. Interestingly, continuity of care was not related to mortality rates.

This study extends prior research associating continuity of care with reduced rate of hospitalization; however, the associations found cannot assert a causal relationship. This study used coding practices that vary throughout the country, included only older fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries, and could not verify why some patients had higher continuity of care. The authors suggest that efforts to strengthen physician-patient relationships through high-quality primary care will deter some hospital admissions.

Bottom line: Higher continuity of ambulatory care is associated with lower preventable hospitalizations in Medicare beneficiaries.

Citation: Nyweide DJ, Anthony DL, Bynum JP, et al. Continuity of care and the risk of preventable hospitalization in older adults. 2013;173(20):1879-1885.

Surgical Readmission Rate Variation Dependent on Surgical Volume, Surgical Mortality Rates

Clinical question: What factors determine rates of readmission after major surgery?

Background: Reducing hospital readmission rates has become a national priority. The U.S. patterns for surgical readmissions are unknown, as are the specific structural and quality characteristics of hospitals associated with lower surgical readmission rates.

Study design: Retrospective study of national Medicare data was used to calculate 30-day readmission rates for six major surgical procedures.

Setting: U.S. Hospitals, 2009-2010.

Synopsis: Six major surgical procedures were tracked by Medicare data, with 479,471 discharges from 3,004 hospitals. Structural characteristics included hospital size, teaching status, region, ownership, and proportion of patients living below the federal poverty line. Three well-established measures of surgical quality were used: the HQA surgical score, procedure volume, and 30-day mortality.

Hospitals in the highest quartile for surgical volume had a significantly lower readmission rate. Additionally, hospitals with the lowest surgical mortality rates had significantly lower readmission rates. Interestingly, high adherence to reported surgical process measures was only marginally associated with reduced admission rates. Prior studies have also shown inconsistent relationship between HQA surgical score and mortality.

Limitations to this study include inability to account for factors not captured by billing codes and the focus on a Medicare population.

Bottom line: Surgical readmission rates are associated with measures of surgical quality, specifically procedural volume and mortality.

Citation: Tsai TC, Joynt KE, Orav EJ, Gawande AA, Jha AK. Variation in surgical-readmission rates and quality of hospital care. 2013;369(12):1134-1142.

Patients Overwhelmingly Prefer Inpatient Boarding to ED Boarding

Clinical question: When hallway boarding is required, do patients prefer inpatient units over the ED?

Background: ED crowding is associated with patient dissatisfaction, ambulance diversion, delays in care, medical errors, and higher mortality rates. Strategies to alleviate the problem of boarding admitted patients in the ED can include relocation to inpatient hallways while awaiting a regular hospital bed. Traditional objections to inpatient hallway boarding include concerns regarding patient satisfaction and safety.

Study design: Structured telephone survey.

Setting: Suburban, university-based, teaching hospital.

Synopsis: Patients who required boarding in the ED hallway after hospital admission were eligible for inpatient hallway boarding according to the institutional protocol, which screens for those with only mild to moderate comorbidities. Of 110 consecutive patients contacted who experienced both ED and inpatient hallway boarding, 105 consented to participate in a tested telephone survey instrument.

The overall preferred location was inpatient hallways for 85% (95% CI 75-90) of respondents. Comparing ED boarding to inpatient hallway boarding, respondents preferred inpatient boarding with regard to staff availability (84%), safety (83%), confidentiality (82%), and comfort (79%).

Study results were subject to non-response bias, because working telephone numbers were required for study inclusion, as well as recall bias, because the survey was conducted within several months after discharge. This study’s results are based on actual patient experiences, whereas prior literature relied on patients to hypothesize the preferred environment after experiencing only ED hallway boarding to predict satisfaction.

Bottom line: Boarding in inpatient hallways was associated with higher patient satisfaction compared with ED hallway boarding.

Citation: Viccellio P, Zito JA, Sayage V, et al. Patients overwhelmingly prefer inpatient boarding to emergency department boarding [published online ahead of print September 21, 2013].

In This Edition

Literature At A Glance

A guide to this month’s studies

1. Antibiotic resistance threats in the United States
2. Turning for ulcer reduction: A multi-site, randomized, clinical trial in nursing homes
3. Prednisolone with or without pentoxfylline, and survival of patients with severe alcoholic hepatitis
4. Characteristics and impact of a hospitalist-staffed, post-discharge clinic
5. Higher continuity of care results in lower rate of preventable hospitalizations
6. Variation in surgical readmission rates depends on volume, mortality rates
7. Patients prefer inpatient boarding to ED boarding

Antibiotic Resistance Threats in the United States, 2013

Clinical question: What antibiotic-resistant bacteria are the greatest threats for the next 10 years?

Background: Two million people suffer antibiotic-resistant infections yearly, and 23,000 die each year as a result. Most of these infections occur in the community, but deaths usually occur in healthcare settings. Cost estimates vary but may be as high as $20 billion in excess direct healthcare costs.

Study design: The CDC used several different surveys and databanks, including the National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System, to collect data. The threat level for antibiotic-resistant bacteria was determined using several factors: clinical impact, economic impact, incidence, 10-year projection of incidence, transmissibility, availability of effective antibiotics, and barriers to prevention.

Setting: United States.

Synopsis: The CDC has three classifications of antibiotic-resistant bacteria: urgent, serious, and concerning. Urgent threats are high-consequence, antibiotic-resistant threats because of significant risks identified across several criteria. These threats might not currently be widespread but have the potential to become so and require urgent public health attention to identify infections and to limit transmission. They include carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae, drug-resistant Neisseria gonorrhoeae, and Clostridium difficile (does not have true resistance, but is a consequence of antibiotic overuse).

Serious threats are significant antibiotic-resistant threats. These threats will worsen and might become urgent without ongoing public health monitoring and prevention activities. They include multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter, drug-resistant Campylobacter, fluconazole-resistant Candida (a fungus), extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae, vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus, multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa, drug-resistant non-typhoidal Salmonella, drug-resistant Salmonella Typhimurium, drug-resistant Shigella, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, drug-resistant Streptococcus pneumonia, and drug-resistant tuberculosis.

Concerning threats are bacteria for which the threat of antibiotic resistance is low, and/ or there are multiple therapeutic options for resistant infections. These bacterial pathogens cause severe illness. Threats in this category require monitoring and, in some cases, rapid incident or outbreak response. These include vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, erythromycin-resistant Group A Streptococcus, and clindamycin-resistant Group B Streptococcus. Research has shown patients with resistant infections have significantly longer hospital stays, delayed recuperation, long-term disability, and higher mortality. As resistance to current antibiotics occurs, providers are forced to use antibiotics that are more toxic, more expensive, and less effective.

The CDC recommends four core actions to fight antibiotic resistance:

• Preventing infections from occurring and preventing resistant bacteria from spreading (immunization, infection control, screening, treatment, and education);
• Tracking resistant bacteria;
• Improving the use of antibiotics (antibiotic stewardship); and
• Promoting the development of new antibiotics and new diagnostic tests for resistant bacteria.

Bottom line: Antibiotics are a limited resource. The more antibiotics are used today, the less likely they will continue to be effective in the future. The CDC lists 18 antibiotic-resistant organisms as urgent, serious, or concerning and recommends actions to combat the spread of current organisms and emergence of new antibiotic organisms.

Citation: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Antibiotic resistance threats in the United States, 2013. CDC website. September 16, 2013. Available at: www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/threat-report-2013. Accessed Nov. 30, 2013.

Turning for Ulcer Reduction: A Multi-Site Randomized Clinical Trial in Nursing Homes

Clinical question: Is there a difference between repositioning intervals of two, three, or four hours in pressure ulcer formation in nursing home residents on high-density foam mattresses?

Background: Pressure ulcer formation in nursing home residents is a common problem. Current standard of care requires repositioning every two hours in patients who are at risk for pressure ulcer formation. Few studies have been performed to assess a difference in repositioning interval. This study was conducted to see if there is a difference in pressure ulcer formation among residents on high-density foam mattresses at moderate to high risk (according to the Braden scale).

Study design: Multi-site, randomized, clinical trial.

Setting: Twenty U.S. and seven Canadian nursing homes using high-density foam mattresses.

Synopsis: A multi-site, randomized clinical trial was executed in 20 U.S. and seven Canadian nursing homes. More than 900 residents were randomized to two-, three-, or four-hour intervals for repositioning. All participants were at either moderate (13-14) or high (10-12) risk on the Braden scale for pressure ulcer formation. All facilities used high-density foam mattresses. All participants were monitored for pressure ulcer formation on the sacrum/coccyx, heel, or trochanter for three consecutive weeks.

There was no significant difference in pressure ulcer formation between the two-, three-, or four-hour interval repositioning groups. There was no significant difference in pressure ulcer formation between the moderate or high-risk groups. Only 2% of participants developed a pressure ulcer, all stage I or II.

It is not clear if the outcomes were purely related to the repositioning intervals, as this study group had a much lower rate of pressure ulcer formation compared to national averages and previous studies. The high-density foam mattress might have improved outcomes by evenly redistributing pressure so that less frequent repositioning was required. The level of documentation may have led to earlier recognition of early stage pressure ulcers as well. This study also was limited to nursing home residents at moderate to high risk of pressure ulcer development.

Bottom line: There is no significant difference in pressure ulcer formation between repositioning intervals of two, three, or four hours among moderate and high-risk nursing home residents using high-density foam mattresses.

Citation: Bergstrom N, Horn SD, Rapp MP, Stern A, Barrett R, Watkiss M. Turning for ulcer reduction: a multisite randomized clinical trial in nursing homes. 2013;61(10):1705-1713.

Prednisolone, Pentoxifylline, and Survival of Patients with Severe Alcoholic Hepatitis

Clinical question: Does the addition of pentoxifylline to prednisolone improve six-month mortality compared to prednisolone alone in patients with severe alcoholic hepatitis?

Background: Prednisolone improves liver function and reduces inflammation in patients with alcoholic hepatitis. Pentoxifylline appears to have a protective effect against hepatorenal syndrome in patients with severe alcoholic hepatitis. The medications have different mechanisms of action; therefore, the researchers hypothesized that the combination of medication would improve outcomes.

Study design: Multi-center, randomized, double-blinded clinical trial.

Setting: One Belgian and 23 French hospitals, from December 2007 to October 2010.

Synopsis: This study randomized 270 patients to receive either prednisolone and pentoxifylline or prednisolone and placebo for 28 days. Acute alcoholic hepatitis was defined by a positive biopsy, onset of jaundice three months prior to the study, and a Maddrey’s discriminant function score of >32. All patients were assessed for response to treatment using the Lille model at seven days of treatment, occurrence of hepatorenal syndrome, and survival at six months.

Results showed no significant difference in treatment response, alcohol relapse, death, time to death, or occurrence of hepatorenal syndrome between the two treatment groups; however, there were fewer episodes of hepatorenal syndrome in the pentoxifylline group.

Patients considered responders by the Lille model and those with lower Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores had improved mortality. Patients treated with pentoxifylline had lower rates of hepatorenal syndrome at one month but no difference by six months. Patients with a lower Lille score had significantly less incidence of hepatorenal syndrome. The study may be underpowered to accurately determine outcomes other than six-month survival.

Bottom line: Adding pentoxifylline to prednisolone does not improve six-month survival in severe alcoholic hepatitis compared to prednisolone alone.

Citation: Mathurin P, Louvet A, Duhamel A, et al. Prednisolone with vs without pentoxifylline and survival of patients with severe alcoholic hepatitis: a randomized clinical trial. 2013;310(10):1033-1041.

Characteristics and Impact of Hospitalist-Staffed, Post-Discharge Clinic

Clinical question: What effect does a hospitalist-staffed, post-discharge clinic have on time to first post-hospitalization visit?

Background: Hospital discharge is a well-recognized care transition that can leave patients vulnerable to morbidity and re-hospitalization. Limited primary care access can hamper complex post-hospital follow-up. Discharge clinic models staffed by hospitalists have been developed to mitigate access issues, but research is lacking to describe their characteristics and benefits.

Study design: Single-center, prospective, observational database review.

Setting: Large, academic primary care practice affiliated with an academic medical center.

Synopsis: Between 2009 and 2011, this hospitalist-staffed, post-discharge clinic saw 596 patients, while the affiliated, large primary care practice saw 10,839 patients. Patients utilizing the hospitalist discharge clinic were more likely to be black (39% vs. 29%, <0.001) and to receive primary care from resident clinics (40% vs. 21%, <0.001). The median duration from hospital discharge to the first clinic visit was shorter for the post-discharge clinic (8.45 ± 0.43 days, <0.001).

The number of radiology and laboratory tests performed at the first post-discharge clinic visit showed similar patterns between the hospitalist discharge clinic and the primary care practice. Study design and size did not permit comparisons of readmission rates or mortality from time of discharge and also precluded evaluation of interventions on discharge-related medication errors or response time to outstanding test results.

Bottom line: A hospitalist-staffed, post-discharge clinic was associated with shorter time to first post-discharge visit, especially for patients who are black and receive primary care from resident clinics.

Citation: Doctoroff L, Nijhawan A, McNally D, Vanka A, Yu R, Mukamal KJ. The characteristics and impact of a hospitalist-staffed post-discharge clinic. 2013;126(11):1016.e9-1016.e15.

Higher Continuity of Care Results in Lower Rate of Preventable Hospitalizations

Clinical question: Is continuity of care related to preventable hospitalizations among older adults?

Background: Preventable hospitalizations cost approximately $25 billion annually in the U.S. The relationship between continuity of care and the risk of preventable hospitalization is unknown.

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Random sample of fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries, for ambulatory visits and hospital admissions.

Synopsis: This study examined 3.2 million Medicare beneficiaries using 2008-2010 claims data to measure continuity and the first preventable hospitalization. The Prevention Quality Indicators definitions and technical specifications from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality were used to identify preventable hospitalizations. Both the continuity of care score and usual provider continuity score were used to calculate continuity metrics. Baseline risk of preventable hospitalization included age, sex, race, Medicaid dual-eligible status, and residential zip code.

During a two-year period, 12.6% of patients had a preventable hospitalization. After adjusting for variables, a 0.1 increase in continuity of care was associated with about a 2% lower rate of preventable hospitalization. Interestingly, continuity of care was not related to mortality rates.

This study extends prior research associating continuity of care with reduced rate of hospitalization; however, the associations found cannot assert a causal relationship. This study used coding practices that vary throughout the country, included only older fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries, and could not verify why some patients had higher continuity of care. The authors suggest that efforts to strengthen physician-patient relationships through high-quality primary care will deter some hospital admissions.

Bottom line: Higher continuity of ambulatory care is associated with lower preventable hospitalizations in Medicare beneficiaries.

Citation: Nyweide DJ, Anthony DL, Bynum JP, et al. Continuity of care and the risk of preventable hospitalization in older adults. 2013;173(20):1879-1885.

Surgical Readmission Rate Variation Dependent on Surgical Volume, Surgical Mortality Rates

Clinical question: What factors determine rates of readmission after major surgery?

Background: Reducing hospital readmission rates has become a national priority. The U.S. patterns for surgical readmissions are unknown, as are the specific structural and quality characteristics of hospitals associated with lower surgical readmission rates.

Study design: Retrospective study of national Medicare data was used to calculate 30-day readmission rates for six major surgical procedures.

Setting: U.S. Hospitals, 2009-2010.

Synopsis: Six major surgical procedures were tracked by Medicare data, with 479,471 discharges from 3,004 hospitals. Structural characteristics included hospital size, teaching status, region, ownership, and proportion of patients living below the federal poverty line. Three well-established measures of surgical quality were used: the HQA surgical score, procedure volume, and 30-day mortality.

Hospitals in the highest quartile for surgical volume had a significantly lower readmission rate. Additionally, hospitals with the lowest surgical mortality rates had significantly lower readmission rates. Interestingly, high adherence to reported surgical process measures was only marginally associated with reduced admission rates. Prior studies have also shown inconsistent relationship between HQA surgical score and mortality.

Limitations to this study include inability to account for factors not captured by billing codes and the focus on a Medicare population.

Bottom line: Surgical readmission rates are associated with measures of surgical quality, specifically procedural volume and mortality.

Citation: Tsai TC, Joynt KE, Orav EJ, Gawande AA, Jha AK. Variation in surgical-readmission rates and quality of hospital care. 2013;369(12):1134-1142.

Patients Overwhelmingly Prefer Inpatient Boarding to ED Boarding

Clinical question: When hallway boarding is required, do patients prefer inpatient units over the ED?

Background: ED crowding is associated with patient dissatisfaction, ambulance diversion, delays in care, medical errors, and higher mortality rates. Strategies to alleviate the problem of boarding admitted patients in the ED can include relocation to inpatient hallways while awaiting a regular hospital bed. Traditional objections to inpatient hallway boarding include concerns regarding patient satisfaction and safety.

Study design: Structured telephone survey.

Setting: Suburban, university-based, teaching hospital.

Synopsis: Patients who required boarding in the ED hallway after hospital admission were eligible for inpatient hallway boarding according to the institutional protocol, which screens for those with only mild to moderate comorbidities. Of 110 consecutive patients contacted who experienced both ED and inpatient hallway boarding, 105 consented to participate in a tested telephone survey instrument.

The overall preferred location was inpatient hallways for 85% (95% CI 75-90) of respondents. Comparing ED boarding to inpatient hallway boarding, respondents preferred inpatient boarding with regard to staff availability (84%), safety (83%), confidentiality (82%), and comfort (79%).

Study results were subject to non-response bias, because working telephone numbers were required for study inclusion, as well as recall bias, because the survey was conducted within several months after discharge. This study’s results are based on actual patient experiences, whereas prior literature relied on patients to hypothesize the preferred environment after experiencing only ED hallway boarding to predict satisfaction.

Bottom line: Boarding in inpatient hallways was associated with higher patient satisfaction compared with ED hallway boarding.

Citation: Viccellio P, Zito JA, Sayage V, et al. Patients overwhelmingly prefer inpatient boarding to emergency department boarding [published online ahead of print September 21, 2013].

In This Edition

Literature At A Glance

A guide to this month’s studies

1. Antibiotic resistance threats in the United States
2. Turning for ulcer reduction: A multi-site, randomized, clinical trial in nursing homes
3. Prednisolone with or without pentoxfylline, and survival of patients with severe alcoholic hepatitis
4. Characteristics and impact of a hospitalist-staffed, post-discharge clinic
5. Higher continuity of care results in lower rate of preventable hospitalizations
6. Variation in surgical readmission rates depends on volume, mortality rates
7. Patients prefer inpatient boarding to ED boarding

Antibiotic Resistance Threats in the United States, 2013

Clinical question: What antibiotic-resistant bacteria are the greatest threats for the next 10 years?

Background: Two million people suffer antibiotic-resistant infections yearly, and 23,000 die each year as a result. Most of these infections occur in the community, but deaths usually occur in healthcare settings. Cost estimates vary but may be as high as $20 billion in excess direct healthcare costs.

Study design: The CDC used several different surveys and databanks, including the National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System, to collect data. The threat level for antibiotic-resistant bacteria was determined using several factors: clinical impact, economic impact, incidence, 10-year projection of incidence, transmissibility, availability of effective antibiotics, and barriers to prevention.

Setting: United States.

Synopsis: The CDC has three classifications of antibiotic-resistant bacteria: urgent, serious, and concerning. Urgent threats are high-consequence, antibiotic-resistant threats because of significant risks identified across several criteria. These threats might not currently be widespread but have the potential to become so and require urgent public health attention to identify infections and to limit transmission. They include carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae, drug-resistant Neisseria gonorrhoeae, and Clostridium difficile (does not have true resistance, but is a consequence of antibiotic overuse).

Serious threats are significant antibiotic-resistant threats. These threats will worsen and might become urgent without ongoing public health monitoring and prevention activities. They include multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter, drug-resistant Campylobacter, fluconazole-resistant Candida (a fungus), extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae, vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus, multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa, drug-resistant non-typhoidal Salmonella, drug-resistant Salmonella Typhimurium, drug-resistant Shigella, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, drug-resistant Streptococcus pneumonia, and drug-resistant tuberculosis.

Concerning threats are bacteria for which the threat of antibiotic resistance is low, and/ or there are multiple therapeutic options for resistant infections. These bacterial pathogens cause severe illness. Threats in this category require monitoring and, in some cases, rapid incident or outbreak response. These include vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, erythromycin-resistant Group A Streptococcus, and clindamycin-resistant Group B Streptococcus. Research has shown patients with resistant infections have significantly longer hospital stays, delayed recuperation, long-term disability, and higher mortality. As resistance to current antibiotics occurs, providers are forced to use antibiotics that are more toxic, more expensive, and less effective.

The CDC recommends four core actions to fight antibiotic resistance:

• Preventing infections from occurring and preventing resistant bacteria from spreading (immunization, infection control, screening, treatment, and education);
• Tracking resistant bacteria;
• Improving the use of antibiotics (antibiotic stewardship); and
• Promoting the development of new antibiotics and new diagnostic tests for resistant bacteria.

Bottom line: Antibiotics are a limited resource. The more antibiotics are used today, the less likely they will continue to be effective in the future. The CDC lists 18 antibiotic-resistant organisms as urgent, serious, or concerning and recommends actions to combat the spread of current organisms and emergence of new antibiotic organisms.

Citation: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Antibiotic resistance threats in the United States, 2013. CDC website. September 16, 2013. Available at: www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/threat-report-2013. Accessed Nov. 30, 2013.

Turning for Ulcer Reduction: A Multi-Site Randomized Clinical Trial in Nursing Homes

Clinical question: Is there a difference between repositioning intervals of two, three, or four hours in pressure ulcer formation in nursing home residents on high-density foam mattresses?

Background: Pressure ulcer formation in nursing home residents is a common problem. Current standard of care requires repositioning every two hours in patients who are at risk for pressure ulcer formation. Few studies have been performed to assess a difference in repositioning interval. This study was conducted to see if there is a difference in pressure ulcer formation among residents on high-density foam mattresses at moderate to high risk (according to the Braden scale).

Study design: Multi-site, randomized, clinical trial.

Setting: Twenty U.S. and seven Canadian nursing homes using high-density foam mattresses.

Synopsis: A multi-site, randomized clinical trial was executed in 20 U.S. and seven Canadian nursing homes. More than 900 residents were randomized to two-, three-, or four-hour intervals for repositioning. All participants were at either moderate (13-14) or high (10-12) risk on the Braden scale for pressure ulcer formation. All facilities used high-density foam mattresses. All participants were monitored for pressure ulcer formation on the sacrum/coccyx, heel, or trochanter for three consecutive weeks.

There was no significant difference in pressure ulcer formation between the two-, three-, or four-hour interval repositioning groups. There was no significant difference in pressure ulcer formation between the moderate or high-risk groups. Only 2% of participants developed a pressure ulcer, all stage I or II.

It is not clear if the outcomes were purely related to the repositioning intervals, as this study group had a much lower rate of pressure ulcer formation compared to national averages and previous studies. The high-density foam mattress might have improved outcomes by evenly redistributing pressure so that less frequent repositioning was required. The level of documentation may have led to earlier recognition of early stage pressure ulcers as well. This study also was limited to nursing home residents at moderate to high risk of pressure ulcer development.

Bottom line: There is no significant difference in pressure ulcer formation between repositioning intervals of two, three, or four hours among moderate and high-risk nursing home residents using high-density foam mattresses.

Citation: Bergstrom N, Horn SD, Rapp MP, Stern A, Barrett R, Watkiss M. Turning for ulcer reduction: a multisite randomized clinical trial in nursing homes. 2013;61(10):1705-1713.

Prednisolone, Pentoxifylline, and Survival of Patients with Severe Alcoholic Hepatitis

Clinical question: Does the addition of pentoxifylline to prednisolone improve six-month mortality compared to prednisolone alone in patients with severe alcoholic hepatitis?

Background: Prednisolone improves liver function and reduces inflammation in patients with alcoholic hepatitis. Pentoxifylline appears to have a protective effect against hepatorenal syndrome in patients with severe alcoholic hepatitis. The medications have different mechanisms of action; therefore, the researchers hypothesized that the combination of medication would improve outcomes.

Study design: Multi-center, randomized, double-blinded clinical trial.

Setting: One Belgian and 23 French hospitals, from December 2007 to October 2010.

Synopsis: This study randomized 270 patients to receive either prednisolone and pentoxifylline or prednisolone and placebo for 28 days. Acute alcoholic hepatitis was defined by a positive biopsy, onset of jaundice three months prior to the study, and a Maddrey’s discriminant function score of >32. All patients were assessed for response to treatment using the Lille model at seven days of treatment, occurrence of hepatorenal syndrome, and survival at six months.

Results showed no significant difference in treatment response, alcohol relapse, death, time to death, or occurrence of hepatorenal syndrome between the two treatment groups; however, there were fewer episodes of hepatorenal syndrome in the pentoxifylline group.

Patients considered responders by the Lille model and those with lower Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores had improved mortality. Patients treated with pentoxifylline had lower rates of hepatorenal syndrome at one month but no difference by six months. Patients with a lower Lille score had significantly less incidence of hepatorenal syndrome. The study may be underpowered to accurately determine outcomes other than six-month survival.

Bottom line: Adding pentoxifylline to prednisolone does not improve six-month survival in severe alcoholic hepatitis compared to prednisolone alone.

Citation: Mathurin P, Louvet A, Duhamel A, et al. Prednisolone with vs without pentoxifylline and survival of patients with severe alcoholic hepatitis: a randomized clinical trial. 2013;310(10):1033-1041.

Characteristics and Impact of Hospitalist-Staffed, Post-Discharge Clinic

Clinical question: What effect does a hospitalist-staffed, post-discharge clinic have on time to first post-hospitalization visit?

Background: Hospital discharge is a well-recognized care transition that can leave patients vulnerable to morbidity and re-hospitalization. Limited primary care access can hamper complex post-hospital follow-up. Discharge clinic models staffed by hospitalists have been developed to mitigate access issues, but research is lacking to describe their characteristics and benefits.

Study design: Single-center, prospective, observational database review.

Setting: Large, academic primary care practice affiliated with an academic medical center.

Synopsis: Between 2009 and 2011, this hospitalist-staffed, post-discharge clinic saw 596 patients, while the affiliated, large primary care practice saw 10,839 patients. Patients utilizing the hospitalist discharge clinic were more likely to be black (39% vs. 29%, <0.001) and to receive primary care from resident clinics (40% vs. 21%, <0.001). The median duration from hospital discharge to the first clinic visit was shorter for the post-discharge clinic (8.45 ± 0.43 days, <0.001).

The number of radiology and laboratory tests performed at the first post-discharge clinic visit showed similar patterns between the hospitalist discharge clinic and the primary care practice. Study design and size did not permit comparisons of readmission rates or mortality from time of discharge and also precluded evaluation of interventions on discharge-related medication errors or response time to outstanding test results.

Bottom line: A hospitalist-staffed, post-discharge clinic was associated with shorter time to first post-discharge visit, especially for patients who are black and receive primary care from resident clinics.

Citation: Doctoroff L, Nijhawan A, McNally D, Vanka A, Yu R, Mukamal KJ. The characteristics and impact of a hospitalist-staffed post-discharge clinic. 2013;126(11):1016.e9-1016.e15.

Higher Continuity of Care Results in Lower Rate of Preventable Hospitalizations

Clinical question: Is continuity of care related to preventable hospitalizations among older adults?

Background: Preventable hospitalizations cost approximately $25 billion annually in the U.S. The relationship between continuity of care and the risk of preventable hospitalization is unknown.

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Random sample of fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries, for ambulatory visits and hospital admissions.

Synopsis: This study examined 3.2 million Medicare beneficiaries using 2008-2010 claims data to measure continuity and the first preventable hospitalization. The Prevention Quality Indicators definitions and technical specifications from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality were used to identify preventable hospitalizations. Both the continuity of care score and usual provider continuity score were used to calculate continuity metrics. Baseline risk of preventable hospitalization included age, sex, race, Medicaid dual-eligible status, and residential zip code.

During a two-year period, 12.6% of patients had a preventable hospitalization. After adjusting for variables, a 0.1 increase in continuity of care was associated with about a 2% lower rate of preventable hospitalization. Interestingly, continuity of care was not related to mortality rates.

This study extends prior research associating continuity of care with reduced rate of hospitalization; however, the associations found cannot assert a causal relationship. This study used coding practices that vary throughout the country, included only older fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries, and could not verify why some patients had higher continuity of care. The authors suggest that efforts to strengthen physician-patient relationships through high-quality primary care will deter some hospital admissions.

Bottom line: Higher continuity of ambulatory care is associated with lower preventable hospitalizations in Medicare beneficiaries.

Citation: Nyweide DJ, Anthony DL, Bynum JP, et al. Continuity of care and the risk of preventable hospitalization in older adults. 2013;173(20):1879-1885.

Surgical Readmission Rate Variation Dependent on Surgical Volume, Surgical Mortality Rates

Clinical question: What factors determine rates of readmission after major surgery?

Background: Reducing hospital readmission rates has become a national priority. The U.S. patterns for surgical readmissions are unknown, as are the specific structural and quality characteristics of hospitals associated with lower surgical readmission rates.

Study design: Retrospective study of national Medicare data was used to calculate 30-day readmission rates for six major surgical procedures.

Setting: U.S. Hospitals, 2009-2010.

Synopsis: Six major surgical procedures were tracked by Medicare data, with 479,471 discharges from 3,004 hospitals. Structural characteristics included hospital size, teaching status, region, ownership, and proportion of patients living below the federal poverty line. Three well-established measures of surgical quality were used: the HQA surgical score, procedure volume, and 30-day mortality.

Hospitals in the highest quartile for surgical volume had a significantly lower readmission rate. Additionally, hospitals with the lowest surgical mortality rates had significantly lower readmission rates. Interestingly, high adherence to reported surgical process measures was only marginally associated with reduced admission rates. Prior studies have also shown inconsistent relationship between HQA surgical score and mortality.

Limitations to this study include inability to account for factors not captured by billing codes and the focus on a Medicare population.

Bottom line: Surgical readmission rates are associated with measures of surgical quality, specifically procedural volume and mortality.

Citation: Tsai TC, Joynt KE, Orav EJ, Gawande AA, Jha AK. Variation in surgical-readmission rates and quality of hospital care. 2013;369(12):1134-1142.

Patients Overwhelmingly Prefer Inpatient Boarding to ED Boarding

Clinical question: When hallway boarding is required, do patients prefer inpatient units over the ED?

Background: ED crowding is associated with patient dissatisfaction, ambulance diversion, delays in care, medical errors, and higher mortality rates. Strategies to alleviate the problem of boarding admitted patients in the ED can include relocation to inpatient hallways while awaiting a regular hospital bed. Traditional objections to inpatient hallway boarding include concerns regarding patient satisfaction and safety.

Study design: Structured telephone survey.

Setting: Suburban, university-based, teaching hospital.

Synopsis: Patients who required boarding in the ED hallway after hospital admission were eligible for inpatient hallway boarding according to the institutional protocol, which screens for those with only mild to moderate comorbidities. Of 110 consecutive patients contacted who experienced both ED and inpatient hallway boarding, 105 consented to participate in a tested telephone survey instrument.

The overall preferred location was inpatient hallways for 85% (95% CI 75-90) of respondents. Comparing ED boarding to inpatient hallway boarding, respondents preferred inpatient boarding with regard to staff availability (84%), safety (83%), confidentiality (82%), and comfort (79%).

Study results were subject to non-response bias, because working telephone numbers were required for study inclusion, as well as recall bias, because the survey was conducted within several months after discharge. This study’s results are based on actual patient experiences, whereas prior literature relied on patients to hypothesize the preferred environment after experiencing only ED hallway boarding to predict satisfaction.

Bottom line: Boarding in inpatient hallways was associated with higher patient satisfaction compared with ED hallway boarding.

Citation: Viccellio P, Zito JA, Sayage V, et al. Patients overwhelmingly prefer inpatient boarding to emergency department boarding [published online ahead of print September 21, 2013].

Clinical question: In patients with peptic ulcer bleeding, are oral PPIs of equal benefit to intravenous PPIs?

Background: PPI therapy has been shown in several studies to reduce re-bleeding risk in patients when used adjunctively for peptic ulcer bleeding. In spite of this data, there is still uncertainty about the optimal dose and route of administration.

Study design: Meta-analysis of prospective, randomized control trials.

Setting: OVID database search in June 2012.

Synopsis: A literature search identified six prospective randomized control trials. Overall, 615 patients were included across the six trials. No significant difference in risk of re-bleeding was discovered between the two groups (8.6% oral vs. 9.3% IV, RR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.56–1.5). Length of hospital stay was statistically significantly lower for oral PPIs (-0.74 day, 95% CI: -1.10 to -0.39 day).

Because these findings are based on a meta-analysis of studies with notable flaws—including lack of blinding—it is difficult to draw any definitive conclusions from this data. Hospitalists should use care before changing their practice patterns, given the risk of bias and need for further study.

Bottom line: Oral PPIs may reduce hospital length of stay without an increased risk of re-bleeding; however, further study with a well-powered, double-blind, randomized control trial is necessary.

Citation: Tsoi KK, Hirai HW, Sung JJ. Meta-analysis: Comparison of oral vs. intravenous proton pump inhibitors in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2013;38(7):721-728.

Visit our website for more information on the use of proton pump inhibitors.

Clinical question: In patients with peptic ulcer bleeding, are oral PPIs of equal benefit to intravenous PPIs?

Background: PPI therapy has been shown in several studies to reduce re-bleeding risk in patients when used adjunctively for peptic ulcer bleeding. In spite of this data, there is still uncertainty about the optimal dose and route of administration.

Study design: Meta-analysis of prospective, randomized control trials.

Setting: OVID database search in June 2012.

Synopsis: A literature search identified six prospective randomized control trials. Overall, 615 patients were included across the six trials. No significant difference in risk of re-bleeding was discovered between the two groups (8.6% oral vs. 9.3% IV, RR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.56–1.5). Length of hospital stay was statistically significantly lower for oral PPIs (-0.74 day, 95% CI: -1.10 to -0.39 day).

Because these findings are based on a meta-analysis of studies with notable flaws—including lack of blinding—it is difficult to draw any definitive conclusions from this data. Hospitalists should use care before changing their practice patterns, given the risk of bias and need for further study.

Bottom line: Oral PPIs may reduce hospital length of stay without an increased risk of re-bleeding; however, further study with a well-powered, double-blind, randomized control trial is necessary.

Citation: Tsoi KK, Hirai HW, Sung JJ. Meta-analysis: Comparison of oral vs. intravenous proton pump inhibitors in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2013;38(7):721-728.

Visit our website for more information on the use of proton pump inhibitors.

Clinical question: In patients with peptic ulcer bleeding, are oral PPIs of equal benefit to intravenous PPIs?

Background: PPI therapy has been shown in several studies to reduce re-bleeding risk in patients when used adjunctively for peptic ulcer bleeding. In spite of this data, there is still uncertainty about the optimal dose and route of administration.

Study design: Meta-analysis of prospective, randomized control trials.

Setting: OVID database search in June 2012.

Synopsis: A literature search identified six prospective randomized control trials. Overall, 615 patients were included across the six trials. No significant difference in risk of re-bleeding was discovered between the two groups (8.6% oral vs. 9.3% IV, RR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.56–1.5). Length of hospital stay was statistically significantly lower for oral PPIs (-0.74 day, 95% CI: -1.10 to -0.39 day).

Because these findings are based on a meta-analysis of studies with notable flaws—including lack of blinding—it is difficult to draw any definitive conclusions from this data. Hospitalists should use care before changing their practice patterns, given the risk of bias and need for further study.

Bottom line: Oral PPIs may reduce hospital length of stay without an increased risk of re-bleeding; however, further study with a well-powered, double-blind, randomized control trial is necessary.

Citation: Tsoi KK, Hirai HW, Sung JJ. Meta-analysis: Comparison of oral vs. intravenous proton pump inhibitors in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2013;38(7):721-728.

Visit our website for more information on the use of proton pump inhibitors.

The question of whether health insurance equals healthcare access is complicated in the roughly two dozen states that have chosen not to expand Medicaid—an option granted by the U.S. Supreme Court in its June 2012 decision that upheld the law’s main tenets. Even with the federal government paying the full cost for the first three years (decreasing to 90% by 2020), some states have argued that the economic burden will be too great.

According to a recent analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation, roughly five million uninsured adults may now fall into a “coverage gap” as a result. In essence, they will earn too much to be covered under the highly variable Medicaid caps established by individual states but too little to receive any federal tax credits to help pay for insurance in the exchanges. With limited options, the report suggests, they are likely to remain uninsured.

Safety net hospitals also may be squeezed between conflicting state and federal Medicaid priorities. During the initial Affordable Care Act (ACA) negotiations, hospitals agreed to $155 billion in cuts over 10 years, including sharp reductions in Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) payments, in anticipation of seeing a significant decrease in uninsured patients. Despite lower DSH payments, the hospitals expected to recoup the money through more Medicaid or private insurance reimbursements.

"The Medicaid expansion being optional throws a kink in all of that,” says Leighton Ku, PhD, MPH, director of the Center for Health Policy Research at George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services in Washington, D.C.

The ongoing open enrollment in insurance exchanges will make up part of the total. But in states that are not expanding Medicaid, the number of newly insured patients may not compensate for the DSH reductions. Robert Berenson, MD, a senior fellow at the Washington, D.C.-based Urban Institute, a nonpartisan think tank focused on social and economic policy, says the resulting net loss could put some hospitals under additional financial strain.

"There will be pressure within the states from hospitals and from the business community to expand Medicaid because, otherwise, they’re bearing the burden of it,” he says.

Bryn Nelson is a freelance medical writer in Seattle.

The question of whether health insurance equals healthcare access is complicated in the roughly two dozen states that have chosen not to expand Medicaid—an option granted by the U.S. Supreme Court in its June 2012 decision that upheld the law’s main tenets. Even with the federal government paying the full cost for the first three years (decreasing to 90% by 2020), some states have argued that the economic burden will be too great.

According to a recent analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation, roughly five million uninsured adults may now fall into a “coverage gap” as a result. In essence, they will earn too much to be covered under the highly variable Medicaid caps established by individual states but too little to receive any federal tax credits to help pay for insurance in the exchanges. With limited options, the report suggests, they are likely to remain uninsured.

Safety net hospitals also may be squeezed between conflicting state and federal Medicaid priorities. During the initial Affordable Care Act (ACA) negotiations, hospitals agreed to $155 billion in cuts over 10 years, including sharp reductions in Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) payments, in anticipation of seeing a significant decrease in uninsured patients. Despite lower DSH payments, the hospitals expected to recoup the money through more Medicaid or private insurance reimbursements.

"The Medicaid expansion being optional throws a kink in all of that,” says Leighton Ku, PhD, MPH, director of the Center for Health Policy Research at George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services in Washington, D.C.

The ongoing open enrollment in insurance exchanges will make up part of the total. But in states that are not expanding Medicaid, the number of newly insured patients may not compensate for the DSH reductions. Robert Berenson, MD, a senior fellow at the Washington, D.C.-based Urban Institute, a nonpartisan think tank focused on social and economic policy, says the resulting net loss could put some hospitals under additional financial strain.

"There will be pressure within the states from hospitals and from the business community to expand Medicaid because, otherwise, they’re bearing the burden of it,” he says.

Bryn Nelson is a freelance medical writer in Seattle.

The question of whether health insurance equals healthcare access is complicated in the roughly two dozen states that have chosen not to expand Medicaid—an option granted by the U.S. Supreme Court in its June 2012 decision that upheld the law’s main tenets. Even with the federal government paying the full cost for the first three years (decreasing to 90% by 2020), some states have argued that the economic burden will be too great.

According to a recent analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation, roughly five million uninsured adults may now fall into a “coverage gap” as a result. In essence, they will earn too much to be covered under the highly variable Medicaid caps established by individual states but too little to receive any federal tax credits to help pay for insurance in the exchanges. With limited options, the report suggests, they are likely to remain uninsured.

Safety net hospitals also may be squeezed between conflicting state and federal Medicaid priorities. During the initial Affordable Care Act (ACA) negotiations, hospitals agreed to $155 billion in cuts over 10 years, including sharp reductions in Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) payments, in anticipation of seeing a significant decrease in uninsured patients. Despite lower DSH payments, the hospitals expected to recoup the money through more Medicaid or private insurance reimbursements.

"The Medicaid expansion being optional throws a kink in all of that,” says Leighton Ku, PhD, MPH, director of the Center for Health Policy Research at George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services in Washington, D.C.

The ongoing open enrollment in insurance exchanges will make up part of the total. But in states that are not expanding Medicaid, the number of newly insured patients may not compensate for the DSH reductions. Robert Berenson, MD, a senior fellow at the Washington, D.C.-based Urban Institute, a nonpartisan think tank focused on social and economic policy, says the resulting net loss could put some hospitals under additional financial strain.

"There will be pressure within the states from hospitals and from the business community to expand Medicaid because, otherwise, they’re bearing the burden of it,” he says.

Bryn Nelson is a freelance medical writer in Seattle.

Click here to listen to more of our interview with Dr. Lenchus

Click here to listen to more of our interview with Dr. Lenchus

Click here to listen to more of our interview with Dr. Lenchus

Dr. Harte

Six years ago, after I had been in clinical practice for almost a decade, my career took several unusual turns that now have me sitting in the position of president of a 500-bed, full-service, very successful community hospital and referral center. While that has inevitably whittled my clinical time down to a mere fraction of what it used to be, I still spend a lot of time “on the dance floor,” although the steps are different at the bedside.

Whether you spend your day going from patient to patient or meeting to meeting, over time it’s nearly inevitable that you will lose some perspective and appreciation for the hospital settings that we have chosen to spend our careers in. From time to time, whether you are in clinical medicine or administration, take the time to step off that dance floor and get a different perspective, to reflect upon our hospital environment. It’s a critical skill for “systems-based thinkers.” Take a minute to reconnect and appreciate some extraordinary things about the places we work in.

Here are a handful of my own reflections:

Hospitals are remarkable places. Lives are transformed in hospitals—some by the miraculous skills and technology available, and some despite that technology. Last week, I saw a 23-week-old baby in our neonatal ICU, barely a pound, intubated, being tube-fed breast milk, with skin more delicate than tissue paper. When I was a medical student, such prematurity was simply incompatible with life.

We also walk patients and families through the end-of-life journey. To organize families and patients around such issues and help them find a path toward understanding and closure is a remarkable experience as well.

The difference between a good hospital and a great one is culture, not just “quality.” Over Labor Day, I went to my parents’ house outside Cincinnati. When I arrived, near midnight, my mother greeted my three children and me and then announced that she had to take my father to the hospital. Evidently, he had a skin/soft tissue infection that had gotten worse over the last couple of days, and when contacted that evening, his physician had made arrangements for him to be admitted directly to a nearby community hospital. It sure seemed to me that it would make more sense for me to take him to the hospital, so off we went.

I will say at this point that the quality of his care was fine. He was guided from registration to his room promptly. His IV antibiotics were started and were appropriately chosen. A surgeon saw him and debrided a large purulent lesion. The wound was packed, and he started feeling better. His pain was well controlled, and he went home a few days later with correct discharge instructions. There were no medication errors and no “near-misses” or harm events.

Yet, on that first night, no one was introduced by name or role. On the wheelchair ride up to the room, we passed at least six employees—four nurses or aides, a clerk, and a housekeeper. No one broke away from what they were doing (or not doing) to make eye contact, much less to smile or greet us. This hospital has EHR stations right in patient rooms, and the nurse and charge nurse stood in front of the machine, where we could hear them, complaining about the EHR. No one was able to step back from “the dance floor” of the minute-by-minute work and acknowledge the bummer reality that my father was going to spend Labor Day weekend in the hospital. And this is at a well-regarded community hospital, well-appointed with private rooms, in a relatively affluent community, with resources that most hospitals dream of. I left that night disappointed, not in the quality but in the culture.

Empathy matters. At the Cleveland Clinic, all employed physicians are now required to take a course called “Foundations of Healthcare Communication.” I recently took the class with about a dozen others. Our facilitator led us through several workshops and simulations of patients who were struggling with emotions—fear, uncertainly, anxiety. What struck me in participating in these workshops was our natural tendency as physicians when in these situations to try to “fix the problem.” We try to reassure, for instance, that a patient has “nothing to worry about,” that “everything will be fine,” or that “you are in good hands.”

While these statements may have a role, jumping to them as an immediate response misses a critical step: the acknowledgement of the fear, anxiety, or sense of hopelessness that our patients feel. It’s terribly difficult, when surrounded by so much sickness, to stay in touch with our ability to express empathy. Therefore, it’s all the more important to be able to step back and appreciate the need to do so.

Change is difficult—and hospitals are not airplanes. In healthcare, we are attempting to apply the principles of high reliability, continuous improvement, and “lean workflows” to our systems and to the bedside. This is absolutely necessary to improve patient safety and the outcomes and lives in our communities, with comparisons to the airline industry and other “high reliability” industries as benchmarks. I couldn’t agree more that our focus should not just be on prevention of errors; we should be eliminating them. Every central line-associated bloodstream infection, every “never event,” every patient who does not feel touched by our empathy—we should think of each of these as our industry’s equivalent of a “plane crash.”

As leaders, however, it’s critical that we step back and remember that healthcare is far behind in terms of integrated technologies and decision support—and more dependent on “human factors.” We are more complex, more variable, and more fallible.

A nurse arriving on his or her shift at my hospital is coming in to care for somewhere between four and seven patients, each of whom have different conditions, different complexities, different levels of understanding and expectation, different provider teams and family support. I am not sure that the comparison to the airline industry is appropriate, unless we level the playing field: How safe and reliable would air travel be if, until he or she sat down in the cockpit, the pilot had no idea what kind of plane he would be flying, how many of her flight crew had shown up, what the weather would be like on takeoff, or where the flight was even going. That is more similar to our reality at the bedside.

The answer, of course, is that the airline industry has made the decisions necessary to ensure that pilots, crew, and passengers are never in such situations. We need to re-engineer our own systems, even as they are more reliant upon these human factors. We also need the higher perspective to manage our teams through these extraordinarily difficult changes.

In Sum

I believe that the skills that successful physician leaders need come, either naturally or through self-selection, to many who work in hospital-based environments: teamwork, collaboration, communication, deference to expertise, and a focus on results. I also believe that the physician leaders who will stand out and become leaders in hospitals, systems, and policy will be those who are able stand back, gain perspective, and organize teams and systems toward aspirational strategies that engage our idealism and empathy, and continuously raise the bar.

From my 15 years with SHM and hospital medicine, I’ve seen that our organization is full of such individuals. Those of us in administrative and hospital leadership positions are looking to all of you to learn and showcase those skills, and to lead the way forward to improve care for our patients and communities.

Dr. Harte is president of Hillcrest Hospital in Mayfield Heights, Ohio, part of the Cleveland Clinic Health System. He is associate professor of medicine at the Lerner College of Medicine in Cleveland and an SHM board member.

Dr. Harte

Six years ago, after I had been in clinical practice for almost a decade, my career took several unusual turns that now have me sitting in the position of president of a 500-bed, full-service, very successful community hospital and referral center. While that has inevitably whittled my clinical time down to a mere fraction of what it used to be, I still spend a lot of time “on the dance floor,” although the steps are different at the bedside.

Whether you spend your day going from patient to patient or meeting to meeting, over time it’s nearly inevitable that you will lose some perspective and appreciation for the hospital settings that we have chosen to spend our careers in. From time to time, whether you are in clinical medicine or administration, take the time to step off that dance floor and get a different perspective, to reflect upon our hospital environment. It’s a critical skill for “systems-based thinkers.” Take a minute to reconnect and appreciate some extraordinary things about the places we work in.

Here are a handful of my own reflections:

Hospitals are remarkable places. Lives are transformed in hospitals—some by the miraculous skills and technology available, and some despite that technology. Last week, I saw a 23-week-old baby in our neonatal ICU, barely a pound, intubated, being tube-fed breast milk, with skin more delicate than tissue paper. When I was a medical student, such prematurity was simply incompatible with life.

We also walk patients and families through the end-of-life journey. To organize families and patients around such issues and help them find a path toward understanding and closure is a remarkable experience as well.

The difference between a good hospital and a great one is culture, not just “quality.” Over Labor Day, I went to my parents’ house outside Cincinnati. When I arrived, near midnight, my mother greeted my three children and me and then announced that she had to take my father to the hospital. Evidently, he had a skin/soft tissue infection that had gotten worse over the last couple of days, and when contacted that evening, his physician had made arrangements for him to be admitted directly to a nearby community hospital. It sure seemed to me that it would make more sense for me to take him to the hospital, so off we went.

I will say at this point that the quality of his care was fine. He was guided from registration to his room promptly. His IV antibiotics were started and were appropriately chosen. A surgeon saw him and debrided a large purulent lesion. The wound was packed, and he started feeling better. His pain was well controlled, and he went home a few days later with correct discharge instructions. There were no medication errors and no “near-misses” or harm events.

Yet, on that first night, no one was introduced by name or role. On the wheelchair ride up to the room, we passed at least six employees—four nurses or aides, a clerk, and a housekeeper. No one broke away from what they were doing (or not doing) to make eye contact, much less to smile or greet us. This hospital has EHR stations right in patient rooms, and the nurse and charge nurse stood in front of the machine, where we could hear them, complaining about the EHR. No one was able to step back from “the dance floor” of the minute-by-minute work and acknowledge the bummer reality that my father was going to spend Labor Day weekend in the hospital. And this is at a well-regarded community hospital, well-appointed with private rooms, in a relatively affluent community, with resources that most hospitals dream of. I left that night disappointed, not in the quality but in the culture.

Empathy matters. At the Cleveland Clinic, all employed physicians are now required to take a course called “Foundations of Healthcare Communication.” I recently took the class with about a dozen others. Our facilitator led us through several workshops and simulations of patients who were struggling with emotions—fear, uncertainly, anxiety. What struck me in participating in these workshops was our natural tendency as physicians when in these situations to try to “fix the problem.” We try to reassure, for instance, that a patient has “nothing to worry about,” that “everything will be fine,” or that “you are in good hands.”

While these statements may have a role, jumping to them as an immediate response misses a critical step: the acknowledgement of the fear, anxiety, or sense of hopelessness that our patients feel. It’s terribly difficult, when surrounded by so much sickness, to stay in touch with our ability to express empathy. Therefore, it’s all the more important to be able to step back and appreciate the need to do so.

Change is difficult—and hospitals are not airplanes. In healthcare, we are attempting to apply the principles of high reliability, continuous improvement, and “lean workflows” to our systems and to the bedside. This is absolutely necessary to improve patient safety and the outcomes and lives in our communities, with comparisons to the airline industry and other “high reliability” industries as benchmarks. I couldn’t agree more that our focus should not just be on prevention of errors; we should be eliminating them. Every central line-associated bloodstream infection, every “never event,” every patient who does not feel touched by our empathy—we should think of each of these as our industry’s equivalent of a “plane crash.”

As leaders, however, it’s critical that we step back and remember that healthcare is far behind in terms of integrated technologies and decision support—and more dependent on “human factors.” We are more complex, more variable, and more fallible.

A nurse arriving on his or her shift at my hospital is coming in to care for somewhere between four and seven patients, each of whom have different conditions, different complexities, different levels of understanding and expectation, different provider teams and family support. I am not sure that the comparison to the airline industry is appropriate, unless we level the playing field: How safe and reliable would air travel be if, until he or she sat down in the cockpit, the pilot had no idea what kind of plane he would be flying, how many of her flight crew had shown up, what the weather would be like on takeoff, or where the flight was even going. That is more similar to our reality at the bedside.

The answer, of course, is that the airline industry has made the decisions necessary to ensure that pilots, crew, and passengers are never in such situations. We need to re-engineer our own systems, even as they are more reliant upon these human factors. We also need the higher perspective to manage our teams through these extraordinarily difficult changes.

In Sum

I believe that the skills that successful physician leaders need come, either naturally or through self-selection, to many who work in hospital-based environments: teamwork, collaboration, communication, deference to expertise, and a focus on results. I also believe that the physician leaders who will stand out and become leaders in hospitals, systems, and policy will be those who are able stand back, gain perspective, and organize teams and systems toward aspirational strategies that engage our idealism and empathy, and continuously raise the bar.

From my 15 years with SHM and hospital medicine, I’ve seen that our organization is full of such individuals. Those of us in administrative and hospital leadership positions are looking to all of you to learn and showcase those skills, and to lead the way forward to improve care for our patients and communities.

Dr. Harte is president of Hillcrest Hospital in Mayfield Heights, Ohio, part of the Cleveland Clinic Health System. He is associate professor of medicine at the Lerner College of Medicine in Cleveland and an SHM board member.

Dr. Harte

Six years ago, after I had been in clinical practice for almost a decade, my career took several unusual turns that now have me sitting in the position of president of a 500-bed, full-service, very successful community hospital and referral center. While that has inevitably whittled my clinical time down to a mere fraction of what it used to be, I still spend a lot of time “on the dance floor,” although the steps are different at the bedside.

Whether you spend your day going from patient to patient or meeting to meeting, over time it’s nearly inevitable that you will lose some perspective and appreciation for the hospital settings that we have chosen to spend our careers in. From time to time, whether you are in clinical medicine or administration, take the time to step off that dance floor and get a different perspective, to reflect upon our hospital environment. It’s a critical skill for “systems-based thinkers.” Take a minute to reconnect and appreciate some extraordinary things about the places we work in.

Here are a handful of my own reflections:

Hospitals are remarkable places. Lives are transformed in hospitals—some by the miraculous skills and technology available, and some despite that technology. Last week, I saw a 23-week-old baby in our neonatal ICU, barely a pound, intubated, being tube-fed breast milk, with skin more delicate than tissue paper. When I was a medical student, such prematurity was simply incompatible with life.

We also walk patients and families through the end-of-life journey. To organize families and patients around such issues and help them find a path toward understanding and closure is a remarkable experience as well.

The difference between a good hospital and a great one is culture, not just “quality.” Over Labor Day, I went to my parents’ house outside Cincinnati. When I arrived, near midnight, my mother greeted my three children and me and then announced that she had to take my father to the hospital. Evidently, he had a skin/soft tissue infection that had gotten worse over the last couple of days, and when contacted that evening, his physician had made arrangements for him to be admitted directly to a nearby community hospital. It sure seemed to me that it would make more sense for me to take him to the hospital, so off we went.

I will say at this point that the quality of his care was fine. He was guided from registration to his room promptly. His IV antibiotics were started and were appropriately chosen. A surgeon saw him and debrided a large purulent lesion. The wound was packed, and he started feeling better. His pain was well controlled, and he went home a few days later with correct discharge instructions. There were no medication errors and no “near-misses” or harm events.

Yet, on that first night, no one was introduced by name or role. On the wheelchair ride up to the room, we passed at least six employees—four nurses or aides, a clerk, and a housekeeper. No one broke away from what they were doing (or not doing) to make eye contact, much less to smile or greet us. This hospital has EHR stations right in patient rooms, and the nurse and charge nurse stood in front of the machine, where we could hear them, complaining about the EHR. No one was able to step back from “the dance floor” of the minute-by-minute work and acknowledge the bummer reality that my father was going to spend Labor Day weekend in the hospital. And this is at a well-regarded community hospital, well-appointed with private rooms, in a relatively affluent community, with resources that most hospitals dream of. I left that night disappointed, not in the quality but in the culture.

Empathy matters. At the Cleveland Clinic, all employed physicians are now required to take a course called “Foundations of Healthcare Communication.” I recently took the class with about a dozen others. Our facilitator led us through several workshops and simulations of patients who were struggling with emotions—fear, uncertainly, anxiety. What struck me in participating in these workshops was our natural tendency as physicians when in these situations to try to “fix the problem.” We try to reassure, for instance, that a patient has “nothing to worry about,” that “everything will be fine,” or that “you are in good hands.”

While these statements may have a role, jumping to them as an immediate response misses a critical step: the acknowledgement of the fear, anxiety, or sense of hopelessness that our patients feel. It’s terribly difficult, when surrounded by so much sickness, to stay in touch with our ability to express empathy. Therefore, it’s all the more important to be able to step back and appreciate the need to do so.

Change is difficult—and hospitals are not airplanes. In healthcare, we are attempting to apply the principles of high reliability, continuous improvement, and “lean workflows” to our systems and to the bedside. This is absolutely necessary to improve patient safety and the outcomes and lives in our communities, with comparisons to the airline industry and other “high reliability” industries as benchmarks. I couldn’t agree more that our focus should not just be on prevention of errors; we should be eliminating them. Every central line-associated bloodstream infection, every “never event,” every patient who does not feel touched by our empathy—we should think of each of these as our industry’s equivalent of a “plane crash.”

As leaders, however, it’s critical that we step back and remember that healthcare is far behind in terms of integrated technologies and decision support—and more dependent on “human factors.” We are more complex, more variable, and more fallible.

A nurse arriving on his or her shift at my hospital is coming in to care for somewhere between four and seven patients, each of whom have different conditions, different complexities, different levels of understanding and expectation, different provider teams and family support. I am not sure that the comparison to the airline industry is appropriate, unless we level the playing field: How safe and reliable would air travel be if, until he or she sat down in the cockpit, the pilot had no idea what kind of plane he would be flying, how many of her flight crew had shown up, what the weather would be like on takeoff, or where the flight was even going. That is more similar to our reality at the bedside.

The answer, of course, is that the airline industry has made the decisions necessary to ensure that pilots, crew, and passengers are never in such situations. We need to re-engineer our own systems, even as they are more reliant upon these human factors. We also need the higher perspective to manage our teams through these extraordinarily difficult changes.

In Sum

I believe that the skills that successful physician leaders need come, either naturally or through self-selection, to many who work in hospital-based environments: teamwork, collaboration, communication, deference to expertise, and a focus on results. I also believe that the physician leaders who will stand out and become leaders in hospitals, systems, and policy will be those who are able stand back, gain perspective, and organize teams and systems toward aspirational strategies that engage our idealism and empathy, and continuously raise the bar.

From my 15 years with SHM and hospital medicine, I’ve seen that our organization is full of such individuals. Those of us in administrative and hospital leadership positions are looking to all of you to learn and showcase those skills, and to lead the way forward to improve care for our patients and communities.

Dr. Harte is president of Hillcrest Hospital in Mayfield Heights, Ohio, part of the Cleveland Clinic Health System. He is associate professor of medicine at the Lerner College of Medicine in Cleveland and an SHM board member.