Practice Management

Getting involved—and getting ahead—in hospital medicine has never been easier, with just some planning and preparation. Here are three ways to move your hospital—and your career—forward this month.

1. Add “award-winning” to your CV: SHM’s Awards of Excellence deadline is Sept. 16.

Although 2013’s award-winners are still fresh in hospitalists’ minds, now is the time to put together award applications for the 2014 Awards of Excellence.

Each year, SHM presents six different awards that recognize individuals and one award to a team that is transforming health care and revolutionizing patient care for hospitalized patients:

• Excellence in Research Award;
• Excellence in Hospital Medicine for Non-Physicians;
• Award for Excellence in Teaching;
• Award for Outstanding Service in Hospital Medicine;
• Award for Clinical Excellence; and
• Excellence in Teamwork in Quality Improvement.

Last year, SHM received award nominations from a diverse group of hospitalists and looks forward to receiving even more this year. Each winner receives an all-expenses-paid trip to HM14 in Las Vegas, including complimentary meeting registration.

The deadline for applications for SHM’s five individual awards is Sept. 16. The deadline for the Excellence in Teamwork in Quality Improvement is Oct. 15. All SHM members are eligible, and nominees can be self-nominated.

For more information, visit www.hospital medicine.org/awards.

2. Bring the experts in reducing readmissions to your hospital: Apply now for Project BOOST.

There is still time to apply for SHM’s Project BOOST, which helps hospitals design discharge programs to reduce readmissions. SHM will accept applications for Project BOOST until the end of August.

Project BOOST is based on SHM’s award-winning mentored implementation model that brings individualized attention from national experts in reducing readmissions to hospitals across the country. Each Project BOOST site receives:

• A comprehensive intervention developed by a panel of nationally recognized experts based on the best available evidence.
• A comprehensive implementation guide that provides step-by-step instructions and project-management tools, such as the teachback training curriculum, to help interdisciplinary teams redesign workflow and plan, implement, and evaluate the intervention.
• Longitudinal technical assistance providing face-to-face training and a year of expert mentoring and coaching to implement BOOST interventions that build a culture that supports safe and complete transitions. The mentoring program provides a training DVD and curriculum for nurses and case managers on using the teachback process, as well as webinars that target the educational needs of other team members, including administrators, data analysts, physicians, nurses, and others.
• Collaboration that allows sites to communicate with and learn from each other via the BOOST community site and quarterly all-site teleconferences and webinars.
• The BOOST data center, an online resource that allows sites to store and benchmark data against control units and other sites and generates reports.

For more information, visit www.hospital medicine.org/boost.

3. Start Choosing Wisely today.

In 2014, as part of a grant from the ABIM Foundation, SHM will begin its first Choosing Wisely case-study competition to highlight hospitalists’ best practices within the popular campaign.

But in order to have a successful case study next year, some preparation is in order now. Developing goals, gathering a team, and, perhaps most important, developing benchmarking data on a project motivated by Choosing Wisely will all be important parts of a compelling case study.

To start brainstorming your project to implement Choosing Wisely recommendations at your hospital, visit www.hospitalmedicine.org/choosingwisely.

Brendon Shank is SHM’s associate vice president of communications.

Getting involved—and getting ahead—in hospital medicine has never been easier, with just some planning and preparation. Here are three ways to move your hospital—and your career—forward this month.

1. Add “award-winning” to your CV: SHM’s Awards of Excellence deadline is Sept. 16.

Although 2013’s award-winners are still fresh in hospitalists’ minds, now is the time to put together award applications for the 2014 Awards of Excellence.

Each year, SHM presents six different awards that recognize individuals and one award to a team that is transforming health care and revolutionizing patient care for hospitalized patients:

• Excellence in Research Award;
• Excellence in Hospital Medicine for Non-Physicians;
• Award for Excellence in Teaching;
• Award for Outstanding Service in Hospital Medicine;
• Award for Clinical Excellence; and
• Excellence in Teamwork in Quality Improvement.

Last year, SHM received award nominations from a diverse group of hospitalists and looks forward to receiving even more this year. Each winner receives an all-expenses-paid trip to HM14 in Las Vegas, including complimentary meeting registration.

The deadline for applications for SHM’s five individual awards is Sept. 16. The deadline for the Excellence in Teamwork in Quality Improvement is Oct. 15. All SHM members are eligible, and nominees can be self-nominated.

For more information, visit www.hospital medicine.org/awards.

2. Bring the experts in reducing readmissions to your hospital: Apply now for Project BOOST.

There is still time to apply for SHM’s Project BOOST, which helps hospitals design discharge programs to reduce readmissions. SHM will accept applications for Project BOOST until the end of August.

Project BOOST is based on SHM’s award-winning mentored implementation model that brings individualized attention from national experts in reducing readmissions to hospitals across the country. Each Project BOOST site receives:

• A comprehensive intervention developed by a panel of nationally recognized experts based on the best available evidence.
• A comprehensive implementation guide that provides step-by-step instructions and project-management tools, such as the teachback training curriculum, to help interdisciplinary teams redesign workflow and plan, implement, and evaluate the intervention.
• Longitudinal technical assistance providing face-to-face training and a year of expert mentoring and coaching to implement BOOST interventions that build a culture that supports safe and complete transitions. The mentoring program provides a training DVD and curriculum for nurses and case managers on using the teachback process, as well as webinars that target the educational needs of other team members, including administrators, data analysts, physicians, nurses, and others.
• Collaboration that allows sites to communicate with and learn from each other via the BOOST community site and quarterly all-site teleconferences and webinars.
• The BOOST data center, an online resource that allows sites to store and benchmark data against control units and other sites and generates reports.

For more information, visit www.hospital medicine.org/boost.

3. Start Choosing Wisely today.

In 2014, as part of a grant from the ABIM Foundation, SHM will begin its first Choosing Wisely case-study competition to highlight hospitalists’ best practices within the popular campaign.

But in order to have a successful case study next year, some preparation is in order now. Developing goals, gathering a team, and, perhaps most important, developing benchmarking data on a project motivated by Choosing Wisely will all be important parts of a compelling case study.

To start brainstorming your project to implement Choosing Wisely recommendations at your hospital, visit www.hospitalmedicine.org/choosingwisely.

Brendon Shank is SHM’s associate vice president of communications.

Getting involved—and getting ahead—in hospital medicine has never been easier, with just some planning and preparation. Here are three ways to move your hospital—and your career—forward this month.

1. Add “award-winning” to your CV: SHM’s Awards of Excellence deadline is Sept. 16.

Although 2013’s award-winners are still fresh in hospitalists’ minds, now is the time to put together award applications for the 2014 Awards of Excellence.

Each year, SHM presents six different awards that recognize individuals and one award to a team that is transforming health care and revolutionizing patient care for hospitalized patients:

• Excellence in Research Award;
• Excellence in Hospital Medicine for Non-Physicians;
• Award for Excellence in Teaching;
• Award for Outstanding Service in Hospital Medicine;
• Award for Clinical Excellence; and
• Excellence in Teamwork in Quality Improvement.

Last year, SHM received award nominations from a diverse group of hospitalists and looks forward to receiving even more this year. Each winner receives an all-expenses-paid trip to HM14 in Las Vegas, including complimentary meeting registration.

The deadline for applications for SHM’s five individual awards is Sept. 16. The deadline for the Excellence in Teamwork in Quality Improvement is Oct. 15. All SHM members are eligible, and nominees can be self-nominated.

For more information, visit www.hospital medicine.org/awards.

2. Bring the experts in reducing readmissions to your hospital: Apply now for Project BOOST.

There is still time to apply for SHM’s Project BOOST, which helps hospitals design discharge programs to reduce readmissions. SHM will accept applications for Project BOOST until the end of August.

Project BOOST is based on SHM’s award-winning mentored implementation model that brings individualized attention from national experts in reducing readmissions to hospitals across the country. Each Project BOOST site receives:

• A comprehensive intervention developed by a panel of nationally recognized experts based on the best available evidence.
• A comprehensive implementation guide that provides step-by-step instructions and project-management tools, such as the teachback training curriculum, to help interdisciplinary teams redesign workflow and plan, implement, and evaluate the intervention.
• Longitudinal technical assistance providing face-to-face training and a year of expert mentoring and coaching to implement BOOST interventions that build a culture that supports safe and complete transitions. The mentoring program provides a training DVD and curriculum for nurses and case managers on using the teachback process, as well as webinars that target the educational needs of other team members, including administrators, data analysts, physicians, nurses, and others.
• Collaboration that allows sites to communicate with and learn from each other via the BOOST community site and quarterly all-site teleconferences and webinars.
• The BOOST data center, an online resource that allows sites to store and benchmark data against control units and other sites and generates reports.

For more information, visit www.hospital medicine.org/boost.

3. Start Choosing Wisely today.

In 2014, as part of a grant from the ABIM Foundation, SHM will begin its first Choosing Wisely case-study competition to highlight hospitalists’ best practices within the popular campaign.

But in order to have a successful case study next year, some preparation is in order now. Developing goals, gathering a team, and, perhaps most important, developing benchmarking data on a project motivated by Choosing Wisely will all be important parts of a compelling case study.

To start brainstorming your project to implement Choosing Wisely recommendations at your hospital, visit www.hospitalmedicine.org/choosingwisely.

Brendon Shank is SHM’s associate vice president of communications.

Clinical question: What are the costs associated with observation-status hospital stays compared to inpatient-status stays in pediatric hospitals?

Background: Observation status is a designation for hospitalizations that are typically shorter than 48 hours and do not meet criteria for inpatient status. It is considered to be outpatient for evaluation and management (E/M) coding. A designation of observation status for a hospital stay can have significant effects on out-of-pocket costs for patients and reimbursements to physicians and hospitals. It also can affect readmission and length-of-stay data, as observation-status hospital stays are often excluded from a hospital’s inpatient data.

Study design: Multicenter retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Thirty-three freestanding children’s hospitals.

Synopsis: Researchers reviewed data obtained from the Pediatric Health Information System (PHIS), which contains demographic and resource utilization date from 43 freestanding children’s hospitals in the U.S. Resource utilization data were reviewed from 33 of 43 hospitals in PHIS that reported data regarding observation- versus inpatient-status stays. Data were then limited to observation-status stays £2 days, which made up 97.8% of all observation-status stays. These were then compared to a corresponding cohort of inpatient-status stays of £2 days (47.5% of inpatient-status stays), excluding any patient who had spent time in an ICU.

Hospitalization costs were analyzed and separated into room and nonroom costs, as well as in aggregate. These were further subdivided into costs for four common diagnoses (asthma, gastroenteritis, bronchiolitis, and seizure) and were risk-adjusted.

Observation status was used variably between hospitals (2% to 45%) and within hospitals. There was significant overlap in costs of observation-status and inpatient-status stays, which persisted when accounting for nonroom costs and within the diagnosis subgroups. Although average severity-adjusted costs for observation-status stays were consistently less than those for inpatient-status stays, the dollar amounts were small.

Bottom line: Observation-status designation is used inconsistently in pediatric hospitals, and their costs overlap substantially with inpatient-status stays.

Citation: Fieldston ES, Shah SS, Hall M. Resource utilization for observation-status stays at children’s hospitals. Pediatrics. 2013;131;1050-1058.

Reviewed by Pediatric Editor Weijen Chang, MD, SFHM, FACP, associate clinical professor of medicine and pediatrics at the University of California at San Diego School of Medicine, and a hospitalist at both UCSD Medical Center and Rady Children’s Hospital.

Clinical question: What are the costs associated with observation-status hospital stays compared to inpatient-status stays in pediatric hospitals?

Background: Observation status is a designation for hospitalizations that are typically shorter than 48 hours and do not meet criteria for inpatient status. It is considered to be outpatient for evaluation and management (E/M) coding. A designation of observation status for a hospital stay can have significant effects on out-of-pocket costs for patients and reimbursements to physicians and hospitals. It also can affect readmission and length-of-stay data, as observation-status hospital stays are often excluded from a hospital’s inpatient data.

Study design: Multicenter retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Thirty-three freestanding children’s hospitals.

Synopsis: Researchers reviewed data obtained from the Pediatric Health Information System (PHIS), which contains demographic and resource utilization date from 43 freestanding children’s hospitals in the U.S. Resource utilization data were reviewed from 33 of 43 hospitals in PHIS that reported data regarding observation- versus inpatient-status stays. Data were then limited to observation-status stays £2 days, which made up 97.8% of all observation-status stays. These were then compared to a corresponding cohort of inpatient-status stays of £2 days (47.5% of inpatient-status stays), excluding any patient who had spent time in an ICU.

Hospitalization costs were analyzed and separated into room and nonroom costs, as well as in aggregate. These were further subdivided into costs for four common diagnoses (asthma, gastroenteritis, bronchiolitis, and seizure) and were risk-adjusted.

Observation status was used variably between hospitals (2% to 45%) and within hospitals. There was significant overlap in costs of observation-status and inpatient-status stays, which persisted when accounting for nonroom costs and within the diagnosis subgroups. Although average severity-adjusted costs for observation-status stays were consistently less than those for inpatient-status stays, the dollar amounts were small.

Bottom line: Observation-status designation is used inconsistently in pediatric hospitals, and their costs overlap substantially with inpatient-status stays.

Citation: Fieldston ES, Shah SS, Hall M. Resource utilization for observation-status stays at children’s hospitals. Pediatrics. 2013;131;1050-1058.

Reviewed by Pediatric Editor Weijen Chang, MD, SFHM, FACP, associate clinical professor of medicine and pediatrics at the University of California at San Diego School of Medicine, and a hospitalist at both UCSD Medical Center and Rady Children’s Hospital.

Clinical question: What are the costs associated with observation-status hospital stays compared to inpatient-status stays in pediatric hospitals?

Background: Observation status is a designation for hospitalizations that are typically shorter than 48 hours and do not meet criteria for inpatient status. It is considered to be outpatient for evaluation and management (E/M) coding. A designation of observation status for a hospital stay can have significant effects on out-of-pocket costs for patients and reimbursements to physicians and hospitals. It also can affect readmission and length-of-stay data, as observation-status hospital stays are often excluded from a hospital’s inpatient data.

Study design: Multicenter retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Thirty-three freestanding children’s hospitals.

Synopsis: Researchers reviewed data obtained from the Pediatric Health Information System (PHIS), which contains demographic and resource utilization date from 43 freestanding children’s hospitals in the U.S. Resource utilization data were reviewed from 33 of 43 hospitals in PHIS that reported data regarding observation- versus inpatient-status stays. Data were then limited to observation-status stays £2 days, which made up 97.8% of all observation-status stays. These were then compared to a corresponding cohort of inpatient-status stays of £2 days (47.5% of inpatient-status stays), excluding any patient who had spent time in an ICU.

Hospitalization costs were analyzed and separated into room and nonroom costs, as well as in aggregate. These were further subdivided into costs for four common diagnoses (asthma, gastroenteritis, bronchiolitis, and seizure) and were risk-adjusted.

Observation status was used variably between hospitals (2% to 45%) and within hospitals. There was significant overlap in costs of observation-status and inpatient-status stays, which persisted when accounting for nonroom costs and within the diagnosis subgroups. Although average severity-adjusted costs for observation-status stays were consistently less than those for inpatient-status stays, the dollar amounts were small.

Bottom line: Observation-status designation is used inconsistently in pediatric hospitals, and their costs overlap substantially with inpatient-status stays.

Citation: Fieldston ES, Shah SS, Hall M. Resource utilization for observation-status stays at children’s hospitals. Pediatrics. 2013;131;1050-1058.

Reviewed by Pediatric Editor Weijen Chang, MD, SFHM, FACP, associate clinical professor of medicine and pediatrics at the University of California at San Diego School of Medicine, and a hospitalist at both UCSD Medical Center and Rady Children’s Hospital.

A Joint Commission Sentinel Event Alert released this spring tackles “alarm fatigue” resulting from the constant beeping of medical-device alarms and information being broadcast from these devices. If not properly managed, the proliferation of alarms can put hospitalized patients at serious risk because the barrage of warning noises can desensitize professional caregivers or distract them from truly critical alarms. U.S. Food and Drug Administration data show that 566 hospital deaths from 2005 to 2008 were alarm-related, while the Joint Commission’s own sentinel-events database lists 80 alarm-related deaths in the same period.

The commission urges hospital leaders to look at this serious patient-safety issue. “By making alarm safety a priority, lives can be saved,” said Ana McKee, MD, the commission’s executive vice president and chief medical officer.

Among its recommendations:

• Ensure that there is a process for safe alarm management and response in high-risk areas;
• Prepare an inventory of alarm-equipped medical devices in these high-risk areas;
• Regularly inspect, check, and maintain the devices; and
• Establish guidelines for alarm settings, including situations in which alarm signals are not clinically necessary.

The commission, which participated in a 2011 summit of national safety and medical-technology organizations seeking solutions to the problem, is considering the possible promulgation of a national patient-safety goal on alarm fatigue, a draft of which was field-tested in February and released for public comment.

Larry Beresford is a freelance writer in San Francisco.

A Joint Commission Sentinel Event Alert released this spring tackles “alarm fatigue” resulting from the constant beeping of medical-device alarms and information being broadcast from these devices. If not properly managed, the proliferation of alarms can put hospitalized patients at serious risk because the barrage of warning noises can desensitize professional caregivers or distract them from truly critical alarms. U.S. Food and Drug Administration data show that 566 hospital deaths from 2005 to 2008 were alarm-related, while the Joint Commission’s own sentinel-events database lists 80 alarm-related deaths in the same period.

The commission urges hospital leaders to look at this serious patient-safety issue. “By making alarm safety a priority, lives can be saved,” said Ana McKee, MD, the commission’s executive vice president and chief medical officer.

Among its recommendations:

• Ensure that there is a process for safe alarm management and response in high-risk areas;
• Prepare an inventory of alarm-equipped medical devices in these high-risk areas;
• Regularly inspect, check, and maintain the devices; and
• Establish guidelines for alarm settings, including situations in which alarm signals are not clinically necessary.

The commission, which participated in a 2011 summit of national safety and medical-technology organizations seeking solutions to the problem, is considering the possible promulgation of a national patient-safety goal on alarm fatigue, a draft of which was field-tested in February and released for public comment.

Larry Beresford is a freelance writer in San Francisco.

A Joint Commission Sentinel Event Alert released this spring tackles “alarm fatigue” resulting from the constant beeping of medical-device alarms and information being broadcast from these devices. If not properly managed, the proliferation of alarms can put hospitalized patients at serious risk because the barrage of warning noises can desensitize professional caregivers or distract them from truly critical alarms. U.S. Food and Drug Administration data show that 566 hospital deaths from 2005 to 2008 were alarm-related, while the Joint Commission’s own sentinel-events database lists 80 alarm-related deaths in the same period.

The commission urges hospital leaders to look at this serious patient-safety issue. “By making alarm safety a priority, lives can be saved,” said Ana McKee, MD, the commission’s executive vice president and chief medical officer.

Among its recommendations:

• Ensure that there is a process for safe alarm management and response in high-risk areas;
• Prepare an inventory of alarm-equipped medical devices in these high-risk areas;
• Regularly inspect, check, and maintain the devices; and
• Establish guidelines for alarm settings, including situations in which alarm signals are not clinically necessary.

The commission, which participated in a 2011 summit of national safety and medical-technology organizations seeking solutions to the problem, is considering the possible promulgation of a national patient-safety goal on alarm fatigue, a draft of which was field-tested in February and released for public comment.

Larry Beresford is a freelance writer in San Francisco.

Bryan Weiss, MBA, likes to say he’s “passionate” about HM. The twist? He isn’t even a practicing physician. Nevertheless, he’s been involved in medicine for 25 years, having worked with hospitals, health plans, and multispecialty groups before joining IPC: The Hospitalist Company in 2003. During his first few years working in the field, he realized the specialty had a bright future.

“I enjoy working with the hospitalists and assisting them to become the cornerstone of the hospitals they work in,” says Weiss, managing director of the consulting services practice at Irving, Texas-based MedSynergies. “Creating the open communications among the hospital administration, emergency room, nursing, case management, consultants, and PCPs—as well as moving the specialty forward with actionable, balanced scorecards—is the most satisfying component.”

Weiss previously was president of the hospitalist division at Hospital Physician Partners of Hollywood, Fla., and COO of inpatient services at Dallas-based EmCare. He graduated with a bachelor’s degree in business administration from California State University and earned his master’s degree from California Lutheran University.

He is one of nine new Team Hospitalist members, The Hospitalist’s volunteer group of editorial advisors. He sees challenges ahead for hospitalists, administrators, and the health-care system, but he also has faith the specialty will be up to the task.

“I think the incredibly rapid growth of the specialty is huge,” he says. “The acceptance of the specialty has gone from needing to explain what a hospitalist is to insurance companies and hospitals and other physicians to [knowing] the value of a hospitalist program and how disadvantaged a hospital is without a program.”

I want to make sure the hospitalist team truly operates as a team and not a bunch of physicians who happen to work in the same hospital. The bottom line is it is about the patient experience and how hospitalists will be pivotal as health care moves to more risk-based and population health.

Question: As a nonphysician, explain your role in the health-care system and HM.

Answer: I want to make sure the hospitalist team truly operates as a team and not a bunch of physicians who happen to work in the same hospital. The bottom line is it is about the patient experience and how hospitalists will be pivotal as health care moves to more risk-based and population health.

Q: What is your biggest professional challenge?

A: Ensuring the alignment of the goals of the hospital and the hospitalists are translated to measurable outcomes is probably the biggest challenge in the current state of health care.

Q: What is your biggest professional reward?

A: The number of hospital administrators who value my contribution and commitment to making the hospitalist program at their facilities the best they can become.

Q: When you aren’t working, what is important to you?

A: My family time and the balance of work and life have become the most important as I have matured professionally.

Q: What’s next professionally?

A: I am doing my ideal professional position.

Q: If you had to do it all over again, what career would you be doing right now?

A: If I wasn’t an executive in healthcare, I would have probably been a lawyer since I contemplated law school over my MBA.

Q: What’s the best book you’ve read recently?

A: New Orleans Saints quarterback Drew Brees’ book, “Coming Back Stronger.” As an avid sports fan, I appreciate what this athlete experienced personally and professionally, and still was able to pick himself back up from situations that many of us would have struggled to overcome. He is one of the biggest class acts in sports and the book just solidified that opinion. We can apply what he says to our own lives and make ourselves better in what we do as leaders.

Q: How many Apple products (phones, iPods, tablets, iTunes, etc.) do you interface with in a given week?

A: I am constantly on my iPad and use iTunes regularly during my weekly travels. My cellphone is an Android, so only two Apple products, but I use Apple countless times a week.

Richard Quinn is a freelance author in New Jersey.

Bryan Weiss, MBA, likes to say he’s “passionate” about HM. The twist? He isn’t even a practicing physician. Nevertheless, he’s been involved in medicine for 25 years, having worked with hospitals, health plans, and multispecialty groups before joining IPC: The Hospitalist Company in 2003. During his first few years working in the field, he realized the specialty had a bright future.

“I enjoy working with the hospitalists and assisting them to become the cornerstone of the hospitals they work in,” says Weiss, managing director of the consulting services practice at Irving, Texas-based MedSynergies. “Creating the open communications among the hospital administration, emergency room, nursing, case management, consultants, and PCPs—as well as moving the specialty forward with actionable, balanced scorecards—is the most satisfying component.”

Weiss previously was president of the hospitalist division at Hospital Physician Partners of Hollywood, Fla., and COO of inpatient services at Dallas-based EmCare. He graduated with a bachelor’s degree in business administration from California State University and earned his master’s degree from California Lutheran University.

He is one of nine new Team Hospitalist members, The Hospitalist’s volunteer group of editorial advisors. He sees challenges ahead for hospitalists, administrators, and the health-care system, but he also has faith the specialty will be up to the task.

“I think the incredibly rapid growth of the specialty is huge,” he says. “The acceptance of the specialty has gone from needing to explain what a hospitalist is to insurance companies and hospitals and other physicians to [knowing] the value of a hospitalist program and how disadvantaged a hospital is without a program.”

I want to make sure the hospitalist team truly operates as a team and not a bunch of physicians who happen to work in the same hospital. The bottom line is it is about the patient experience and how hospitalists will be pivotal as health care moves to more risk-based and population health.

Question: As a nonphysician, explain your role in the health-care system and HM.

Answer: I want to make sure the hospitalist team truly operates as a team and not a bunch of physicians who happen to work in the same hospital. The bottom line is it is about the patient experience and how hospitalists will be pivotal as health care moves to more risk-based and population health.

Q: What is your biggest professional challenge?

A: Ensuring the alignment of the goals of the hospital and the hospitalists are translated to measurable outcomes is probably the biggest challenge in the current state of health care.

Q: What is your biggest professional reward?

A: The number of hospital administrators who value my contribution and commitment to making the hospitalist program at their facilities the best they can become.

Q: When you aren’t working, what is important to you?

A: My family time and the balance of work and life have become the most important as I have matured professionally.

Q: What’s next professionally?

A: I am doing my ideal professional position.

Q: If you had to do it all over again, what career would you be doing right now?

A: If I wasn’t an executive in healthcare, I would have probably been a lawyer since I contemplated law school over my MBA.

Q: What’s the best book you’ve read recently?

A: New Orleans Saints quarterback Drew Brees’ book, “Coming Back Stronger.” As an avid sports fan, I appreciate what this athlete experienced personally and professionally, and still was able to pick himself back up from situations that many of us would have struggled to overcome. He is one of the biggest class acts in sports and the book just solidified that opinion. We can apply what he says to our own lives and make ourselves better in what we do as leaders.

Q: How many Apple products (phones, iPods, tablets, iTunes, etc.) do you interface with in a given week?

A: I am constantly on my iPad and use iTunes regularly during my weekly travels. My cellphone is an Android, so only two Apple products, but I use Apple countless times a week.

Richard Quinn is a freelance author in New Jersey.

Bryan Weiss, MBA, likes to say he’s “passionate” about HM. The twist? He isn’t even a practicing physician. Nevertheless, he’s been involved in medicine for 25 years, having worked with hospitals, health plans, and multispecialty groups before joining IPC: The Hospitalist Company in 2003. During his first few years working in the field, he realized the specialty had a bright future.

“I enjoy working with the hospitalists and assisting them to become the cornerstone of the hospitals they work in,” says Weiss, managing director of the consulting services practice at Irving, Texas-based MedSynergies. “Creating the open communications among the hospital administration, emergency room, nursing, case management, consultants, and PCPs—as well as moving the specialty forward with actionable, balanced scorecards—is the most satisfying component.”

Weiss previously was president of the hospitalist division at Hospital Physician Partners of Hollywood, Fla., and COO of inpatient services at Dallas-based EmCare. He graduated with a bachelor’s degree in business administration from California State University and earned his master’s degree from California Lutheran University.

He is one of nine new Team Hospitalist members, The Hospitalist’s volunteer group of editorial advisors. He sees challenges ahead for hospitalists, administrators, and the health-care system, but he also has faith the specialty will be up to the task.

“I think the incredibly rapid growth of the specialty is huge,” he says. “The acceptance of the specialty has gone from needing to explain what a hospitalist is to insurance companies and hospitals and other physicians to [knowing] the value of a hospitalist program and how disadvantaged a hospital is without a program.”

I want to make sure the hospitalist team truly operates as a team and not a bunch of physicians who happen to work in the same hospital. The bottom line is it is about the patient experience and how hospitalists will be pivotal as health care moves to more risk-based and population health.

Question: As a nonphysician, explain your role in the health-care system and HM.

Answer: I want to make sure the hospitalist team truly operates as a team and not a bunch of physicians who happen to work in the same hospital. The bottom line is it is about the patient experience and how hospitalists will be pivotal as health care moves to more risk-based and population health.

Q: What is your biggest professional challenge?

A: Ensuring the alignment of the goals of the hospital and the hospitalists are translated to measurable outcomes is probably the biggest challenge in the current state of health care.

Q: What is your biggest professional reward?

A: The number of hospital administrators who value my contribution and commitment to making the hospitalist program at their facilities the best they can become.

Q: When you aren’t working, what is important to you?

A: My family time and the balance of work and life have become the most important as I have matured professionally.

Q: What’s next professionally?

A: I am doing my ideal professional position.

Q: If you had to do it all over again, what career would you be doing right now?

A: If I wasn’t an executive in healthcare, I would have probably been a lawyer since I contemplated law school over my MBA.

Q: What’s the best book you’ve read recently?

A: New Orleans Saints quarterback Drew Brees’ book, “Coming Back Stronger.” As an avid sports fan, I appreciate what this athlete experienced personally and professionally, and still was able to pick himself back up from situations that many of us would have struggled to overcome. He is one of the biggest class acts in sports and the book just solidified that opinion. We can apply what he says to our own lives and make ourselves better in what we do as leaders.

Q: How many Apple products (phones, iPods, tablets, iTunes, etc.) do you interface with in a given week?

A: I am constantly on my iPad and use iTunes regularly during my weekly travels. My cellphone is an Android, so only two Apple products, but I use Apple countless times a week.

Richard Quinn is a freelance author in New Jersey.

Although it was more than a decade ago (the last century, in fact), I remember it like it was yesterday. It was my first month as chief resident at Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center in Baltimore, our 335-bed hospital, with the ED chair and my chair of medicine in a heated argument. Very heated. There was no yelling; it was the kind of discussion where, even as a kid, you knew the severely stern voices meant that this was beyond the yelling stage.

“Medicine patients clog up my ED. Your docs take hours to arrive and then hours more on the workup,” the ED chair said. “They block and delay. Patients are suffering.”

“If your ED knew who to admit to which service, we wouldn’t have to spend hours figuring out where to admit them. We have a lot of work upstairs; we’re not sitting around waiting for the ED to call,” my chair replied.

They both were right, of course.

The ED chair had internal data that showed medicine did, in fact, cause delays, hours and hours of delays, every day. The department of medicine had concrete examples of less-than-ideal disposition decisions that, in hindsight, could have been done better (and sometimes a lot better).

This was the late 1990s, and all of us were just beginning to understand the adverse impact that ED boarding (admissions stuck in the ED) has on patients and our institution. Over the last decade, a number of studies have proved the fears we had in the 1990s right: From increased pain to higher mortality, admitted patients suffer when they need to be “upstairs” but are stuck in the ED.^1-4

Prior to this meeting of chairmen, we tried multiple “ED fixes” over the years. Like so many other institutions, we mandated medicine physician response times to the ED, drew policies, sent memos, and even gave the ED admitting privileges to medicine. None of them worked. Culture and cultural divide trumped policy every time, and the more than 100 house staff and attendings, both in the ED and in medicine, never made a change that positively impacted ED boarding during my entire three-year residency.

In hindsight, that’s not surprising. There has been a lot of study on ED flow and quality improvement (QI) more broadly.^5-8 To expect individuals to “do better” in a broken system is asking for failure. Asking hundreds of physicians to change behavior is an exercise in futility, especially when resources are limited and systems force “silo” behavior. Even drastic measures, such as expanding total ED capacity, don’t impact ED flow favorably. Institutions must find ways to open the “admission door.”

To the Rescue

Mirroring the rest of the country, in the late 1990s, a new group of doctors were being hired at my hospital. Ex-chief residents were staying on a year or two to run a new inpatient service. Although hospitalists were still new at the time, the idea to give them the “admission problem” took about a nanosecond.

Hospitalists across the country have become adept at tackling many institutional challenges, from readmissions (think Project BOOST) to teaching attendings from comanagement to neuromanagement. If it happens inside the walls of the hospital (and sometimes outside), hospitalists likely have played an important role in making it better somewhere.

Our hospitalists became a vital partner with the ED and within our own department of medicine, of course. We did the usual: seeing inpatients. But we also began experimenting with new and radical ways to get admitted patients out of the ED and upstairs as quickly as possible. We tried a number of admission systems, and many failed initially. We learned important lessons from the failures and continued to innovate.

Soon, hospitalists were successfully triaging admitted patients to all of general medicine using a combination of telephone and in-person triage based on the needs of the patient. This process had the triage hospitalist doing a limited ED assessment and then assigning the admission duties, often done after transfer upstairs to the best available medicine team, including the four house staff inpatient teams and hospitalist group. Later, this hospitalist admission process was expanded to all of medicine, using hospitalists to triage to the ICUs as well as specialty units in addition to general medicine. The hospital dedicated large amounts of money to allow a dedicated triage shift 24-7, staffed exclusively by hospitalists. A few years later, the hospitalists developed an in-house Web-based triage program, allowing accurate tracking of the more than 14,000 admissions annually.

The results have been better than anyone could have imagined 15 years ago. ED length of stay for admitted patients has continued to decrease dramatically—by hours, not minutes. Certain types of ambulance diversion (red alert in the state of Maryland) that were commonplace a decade ago, to the tune of 2,000-plus hours a year, virtually have been eliminated. Since ambulance diversion is known to harm patients and drive away business, this was a true win for patients as well as our hospital.⁹ Our ED volumes continued to grow, and patient-care indicators show the care provided by the current admissions process is at least as safe as before.

Hospitalists partnering with EDs to improve the admissions process are not isolated to Johns Hopkins Bayview. Many hospitalist leaders recognize that there are a variety of options for improving the care our patients get during the admissions process:

• Virginia Commonwealth University’s hospitalist group, led by Dr. Heather Masters, has worked tirelessly for years on a triage program.
• Dr. Melinda Kantsiper has done something similar at Howard County General Hospital in Maryland.
• Dr. MaryEllen Pfeiffer of Wellspan in York, Pa., is launching a triage program for admissions in the fall, and Dr. Christine Soong has focused on educating her house staff on the triage process at Mount Sinai in Toronto.

The Institute of Medicine reports that 91% of EDs are crowded routinely, an issue unlikely to go away on its own. I believe that hospitalists hold the key to unlocking the “admission door.” Hospitalists are critical partners in quality improvement, including ED flow, and can positively impact our patients, our institutions, and our specialty.

If that’s not enough to convince you, then let me tell you the true story of how the Hopkins Bayview ED physicians and hospitalists became close colleagues and the time I had Thanksgiving dinner at the ED chairman’s house. It was a lovely dinner, really.

Dr. Howell is president of SHM, chief of the division of hospital medicine at Johns Hopkins Bayview in Baltimore, and spends a significant part of his time and research on hospital operations. Email questions or comments to [email protected].

References

1. Chaflin DB, Trzeciak S, Likourezos A, Baumann BM, Dellinger RP. Impact of delayed transfer of critically ill patients from the ED to the ICU. Crit Care Med. 2007;35(6):1477-1483.
2. Duke G, Green J, Briedis J. Survival of critically ill patients is time-critical. Crit Care Resusc. 2004;6(4):261-267.
3. Scheulen JJ, Li G, Kelen GD. Impact of ambulance diversion policies in urban, suburban and rural areas of central Maryland. Acad Emerg Med. 2001;8(1):36-40.
4. Sikka R, Metha S, Kaucky C, Kulstad EB. ED crowding is associated with increased time to pneumonia treatment. Am J of Emerg Med. 2010; 28(7):809-812.
5. Holroyd BR, Bullard MJ, Latoszek K. Impact of a triage physician on emergency department overcrowding and throughput: a randomized trial. Acad Emerg Med. 2007;14(8)702-708.
6. Han JH, Zhou C, France DJ. The effect of emergency department expansion on emergency department overcrowding. Acad Emerg Med. 2007;14(4)338-343.
7. Howell E, Bessman E, Kravet S, Kolodner K, Marshall R, Wright S. Active bed management by hospitalists and emergency department throughput. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149(11):804-811.
8. Briones A, Markoff B, Kathuria N. A model of a hospitalist role in the care of admitted patients in the emergency department. J Hosp Med. 2010;5(6):360-364.
9. Nicholl J, West J, Goodacre S, Turner J. The relationship between distance to hospital and patient mortality in emergencies: an observational study. Emerg Med J. 2007; 24(9):665-668.

Although it was more than a decade ago (the last century, in fact), I remember it like it was yesterday. It was my first month as chief resident at Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center in Baltimore, our 335-bed hospital, with the ED chair and my chair of medicine in a heated argument. Very heated. There was no yelling; it was the kind of discussion where, even as a kid, you knew the severely stern voices meant that this was beyond the yelling stage.

“Medicine patients clog up my ED. Your docs take hours to arrive and then hours more on the workup,” the ED chair said. “They block and delay. Patients are suffering.”

“If your ED knew who to admit to which service, we wouldn’t have to spend hours figuring out where to admit them. We have a lot of work upstairs; we’re not sitting around waiting for the ED to call,” my chair replied.

They both were right, of course.

The ED chair had internal data that showed medicine did, in fact, cause delays, hours and hours of delays, every day. The department of medicine had concrete examples of less-than-ideal disposition decisions that, in hindsight, could have been done better (and sometimes a lot better).

This was the late 1990s, and all of us were just beginning to understand the adverse impact that ED boarding (admissions stuck in the ED) has on patients and our institution. Over the last decade, a number of studies have proved the fears we had in the 1990s right: From increased pain to higher mortality, admitted patients suffer when they need to be “upstairs” but are stuck in the ED.^1-4

Prior to this meeting of chairmen, we tried multiple “ED fixes” over the years. Like so many other institutions, we mandated medicine physician response times to the ED, drew policies, sent memos, and even gave the ED admitting privileges to medicine. None of them worked. Culture and cultural divide trumped policy every time, and the more than 100 house staff and attendings, both in the ED and in medicine, never made a change that positively impacted ED boarding during my entire three-year residency.

In hindsight, that’s not surprising. There has been a lot of study on ED flow and quality improvement (QI) more broadly.^5-8 To expect individuals to “do better” in a broken system is asking for failure. Asking hundreds of physicians to change behavior is an exercise in futility, especially when resources are limited and systems force “silo” behavior. Even drastic measures, such as expanding total ED capacity, don’t impact ED flow favorably. Institutions must find ways to open the “admission door.”

To the Rescue

Mirroring the rest of the country, in the late 1990s, a new group of doctors were being hired at my hospital. Ex-chief residents were staying on a year or two to run a new inpatient service. Although hospitalists were still new at the time, the idea to give them the “admission problem” took about a nanosecond.

Hospitalists across the country have become adept at tackling many institutional challenges, from readmissions (think Project BOOST) to teaching attendings from comanagement to neuromanagement. If it happens inside the walls of the hospital (and sometimes outside), hospitalists likely have played an important role in making it better somewhere.

Our hospitalists became a vital partner with the ED and within our own department of medicine, of course. We did the usual: seeing inpatients. But we also began experimenting with new and radical ways to get admitted patients out of the ED and upstairs as quickly as possible. We tried a number of admission systems, and many failed initially. We learned important lessons from the failures and continued to innovate.

Soon, hospitalists were successfully triaging admitted patients to all of general medicine using a combination of telephone and in-person triage based on the needs of the patient. This process had the triage hospitalist doing a limited ED assessment and then assigning the admission duties, often done after transfer upstairs to the best available medicine team, including the four house staff inpatient teams and hospitalist group. Later, this hospitalist admission process was expanded to all of medicine, using hospitalists to triage to the ICUs as well as specialty units in addition to general medicine. The hospital dedicated large amounts of money to allow a dedicated triage shift 24-7, staffed exclusively by hospitalists. A few years later, the hospitalists developed an in-house Web-based triage program, allowing accurate tracking of the more than 14,000 admissions annually.

The results have been better than anyone could have imagined 15 years ago. ED length of stay for admitted patients has continued to decrease dramatically—by hours, not minutes. Certain types of ambulance diversion (red alert in the state of Maryland) that were commonplace a decade ago, to the tune of 2,000-plus hours a year, virtually have been eliminated. Since ambulance diversion is known to harm patients and drive away business, this was a true win for patients as well as our hospital.⁹ Our ED volumes continued to grow, and patient-care indicators show the care provided by the current admissions process is at least as safe as before.

Hospitalists partnering with EDs to improve the admissions process are not isolated to Johns Hopkins Bayview. Many hospitalist leaders recognize that there are a variety of options for improving the care our patients get during the admissions process:

• Virginia Commonwealth University’s hospitalist group, led by Dr. Heather Masters, has worked tirelessly for years on a triage program.
• Dr. Melinda Kantsiper has done something similar at Howard County General Hospital in Maryland.
• Dr. MaryEllen Pfeiffer of Wellspan in York, Pa., is launching a triage program for admissions in the fall, and Dr. Christine Soong has focused on educating her house staff on the triage process at Mount Sinai in Toronto.

The Institute of Medicine reports that 91% of EDs are crowded routinely, an issue unlikely to go away on its own. I believe that hospitalists hold the key to unlocking the “admission door.” Hospitalists are critical partners in quality improvement, including ED flow, and can positively impact our patients, our institutions, and our specialty.

If that’s not enough to convince you, then let me tell you the true story of how the Hopkins Bayview ED physicians and hospitalists became close colleagues and the time I had Thanksgiving dinner at the ED chairman’s house. It was a lovely dinner, really.

Dr. Howell is president of SHM, chief of the division of hospital medicine at Johns Hopkins Bayview in Baltimore, and spends a significant part of his time and research on hospital operations. Email questions or comments to [email protected].

References

1. Chaflin DB, Trzeciak S, Likourezos A, Baumann BM, Dellinger RP. Impact of delayed transfer of critically ill patients from the ED to the ICU. Crit Care Med. 2007;35(6):1477-1483.
2. Duke G, Green J, Briedis J. Survival of critically ill patients is time-critical. Crit Care Resusc. 2004;6(4):261-267.
3. Scheulen JJ, Li G, Kelen GD. Impact of ambulance diversion policies in urban, suburban and rural areas of central Maryland. Acad Emerg Med. 2001;8(1):36-40.
4. Sikka R, Metha S, Kaucky C, Kulstad EB. ED crowding is associated with increased time to pneumonia treatment. Am J of Emerg Med. 2010; 28(7):809-812.
5. Holroyd BR, Bullard MJ, Latoszek K. Impact of a triage physician on emergency department overcrowding and throughput: a randomized trial. Acad Emerg Med. 2007;14(8)702-708.
6. Han JH, Zhou C, France DJ. The effect of emergency department expansion on emergency department overcrowding. Acad Emerg Med. 2007;14(4)338-343.
7. Howell E, Bessman E, Kravet S, Kolodner K, Marshall R, Wright S. Active bed management by hospitalists and emergency department throughput. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149(11):804-811.
8. Briones A, Markoff B, Kathuria N. A model of a hospitalist role in the care of admitted patients in the emergency department. J Hosp Med. 2010;5(6):360-364.
9. Nicholl J, West J, Goodacre S, Turner J. The relationship between distance to hospital and patient mortality in emergencies: an observational study. Emerg Med J. 2007; 24(9):665-668.

Although it was more than a decade ago (the last century, in fact), I remember it like it was yesterday. It was my first month as chief resident at Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center in Baltimore, our 335-bed hospital, with the ED chair and my chair of medicine in a heated argument. Very heated. There was no yelling; it was the kind of discussion where, even as a kid, you knew the severely stern voices meant that this was beyond the yelling stage.

“Medicine patients clog up my ED. Your docs take hours to arrive and then hours more on the workup,” the ED chair said. “They block and delay. Patients are suffering.”

“If your ED knew who to admit to which service, we wouldn’t have to spend hours figuring out where to admit them. We have a lot of work upstairs; we’re not sitting around waiting for the ED to call,” my chair replied.

They both were right, of course.

The ED chair had internal data that showed medicine did, in fact, cause delays, hours and hours of delays, every day. The department of medicine had concrete examples of less-than-ideal disposition decisions that, in hindsight, could have been done better (and sometimes a lot better).

This was the late 1990s, and all of us were just beginning to understand the adverse impact that ED boarding (admissions stuck in the ED) has on patients and our institution. Over the last decade, a number of studies have proved the fears we had in the 1990s right: From increased pain to higher mortality, admitted patients suffer when they need to be “upstairs” but are stuck in the ED.^1-4

Prior to this meeting of chairmen, we tried multiple “ED fixes” over the years. Like so many other institutions, we mandated medicine physician response times to the ED, drew policies, sent memos, and even gave the ED admitting privileges to medicine. None of them worked. Culture and cultural divide trumped policy every time, and the more than 100 house staff and attendings, both in the ED and in medicine, never made a change that positively impacted ED boarding during my entire three-year residency.

In hindsight, that’s not surprising. There has been a lot of study on ED flow and quality improvement (QI) more broadly.^5-8 To expect individuals to “do better” in a broken system is asking for failure. Asking hundreds of physicians to change behavior is an exercise in futility, especially when resources are limited and systems force “silo” behavior. Even drastic measures, such as expanding total ED capacity, don’t impact ED flow favorably. Institutions must find ways to open the “admission door.”

To the Rescue

Mirroring the rest of the country, in the late 1990s, a new group of doctors were being hired at my hospital. Ex-chief residents were staying on a year or two to run a new inpatient service. Although hospitalists were still new at the time, the idea to give them the “admission problem” took about a nanosecond.

Hospitalists across the country have become adept at tackling many institutional challenges, from readmissions (think Project BOOST) to teaching attendings from comanagement to neuromanagement. If it happens inside the walls of the hospital (and sometimes outside), hospitalists likely have played an important role in making it better somewhere.

Our hospitalists became a vital partner with the ED and within our own department of medicine, of course. We did the usual: seeing inpatients. But we also began experimenting with new and radical ways to get admitted patients out of the ED and upstairs as quickly as possible. We tried a number of admission systems, and many failed initially. We learned important lessons from the failures and continued to innovate.

Soon, hospitalists were successfully triaging admitted patients to all of general medicine using a combination of telephone and in-person triage based on the needs of the patient. This process had the triage hospitalist doing a limited ED assessment and then assigning the admission duties, often done after transfer upstairs to the best available medicine team, including the four house staff inpatient teams and hospitalist group. Later, this hospitalist admission process was expanded to all of medicine, using hospitalists to triage to the ICUs as well as specialty units in addition to general medicine. The hospital dedicated large amounts of money to allow a dedicated triage shift 24-7, staffed exclusively by hospitalists. A few years later, the hospitalists developed an in-house Web-based triage program, allowing accurate tracking of the more than 14,000 admissions annually.

The results have been better than anyone could have imagined 15 years ago. ED length of stay for admitted patients has continued to decrease dramatically—by hours, not minutes. Certain types of ambulance diversion (red alert in the state of Maryland) that were commonplace a decade ago, to the tune of 2,000-plus hours a year, virtually have been eliminated. Since ambulance diversion is known to harm patients and drive away business, this was a true win for patients as well as our hospital.⁹ Our ED volumes continued to grow, and patient-care indicators show the care provided by the current admissions process is at least as safe as before.

Hospitalists partnering with EDs to improve the admissions process are not isolated to Johns Hopkins Bayview. Many hospitalist leaders recognize that there are a variety of options for improving the care our patients get during the admissions process:

• Virginia Commonwealth University’s hospitalist group, led by Dr. Heather Masters, has worked tirelessly for years on a triage program.
• Dr. Melinda Kantsiper has done something similar at Howard County General Hospital in Maryland.
• Dr. MaryEllen Pfeiffer of Wellspan in York, Pa., is launching a triage program for admissions in the fall, and Dr. Christine Soong has focused on educating her house staff on the triage process at Mount Sinai in Toronto.

The Institute of Medicine reports that 91% of EDs are crowded routinely, an issue unlikely to go away on its own. I believe that hospitalists hold the key to unlocking the “admission door.” Hospitalists are critical partners in quality improvement, including ED flow, and can positively impact our patients, our institutions, and our specialty.

If that’s not enough to convince you, then let me tell you the true story of how the Hopkins Bayview ED physicians and hospitalists became close colleagues and the time I had Thanksgiving dinner at the ED chairman’s house. It was a lovely dinner, really.

Dr. Howell is president of SHM, chief of the division of hospital medicine at Johns Hopkins Bayview in Baltimore, and spends a significant part of his time and research on hospital operations. Email questions or comments to [email protected].

References

1. Chaflin DB, Trzeciak S, Likourezos A, Baumann BM, Dellinger RP. Impact of delayed transfer of critically ill patients from the ED to the ICU. Crit Care Med. 2007;35(6):1477-1483.
2. Duke G, Green J, Briedis J. Survival of critically ill patients is time-critical. Crit Care Resusc. 2004;6(4):261-267.
3. Scheulen JJ, Li G, Kelen GD. Impact of ambulance diversion policies in urban, suburban and rural areas of central Maryland. Acad Emerg Med. 2001;8(1):36-40.
4. Sikka R, Metha S, Kaucky C, Kulstad EB. ED crowding is associated with increased time to pneumonia treatment. Am J of Emerg Med. 2010; 28(7):809-812.
5. Holroyd BR, Bullard MJ, Latoszek K. Impact of a triage physician on emergency department overcrowding and throughput: a randomized trial. Acad Emerg Med. 2007;14(8)702-708.
6. Han JH, Zhou C, France DJ. The effect of emergency department expansion on emergency department overcrowding. Acad Emerg Med. 2007;14(4)338-343.
7. Howell E, Bessman E, Kravet S, Kolodner K, Marshall R, Wright S. Active bed management by hospitalists and emergency department throughput. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149(11):804-811.
8. Briones A, Markoff B, Kathuria N. A model of a hospitalist role in the care of admitted patients in the emergency department. J Hosp Med. 2010;5(6):360-364.
9. Nicholl J, West J, Goodacre S, Turner J. The relationship between distance to hospital and patient mortality in emergencies: an observational study. Emerg Med J. 2007; 24(9):665-668.

Who doesn’t know and love Consumer Reports? I personally have used this product to help me make a wide range of purchases, from child-care products to a new automobile. Consumer Reports has enjoyed a relatively unblemished reputation since its inception as an unbiased repository of invaluable information for consumers. This nonprofit advocacy organization advises consumers looking to purchase anything from small, menial items (e.g. blenders and toasters) to large, expensive ones (e.g. computers, lawn mowers, cars). It has been categorizing and publishing large-scale consumer feedback and in-house testing since 1936. According to Wikipedia, Consumer Reports has more than 7 million subscribers and runs a budget in excess of $21 million annually.

One of the reasons for its longstanding success is that it does not appear to have any hidden agenda. It does not have any partiality to a specific company or service, and therefore has maintained its impartial stance during testing and evaluation of any good or service. Its Consumer Reports magazine houses no advertisements in order to maintain its objectivity. Its only agenda is to reflect the interests and opinions of the consumers themselves, and its mission is to provide a “fair, just, and safe marketplace for all consumers and to empower consumers to protect themselves.”¹ A perfect agent from which to seek advice.

And as a company, it has grown with the times, as it now hosts a variety of platforms from which consumers can seek advice. It has long hosted a website (ConsumerReports.org). Now it has Consumer Reports Television and The Consumerist blog, the latter of which accepts “tips” from anyone on what stories to cover, helpful tips for consumers, or interesting pictures. For a few years, there was also Consumer Reports WebWatch, which was aimed at improving the credibility of websites through rigorous investigative reporting.

So it seems that Consumer Reports could be a good avenue to seek advice on where to “consume” health care. And, in fact, it is now in the business of rating the health-care industry. Recent blog posts from Consumer Reports have entailed topics as wide-ranging as the number of uninsured in the U.S. to the number and types of recalls of food products.

The health part of the website covers beauty and personal care (sunscreens and anti-wrinkle serums), exercise and fitness (bikes and diet plans), foods (coffee to frozen meals), home medical supplies (heart rate and blood pressure monitors), vitamins, supplements, and, last but not least, health services. This last section rates health insurance, heart surgeons, heart screening tests, and hospitals.

It even goes so far as to “rate” medications; its Best Buy Drugs compares the cost and effectiveness of a variety of prescription drugs ranging from anti-hypertensives to diabetic agents.

In Focus: Hospitals

Consumer Reports’ latest foray into the health-care industry now includes reporting on the quality of hospitals. The current ratings evaluated more than 2,000 acute-care hospitals in the U.S. and came up with several rankings.

The first rating includes “patient outcomes,” which is a conglomerate of hospital-acquired central-line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) rates, select surgical-site-infection [SSI] rates, 30-day readmission rates (for acute MI [AMI], congestive heart failure [CHF], and pneumonia), and eight “Patient Safety Indicators” (derived from definitions from the Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality [AHRQ], and includes pressure ulcers, pneumothorax, CLABSI, accidental puncture injury during surgery, and four postoperative complications, including VTE, sepsis, hip fracture, and wound dehiscence).

It also includes ratings of the patient experience (from a subset of HCAHPS questions) and two measures of hospital practices, including the use of electronic health records (from the American Hospital Association) and the use of “double scans” (simultaneous thoracic and abdominal CT scans).

From all of these ratings, Consumer Reports combined some of the metrics to arrive at a “Safety Score,” which ranges from 0 to 100 (100 being the safest), based on five categories, including infections (CLABSI and SSI), readmission rates (for AMI, CHF, and pneumonia), patient ratings of communication about their medications and about their discharge process, rate of double scans, and avoidance of the aforementioned AHRQ Patient Safety Indicators.

As to how potential patients are supposed to use this information, Consumer Reports gives the following advice to those wanting to know how the ratings can help a patient get better care: “They can help you compare hospitals in your area so you can choose the one that’s best for you. Even if you don’t have a choice of hospitals, our ratings can alert you to particular concerns so you can take steps to prevent problems no matter which hospital you go to. For example, if a hospital scores low in communicating with patients about what to do when they’re discharged, you should ask about discharge planning at the hospital you choose and make sure you know what to do when you leave.”

Overall, the average Safety Score for included hospitals was a 49, with a range from 14 to 74 across the U.S. Teaching hospitals were among the lowest scorers, with two-thirds of them rated below average.

At first blush, the numbers seem humbling, even startling, but it is not clear if they reflect bad care or bad metrics. Consumer Reports, similar to many other rating scales, has glued together a hodge-podge of different metrics and converted them into a summary score that may or may not line up with other organizational ratings (e.g. U.S. News and World Report, Leapfrog Group, Healthgrades, etc). Consumer Reports does acknowledge that none of the information for their rankings is actually collected from Consumer Reports but from other sources, such as the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and the American Hospital Association (AHA).

The Bottom Line

Despite all this attention from Consumer Reports and others, online ratings are only used by about 14% of consumers to review hospitals or health-care facilities and by about 17% of consumers to review physicians or other health-care providers.² Although the uptick is relatively low for use of online ratings to seek health care, that likely will change as the measurements get better and are more reflective of true care quality.

The bottom line for consumers is: Where do I want to be hospitalized when I get sick, and can I tell at the front end in which aspects a hospital is going to do well?

I think the answer for consumers should be to stay informed, always have an advocate at your side, and never stop asking questions.And for now, relegate Consumer Reports to purchases, not health care.

Dr. Scheurer is a hospitalist and chief quality officer at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston. She is physician editor of The Hospitalist. Email her at [email protected].

References

1. Consumer Reports. How we rate hospitals. Consumer Reports website. Available at: http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/2012/10/how-we-rate-hospitals/index.htm. Accessed May 12, 2013.
2. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Peer-to-peer health care. Pew Internet website. Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/Health-online/Part-Two/Section-2.aspx. Accessed May 12, 2013.

Who doesn’t know and love Consumer Reports? I personally have used this product to help me make a wide range of purchases, from child-care products to a new automobile. Consumer Reports has enjoyed a relatively unblemished reputation since its inception as an unbiased repository of invaluable information for consumers. This nonprofit advocacy organization advises consumers looking to purchase anything from small, menial items (e.g. blenders and toasters) to large, expensive ones (e.g. computers, lawn mowers, cars). It has been categorizing and publishing large-scale consumer feedback and in-house testing since 1936. According to Wikipedia, Consumer Reports has more than 7 million subscribers and runs a budget in excess of $21 million annually.

One of the reasons for its longstanding success is that it does not appear to have any hidden agenda. It does not have any partiality to a specific company or service, and therefore has maintained its impartial stance during testing and evaluation of any good or service. Its Consumer Reports magazine houses no advertisements in order to maintain its objectivity. Its only agenda is to reflect the interests and opinions of the consumers themselves, and its mission is to provide a “fair, just, and safe marketplace for all consumers and to empower consumers to protect themselves.”¹ A perfect agent from which to seek advice.

And as a company, it has grown with the times, as it now hosts a variety of platforms from which consumers can seek advice. It has long hosted a website (ConsumerReports.org). Now it has Consumer Reports Television and The Consumerist blog, the latter of which accepts “tips” from anyone on what stories to cover, helpful tips for consumers, or interesting pictures. For a few years, there was also Consumer Reports WebWatch, which was aimed at improving the credibility of websites through rigorous investigative reporting.

So it seems that Consumer Reports could be a good avenue to seek advice on where to “consume” health care. And, in fact, it is now in the business of rating the health-care industry. Recent blog posts from Consumer Reports have entailed topics as wide-ranging as the number of uninsured in the U.S. to the number and types of recalls of food products.

The health part of the website covers beauty and personal care (sunscreens and anti-wrinkle serums), exercise and fitness (bikes and diet plans), foods (coffee to frozen meals), home medical supplies (heart rate and blood pressure monitors), vitamins, supplements, and, last but not least, health services. This last section rates health insurance, heart surgeons, heart screening tests, and hospitals.

It even goes so far as to “rate” medications; its Best Buy Drugs compares the cost and effectiveness of a variety of prescription drugs ranging from anti-hypertensives to diabetic agents.

In Focus: Hospitals

Consumer Reports’ latest foray into the health-care industry now includes reporting on the quality of hospitals. The current ratings evaluated more than 2,000 acute-care hospitals in the U.S. and came up with several rankings.

The first rating includes “patient outcomes,” which is a conglomerate of hospital-acquired central-line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) rates, select surgical-site-infection [SSI] rates, 30-day readmission rates (for acute MI [AMI], congestive heart failure [CHF], and pneumonia), and eight “Patient Safety Indicators” (derived from definitions from the Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality [AHRQ], and includes pressure ulcers, pneumothorax, CLABSI, accidental puncture injury during surgery, and four postoperative complications, including VTE, sepsis, hip fracture, and wound dehiscence).

It also includes ratings of the patient experience (from a subset of HCAHPS questions) and two measures of hospital practices, including the use of electronic health records (from the American Hospital Association) and the use of “double scans” (simultaneous thoracic and abdominal CT scans).

From all of these ratings, Consumer Reports combined some of the metrics to arrive at a “Safety Score,” which ranges from 0 to 100 (100 being the safest), based on five categories, including infections (CLABSI and SSI), readmission rates (for AMI, CHF, and pneumonia), patient ratings of communication about their medications and about their discharge process, rate of double scans, and avoidance of the aforementioned AHRQ Patient Safety Indicators.

As to how potential patients are supposed to use this information, Consumer Reports gives the following advice to those wanting to know how the ratings can help a patient get better care: “They can help you compare hospitals in your area so you can choose the one that’s best for you. Even if you don’t have a choice of hospitals, our ratings can alert you to particular concerns so you can take steps to prevent problems no matter which hospital you go to. For example, if a hospital scores low in communicating with patients about what to do when they’re discharged, you should ask about discharge planning at the hospital you choose and make sure you know what to do when you leave.”

Overall, the average Safety Score for included hospitals was a 49, with a range from 14 to 74 across the U.S. Teaching hospitals were among the lowest scorers, with two-thirds of them rated below average.

At first blush, the numbers seem humbling, even startling, but it is not clear if they reflect bad care or bad metrics. Consumer Reports, similar to many other rating scales, has glued together a hodge-podge of different metrics and converted them into a summary score that may or may not line up with other organizational ratings (e.g. U.S. News and World Report, Leapfrog Group, Healthgrades, etc). Consumer Reports does acknowledge that none of the information for their rankings is actually collected from Consumer Reports but from other sources, such as the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and the American Hospital Association (AHA).

The Bottom Line

Despite all this attention from Consumer Reports and others, online ratings are only used by about 14% of consumers to review hospitals or health-care facilities and by about 17% of consumers to review physicians or other health-care providers.² Although the uptick is relatively low for use of online ratings to seek health care, that likely will change as the measurements get better and are more reflective of true care quality.

The bottom line for consumers is: Where do I want to be hospitalized when I get sick, and can I tell at the front end in which aspects a hospital is going to do well?

I think the answer for consumers should be to stay informed, always have an advocate at your side, and never stop asking questions.And for now, relegate Consumer Reports to purchases, not health care.

Dr. Scheurer is a hospitalist and chief quality officer at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston. She is physician editor of The Hospitalist. Email her at [email protected].

References

1. Consumer Reports. How we rate hospitals. Consumer Reports website. Available at: http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/2012/10/how-we-rate-hospitals/index.htm. Accessed May 12, 2013.
2. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Peer-to-peer health care. Pew Internet website. Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/Health-online/Part-Two/Section-2.aspx. Accessed May 12, 2013.

Who doesn’t know and love Consumer Reports? I personally have used this product to help me make a wide range of purchases, from child-care products to a new automobile. Consumer Reports has enjoyed a relatively unblemished reputation since its inception as an unbiased repository of invaluable information for consumers. This nonprofit advocacy organization advises consumers looking to purchase anything from small, menial items (e.g. blenders and toasters) to large, expensive ones (e.g. computers, lawn mowers, cars). It has been categorizing and publishing large-scale consumer feedback and in-house testing since 1936. According to Wikipedia, Consumer Reports has more than 7 million subscribers and runs a budget in excess of $21 million annually.

One of the reasons for its longstanding success is that it does not appear to have any hidden agenda. It does not have any partiality to a specific company or service, and therefore has maintained its impartial stance during testing and evaluation of any good or service. Its Consumer Reports magazine houses no advertisements in order to maintain its objectivity. Its only agenda is to reflect the interests and opinions of the consumers themselves, and its mission is to provide a “fair, just, and safe marketplace for all consumers and to empower consumers to protect themselves.”¹ A perfect agent from which to seek advice.

And as a company, it has grown with the times, as it now hosts a variety of platforms from which consumers can seek advice. It has long hosted a website (ConsumerReports.org). Now it has Consumer Reports Television and The Consumerist blog, the latter of which accepts “tips” from anyone on what stories to cover, helpful tips for consumers, or interesting pictures. For a few years, there was also Consumer Reports WebWatch, which was aimed at improving the credibility of websites through rigorous investigative reporting.

So it seems that Consumer Reports could be a good avenue to seek advice on where to “consume” health care. And, in fact, it is now in the business of rating the health-care industry. Recent blog posts from Consumer Reports have entailed topics as wide-ranging as the number of uninsured in the U.S. to the number and types of recalls of food products.

The health part of the website covers beauty and personal care (sunscreens and anti-wrinkle serums), exercise and fitness (bikes and diet plans), foods (coffee to frozen meals), home medical supplies (heart rate and blood pressure monitors), vitamins, supplements, and, last but not least, health services. This last section rates health insurance, heart surgeons, heart screening tests, and hospitals.

It even goes so far as to “rate” medications; its Best Buy Drugs compares the cost and effectiveness of a variety of prescription drugs ranging from anti-hypertensives to diabetic agents.

In Focus: Hospitals

Consumer Reports’ latest foray into the health-care industry now includes reporting on the quality of hospitals. The current ratings evaluated more than 2,000 acute-care hospitals in the U.S. and came up with several rankings.

The first rating includes “patient outcomes,” which is a conglomerate of hospital-acquired central-line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) rates, select surgical-site-infection [SSI] rates, 30-day readmission rates (for acute MI [AMI], congestive heart failure [CHF], and pneumonia), and eight “Patient Safety Indicators” (derived from definitions from the Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality [AHRQ], and includes pressure ulcers, pneumothorax, CLABSI, accidental puncture injury during surgery, and four postoperative complications, including VTE, sepsis, hip fracture, and wound dehiscence).

It also includes ratings of the patient experience (from a subset of HCAHPS questions) and two measures of hospital practices, including the use of electronic health records (from the American Hospital Association) and the use of “double scans” (simultaneous thoracic and abdominal CT scans).

From all of these ratings, Consumer Reports combined some of the metrics to arrive at a “Safety Score,” which ranges from 0 to 100 (100 being the safest), based on five categories, including infections (CLABSI and SSI), readmission rates (for AMI, CHF, and pneumonia), patient ratings of communication about their medications and about their discharge process, rate of double scans, and avoidance of the aforementioned AHRQ Patient Safety Indicators.

As to how potential patients are supposed to use this information, Consumer Reports gives the following advice to those wanting to know how the ratings can help a patient get better care: “They can help you compare hospitals in your area so you can choose the one that’s best for you. Even if you don’t have a choice of hospitals, our ratings can alert you to particular concerns so you can take steps to prevent problems no matter which hospital you go to. For example, if a hospital scores low in communicating with patients about what to do when they’re discharged, you should ask about discharge planning at the hospital you choose and make sure you know what to do when you leave.”

Overall, the average Safety Score for included hospitals was a 49, with a range from 14 to 74 across the U.S. Teaching hospitals were among the lowest scorers, with two-thirds of them rated below average.

At first blush, the numbers seem humbling, even startling, but it is not clear if they reflect bad care or bad metrics. Consumer Reports, similar to many other rating scales, has glued together a hodge-podge of different metrics and converted them into a summary score that may or may not line up with other organizational ratings (e.g. U.S. News and World Report, Leapfrog Group, Healthgrades, etc). Consumer Reports does acknowledge that none of the information for their rankings is actually collected from Consumer Reports but from other sources, such as the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and the American Hospital Association (AHA).

The Bottom Line

Despite all this attention from Consumer Reports and others, online ratings are only used by about 14% of consumers to review hospitals or health-care facilities and by about 17% of consumers to review physicians or other health-care providers.² Although the uptick is relatively low for use of online ratings to seek health care, that likely will change as the measurements get better and are more reflective of true care quality.

The bottom line for consumers is: Where do I want to be hospitalized when I get sick, and can I tell at the front end in which aspects a hospital is going to do well?

I think the answer for consumers should be to stay informed, always have an advocate at your side, and never stop asking questions.And for now, relegate Consumer Reports to purchases, not health care.

Dr. Scheurer is a hospitalist and chief quality officer at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston. She is physician editor of The Hospitalist. Email her at [email protected].

References

1. Consumer Reports. How we rate hospitals. Consumer Reports website. Available at: http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/2012/10/how-we-rate-hospitals/index.htm. Accessed May 12, 2013.
2. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Peer-to-peer health care. Pew Internet website. Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/Health-online/Part-Two/Section-2.aspx. Accessed May 12, 2013.

I continue to believe that hospitalists should routinely provide patients a copy of their discharge summary. I made the case for this in a 2006 column (“Keeping Patients in the Loop,” October 2006, p. 74), but I don’t see the idea catching on. I bet this simple act would have all kinds of benefits, including at least modest reductions in overall health-care expenditures and readmissions.

The whole dynamic of this issue seems to be changing as a result of “patient portals” allowing direct access to review test results and, in some cases, physician documentation. Typically, these are integrated with or at least connected to an electronic health record (EHR) and allow a patient, and those provided access (e.g. the password) by the patient, to review records. My own PCP provides access to a portal that I’ve found very useful, but I think, like most others, it doesn’t provide access to physician notes.

So there still is a case to be made for hospitalists (and all specialties) to provide copies of the discharge summary directly to patients and perhaps other forms of documentation as well.

Timeliness

I think all discharge summaries should be completed before the patient leaves the hospital and amended as needed to capture any last-minute changes and details. The act of generating the summary often leads the discharging doctor to notice, and have a chance to address, important details that may have dropped off the daily problem list. Things like the need to recheck a lab test to ensure normalization prior to discharge, or make arrangements for outpatient colonoscopy to pursue the heme-positive stool found on admission, have sometimes slipped off the radar during the hospital stay and can be caught when preparing discharge summary.

Preparing a discharge summary the night before anticipated discharge can have many advantages, including improving early discharge times the next morning. And it means the doctor can prepare the summary late in the day after routine rounding is finished and interruptions are less likely. Although I think quality of care is enhanced by generating the summary the night before (and amending it as needed), I worked with a hospital that was cited by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) for doing this and was told they can’t be done prior to the calendar day of discharge.

Creation of the discharge summary isn’t the only relevant step. It should be transcribed on a stat basis (e.g. within two to four hours) and pushed to the PCP and other treating physicians. It isn’t enough that the document is available to the PCP via an EHR; these doctors need some sort of notice, such as an email.

To take advantage of the new “transitional-care management” codes (99495 and 99496), PCPs must make telephone contact with patients within two days of discharge and must have a face-to-face visit within one or two weeks of discharge (depending on whether the patient is high- or moderate-risk). Making the summary available to the PCP quickly can be crucial in ensuring these phone calls and visits are meaningful. (For an excellent review of the TCM codes, see Dr. Lauren Doctoroff’s article “New Codes Bridge Hospitals’ Post-Discharge Billing Gap” in the February 2013 issue of The Hospitalist.)

So I think both patients and other treating physicians should get the discharge summary on the day of discharge or no more than a day or two after. I bet this improves quality of care and readmissions, but one study found no association, and another found a trend toward reduced readmissions that did not reach statistical significance.^1,2

Content

Just what information should go in a discharge summary? There are lots of opinions here, but it is worth starting with the components required by The Joint Commission. (You were aware of these, right?) The commission requires:

• Reason for hospitalization;
• Significant findings;
• Procedures and treatment provided;
• Patient’s discharge condition;
• Patient and family instructions; and
• Attending physician’s signature

To this list, I would add enumeration of tests pending at discharge.

The May/June 2005 issue of The Hospitalist has a terrific article by three thoughtful hospitalists titled “Advancing Toward the Ideal Hospital Discharge for the Elderly Patient.” It summarizes a 2005 workshop at the SHM annual meeting that produced a checklist of elements to consider including in every summary.

Brevity is a worthwhile goal but not at the expense of conveying the thought processes behind decisions. Things like how a decision was made to pursue watchful waiting versus aggressive workup now should be spelled out. Was it simply patient preference? It is common to start a trial of a medical therapy during a hospital stay, and it should be made clear that its effect should be assessed and a deliberate decision regarding continuing or stopping the therapy will be needed after discharge.

Lots of things need context and explanation for subsequent caregivers.

Format

The hospital in which I practice recently switched to a new EHR, and our hospitalist group has talked some about all of us using the same basic template for our notes. This should be valuable to all other caregivers who read a reasonable number of our notes and might improve our communication with one another around handoffs, etc. Although we haven’t reached a final decision about this, I’m an advocate for a shared template rather than each doctor using his or her own. This would be a worthwhile thing for all groups to consider.

Dr. Nelson has been a practicing hospitalist since 1988. He is co-founder and past president of SHM, and principal in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants. He is co-director for SHM’s “Best Practices in Managing a Hospital Medicine Program” course. Write to him at [email protected].

References

1. Hanson LO. Hospital discharge documentation and risk of rehospitalization. BMJ Qual Saf. 2011;20(9):773-778.
2. Van Walraven C, Seth R, Austin PC, Laupacis A. Effect of discharge summary availability during post-discharge visits on hospital readmission. J Gen Intern Med. 2002;17(3):186-192.

I continue to believe that hospitalists should routinely provide patients a copy of their discharge summary. I made the case for this in a 2006 column (“Keeping Patients in the Loop,” October 2006, p. 74), but I don’t see the idea catching on. I bet this simple act would have all kinds of benefits, including at least modest reductions in overall health-care expenditures and readmissions.

The whole dynamic of this issue seems to be changing as a result of “patient portals” allowing direct access to review test results and, in some cases, physician documentation. Typically, these are integrated with or at least connected to an electronic health record (EHR) and allow a patient, and those provided access (e.g. the password) by the patient, to review records. My own PCP provides access to a portal that I’ve found very useful, but I think, like most others, it doesn’t provide access to physician notes.

So there still is a case to be made for hospitalists (and all specialties) to provide copies of the discharge summary directly to patients and perhaps other forms of documentation as well.

Timeliness

I think all discharge summaries should be completed before the patient leaves the hospital and amended as needed to capture any last-minute changes and details. The act of generating the summary often leads the discharging doctor to notice, and have a chance to address, important details that may have dropped off the daily problem list. Things like the need to recheck a lab test to ensure normalization prior to discharge, or make arrangements for outpatient colonoscopy to pursue the heme-positive stool found on admission, have sometimes slipped off the radar during the hospital stay and can be caught when preparing discharge summary.

Preparing a discharge summary the night before anticipated discharge can have many advantages, including improving early discharge times the next morning. And it means the doctor can prepare the summary late in the day after routine rounding is finished and interruptions are less likely. Although I think quality of care is enhanced by generating the summary the night before (and amending it as needed), I worked with a hospital that was cited by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) for doing this and was told they can’t be done prior to the calendar day of discharge.

Creation of the discharge summary isn’t the only relevant step. It should be transcribed on a stat basis (e.g. within two to four hours) and pushed to the PCP and other treating physicians. It isn’t enough that the document is available to the PCP via an EHR; these doctors need some sort of notice, such as an email.

To take advantage of the new “transitional-care management” codes (99495 and 99496), PCPs must make telephone contact with patients within two days of discharge and must have a face-to-face visit within one or two weeks of discharge (depending on whether the patient is high- or moderate-risk). Making the summary available to the PCP quickly can be crucial in ensuring these phone calls and visits are meaningful. (For an excellent review of the TCM codes, see Dr. Lauren Doctoroff’s article “New Codes Bridge Hospitals’ Post-Discharge Billing Gap” in the February 2013 issue of The Hospitalist.)

So I think both patients and other treating physicians should get the discharge summary on the day of discharge or no more than a day or two after. I bet this improves quality of care and readmissions, but one study found no association, and another found a trend toward reduced readmissions that did not reach statistical significance.^1,2

Content

Just what information should go in a discharge summary? There are lots of opinions here, but it is worth starting with the components required by The Joint Commission. (You were aware of these, right?) The commission requires:

• Reason for hospitalization;
• Significant findings;
• Procedures and treatment provided;
• Patient’s discharge condition;
• Patient and family instructions; and
• Attending physician’s signature

To this list, I would add enumeration of tests pending at discharge.

The May/June 2005 issue of The Hospitalist has a terrific article by three thoughtful hospitalists titled “Advancing Toward the Ideal Hospital Discharge for the Elderly Patient.” It summarizes a 2005 workshop at the SHM annual meeting that produced a checklist of elements to consider including in every summary.

Brevity is a worthwhile goal but not at the expense of conveying the thought processes behind decisions. Things like how a decision was made to pursue watchful waiting versus aggressive workup now should be spelled out. Was it simply patient preference? It is common to start a trial of a medical therapy during a hospital stay, and it should be made clear that its effect should be assessed and a deliberate decision regarding continuing or stopping the therapy will be needed after discharge.

Lots of things need context and explanation for subsequent caregivers.

Format

The hospital in which I practice recently switched to a new EHR, and our hospitalist group has talked some about all of us using the same basic template for our notes. This should be valuable to all other caregivers who read a reasonable number of our notes and might improve our communication with one another around handoffs, etc. Although we haven’t reached a final decision about this, I’m an advocate for a shared template rather than each doctor using his or her own. This would be a worthwhile thing for all groups to consider.

Dr. Nelson has been a practicing hospitalist since 1988. He is co-founder and past president of SHM, and principal in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants. He is co-director for SHM’s “Best Practices in Managing a Hospital Medicine Program” course. Write to him at [email protected].

References

1. Hanson LO. Hospital discharge documentation and risk of rehospitalization. BMJ Qual Saf. 2011;20(9):773-778.
2. Van Walraven C, Seth R, Austin PC, Laupacis A. Effect of discharge summary availability during post-discharge visits on hospital readmission. J Gen Intern Med. 2002;17(3):186-192.

I continue to believe that hospitalists should routinely provide patients a copy of their discharge summary. I made the case for this in a 2006 column (“Keeping Patients in the Loop,” October 2006, p. 74), but I don’t see the idea catching on. I bet this simple act would have all kinds of benefits, including at least modest reductions in overall health-care expenditures and readmissions.

The whole dynamic of this issue seems to be changing as a result of “patient portals” allowing direct access to review test results and, in some cases, physician documentation. Typically, these are integrated with or at least connected to an electronic health record (EHR) and allow a patient, and those provided access (e.g. the password) by the patient, to review records. My own PCP provides access to a portal that I’ve found very useful, but I think, like most others, it doesn’t provide access to physician notes.

So there still is a case to be made for hospitalists (and all specialties) to provide copies of the discharge summary directly to patients and perhaps other forms of documentation as well.

Timeliness

I think all discharge summaries should be completed before the patient leaves the hospital and amended as needed to capture any last-minute changes and details. The act of generating the summary often leads the discharging doctor to notice, and have a chance to address, important details that may have dropped off the daily problem list. Things like the need to recheck a lab test to ensure normalization prior to discharge, or make arrangements for outpatient colonoscopy to pursue the heme-positive stool found on admission, have sometimes slipped off the radar during the hospital stay and can be caught when preparing discharge summary.

Preparing a discharge summary the night before anticipated discharge can have many advantages, including improving early discharge times the next morning. And it means the doctor can prepare the summary late in the day after routine rounding is finished and interruptions are less likely. Although I think quality of care is enhanced by generating the summary the night before (and amending it as needed), I worked with a hospital that was cited by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) for doing this and was told they can’t be done prior to the calendar day of discharge.

Creation of the discharge summary isn’t the only relevant step. It should be transcribed on a stat basis (e.g. within two to four hours) and pushed to the PCP and other treating physicians. It isn’t enough that the document is available to the PCP via an EHR; these doctors need some sort of notice, such as an email.

To take advantage of the new “transitional-care management” codes (99495 and 99496), PCPs must make telephone contact with patients within two days of discharge and must have a face-to-face visit within one or two weeks of discharge (depending on whether the patient is high- or moderate-risk). Making the summary available to the PCP quickly can be crucial in ensuring these phone calls and visits are meaningful. (For an excellent review of the TCM codes, see Dr. Lauren Doctoroff’s article “New Codes Bridge Hospitals’ Post-Discharge Billing Gap” in the February 2013 issue of The Hospitalist.)

So I think both patients and other treating physicians should get the discharge summary on the day of discharge or no more than a day or two after. I bet this improves quality of care and readmissions, but one study found no association, and another found a trend toward reduced readmissions that did not reach statistical significance.^1,2

Content

Just what information should go in a discharge summary? There are lots of opinions here, but it is worth starting with the components required by The Joint Commission. (You were aware of these, right?) The commission requires:

• Reason for hospitalization;
• Significant findings;
• Procedures and treatment provided;
• Patient’s discharge condition;
• Patient and family instructions; and
• Attending physician’s signature

To this list, I would add enumeration of tests pending at discharge.

The May/June 2005 issue of The Hospitalist has a terrific article by three thoughtful hospitalists titled “Advancing Toward the Ideal Hospital Discharge for the Elderly Patient.” It summarizes a 2005 workshop at the SHM annual meeting that produced a checklist of elements to consider including in every summary.

Brevity is a worthwhile goal but not at the expense of conveying the thought processes behind decisions. Things like how a decision was made to pursue watchful waiting versus aggressive workup now should be spelled out. Was it simply patient preference? It is common to start a trial of a medical therapy during a hospital stay, and it should be made clear that its effect should be assessed and a deliberate decision regarding continuing or stopping the therapy will be needed after discharge.

Lots of things need context and explanation for subsequent caregivers.

Format

The hospital in which I practice recently switched to a new EHR, and our hospitalist group has talked some about all of us using the same basic template for our notes. This should be valuable to all other caregivers who read a reasonable number of our notes and might improve our communication with one another around handoffs, etc. Although we haven’t reached a final decision about this, I’m an advocate for a shared template rather than each doctor using his or her own. This would be a worthwhile thing for all groups to consider.

Dr. Nelson has been a practicing hospitalist since 1988. He is co-founder and past president of SHM, and principal in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants. He is co-director for SHM’s “Best Practices in Managing a Hospital Medicine Program” course. Write to him at [email protected].

References

1. Hanson LO. Hospital discharge documentation and risk of rehospitalization. BMJ Qual Saf. 2011;20(9):773-778.
2. Van Walraven C, Seth R, Austin PC, Laupacis A. Effect of discharge summary availability during post-discharge visits on hospital readmission. J Gen Intern Med. 2002;17(3):186-192.

Dr. Hospitalist

Dear Dr. Hospitalist:

Our group is considering hiring another nocturnist. This may reduce the number of shifts that hospitalists will be able to work per month—we have some who work 20 or more shifts per month. While the vast majority of hospitalists would welcome a nocturnist in order to decrease the number of night shifts required, some who work a lot of shifts are concerned that their income will be affected since there won’t necessarily be any day shifts available to compensate for the decrease in night shifts.

I am wondering if there is a maximum number of shifts per month that a hospitalist should not exceed. We work 12-hour shifts. In other words, is there a tipping point when too many shifts starts to negatively impact the quality of work, increase length of stay, decrease patient satisfaction, and lead to physician burnout? Are there any studies or data to look at this question?

Your feedback is very much appreciated.

–Donna Ting, MD, MPH

Dr. Hospitalist responds:

Although many jobs (i.e. air-traffic controllers, truck drivers) use hours worked as a gauge of operator fatigue, physicians traditionally have not used these criteria to judge one’s ability to be effective. That being said, we all know of occasions when we were physically and/or mentally exhausted and not performing at our best.

Multiple studies have shown that physicians tend to work an average of 60 hours a week. Of course, this does not take into consideration the typical hospitalist, who still tends to work 12-hour shifts on a seven-on/seven-off schedule, although there is a trend away from this type of block scheduling. A recent study also showed that physicians in practice less than five years were more likely to work hours in agreement with the 2003 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) duty-hour regulations for physicians in training. The authors speculated that this was due to this group having trained under the new ACGME guidelines and being of Generation X, whose members tend to favor more work-life balance than their predecessors.

Several studies have examined physician work hours in relationship to fatigue and patient safety. Volp et al examined two large studies and found no change in mortality among Medicare patients for the first two years after implementation of the ACGME duty-hour regulations. However, they did find that mortality decreased for four common medical conditions in a VA hospital. Fletcher et al performed a systematic review and found no conclusive evidence that the decreased resident work hours had any affect on patient safety.

This is what I would have expected: inconclusive data. Most studies of this type are surveys, which have well-known limitations. Each of us has our own individual stamina, tolerance for fatigue, and desire for work-life balance. We intuitively know that most individuals are not at their best when tired or stressed, but to capture the true effect of these variables on patient satisfaction, morbidity, mortality, and other clinical metrics will be very difficult.

There are several ways I would approach a group that is contemplating another nocturnist. Because most hospitalists don’t want to work nights, the group members who feel their moonlighting income would be affected should commit to covering a certain portion or all of the available nights. If only some of the nights are covered, then you can hire a part-time nocturnist.

This is easier than you might imagine, as my very large hospitalist group has four nocturnists and none work a full FTE. I think three to four extra shifts a month are reasonable on a routine basis. We have, however, allowed physicians who wanted to have a month off to work seven extra days the months before and after to get their desired time off. We would not allow that to occur on a regular basis.

Ultimately, your group has to decide its own tolerance for fatigue and burnout, and have some mechanism to monitor the quality of work. After all, we owe it to our patients to not place their safety in jeopardy.

Do you have a problem or concern that you’d like Dr. Hospitalist to address? Email your questions to [email protected].

Dr. Hospitalist

Dear Dr. Hospitalist:

Our group is considering hiring another nocturnist. This may reduce the number of shifts that hospitalists will be able to work per month—we have some who work 20 or more shifts per month. While the vast majority of hospitalists would welcome a nocturnist in order to decrease the number of night shifts required, some who work a lot of shifts are concerned that their income will be affected since there won’t necessarily be any day shifts available to compensate for the decrease in night shifts.

I am wondering if there is a maximum number of shifts per month that a hospitalist should not exceed. We work 12-hour shifts. In other words, is there a tipping point when too many shifts starts to negatively impact the quality of work, increase length of stay, decrease patient satisfaction, and lead to physician burnout? Are there any studies or data to look at this question?

Your feedback is very much appreciated.

–Donna Ting, MD, MPH

Dr. Hospitalist responds:

Although many jobs (i.e. air-traffic controllers, truck drivers) use hours worked as a gauge of operator fatigue, physicians traditionally have not used these criteria to judge one’s ability to be effective. That being said, we all know of occasions when we were physically and/or mentally exhausted and not performing at our best.

Multiple studies have shown that physicians tend to work an average of 60 hours a week. Of course, this does not take into consideration the typical hospitalist, who still tends to work 12-hour shifts on a seven-on/seven-off schedule, although there is a trend away from this type of block scheduling. A recent study also showed that physicians in practice less than five years were more likely to work hours in agreement with the 2003 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) duty-hour regulations for physicians in training. The authors speculated that this was due to this group having trained under the new ACGME guidelines and being of Generation X, whose members tend to favor more work-life balance than their predecessors.

Several studies have examined physician work hours in relationship to fatigue and patient safety. Volp et al examined two large studies and found no change in mortality among Medicare patients for the first two years after implementation of the ACGME duty-hour regulations. However, they did find that mortality decreased for four common medical conditions in a VA hospital. Fletcher et al performed a systematic review and found no conclusive evidence that the decreased resident work hours had any affect on patient safety.

This is what I would have expected: inconclusive data. Most studies of this type are surveys, which have well-known limitations. Each of us has our own individual stamina, tolerance for fatigue, and desire for work-life balance. We intuitively know that most individuals are not at their best when tired or stressed, but to capture the true effect of these variables on patient satisfaction, morbidity, mortality, and other clinical metrics will be very difficult.

There are several ways I would approach a group that is contemplating another nocturnist. Because most hospitalists don’t want to work nights, the group members who feel their moonlighting income would be affected should commit to covering a certain portion or all of the available nights. If only some of the nights are covered, then you can hire a part-time nocturnist.

This is easier than you might imagine, as my very large hospitalist group has four nocturnists and none work a full FTE. I think three to four extra shifts a month are reasonable on a routine basis. We have, however, allowed physicians who wanted to have a month off to work seven extra days the months before and after to get their desired time off. We would not allow that to occur on a regular basis.

Ultimately, your group has to decide its own tolerance for fatigue and burnout, and have some mechanism to monitor the quality of work. After all, we owe it to our patients to not place their safety in jeopardy.

Do you have a problem or concern that you’d like Dr. Hospitalist to address? Email your questions to [email protected].

Dr. Hospitalist

Dear Dr. Hospitalist:

Our group is considering hiring another nocturnist. This may reduce the number of shifts that hospitalists will be able to work per month—we have some who work 20 or more shifts per month. While the vast majority of hospitalists would welcome a nocturnist in order to decrease the number of night shifts required, some who work a lot of shifts are concerned that their income will be affected since there won’t necessarily be any day shifts available to compensate for the decrease in night shifts.

I am wondering if there is a maximum number of shifts per month that a hospitalist should not exceed. We work 12-hour shifts. In other words, is there a tipping point when too many shifts starts to negatively impact the quality of work, increase length of stay, decrease patient satisfaction, and lead to physician burnout? Are there any studies or data to look at this question?

Your feedback is very much appreciated.

–Donna Ting, MD, MPH

Dr. Hospitalist responds:

Although many jobs (i.e. air-traffic controllers, truck drivers) use hours worked as a gauge of operator fatigue, physicians traditionally have not used these criteria to judge one’s ability to be effective. That being said, we all know of occasions when we were physically and/or mentally exhausted and not performing at our best.

Multiple studies have shown that physicians tend to work an average of 60 hours a week. Of course, this does not take into consideration the typical hospitalist, who still tends to work 12-hour shifts on a seven-on/seven-off schedule, although there is a trend away from this type of block scheduling. A recent study also showed that physicians in practice less than five years were more likely to work hours in agreement with the 2003 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) duty-hour regulations for physicians in training. The authors speculated that this was due to this group having trained under the new ACGME guidelines and being of Generation X, whose members tend to favor more work-life balance than their predecessors.

Several studies have examined physician work hours in relationship to fatigue and patient safety. Volp et al examined two large studies and found no change in mortality among Medicare patients for the first two years after implementation of the ACGME duty-hour regulations. However, they did find that mortality decreased for four common medical conditions in a VA hospital. Fletcher et al performed a systematic review and found no conclusive evidence that the decreased resident work hours had any affect on patient safety.

This is what I would have expected: inconclusive data. Most studies of this type are surveys, which have well-known limitations. Each of us has our own individual stamina, tolerance for fatigue, and desire for work-life balance. We intuitively know that most individuals are not at their best when tired or stressed, but to capture the true effect of these variables on patient satisfaction, morbidity, mortality, and other clinical metrics will be very difficult.

There are several ways I would approach a group that is contemplating another nocturnist. Because most hospitalists don’t want to work nights, the group members who feel their moonlighting income would be affected should commit to covering a certain portion or all of the available nights. If only some of the nights are covered, then you can hire a part-time nocturnist.

This is easier than you might imagine, as my very large hospitalist group has four nocturnists and none work a full FTE. I think three to four extra shifts a month are reasonable on a routine basis. We have, however, allowed physicians who wanted to have a month off to work seven extra days the months before and after to get their desired time off. We would not allow that to occur on a regular basis.

Ultimately, your group has to decide its own tolerance for fatigue and burnout, and have some mechanism to monitor the quality of work. After all, we owe it to our patients to not place their safety in jeopardy.

Do you have a problem or concern that you’d like Dr. Hospitalist to address? Email your questions to [email protected].

Clinical question: What are the effects of the 2011 resident duty-hour requirements on first-year residents’ well-being and patient safety?

Background: In an effort to reduce adverse consequences associated with extended shift length and sleep deprivation, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) released a new set of duty-hour requirements effective July 2011. To date, little is known about the effects of the 2011 reforms on resident and patient outcomes.

Study design: Prospective, longitudinal cohort with pre-post analysis.

Setting: Residency programs from university- and community-based medical centers.

Synopsis: Fifty-one residency programs from 10 university-based and four community-based GME institutions were included. Incoming interns during the 2009, 2010, and 2011 academic years were invited to participate, and 58% (n=2,323) agreed to take part. Participants completed online surveys two months before starting their first residency (intern) year and at three, six, nine, and 12 months of internship. Questions addressed work hours, sleep, medical errors, depressive symptoms, and subjective well-being.

No significant differences in baseline findings were found between the pre-implementation cohort (interns entering in 2009 and 2010) and the post-implementation cohort (interns starting in 2011, following the new duty-hour requirements). Interns in the post-implementation cohort worked fewer hours than those in the pre-implementation cohort (mean hours per week 64.3 vs. 67.0, P<0.001). There were no significant changes in reported hours of sleep, depressive symptom score, or well-being score between the pre- and post-implementation cohorts. The percentage of respondents who reported committing a serious medical error increased in the post-implementation group (23.3% vs. 19.9%, P=0.007).

Limitations include the self-reported nature of the responses and the modest participation rate. The authors concluded that although the 2011 reforms decreased the total number of hours worked, additional strategies could be needed to achieve the desired effects on intern well-being and patient safety.

Bottom line: Following implementation of the 2011 ACGME duty-hour reforms, interns from diverse specialties and institutions experienced reductions in self-reported work hours, without any associated improvements in sleep, depressive symptoms, or well-being and with an increase in reported medical errors.

Citation: Sen S, Kranzler HR, Didwania AK, et al. Effects of the 2011 duty hour reforms on interns and their patients: a prospective longitudinal cohort study. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(8):657-662.

Clinical question: What are the effects of the 2011 resident duty-hour requirements on first-year residents’ well-being and patient safety?

Background: In an effort to reduce adverse consequences associated with extended shift length and sleep deprivation, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) released a new set of duty-hour requirements effective July 2011. To date, little is known about the effects of the 2011 reforms on resident and patient outcomes.

Study design: Prospective, longitudinal cohort with pre-post analysis.

Setting: Residency programs from university- and community-based medical centers.

Synopsis: Fifty-one residency programs from 10 university-based and four community-based GME institutions were included. Incoming interns during the 2009, 2010, and 2011 academic years were invited to participate, and 58% (n=2,323) agreed to take part. Participants completed online surveys two months before starting their first residency (intern) year and at three, six, nine, and 12 months of internship. Questions addressed work hours, sleep, medical errors, depressive symptoms, and subjective well-being.

No significant differences in baseline findings were found between the pre-implementation cohort (interns entering in 2009 and 2010) and the post-implementation cohort (interns starting in 2011, following the new duty-hour requirements). Interns in the post-implementation cohort worked fewer hours than those in the pre-implementation cohort (mean hours per week 64.3 vs. 67.0, P<0.001). There were no significant changes in reported hours of sleep, depressive symptom score, or well-being score between the pre- and post-implementation cohorts. The percentage of respondents who reported committing a serious medical error increased in the post-implementation group (23.3% vs. 19.9%, P=0.007).

Limitations include the self-reported nature of the responses and the modest participation rate. The authors concluded that although the 2011 reforms decreased the total number of hours worked, additional strategies could be needed to achieve the desired effects on intern well-being and patient safety.

Bottom line: Following implementation of the 2011 ACGME duty-hour reforms, interns from diverse specialties and institutions experienced reductions in self-reported work hours, without any associated improvements in sleep, depressive symptoms, or well-being and with an increase in reported medical errors.

Citation: Sen S, Kranzler HR, Didwania AK, et al. Effects of the 2011 duty hour reforms on interns and their patients: a prospective longitudinal cohort study. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(8):657-662.

Clinical question: What are the effects of the 2011 resident duty-hour requirements on first-year residents’ well-being and patient safety?

Background: In an effort to reduce adverse consequences associated with extended shift length and sleep deprivation, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) released a new set of duty-hour requirements effective July 2011. To date, little is known about the effects of the 2011 reforms on resident and patient outcomes.

Study design: Prospective, longitudinal cohort with pre-post analysis.

Setting: Residency programs from university- and community-based medical centers.

Synopsis: Fifty-one residency programs from 10 university-based and four community-based GME institutions were included. Incoming interns during the 2009, 2010, and 2011 academic years were invited to participate, and 58% (n=2,323) agreed to take part. Participants completed online surveys two months before starting their first residency (intern) year and at three, six, nine, and 12 months of internship. Questions addressed work hours, sleep, medical errors, depressive symptoms, and subjective well-being.

No significant differences in baseline findings were found between the pre-implementation cohort (interns entering in 2009 and 2010) and the post-implementation cohort (interns starting in 2011, following the new duty-hour requirements). Interns in the post-implementation cohort worked fewer hours than those in the pre-implementation cohort (mean hours per week 64.3 vs. 67.0, P<0.001). There were no significant changes in reported hours of sleep, depressive symptom score, or well-being score between the pre- and post-implementation cohorts. The percentage of respondents who reported committing a serious medical error increased in the post-implementation group (23.3% vs. 19.9%, P=0.007).

Limitations include the self-reported nature of the responses and the modest participation rate. The authors concluded that although the 2011 reforms decreased the total number of hours worked, additional strategies could be needed to achieve the desired effects on intern well-being and patient safety.

Bottom line: Following implementation of the 2011 ACGME duty-hour reforms, interns from diverse specialties and institutions experienced reductions in self-reported work hours, without any associated improvements in sleep, depressive symptoms, or well-being and with an increase in reported medical errors.

Citation: Sen S, Kranzler HR, Didwania AK, et al. Effects of the 2011 duty hour reforms on interns and their patients: a prospective longitudinal cohort study. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(8):657-662.

Clinical question: How often do inpatient providers report direct communication with outpatient providers, and how is direct communication associated with 30-day readmissions?

Background: Studies have demonstrated that adverse events and errors occurring after hospital discharge can result from poor provider communication between the inpatient and outpatient setting.

Study design: Prospective cohort.

Setting: Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore.

Synopsis: The presence or absence of direct communication between inpatient and outpatient healthcare providers was captured from a required field in an electronic discharge worksheet completed by the discharging physician. Of 6,635 hospitalizations studied, successful direct communication was reported in 36.7% of cases. Predictors of successful direct communication included patients cared for by hospitalists without house staff (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.59-2.08), high expected 30-day readmission rate (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.10-1.28), and insurance by Medicare (OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.16-1.56) and private insurance companies (OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.18-1.56). In adjusted analyses, direct communication between the inpatient and outpatient providers was not associated with 30-day readmissions (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.92-1.26).

There were several limitations in this study. Only the primary team was surveyed; thus, it is not known if consulting providers might have contacted the outpatient providers. Only readmissions to the same medical center were studied, and therefore it is not known if patients were readmitted to other facilities. Additionally, information regarding discharge communication was self-reported, which might have introduced bias.

Bottom line: Self-reported direct communication between inpatient and outpatient providers occurred infrequently and was not associated with 30-day same-hospital readmission.

Citation: Oduyebo I, Lehmann C, Pollack C, et al. Association of self-reported hospital discharge handoffs with 30-day readmissions. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173:624-629.

Clinical question: How often do inpatient providers report direct communication with outpatient providers, and how is direct communication associated with 30-day readmissions?

Background: Studies have demonstrated that adverse events and errors occurring after hospital discharge can result from poor provider communication between the inpatient and outpatient setting.

Study design: Prospective cohort.

Setting: Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore.

Synopsis: The presence or absence of direct communication between inpatient and outpatient healthcare providers was captured from a required field in an electronic discharge worksheet completed by the discharging physician. Of 6,635 hospitalizations studied, successful direct communication was reported in 36.7% of cases. Predictors of successful direct communication included patients cared for by hospitalists without house staff (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.59-2.08), high expected 30-day readmission rate (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.10-1.28), and insurance by Medicare (OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.16-1.56) and private insurance companies (OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.18-1.56). In adjusted analyses, direct communication between the inpatient and outpatient providers was not associated with 30-day readmissions (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.92-1.26).

There were several limitations in this study. Only the primary team was surveyed; thus, it is not known if consulting providers might have contacted the outpatient providers. Only readmissions to the same medical center were studied, and therefore it is not known if patients were readmitted to other facilities. Additionally, information regarding discharge communication was self-reported, which might have introduced bias.

Bottom line: Self-reported direct communication between inpatient and outpatient providers occurred infrequently and was not associated with 30-day same-hospital readmission.

Citation: Oduyebo I, Lehmann C, Pollack C, et al. Association of self-reported hospital discharge handoffs with 30-day readmissions. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173:624-629.

Clinical question: How often do inpatient providers report direct communication with outpatient providers, and how is direct communication associated with 30-day readmissions?

Background: Studies have demonstrated that adverse events and errors occurring after hospital discharge can result from poor provider communication between the inpatient and outpatient setting.

Study design: Prospective cohort.

Setting: Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore.

Synopsis: The presence or absence of direct communication between inpatient and outpatient healthcare providers was captured from a required field in an electronic discharge worksheet completed by the discharging physician. Of 6,635 hospitalizations studied, successful direct communication was reported in 36.7% of cases. Predictors of successful direct communication included patients cared for by hospitalists without house staff (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.59-2.08), high expected 30-day readmission rate (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.10-1.28), and insurance by Medicare (OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.16-1.56) and private insurance companies (OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.18-1.56). In adjusted analyses, direct communication between the inpatient and outpatient providers was not associated with 30-day readmissions (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.92-1.26).

There were several limitations in this study. Only the primary team was surveyed; thus, it is not known if consulting providers might have contacted the outpatient providers. Only readmissions to the same medical center were studied, and therefore it is not known if patients were readmitted to other facilities. Additionally, information regarding discharge communication was self-reported, which might have introduced bias.

Bottom line: Self-reported direct communication between inpatient and outpatient providers occurred infrequently and was not associated with 30-day same-hospital readmission.

Citation: Oduyebo I, Lehmann C, Pollack C, et al. Association of self-reported hospital discharge handoffs with 30-day readmissions. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173:624-629.