Quality

Controlling glycemic levels and diabetes in hospitalized patients is one of the biggest ongoing challenges hospitalists face. Now, hospitalists can help their hospitals come up with system-wide improvements to address glycemic control.

SHM’s Glycemic Control Mentored Implementation (GCMI) Program gives hospitalists the tools they need to make system-level changes in their hospital and pairs them with a mentor to help make it happen.

SHM is accepting applications for the 2014 GCMI program, but act soon. Applications are due September 30. For more information, visit www.hospitalmedicine.org/gcmi.

Controlling glycemic levels and diabetes in hospitalized patients is one of the biggest ongoing challenges hospitalists face. Now, hospitalists can help their hospitals come up with system-wide improvements to address glycemic control.

SHM’s Glycemic Control Mentored Implementation (GCMI) Program gives hospitalists the tools they need to make system-level changes in their hospital and pairs them with a mentor to help make it happen.

SHM is accepting applications for the 2014 GCMI program, but act soon. Applications are due September 30. For more information, visit www.hospitalmedicine.org/gcmi.

Controlling glycemic levels and diabetes in hospitalized patients is one of the biggest ongoing challenges hospitalists face. Now, hospitalists can help their hospitals come up with system-wide improvements to address glycemic control.

SHM’s Glycemic Control Mentored Implementation (GCMI) Program gives hospitalists the tools they need to make system-level changes in their hospital and pairs them with a mentor to help make it happen.

SHM is accepting applications for the 2014 GCMI program, but act soon. Applications are due September 30. For more information, visit www.hospitalmedicine.org/gcmi.

Summary

One of PHM2014’s first breakout sessions, coming on the heels of Dr. Meuthing’s opening talk on reducing serious safety events, focused on the topic of overdiagnosis in pediatric HM and its contribution to patient harm. The first key point was the distinction between overdiagnosis and misdiagnosis. Overdiagnosis is the identification of an abnormality where detection will not benefit the patient. This is different from misdiagnosis or incorrect diagnosis. Overdiagnosis has grown over the years due to several causes, including our fear of missing a diagnosis and the increasing use of screening tests.

The speakers outlined many, varied drivers of overdiagnosis, including physicians’ unawareness of overdiagnosis, physicians’ discomfort with uncertainty, physicians’ inherent belief in technology and its results, quality measures based on usage and testing, a perceived imperative to use testing and technology because it is available, and system incentives such as fee for service, which reimburses or rewards increased testing. The classic example of overdiagnosis in pediatrics is asymptomatic urinary screening for neuroblastomas, where studies showed an increase in testing and an increase in diagnosis but no change in mortality. A current example is children receiving head CT scans for minor head trauma, which can lead to a diagnosis of small asymptomatic head bleeds or nondisplaced skull fractures, which can in turn lead to PICU admissions, transfers to higher level centers, prophylactic administration of anti-seizure medications, and repeat CT scans.

From the patient perspective, overdiagnosis can lead to unnecessary hospitalizations, inappropriate medications and treatments, and increased patient or parental anxiety secondary to a diagnosis or disease label.

Summary

One of PHM2014’s first breakout sessions, coming on the heels of Dr. Meuthing’s opening talk on reducing serious safety events, focused on the topic of overdiagnosis in pediatric HM and its contribution to patient harm. The first key point was the distinction between overdiagnosis and misdiagnosis. Overdiagnosis is the identification of an abnormality where detection will not benefit the patient. This is different from misdiagnosis or incorrect diagnosis. Overdiagnosis has grown over the years due to several causes, including our fear of missing a diagnosis and the increasing use of screening tests.

The speakers outlined many, varied drivers of overdiagnosis, including physicians’ unawareness of overdiagnosis, physicians’ discomfort with uncertainty, physicians’ inherent belief in technology and its results, quality measures based on usage and testing, a perceived imperative to use testing and technology because it is available, and system incentives such as fee for service, which reimburses or rewards increased testing. The classic example of overdiagnosis in pediatrics is asymptomatic urinary screening for neuroblastomas, where studies showed an increase in testing and an increase in diagnosis but no change in mortality. A current example is children receiving head CT scans for minor head trauma, which can lead to a diagnosis of small asymptomatic head bleeds or nondisplaced skull fractures, which can in turn lead to PICU admissions, transfers to higher level centers, prophylactic administration of anti-seizure medications, and repeat CT scans.

From the patient perspective, overdiagnosis can lead to unnecessary hospitalizations, inappropriate medications and treatments, and increased patient or parental anxiety secondary to a diagnosis or disease label.

Summary

One of PHM2014’s first breakout sessions, coming on the heels of Dr. Meuthing’s opening talk on reducing serious safety events, focused on the topic of overdiagnosis in pediatric HM and its contribution to patient harm. The first key point was the distinction between overdiagnosis and misdiagnosis. Overdiagnosis is the identification of an abnormality where detection will not benefit the patient. This is different from misdiagnosis or incorrect diagnosis. Overdiagnosis has grown over the years due to several causes, including our fear of missing a diagnosis and the increasing use of screening tests.

The speakers outlined many, varied drivers of overdiagnosis, including physicians’ unawareness of overdiagnosis, physicians’ discomfort with uncertainty, physicians’ inherent belief in technology and its results, quality measures based on usage and testing, a perceived imperative to use testing and technology because it is available, and system incentives such as fee for service, which reimburses or rewards increased testing. The classic example of overdiagnosis in pediatrics is asymptomatic urinary screening for neuroblastomas, where studies showed an increase in testing and an increase in diagnosis but no change in mortality. A current example is children receiving head CT scans for minor head trauma, which can lead to a diagnosis of small asymptomatic head bleeds or nondisplaced skull fractures, which can in turn lead to PICU admissions, transfers to higher level centers, prophylactic administration of anti-seizure medications, and repeat CT scans.

From the patient perspective, overdiagnosis can lead to unnecessary hospitalizations, inappropriate medications and treatments, and increased patient or parental anxiety secondary to a diagnosis or disease label.

Summary

Behavioral emergencies occur when a patient is physically aggressive or potentially harmful to himself/herself or others. Although they may be rare, behavioral emergencies are high-risk situations, and untrained staff might be uncomfortable dealing with these events.

Patients with underlying psychiatric or developmental disorders, those who have ingested substances, or those who have a medication side effect are at the highest risk for becoming violent. Triggers for these events could be pain, hunger, isolation, change in routine, or even the hospital’s physical environment. Early warning signs for a behavioral emergency can include verbal threats, yelling, or silence. Physical signs may include pacing, crossed arms, furrowed brow, or throwing objects.

The first response to a potential behavioral emergency is to try to de-escalate the situation. Speak in a quiet, calm voice; back off and give personal space. Try to reduce a source of discomfort, and use distractions or rewards. If de-escalation is not successful and a patient becomes violent, the provider’s first role is to be safe: Get away and get help. Hospitals should have—or should develop—a violent patient response team, which may then physically restrain the patient. Medications can be used to treat medical issues but should not be used solely for chemical restraint.

Once a patient is safely restrained, a number of Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations-mandated actions must occur. The legal guardian and attending of record must be notified. A debrief must occur regarding the events; this must be documented in the medical record. Finally, a strategy must be formulated to enable the patient to be safely removed from restraints as soon as it is safe.

The presenters demonstrated various personal safety techniques to escape from a violent patient, as well as the use of physical restraints. Participants engaged in a mock behavioral emergency to experience the chaos of these events.

Summary

Behavioral emergencies occur when a patient is physically aggressive or potentially harmful to himself/herself or others. Although they may be rare, behavioral emergencies are high-risk situations, and untrained staff might be uncomfortable dealing with these events.

Patients with underlying psychiatric or developmental disorders, those who have ingested substances, or those who have a medication side effect are at the highest risk for becoming violent. Triggers for these events could be pain, hunger, isolation, change in routine, or even the hospital’s physical environment. Early warning signs for a behavioral emergency can include verbal threats, yelling, or silence. Physical signs may include pacing, crossed arms, furrowed brow, or throwing objects.

The first response to a potential behavioral emergency is to try to de-escalate the situation. Speak in a quiet, calm voice; back off and give personal space. Try to reduce a source of discomfort, and use distractions or rewards. If de-escalation is not successful and a patient becomes violent, the provider’s first role is to be safe: Get away and get help. Hospitals should have—or should develop—a violent patient response team, which may then physically restrain the patient. Medications can be used to treat medical issues but should not be used solely for chemical restraint.

Once a patient is safely restrained, a number of Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations-mandated actions must occur. The legal guardian and attending of record must be notified. A debrief must occur regarding the events; this must be documented in the medical record. Finally, a strategy must be formulated to enable the patient to be safely removed from restraints as soon as it is safe.

The presenters demonstrated various personal safety techniques to escape from a violent patient, as well as the use of physical restraints. Participants engaged in a mock behavioral emergency to experience the chaos of these events.

Summary

Behavioral emergencies occur when a patient is physically aggressive or potentially harmful to himself/herself or others. Although they may be rare, behavioral emergencies are high-risk situations, and untrained staff might be uncomfortable dealing with these events.

Patients with underlying psychiatric or developmental disorders, those who have ingested substances, or those who have a medication side effect are at the highest risk for becoming violent. Triggers for these events could be pain, hunger, isolation, change in routine, or even the hospital’s physical environment. Early warning signs for a behavioral emergency can include verbal threats, yelling, or silence. Physical signs may include pacing, crossed arms, furrowed brow, or throwing objects.

The first response to a potential behavioral emergency is to try to de-escalate the situation. Speak in a quiet, calm voice; back off and give personal space. Try to reduce a source of discomfort, and use distractions or rewards. If de-escalation is not successful and a patient becomes violent, the provider’s first role is to be safe: Get away and get help. Hospitals should have—or should develop—a violent patient response team, which may then physically restrain the patient. Medications can be used to treat medical issues but should not be used solely for chemical restraint.

Once a patient is safely restrained, a number of Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations-mandated actions must occur. The legal guardian and attending of record must be notified. A debrief must occur regarding the events; this must be documented in the medical record. Finally, a strategy must be formulated to enable the patient to be safely removed from restraints as soon as it is safe.

The presenters demonstrated various personal safety techniques to escape from a violent patient, as well as the use of physical restraints. Participants engaged in a mock behavioral emergency to experience the chaos of these events.

Summary

“Master the basics of a good hospitalist program and keep revisiting your core values, and you will continue to have a high quality and sustainable program,” says Dr. Dan Hale at the PHM14 workshop “Building Blocks in the Evolution of a Successful Distributed Hospitalist Program.”

Dr. Elisabeth Schainker, chief of pediatric hospitalist medicine at The Floating Hospital for Children at Tufts Medical Center in Boston, and Dr. Hale, a hospitalist at The Floating Hospital and site director of the Lawrence General Hospital affiliated pediatric hospitalist program, allowed participants to share their experiences in program development.

This workshop reviewed the fundamentals programs should review before starting and also, periodically, after they’ve been established. Program changes should be made as needed. The workshop used an assessment tool to evaluate the basic elements of the participants’ programs. The February 2014 article “Key Principles and Characteristics of an Effective Hospital Medicine Group” in the Journal of Hospital Medicine was used as a starting point for program self-evaluation.

These “building blocks” include the following:

• Establish the rationale for the program and include all stakeholders;
• Determine financial expectations;
• Define scope of practice;
• Organize nursing and referral physician collaboration;
• Assess staffing and workload expectations;
• Establish referral base; and
• Ensure basic code and emergency preparedness.

Ongoing development elements of a program were discussed as well. These components help further integrate a hospitalist program with the hospital as a whole and help add value. These ongoing “building blocks” include:

• Communication and collaboration with other hospital departments (e.g. emergency, radiology, surgery);
• Newborn medicine care;
• Internal group clinical practice guidelines;
• Co-management of surgical or specialty patients;
• Transfers from other hospitals or continuing care from tertiary care centers;
• Pediatric code teams and rapid response teams;
• Advanced code and emergency preparedness and mock code training; and
• Nursing education.

These additive features may be different at each program. Not all of these components are applicable or needed at all hospitals. Thoughtful approaches and thorough planning can create synergy with other components of a program.

The essentials of a successful distributed network of multiple hospitalist program sites were also described.

After assuring that the fundamentals are present at each site, transparency and institutional alignment are imperative.

Summary

“Master the basics of a good hospitalist program and keep revisiting your core values, and you will continue to have a high quality and sustainable program,” says Dr. Dan Hale at the PHM14 workshop “Building Blocks in the Evolution of a Successful Distributed Hospitalist Program.”

Dr. Elisabeth Schainker, chief of pediatric hospitalist medicine at The Floating Hospital for Children at Tufts Medical Center in Boston, and Dr. Hale, a hospitalist at The Floating Hospital and site director of the Lawrence General Hospital affiliated pediatric hospitalist program, allowed participants to share their experiences in program development.

This workshop reviewed the fundamentals programs should review before starting and also, periodically, after they’ve been established. Program changes should be made as needed. The workshop used an assessment tool to evaluate the basic elements of the participants’ programs. The February 2014 article “Key Principles and Characteristics of an Effective Hospital Medicine Group” in the Journal of Hospital Medicine was used as a starting point for program self-evaluation.

These “building blocks” include the following:

• Establish the rationale for the program and include all stakeholders;
• Determine financial expectations;
• Define scope of practice;
• Organize nursing and referral physician collaboration;
• Assess staffing and workload expectations;
• Establish referral base; and
• Ensure basic code and emergency preparedness.

Ongoing development elements of a program were discussed as well. These components help further integrate a hospitalist program with the hospital as a whole and help add value. These ongoing “building blocks” include:

• Communication and collaboration with other hospital departments (e.g. emergency, radiology, surgery);
• Newborn medicine care;
• Internal group clinical practice guidelines;
• Co-management of surgical or specialty patients;
• Transfers from other hospitals or continuing care from tertiary care centers;
• Pediatric code teams and rapid response teams;
• Advanced code and emergency preparedness and mock code training; and
• Nursing education.

These additive features may be different at each program. Not all of these components are applicable or needed at all hospitals. Thoughtful approaches and thorough planning can create synergy with other components of a program.

The essentials of a successful distributed network of multiple hospitalist program sites were also described.

After assuring that the fundamentals are present at each site, transparency and institutional alignment are imperative.

Summary

“Master the basics of a good hospitalist program and keep revisiting your core values, and you will continue to have a high quality and sustainable program,” says Dr. Dan Hale at the PHM14 workshop “Building Blocks in the Evolution of a Successful Distributed Hospitalist Program.”

Dr. Elisabeth Schainker, chief of pediatric hospitalist medicine at The Floating Hospital for Children at Tufts Medical Center in Boston, and Dr. Hale, a hospitalist at The Floating Hospital and site director of the Lawrence General Hospital affiliated pediatric hospitalist program, allowed participants to share their experiences in program development.

This workshop reviewed the fundamentals programs should review before starting and also, periodically, after they’ve been established. Program changes should be made as needed. The workshop used an assessment tool to evaluate the basic elements of the participants’ programs. The February 2014 article “Key Principles and Characteristics of an Effective Hospital Medicine Group” in the Journal of Hospital Medicine was used as a starting point for program self-evaluation.

These “building blocks” include the following:

• Establish the rationale for the program and include all stakeholders;
• Determine financial expectations;
• Define scope of practice;
• Organize nursing and referral physician collaboration;
• Assess staffing and workload expectations;
• Establish referral base; and
• Ensure basic code and emergency preparedness.

Ongoing development elements of a program were discussed as well. These components help further integrate a hospitalist program with the hospital as a whole and help add value. These ongoing “building blocks” include:

• Communication and collaboration with other hospital departments (e.g. emergency, radiology, surgery);
• Newborn medicine care;
• Internal group clinical practice guidelines;
• Co-management of surgical or specialty patients;
• Transfers from other hospitals or continuing care from tertiary care centers;
• Pediatric code teams and rapid response teams;
• Advanced code and emergency preparedness and mock code training; and
• Nursing education.

These additive features may be different at each program. Not all of these components are applicable or needed at all hospitals. Thoughtful approaches and thorough planning can create synergy with other components of a program.

The essentials of a successful distributed network of multiple hospitalist program sites were also described.

After assuring that the fundamentals are present at each site, transparency and institutional alignment are imperative.

Christine Lum Lung, MD, SFHM

When SHM received the Joint Commission’s John M. Eisenberg Patient Safety and Quality Award for 2011 for innovation in patient safety and quality at the national level, the award represented national recognition for the society’s three major hospital quality improvement initiatives. Moreover, it highlighted the integral role mentors play in each of the programs, helping physicians and hospitals make accelerated progress on important patient safety and quality issues.

Mentored implementation assigns a physician expert to train, guide, and work with the participating facilities’ hospitalist-led, multidisciplinary team through the life cycle of a QI initiative. The three programs focus on VTE prevention, glycemic control, and transitions of care. The first hospital cohort for VTE prevention—the VTE Prevention Collaborative—was in 2007. The care transitions program, known as Project BOOST, started in 2008. The Glycemic Control Mentored Implementation (GCMI) Program began in 2009. A fourth SHM mentored implementation program is MARQUIS, the Multi-Center Medication Reconciliation Quality Improvement Study.

In basic terms, mentoring is “coaching from a physician who has expertise both in the clinical subject matter and in implementing the processes and tools of quality improvement—usually because they’ve done it themselves,” says Gregory Maynard, MD, MSc, SFHM, senior vice president of SHM’s Center for Hospital Innovation and Improvement and a co-founder of two of its mentored implementation programs.

Mentors typically are paired with one or two participating hospitals for 12 to 18 months, conducting monthly conference calls with the team, sharing tools and resources from SHM’s online library, and offering advice on how to navigate the treacherous currents of culture change within a hospital. BOOST mentors also make in-person site visits. They are well versed in protocol and order set design and quality measurement strategies, and they know how to engage frontline professionals and institutional leadership, Dr. Maynard says.

Some mentors have received formal QI training, and many have attended Mentor University, a 1-1/2 day intensive training course offered by SHM that reinforces the nuances of coaching, the contents of SHM’s quality toolkits, and ideas for overcoming common barriers to improvement. SHM’s mentor support provides continuous professional development for the mentors, pairing new mentors with senior mentors to coach them in the process and hosting an online community with other mentors.

“What’s telling to me is that many of the people who have been mentored by SHM’s programs in one topic go on to become mentors in another topic, taking those portable skills and principles and applying them in other quality areas,” Dr. Maynard says. “We’re fostering leadership and quality improvement skills among hospitalists; that’s really one of our main goals. People learn the skill and then spread it within their system.”

Mark Williams, MD, FACP, MHM, Project BOOST principal investigator and a veteran SHM mentor, says that just providing educational materials to health professionals often isn’t enough for them to overcome the barriers to change.

“I’ve seen many large-scale quality projects that didn’t work, as they were simply disseminating information, content, or knowledge,” he says. Mentored implementation as practiced by SHM is “a model for disseminating quality improvement nationally,” he adds. “Pretty much any quality improvement project can be done this way.”

Key to the mentored implementation program’s success is the personalized approach and customized solutions.

“You directly meet with the team in their own setting and begin to see what’s going on,” Dr. Williams says. “You also meet with the hospital’s senior leadership. That’s when you start to see change.”

The Hospitalist connected with eight SHM mentors. The following are snapshots of their work in the mentorship program and some of the lessons they taught—and learned—from the program.

Christine Lum Lung, MD, SFHM

Christine Lum Lung, MD, SFHM

Title: Medical director, Northern Colorado Hospitalists, Fort Collins

Program: VTE Prevention Collaborative

Background: As a practicing hospitalist and medical director of the HM group for a two-hospital system, Dr. Lum Lung chaired its quality committee for VTE protocol development. “It was obvious at our hospitals that we needed to do better at VTE prevention,” she explains.

Dr. Lum Lung’s team received VTE mentorship from Dr. Maynard, who later asked her to become a VTE mentor. She also attended all three levels of SHM’s Leadership Academy and has since become a mentor for the new HP3 (Hospitalist Program Peak Performance) mentored implementation program, a one-year collaboration among SHM, Northwestern University, Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Illinois, and the Illinois Hospital Association that is designed to help hospitalist groups optimize their programs and build healthy group culture.

Teachable moment: The essential qualities of a good mentee, Dr. Lum Lung says, are drive and dedication. “You believe strongly about it, so you can sell it to others. You also need a thick skin to face the adversities that come up. When my mentor gave me tasks and deadlines, I met those deadlines.”

Success story: “I’ve been impressed with how hard groups and individuals can work.” Most of the teams she has worked with were facing significant external stressors—starting a new program, moving into a new hospital, rolling out a new EHR, becoming part of a growing medical group. “Yet each of them has been incredibly engaged in the process and dedicated to completing their projects.”

Lessons learned: “That we all have something to learn from each other. While I am officially the mentor, I have learned a lot about processes, teamwork, and flow issues from the sites that could potentially be incorporated in our program.”

Advice: Working on a project as a team can be very powerful, she says. Even seemingly ‘small’ projects have allowed teams to learn how to work better together on day-to-day issues. With the victory of a small project behind them, they make lists of the next thing that they want to tackle.

“Our profession is constantly changing. We need to be thinking ahead for how we will face those challenges,” Dr. Lum Lung says. “A team that works well together will have an advantage in this new environment. Even if you have people who are new to quality improvement, their participation can still be important.”

Jordan Messler, MD, SFHM

Jordan Messler, MD, SFHM

Title: Medical director, Morton Plant Hospitalists, Clearwater, Fla.

Program: GCMI; Project BOOST

Background: Dr. Messler’s interest in QI led him to work with colleagues in SHM who are national leaders in quality. “A couple of years ago, I enrolled in Emory’s Quality Academy, a sister course to Intermountain Health’s course on quality. Then I enrolled our hospital in both the GCMI Program and Project BOOST. My mentors for those programs were terrific guides, which led to my interest in seeing their side of the program as a mentor myself.”

Teachable moment: One program had difficulty implementing a VTE prevention tool and couldn’t get nursing support as it had expected, largely due to lack of nursing engagement on the project team, he says. “We started talking about the history of the projects, and prior interventions. In addition, we talked to the different disciplines separately. It seems there used to be an excellent system where nursing helped out on the project team for risk assessment.”

As VTE prevention became more of a priority, some physicians separately created a new tool to replace the nursing tool without involving the whole team. “And they couldn’t understand why nursing wasn’t buying into the new process.”

Success story: There are similar themes to success and failure. Sites that have strong administrative support (i.e., C-suite representation on the QI team), that have “accountability structure and stick to the basics of QI, with clear goals, ability to gather and report data, and use of a QI model [such as PDSA or Six Sigma] are the ones that succeed,” Dr. Messler says. “And the reverse is consistently true. Sustainable QI needs to be multidisciplinary, involving every voice, considering prior interventions and understanding of the culture.”

Lessons learned: “As mentors, we all continue to say we learn as much or more from these sites as they, hopefully, are learning from us. This collaboration and sharing of ideas has been instrumental to the success of the program.”

Advice: Get started today, and don’t give up. Follow the road map of QI projects, gather support, and get started. You will learn as much from your failures as your successes.

Dr. Messler says hospitals are looking for physician leaders to improve quality, and hospitalists are perfectly positioned to be those QI leaders. These big projects can last for years, so quality teams and hospitals need to be prepared to take the long view.

Stephanie Rennke, MD

Stephanie Rennke, MD

Title: Associate clinical professor of medicine, co-director of faculty development, division of hospital medicine, University of California San Francisco Medical Center.

Program: Project BOOST

Background: “When I started as a hospitalist right out of residency, QI had not been part of my training. But I noticed that quality was at the forefront of the academic interests of all the hospitalists at UCSF. I was personally interested in transitions of care. I still do home visits after hours for at-risk patients when they leave the hospital.”

Dr. Rennke started in QI as a member of UCSF’s BOOST team in 2008. “I worked with other faculty in the division who had previous experience in quality improvement and transitions in care. One of the co-principal investigators for BOOST, Dr. Arpana Vidyarthi, suggested that it would be a really rewarding experience to mentor—and it was.”

Teachable moment: “I’ve been so impressed by the diversity of what’s out there. No hospitalist program or hospital is the same. There is no one-size-fits-all for quality improvement or transitions of care, so it is incredibly important that the mentor takes the time to get to know both the team and the hospital.”

Success story: “During a site visit, I had an opportunity to watch one of the nurses, who had received training from a competency-based Teach Back program, practice Teach Back with a patient at the bedside,” Dr. Rennke says. “I was doing a tour of the floor and went into the room of a patient about to be discharged. A young float nurse, not long out of school, sat down with the patient and went through the medications and discharge plan using Teach Back. It didn’t take more time, but the time was spent more constructively, with interaction back and forth. I remember that ‘aha’ moment for the patient and the look in her eyes. For me, as a mentor, it was exciting to think that something I had tried to bring to them had been incorporated by the site and was really working.”

Lessons learned: “I have learned that, while at a large institution like UCSF we tend to work in silos, smaller sites are often more integrated with the various disciplines. You can walk down the hall to the clinical pharmacist or have lunch with the charge nurse. So I’ve tried to bring back home a commitment to really get to know professional colleagues and have them feel that I’m interested in their perspectives.”

Advice: “Work in teams. You cannot do this alone. Include frontline staff. And don’t forget to advertise to others that the program exists. Get the word out—let people know.”

Jennifer Quartarolo, MD, SFHM

Jennifer Quartarolo, MD, SFHM

Title: Medical director, clinical resource management; associate clinical professor, division of hospital medicine, University of California San Diego Health System

Program: Project BOOST

Background: Dr. Quartarolo has 11 years of clinical experience as an academic hospitalist at two different medical centers, and she completed a training program in healthcare delivery and improvement through the Institute for Health Care Delivery Research in Salt Lake City, Utah. “At my own institution, I had been involved in multiple QI projects,” she says. “Since joining the faculty, I worked with our care transitions team for five years before becoming a mentor. We incorporated many elements from Project BOOST as we worked to improve our care transitions process,” which led to an invitation to be a mentor.

Teachable moment: “I had one site that I worked with that had a great new form they had developed to incorporate into their transition process; however, when they decided to implement the form, they got a lot of pushback from nursing,” she says. “Then they realized that they had not involved any frontline nurses in their planning. This example points out how important it is to have all the key players involved on your team, as improving transitions of care is a complex process requiring multidisciplinary collaboration.”

Success story: Dr. Quartarolo says she has worked with several hospitals that have seen significant improvement in their readmission rates after participating in Project BOOST and implementing its tools.

Lessons learned: “I am constantly impressed by the innovative ideas that teams come up with to deal with the challenges that their hospitals face,” she says. Every hospital is unique and needs to do self-evaluation before deciding what to focus on. “I have also worked with many sites that have challenges getting physicians engaged in their efforts, particularly if they do not have a hospitalist program.”

Advice: “We are in a unique role as hospitalists to identify systems issues and improve quality of care in the inpatient setting, and this is particularly useful in improving care transitions and decreasing readmissions rates.”

Rich Balaban, MD

Rich Balaban, MD

Title: Medical director, Hospital-to-Home Community Collaboration Program, Cambridge Health Alliance; assistant professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston

Program: Project BOOST

Background: Dr. Balaban has worked clinically in both the inpatient setting as a hospitalist and the outpatient setting as a primary care doctor. “I have seen hospital discharges as both a receiver and a sender, so [I] have been able to appreciate the challenges facing doctors, nurses, case managers, and patients involved in the care transition process,” he says.

Dr. Balaban also conducted a randomized controlled trial that demonstrated the benefits of engaging nurses at a patient’s primary care site to make outreach phone calls immediately after hospital discharge. Dr. Williams asked him to present on the study.

“It was a great opportunity for me to share the results of our work and for Mark to see my presentation skills,” he says. “When I asked if there were opportunities to get more involved in care transitions work, he invited me to consider becoming a BOOST mentor.”

Teachable moment: “Wearing my primary care hat, I believe that while it is very important to structure an effective discharge for the patient while in the hospital, success or failure ultimately is determined by what happens in the outpatient setting,” Dr. Balaban says. Even if a ‘perfect discharge’ occurs in the hospital, it can all quickly unravel once the patient arrives at home.

Success story: “At several sites, I have encouraged the inpatient care team to invite the outpatient care team to become part of the care transitions team. This has frequently brought an important viewpoint and voice to the care transitions table. While hospitalists have initiated the discussion about care transitions, they need an effective outpatient partner to create a truly effective process.”

Lessons learned: “I have learned to hold judgment until seeing with my own eyes,” Dr. Balaban says. “One of the first sites I visited had developed a post-discharge clinic, which they were excited to show me. From my point of view, I thought that after discharge, patient care should be assumed by the primary care office as soon as possible, and a post-discharge clinic would only delay that process.

“To my great surprise, their post-discharge clinic provided an ideal bridge between the hospital and primary care. The post-discharge clinic really worked and provided patients with a wonderful resource. … I’ve learned that there are many ways to solve problems, often based on the available resources at a specific site.”

Advice: In order to best understand the challenges of hospital discharge, it is critical that you understand what happens to patients after they leave the hospital. Make a home visit to a recently discharged patient to really understand the challenges that patients face when they return home.

Amitkumar R. Patel, MD, MBA, FACP, SFHM

Amitkumar R. Patel, MD, MBA, FACP, SFHM

Title: Clinical instructor in hospital medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago

Program: Project BOOST; also working with critical access hospitals in Illinois through PREP (Preventing Readmissions through Effective Partnerships)

Background: Although he now works in an urban teaching hospital, Dr. Patel also did private practice as a community hospitalist and has pursued formal healthcare management-focused training.

“I became a mentor because my experience and interest in quality improvement fit well with Project BOOST,” he says. “I enjoy coaching teams as they face challenges in quality improvement, especially in relation to readmissions reduction. My work with critical access hospitals is the result of my first year as a mentor with the PREP collaborative in Illinois.”

PREP, a collaborative initiative of SHM and the Illinois Hospital Association that is funded by Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Illinois, aims to help hospitals focus on quality initiatives, including BOOST.

Teachable moment/success story: One of Dr. Patel’s BOOST sites believed the team included all appropriate personnel to obtain discharge appointments prior to patients’ discharges. But as they began to work through the process of making sure each appointment was appropriately documented, the various team members assigned to this process could not consistently complete the task within their workflow.

The pilot unit secretaries were not part of the BOOST team initially but saw that they could fulfill this role quickly and easily. They knew who to call at the physicians’ offices to avoid getting stuck in the phone menu trees, and they used this knowledge to reach the schedulers directly. The BOOST team quickly realized the unit secretaries were the most appropriate personnel to capture this information and work with the patients or their families/caregivers to obtain the most convenient appointments. This role was added to the team, and the unit secretaries took ownership of this process. Other teams may also want to look beyond the customary team members to roles that may not be thought of as quality team members.

Lessons learned: “The biggest take-away for me involves the unique culture that exists in many of our urban and rural communities,” he says. Every BOOST site implements the project’s elements in its own unique way, and what works well in one location may not fit the needs of another. The role of the mentor is to balance the need for community-specific advice with unique attributes of the facility and the elements of Project BOOST. “Often, we use our mentor calls to brainstorm solutions, and the teams are teaching me what will work best in their environment.”

Advice: “Responsibility for hospital change management should not be abdicated to administrators or quality improvement staff members,” he says. “QI is not a sometime thing for some staff; it’s an all-the-time process for every staff member, including physicians, to participate in and actively manage.”

Cheryl O’Malley, MD, FHM

Cheryl O’Malley, MD, FHM

Title: Internal medicine residency program director, Banner Good Samaritan Medical Center, Phoenix

Program: GCMI

Background: Banner Good Samaritan has participated in the BOOST, VTE, and GCMI programs. Dr. O’Malley brought her experience from developing, implementing, and leading local glycemic control efforts to mentoring others.

“When I first started working on our hospital’s process, I had so many questions and asked one of my mentors from residency, Dr. Greg Maynard,” she says. “He helped me to see that people around the country were asking the same questions and invited me to join SHM’s glycemic control work group. When the GCMI program started, I was asked to be a mentor.”

Teachable moment: “When I was a new attending on the wards after residency, my patients would ask me why their blood sugars were so much better controlled at home than in the hospital. Usually, the answer was that they were put on a sliding scale when they came into the hospital,” she says, noting that what was done at home wasn’t going to work in the hospital. Patients needed a different regimen—a more proactive approach than just the customary sliding scale.

“I started to learn more about basal rates, nutrition, and correction insulin regimens in the hospital, but I realized that to really have adequate safety and direction for the nursing staff, it would require a formal order set and systematic approach,” she says.

Success story: “One of my sites invited me to come and present grand rounds at the hospital, and the local physician team leader invited the whole quality team to her home. It was a very exciting team and had achieved a lot. Fifteen or 20 of us spent the evening talking about the project but also just enjoying the collegiality,” Dr. O’Malley says. “Even though we had never seen one another, I instantly knew everyone by voice from spending so much time on the phone. And we knew a lot about one another’s personal lives and careers.”

Lessons learned: “Hearing a program describe what they are doing and knowing that they were far ahead of my own hospital in many ways but still being able to provide an insight or a perspective to help them achieve their own next steps. Everyone has something to learn from another hospital or another discipline. We can all leverage our experiences to improve patient care.”

Advice: “Be patient. This is a really long process of constant improvements. I have been working on glycemic control for 10 years now and still feel like we have many opportunities to further improve.”

Cheryl O’Malley, MD, FHM

Christopher Kim, MD, MBA, SFHM

Title: Clinical associate professor of internal medicine and assistant professor of pediatrics, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor

Program: Project BOOST; Michigan Transitions of Care Collaborative (M-TC2)

Background: Dr. Kim brings clinical, quality improvement, leadership, collaborative learning, and discussion facilitation skills to his work as program director of M-TC2 and as mentor to the sites he works with.

The collaborative is part of a set of state collaborative quality initiatives funded by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. One of those initiatives is focused on improving care transitions between the hospital setting and ambulatory care providers, using Project BOOST tools—expanded to integrate more closely with primary care providers, physician organizations, and ambulatory care. The eight Michigan-based mentors for M-TC2 have all attended SHM’s Mentor University.

Teachable moment: There are local challenges and there are general challenges—those that are commonly shared by most hospitals, Dr. Kim explains. Both need to be overcome when working on an improvement project such as transitions of care. The local hospitalist brings expertise about the former—which are often more difficult to understand and overcome. The mentor brings knowledge and experience of the universal challenges, as well as the benefit of having seen or heard about what other programs have done. Together, they can work to help the organization become better equipped to improve the initiative at hand.

Success story: “One hospital in the collaborative realized that it could roll out the Teach Back concept to both nurses and physicians,” he says. They started to teach residents how to interact with patients and began using this approach in physician-nurse teams. Subsequently, the team shared with the collaborative how physicians have embraced the concept.

Lessons learned: Every site has its successes and challenges, he says. Sharing both sides of the story can only advance the mission of the collaborative, as each organization learns from the successes and failures of the others.

Mentored implementation really does what it’s intended to do—helping to support the sites and keeping an organization on track and accountable for the work it does, because someone external to the organization is working with it and providing information about what other sites are doing.

Advice: Talk with different disciplines and find out how much they long to work with other care providers, and then have discussions about how to make interdisciplinary practice happen. “At our collaborative meetings over time, many of the 24 participating sites have shared their progress—the good things and the struggles,” Dr. Kim says.

Larry Beresford is a freelance writer in Alameda, Calif.

Christine Lum Lung, MD, SFHM

When SHM received the Joint Commission’s John M. Eisenberg Patient Safety and Quality Award for 2011 for innovation in patient safety and quality at the national level, the award represented national recognition for the society’s three major hospital quality improvement initiatives. Moreover, it highlighted the integral role mentors play in each of the programs, helping physicians and hospitals make accelerated progress on important patient safety and quality issues.

Mentored implementation assigns a physician expert to train, guide, and work with the participating facilities’ hospitalist-led, multidisciplinary team through the life cycle of a QI initiative. The three programs focus on VTE prevention, glycemic control, and transitions of care. The first hospital cohort for VTE prevention—the VTE Prevention Collaborative—was in 2007. The care transitions program, known as Project BOOST, started in 2008. The Glycemic Control Mentored Implementation (GCMI) Program began in 2009. A fourth SHM mentored implementation program is MARQUIS, the Multi-Center Medication Reconciliation Quality Improvement Study.

In basic terms, mentoring is “coaching from a physician who has expertise both in the clinical subject matter and in implementing the processes and tools of quality improvement—usually because they’ve done it themselves,” says Gregory Maynard, MD, MSc, SFHM, senior vice president of SHM’s Center for Hospital Innovation and Improvement and a co-founder of two of its mentored implementation programs.

Mentors typically are paired with one or two participating hospitals for 12 to 18 months, conducting monthly conference calls with the team, sharing tools and resources from SHM’s online library, and offering advice on how to navigate the treacherous currents of culture change within a hospital. BOOST mentors also make in-person site visits. They are well versed in protocol and order set design and quality measurement strategies, and they know how to engage frontline professionals and institutional leadership, Dr. Maynard says.

Some mentors have received formal QI training, and many have attended Mentor University, a 1-1/2 day intensive training course offered by SHM that reinforces the nuances of coaching, the contents of SHM’s quality toolkits, and ideas for overcoming common barriers to improvement. SHM’s mentor support provides continuous professional development for the mentors, pairing new mentors with senior mentors to coach them in the process and hosting an online community with other mentors.

“What’s telling to me is that many of the people who have been mentored by SHM’s programs in one topic go on to become mentors in another topic, taking those portable skills and principles and applying them in other quality areas,” Dr. Maynard says. “We’re fostering leadership and quality improvement skills among hospitalists; that’s really one of our main goals. People learn the skill and then spread it within their system.”

Mark Williams, MD, FACP, MHM, Project BOOST principal investigator and a veteran SHM mentor, says that just providing educational materials to health professionals often isn’t enough for them to overcome the barriers to change.

“I’ve seen many large-scale quality projects that didn’t work, as they were simply disseminating information, content, or knowledge,” he says. Mentored implementation as practiced by SHM is “a model for disseminating quality improvement nationally,” he adds. “Pretty much any quality improvement project can be done this way.”

Key to the mentored implementation program’s success is the personalized approach and customized solutions.

“You directly meet with the team in their own setting and begin to see what’s going on,” Dr. Williams says. “You also meet with the hospital’s senior leadership. That’s when you start to see change.”

The Hospitalist connected with eight SHM mentors. The following are snapshots of their work in the mentorship program and some of the lessons they taught—and learned—from the program.

Christine Lum Lung, MD, SFHM

Christine Lum Lung, MD, SFHM

Title: Medical director, Northern Colorado Hospitalists, Fort Collins

Program: VTE Prevention Collaborative

Background: As a practicing hospitalist and medical director of the HM group for a two-hospital system, Dr. Lum Lung chaired its quality committee for VTE protocol development. “It was obvious at our hospitals that we needed to do better at VTE prevention,” she explains.

Dr. Lum Lung’s team received VTE mentorship from Dr. Maynard, who later asked her to become a VTE mentor. She also attended all three levels of SHM’s Leadership Academy and has since become a mentor for the new HP3 (Hospitalist Program Peak Performance) mentored implementation program, a one-year collaboration among SHM, Northwestern University, Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Illinois, and the Illinois Hospital Association that is designed to help hospitalist groups optimize their programs and build healthy group culture.

Teachable moment: The essential qualities of a good mentee, Dr. Lum Lung says, are drive and dedication. “You believe strongly about it, so you can sell it to others. You also need a thick skin to face the adversities that come up. When my mentor gave me tasks and deadlines, I met those deadlines.”

Success story: “I’ve been impressed with how hard groups and individuals can work.” Most of the teams she has worked with were facing significant external stressors—starting a new program, moving into a new hospital, rolling out a new EHR, becoming part of a growing medical group. “Yet each of them has been incredibly engaged in the process and dedicated to completing their projects.”

Lessons learned: “That we all have something to learn from each other. While I am officially the mentor, I have learned a lot about processes, teamwork, and flow issues from the sites that could potentially be incorporated in our program.”

Advice: Working on a project as a team can be very powerful, she says. Even seemingly ‘small’ projects have allowed teams to learn how to work better together on day-to-day issues. With the victory of a small project behind them, they make lists of the next thing that they want to tackle.

“Our profession is constantly changing. We need to be thinking ahead for how we will face those challenges,” Dr. Lum Lung says. “A team that works well together will have an advantage in this new environment. Even if you have people who are new to quality improvement, their participation can still be important.”

Jordan Messler, MD, SFHM

Jordan Messler, MD, SFHM

Title: Medical director, Morton Plant Hospitalists, Clearwater, Fla.

Program: GCMI; Project BOOST

Background: Dr. Messler’s interest in QI led him to work with colleagues in SHM who are national leaders in quality. “A couple of years ago, I enrolled in Emory’s Quality Academy, a sister course to Intermountain Health’s course on quality. Then I enrolled our hospital in both the GCMI Program and Project BOOST. My mentors for those programs were terrific guides, which led to my interest in seeing their side of the program as a mentor myself.”

Teachable moment: One program had difficulty implementing a VTE prevention tool and couldn’t get nursing support as it had expected, largely due to lack of nursing engagement on the project team, he says. “We started talking about the history of the projects, and prior interventions. In addition, we talked to the different disciplines separately. It seems there used to be an excellent system where nursing helped out on the project team for risk assessment.”

As VTE prevention became more of a priority, some physicians separately created a new tool to replace the nursing tool without involving the whole team. “And they couldn’t understand why nursing wasn’t buying into the new process.”

Success story: There are similar themes to success and failure. Sites that have strong administrative support (i.e., C-suite representation on the QI team), that have “accountability structure and stick to the basics of QI, with clear goals, ability to gather and report data, and use of a QI model [such as PDSA or Six Sigma] are the ones that succeed,” Dr. Messler says. “And the reverse is consistently true. Sustainable QI needs to be multidisciplinary, involving every voice, considering prior interventions and understanding of the culture.”

Lessons learned: “As mentors, we all continue to say we learn as much or more from these sites as they, hopefully, are learning from us. This collaboration and sharing of ideas has been instrumental to the success of the program.”

Advice: Get started today, and don’t give up. Follow the road map of QI projects, gather support, and get started. You will learn as much from your failures as your successes.

Dr. Messler says hospitals are looking for physician leaders to improve quality, and hospitalists are perfectly positioned to be those QI leaders. These big projects can last for years, so quality teams and hospitals need to be prepared to take the long view.

Stephanie Rennke, MD

Stephanie Rennke, MD

Title: Associate clinical professor of medicine, co-director of faculty development, division of hospital medicine, University of California San Francisco Medical Center.

Program: Project BOOST

Background: “When I started as a hospitalist right out of residency, QI had not been part of my training. But I noticed that quality was at the forefront of the academic interests of all the hospitalists at UCSF. I was personally interested in transitions of care. I still do home visits after hours for at-risk patients when they leave the hospital.”

Dr. Rennke started in QI as a member of UCSF’s BOOST team in 2008. “I worked with other faculty in the division who had previous experience in quality improvement and transitions in care. One of the co-principal investigators for BOOST, Dr. Arpana Vidyarthi, suggested that it would be a really rewarding experience to mentor—and it was.”

Teachable moment: “I’ve been so impressed by the diversity of what’s out there. No hospitalist program or hospital is the same. There is no one-size-fits-all for quality improvement or transitions of care, so it is incredibly important that the mentor takes the time to get to know both the team and the hospital.”

Success story: “During a site visit, I had an opportunity to watch one of the nurses, who had received training from a competency-based Teach Back program, practice Teach Back with a patient at the bedside,” Dr. Rennke says. “I was doing a tour of the floor and went into the room of a patient about to be discharged. A young float nurse, not long out of school, sat down with the patient and went through the medications and discharge plan using Teach Back. It didn’t take more time, but the time was spent more constructively, with interaction back and forth. I remember that ‘aha’ moment for the patient and the look in her eyes. For me, as a mentor, it was exciting to think that something I had tried to bring to them had been incorporated by the site and was really working.”

Lessons learned: “I have learned that, while at a large institution like UCSF we tend to work in silos, smaller sites are often more integrated with the various disciplines. You can walk down the hall to the clinical pharmacist or have lunch with the charge nurse. So I’ve tried to bring back home a commitment to really get to know professional colleagues and have them feel that I’m interested in their perspectives.”

Advice: “Work in teams. You cannot do this alone. Include frontline staff. And don’t forget to advertise to others that the program exists. Get the word out—let people know.”

Jennifer Quartarolo, MD, SFHM

Jennifer Quartarolo, MD, SFHM

Title: Medical director, clinical resource management; associate clinical professor, division of hospital medicine, University of California San Diego Health System

Program: Project BOOST

Background: Dr. Quartarolo has 11 years of clinical experience as an academic hospitalist at two different medical centers, and she completed a training program in healthcare delivery and improvement through the Institute for Health Care Delivery Research in Salt Lake City, Utah. “At my own institution, I had been involved in multiple QI projects,” she says. “Since joining the faculty, I worked with our care transitions team for five years before becoming a mentor. We incorporated many elements from Project BOOST as we worked to improve our care transitions process,” which led to an invitation to be a mentor.

Teachable moment: “I had one site that I worked with that had a great new form they had developed to incorporate into their transition process; however, when they decided to implement the form, they got a lot of pushback from nursing,” she says. “Then they realized that they had not involved any frontline nurses in their planning. This example points out how important it is to have all the key players involved on your team, as improving transitions of care is a complex process requiring multidisciplinary collaboration.”

Success story: Dr. Quartarolo says she has worked with several hospitals that have seen significant improvement in their readmission rates after participating in Project BOOST and implementing its tools.

Lessons learned: “I am constantly impressed by the innovative ideas that teams come up with to deal with the challenges that their hospitals face,” she says. Every hospital is unique and needs to do self-evaluation before deciding what to focus on. “I have also worked with many sites that have challenges getting physicians engaged in their efforts, particularly if they do not have a hospitalist program.”

Advice: “We are in a unique role as hospitalists to identify systems issues and improve quality of care in the inpatient setting, and this is particularly useful in improving care transitions and decreasing readmissions rates.”

Rich Balaban, MD

Rich Balaban, MD

Title: Medical director, Hospital-to-Home Community Collaboration Program, Cambridge Health Alliance; assistant professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston

Program: Project BOOST

Background: Dr. Balaban has worked clinically in both the inpatient setting as a hospitalist and the outpatient setting as a primary care doctor. “I have seen hospital discharges as both a receiver and a sender, so [I] have been able to appreciate the challenges facing doctors, nurses, case managers, and patients involved in the care transition process,” he says.

Dr. Balaban also conducted a randomized controlled trial that demonstrated the benefits of engaging nurses at a patient’s primary care site to make outreach phone calls immediately after hospital discharge. Dr. Williams asked him to present on the study.

“It was a great opportunity for me to share the results of our work and for Mark to see my presentation skills,” he says. “When I asked if there were opportunities to get more involved in care transitions work, he invited me to consider becoming a BOOST mentor.”

Teachable moment: “Wearing my primary care hat, I believe that while it is very important to structure an effective discharge for the patient while in the hospital, success or failure ultimately is determined by what happens in the outpatient setting,” Dr. Balaban says. Even if a ‘perfect discharge’ occurs in the hospital, it can all quickly unravel once the patient arrives at home.

Success story: “At several sites, I have encouraged the inpatient care team to invite the outpatient care team to become part of the care transitions team. This has frequently brought an important viewpoint and voice to the care transitions table. While hospitalists have initiated the discussion about care transitions, they need an effective outpatient partner to create a truly effective process.”

Lessons learned: “I have learned to hold judgment until seeing with my own eyes,” Dr. Balaban says. “One of the first sites I visited had developed a post-discharge clinic, which they were excited to show me. From my point of view, I thought that after discharge, patient care should be assumed by the primary care office as soon as possible, and a post-discharge clinic would only delay that process.

“To my great surprise, their post-discharge clinic provided an ideal bridge between the hospital and primary care. The post-discharge clinic really worked and provided patients with a wonderful resource. … I’ve learned that there are many ways to solve problems, often based on the available resources at a specific site.”

Advice: In order to best understand the challenges of hospital discharge, it is critical that you understand what happens to patients after they leave the hospital. Make a home visit to a recently discharged patient to really understand the challenges that patients face when they return home.

Amitkumar R. Patel, MD, MBA, FACP, SFHM

Amitkumar R. Patel, MD, MBA, FACP, SFHM

Title: Clinical instructor in hospital medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago

Program: Project BOOST; also working with critical access hospitals in Illinois through PREP (Preventing Readmissions through Effective Partnerships)

Background: Although he now works in an urban teaching hospital, Dr. Patel also did private practice as a community hospitalist and has pursued formal healthcare management-focused training.

“I became a mentor because my experience and interest in quality improvement fit well with Project BOOST,” he says. “I enjoy coaching teams as they face challenges in quality improvement, especially in relation to readmissions reduction. My work with critical access hospitals is the result of my first year as a mentor with the PREP collaborative in Illinois.”

PREP, a collaborative initiative of SHM and the Illinois Hospital Association that is funded by Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Illinois, aims to help hospitals focus on quality initiatives, including BOOST.

Teachable moment/success story: One of Dr. Patel’s BOOST sites believed the team included all appropriate personnel to obtain discharge appointments prior to patients’ discharges. But as they began to work through the process of making sure each appointment was appropriately documented, the various team members assigned to this process could not consistently complete the task within their workflow.

The pilot unit secretaries were not part of the BOOST team initially but saw that they could fulfill this role quickly and easily. They knew who to call at the physicians’ offices to avoid getting stuck in the phone menu trees, and they used this knowledge to reach the schedulers directly. The BOOST team quickly realized the unit secretaries were the most appropriate personnel to capture this information and work with the patients or their families/caregivers to obtain the most convenient appointments. This role was added to the team, and the unit secretaries took ownership of this process. Other teams may also want to look beyond the customary team members to roles that may not be thought of as quality team members.

Lessons learned: “The biggest take-away for me involves the unique culture that exists in many of our urban and rural communities,” he says. Every BOOST site implements the project’s elements in its own unique way, and what works well in one location may not fit the needs of another. The role of the mentor is to balance the need for community-specific advice with unique attributes of the facility and the elements of Project BOOST. “Often, we use our mentor calls to brainstorm solutions, and the teams are teaching me what will work best in their environment.”

Advice: “Responsibility for hospital change management should not be abdicated to administrators or quality improvement staff members,” he says. “QI is not a sometime thing for some staff; it’s an all-the-time process for every staff member, including physicians, to participate in and actively manage.”

Cheryl O’Malley, MD, FHM

Cheryl O’Malley, MD, FHM

Title: Internal medicine residency program director, Banner Good Samaritan Medical Center, Phoenix

Program: GCMI

Background: Banner Good Samaritan has participated in the BOOST, VTE, and GCMI programs. Dr. O’Malley brought her experience from developing, implementing, and leading local glycemic control efforts to mentoring others.

“When I first started working on our hospital’s process, I had so many questions and asked one of my mentors from residency, Dr. Greg Maynard,” she says. “He helped me to see that people around the country were asking the same questions and invited me to join SHM’s glycemic control work group. When the GCMI program started, I was asked to be a mentor.”

Teachable moment: “When I was a new attending on the wards after residency, my patients would ask me why their blood sugars were so much better controlled at home than in the hospital. Usually, the answer was that they were put on a sliding scale when they came into the hospital,” she says, noting that what was done at home wasn’t going to work in the hospital. Patients needed a different regimen—a more proactive approach than just the customary sliding scale.

“I started to learn more about basal rates, nutrition, and correction insulin regimens in the hospital, but I realized that to really have adequate safety and direction for the nursing staff, it would require a formal order set and systematic approach,” she says.

Success story: “One of my sites invited me to come and present grand rounds at the hospital, and the local physician team leader invited the whole quality team to her home. It was a very exciting team and had achieved a lot. Fifteen or 20 of us spent the evening talking about the project but also just enjoying the collegiality,” Dr. O’Malley says. “Even though we had never seen one another, I instantly knew everyone by voice from spending so much time on the phone. And we knew a lot about one another’s personal lives and careers.”

Lessons learned: “Hearing a program describe what they are doing and knowing that they were far ahead of my own hospital in many ways but still being able to provide an insight or a perspective to help them achieve their own next steps. Everyone has something to learn from another hospital or another discipline. We can all leverage our experiences to improve patient care.”

Advice: “Be patient. This is a really long process of constant improvements. I have been working on glycemic control for 10 years now and still feel like we have many opportunities to further improve.”

Cheryl O’Malley, MD, FHM

Christopher Kim, MD, MBA, SFHM

Title: Clinical associate professor of internal medicine and assistant professor of pediatrics, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor

Program: Project BOOST; Michigan Transitions of Care Collaborative (M-TC2)

Background: Dr. Kim brings clinical, quality improvement, leadership, collaborative learning, and discussion facilitation skills to his work as program director of M-TC2 and as mentor to the sites he works with.

The collaborative is part of a set of state collaborative quality initiatives funded by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. One of those initiatives is focused on improving care transitions between the hospital setting and ambulatory care providers, using Project BOOST tools—expanded to integrate more closely with primary care providers, physician organizations, and ambulatory care. The eight Michigan-based mentors for M-TC2 have all attended SHM’s Mentor University.

Teachable moment: There are local challenges and there are general challenges—those that are commonly shared by most hospitals, Dr. Kim explains. Both need to be overcome when working on an improvement project such as transitions of care. The local hospitalist brings expertise about the former—which are often more difficult to understand and overcome. The mentor brings knowledge and experience of the universal challenges, as well as the benefit of having seen or heard about what other programs have done. Together, they can work to help the organization become better equipped to improve the initiative at hand.

Success story: “One hospital in the collaborative realized that it could roll out the Teach Back concept to both nurses and physicians,” he says. They started to teach residents how to interact with patients and began using this approach in physician-nurse teams. Subsequently, the team shared with the collaborative how physicians have embraced the concept.

Lessons learned: Every site has its successes and challenges, he says. Sharing both sides of the story can only advance the mission of the collaborative, as each organization learns from the successes and failures of the others.

Mentored implementation really does what it’s intended to do—helping to support the sites and keeping an organization on track and accountable for the work it does, because someone external to the organization is working with it and providing information about what other sites are doing.

Advice: Talk with different disciplines and find out how much they long to work with other care providers, and then have discussions about how to make interdisciplinary practice happen. “At our collaborative meetings over time, many of the 24 participating sites have shared their progress—the good things and the struggles,” Dr. Kim says.

Larry Beresford is a freelance writer in Alameda, Calif.

Christine Lum Lung, MD, SFHM

When SHM received the Joint Commission’s John M. Eisenberg Patient Safety and Quality Award for 2011 for innovation in patient safety and quality at the national level, the award represented national recognition for the society’s three major hospital quality improvement initiatives. Moreover, it highlighted the integral role mentors play in each of the programs, helping physicians and hospitals make accelerated progress on important patient safety and quality issues.

Mentored implementation assigns a physician expert to train, guide, and work with the participating facilities’ hospitalist-led, multidisciplinary team through the life cycle of a QI initiative. The three programs focus on VTE prevention, glycemic control, and transitions of care. The first hospital cohort for VTE prevention—the VTE Prevention Collaborative—was in 2007. The care transitions program, known as Project BOOST, started in 2008. The Glycemic Control Mentored Implementation (GCMI) Program began in 2009. A fourth SHM mentored implementation program is MARQUIS, the Multi-Center Medication Reconciliation Quality Improvement Study.

In basic terms, mentoring is “coaching from a physician who has expertise both in the clinical subject matter and in implementing the processes and tools of quality improvement—usually because they’ve done it themselves,” says Gregory Maynard, MD, MSc, SFHM, senior vice president of SHM’s Center for Hospital Innovation and Improvement and a co-founder of two of its mentored implementation programs.

Mentors typically are paired with one or two participating hospitals for 12 to 18 months, conducting monthly conference calls with the team, sharing tools and resources from SHM’s online library, and offering advice on how to navigate the treacherous currents of culture change within a hospital. BOOST mentors also make in-person site visits. They are well versed in protocol and order set design and quality measurement strategies, and they know how to engage frontline professionals and institutional leadership, Dr. Maynard says.

Some mentors have received formal QI training, and many have attended Mentor University, a 1-1/2 day intensive training course offered by SHM that reinforces the nuances of coaching, the contents of SHM’s quality toolkits, and ideas for overcoming common barriers to improvement. SHM’s mentor support provides continuous professional development for the mentors, pairing new mentors with senior mentors to coach them in the process and hosting an online community with other mentors.

“What’s telling to me is that many of the people who have been mentored by SHM’s programs in one topic go on to become mentors in another topic, taking those portable skills and principles and applying them in other quality areas,” Dr. Maynard says. “We’re fostering leadership and quality improvement skills among hospitalists; that’s really one of our main goals. People learn the skill and then spread it within their system.”

Mark Williams, MD, FACP, MHM, Project BOOST principal investigator and a veteran SHM mentor, says that just providing educational materials to health professionals often isn’t enough for them to overcome the barriers to change.

“I’ve seen many large-scale quality projects that didn’t work, as they were simply disseminating information, content, or knowledge,” he says. Mentored implementation as practiced by SHM is “a model for disseminating quality improvement nationally,” he adds. “Pretty much any quality improvement project can be done this way.”

Key to the mentored implementation program’s success is the personalized approach and customized solutions.

“You directly meet with the team in their own setting and begin to see what’s going on,” Dr. Williams says. “You also meet with the hospital’s senior leadership. That’s when you start to see change.”

The Hospitalist connected with eight SHM mentors. The following are snapshots of their work in the mentorship program and some of the lessons they taught—and learned—from the program.

Christine Lum Lung, MD, SFHM

Christine Lum Lung, MD, SFHM

Title: Medical director, Northern Colorado Hospitalists, Fort Collins

Program: VTE Prevention Collaborative

Background: As a practicing hospitalist and medical director of the HM group for a two-hospital system, Dr. Lum Lung chaired its quality committee for VTE protocol development. “It was obvious at our hospitals that we needed to do better at VTE prevention,” she explains.

Dr. Lum Lung’s team received VTE mentorship from Dr. Maynard, who later asked her to become a VTE mentor. She also attended all three levels of SHM’s Leadership Academy and has since become a mentor for the new HP3 (Hospitalist Program Peak Performance) mentored implementation program, a one-year collaboration among SHM, Northwestern University, Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Illinois, and the Illinois Hospital Association that is designed to help hospitalist groups optimize their programs and build healthy group culture.

Teachable moment: The essential qualities of a good mentee, Dr. Lum Lung says, are drive and dedication. “You believe strongly about it, so you can sell it to others. You also need a thick skin to face the adversities that come up. When my mentor gave me tasks and deadlines, I met those deadlines.”

Success story: “I’ve been impressed with how hard groups and individuals can work.” Most of the teams she has worked with were facing significant external stressors—starting a new program, moving into a new hospital, rolling out a new EHR, becoming part of a growing medical group. “Yet each of them has been incredibly engaged in the process and dedicated to completing their projects.”

Lessons learned: “That we all have something to learn from each other. While I am officially the mentor, I have learned a lot about processes, teamwork, and flow issues from the sites that could potentially be incorporated in our program.”

Advice: Working on a project as a team can be very powerful, she says. Even seemingly ‘small’ projects have allowed teams to learn how to work better together on day-to-day issues. With the victory of a small project behind them, they make lists of the next thing that they want to tackle.

“Our profession is constantly changing. We need to be thinking ahead for how we will face those challenges,” Dr. Lum Lung says. “A team that works well together will have an advantage in this new environment. Even if you have people who are new to quality improvement, their participation can still be important.”

Jordan Messler, MD, SFHM

Jordan Messler, MD, SFHM

Title: Medical director, Morton Plant Hospitalists, Clearwater, Fla.

Program: GCMI; Project BOOST

Background: Dr. Messler’s interest in QI led him to work with colleagues in SHM who are national leaders in quality. “A couple of years ago, I enrolled in Emory’s Quality Academy, a sister course to Intermountain Health’s course on quality. Then I enrolled our hospital in both the GCMI Program and Project BOOST. My mentors for those programs were terrific guides, which led to my interest in seeing their side of the program as a mentor myself.”

Teachable moment: One program had difficulty implementing a VTE prevention tool and couldn’t get nursing support as it had expected, largely due to lack of nursing engagement on the project team, he says. “We started talking about the history of the projects, and prior interventions. In addition, we talked to the different disciplines separately. It seems there used to be an excellent system where nursing helped out on the project team for risk assessment.”

As VTE prevention became more of a priority, some physicians separately created a new tool to replace the nursing tool without involving the whole team. “And they couldn’t understand why nursing wasn’t buying into the new process.”

Success story: There are similar themes to success and failure. Sites that have strong administrative support (i.e., C-suite representation on the QI team), that have “accountability structure and stick to the basics of QI, with clear goals, ability to gather and report data, and use of a QI model [such as PDSA or Six Sigma] are the ones that succeed,” Dr. Messler says. “And the reverse is consistently true. Sustainable QI needs to be multidisciplinary, involving every voice, considering prior interventions and understanding of the culture.”

Lessons learned: “As mentors, we all continue to say we learn as much or more from these sites as they, hopefully, are learning from us. This collaboration and sharing of ideas has been instrumental to the success of the program.”

Advice: Get started today, and don’t give up. Follow the road map of QI projects, gather support, and get started. You will learn as much from your failures as your successes.

Dr. Messler says hospitals are looking for physician leaders to improve quality, and hospitalists are perfectly positioned to be those QI leaders. These big projects can last for years, so quality teams and hospitals need to be prepared to take the long view.

Stephanie Rennke, MD

Stephanie Rennke, MD

Title: Associate clinical professor of medicine, co-director of faculty development, division of hospital medicine, University of California San Francisco Medical Center.

Program: Project BOOST

Background: “When I started as a hospitalist right out of residency, QI had not been part of my training. But I noticed that quality was at the forefront of the academic interests of all the hospitalists at UCSF. I was personally interested in transitions of care. I still do home visits after hours for at-risk patients when they leave the hospital.”

Dr. Rennke started in QI as a member of UCSF’s BOOST team in 2008. “I worked with other faculty in the division who had previous experience in quality improvement and transitions in care. One of the co-principal investigators for BOOST, Dr. Arpana Vidyarthi, suggested that it would be a really rewarding experience to mentor—and it was.”

Teachable moment: “I’ve been so impressed by the diversity of what’s out there. No hospitalist program or hospital is the same. There is no one-size-fits-all for quality improvement or transitions of care, so it is incredibly important that the mentor takes the time to get to know both the team and the hospital.”

Success story: “During a site visit, I had an opportunity to watch one of the nurses, who had received training from a competency-based Teach Back program, practice Teach Back with a patient at the bedside,” Dr. Rennke says. “I was doing a tour of the floor and went into the room of a patient about to be discharged. A young float nurse, not long out of school, sat down with the patient and went through the medications and discharge plan using Teach Back. It didn’t take more time, but the time was spent more constructively, with interaction back and forth. I remember that ‘aha’ moment for the patient and the look in her eyes. For me, as a mentor, it was exciting to think that something I had tried to bring to them had been incorporated by the site and was really working.”

Lessons learned: “I have learned that, while at a large institution like UCSF we tend to work in silos, smaller sites are often more integrated with the various disciplines. You can walk down the hall to the clinical pharmacist or have lunch with the charge nurse. So I’ve tried to bring back home a commitment to really get to know professional colleagues and have them feel that I’m interested in their perspectives.”

Advice: “Work in teams. You cannot do this alone. Include frontline staff. And don’t forget to advertise to others that the program exists. Get the word out—let people know.”

Jennifer Quartarolo, MD, SFHM

Jennifer Quartarolo, MD, SFHM

Title: Medical director, clinical resource management; associate clinical professor, division of hospital medicine, University of California San Diego Health System

Program: Project BOOST

Background: Dr. Quartarolo has 11 years of clinical experience as an academic hospitalist at two different medical centers, and she completed a training program in healthcare delivery and improvement through the Institute for Health Care Delivery Research in Salt Lake City, Utah. “At my own institution, I had been involved in multiple QI projects,” she says. “Since joining the faculty, I worked with our care transitions team for five years before becoming a mentor. We incorporated many elements from Project BOOST as we worked to improve our care transitions process,” which led to an invitation to be a mentor.

Teachable moment: “I had one site that I worked with that had a great new form they had developed to incorporate into their transition process; however, when they decided to implement the form, they got a lot of pushback from nursing,” she says. “Then they realized that they had not involved any frontline nurses in their planning. This example points out how important it is to have all the key players involved on your team, as improving transitions of care is a complex process requiring multidisciplinary collaboration.”

Success story: Dr. Quartarolo says she has worked with several hospitals that have seen significant improvement in their readmission rates after participating in Project BOOST and implementing its tools.

Lessons learned: “I am constantly impressed by the innovative ideas that teams come up with to deal with the challenges that their hospitals face,” she says. Every hospital is unique and needs to do self-evaluation before deciding what to focus on. “I have also worked with many sites that have challenges getting physicians engaged in their efforts, particularly if they do not have a hospitalist program.”

Advice: “We are in a unique role as hospitalists to identify systems issues and improve quality of care in the inpatient setting, and this is particularly useful in improving care transitions and decreasing readmissions rates.”

Rich Balaban, MD

Rich Balaban, MD

Title: Medical director, Hospital-to-Home Community Collaboration Program, Cambridge Health Alliance; assistant professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston

Program: Project BOOST

Background: Dr. Balaban has worked clinically in both the inpatient setting as a hospitalist and the outpatient setting as a primary care doctor. “I have seen hospital discharges as both a receiver and a sender, so [I] have been able to appreciate the challenges facing doctors, nurses, case managers, and patients involved in the care transition process,” he says.

Dr. Balaban also conducted a randomized controlled trial that demonstrated the benefits of engaging nurses at a patient’s primary care site to make outreach phone calls immediately after hospital discharge. Dr. Williams asked him to present on the study.

“It was a great opportunity for me to share the results of our work and for Mark to see my presentation skills,” he says. “When I asked if there were opportunities to get more involved in care transitions work, he invited me to consider becoming a BOOST mentor.”

Teachable moment: “Wearing my primary care hat, I believe that while it is very important to structure an effective discharge for the patient while in the hospital, success or failure ultimately is determined by what happens in the outpatient setting,” Dr. Balaban says. Even if a ‘perfect discharge’ occurs in the hospital, it can all quickly unravel once the patient arrives at home.

Success story: “At several sites, I have encouraged the inpatient care team to invite the outpatient care team to become part of the care transitions team. This has frequently brought an important viewpoint and voice to the care transitions table. While hospitalists have initiated the discussion about care transitions, they need an effective outpatient partner to create a truly effective process.”

Lessons learned: “I have learned to hold judgment until seeing with my own eyes,” Dr. Balaban says. “One of the first sites I visited had developed a post-discharge clinic, which they were excited to show me. From my point of view, I thought that after discharge, patient care should be assumed by the primary care office as soon as possible, and a post-discharge clinic would only delay that process.

“To my great surprise, their post-discharge clinic provided an ideal bridge between the hospital and primary care. The post-discharge clinic really worked and provided patients with a wonderful resource. … I’ve learned that there are many ways to solve problems, often based on the available resources at a specific site.”

Advice: In order to best understand the challenges of hospital discharge, it is critical that you understand what happens to patients after they leave the hospital. Make a home visit to a recently discharged patient to really understand the challenges that patients face when they return home.

Amitkumar R. Patel, MD, MBA, FACP, SFHM

Amitkumar R. Patel, MD, MBA, FACP, SFHM

Title: Clinical instructor in hospital medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago

Program: Project BOOST; also working with critical access hospitals in Illinois through PREP (Preventing Readmissions through Effective Partnerships)

Background: Although he now works in an urban teaching hospital, Dr. Patel also did private practice as a community hospitalist and has pursued formal healthcare management-focused training.

“I became a mentor because my experience and interest in quality improvement fit well with Project BOOST,” he says. “I enjoy coaching teams as they face challenges in quality improvement, especially in relation to readmissions reduction. My work with critical access hospitals is the result of my first year as a mentor with the PREP collaborative in Illinois.”

PREP, a collaborative initiative of SHM and the Illinois Hospital Association that is funded by Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Illinois, aims to help hospitals focus on quality initiatives, including BOOST.

Teachable moment/success story: One of Dr. Patel’s BOOST sites believed the team included all appropriate personnel to obtain discharge appointments prior to patients’ discharges. But as they began to work through the process of making sure each appointment was appropriately documented, the various team members assigned to this process could not consistently complete the task within their workflow.

The pilot unit secretaries were not part of the BOOST team initially but saw that they could fulfill this role quickly and easily. They knew who to call at the physicians’ offices to avoid getting stuck in the phone menu trees, and they used this knowledge to reach the schedulers directly. The BOOST team quickly realized the unit secretaries were the most appropriate personnel to capture this information and work with the patients or their families/caregivers to obtain the most convenient appointments. This role was added to the team, and the unit secretaries took ownership of this process. Other teams may also want to look beyond the customary team members to roles that may not be thought of as quality team members.

Lessons learned: “The biggest take-away for me involves the unique culture that exists in many of our urban and rural communities,” he says. Every BOOST site implements the project’s elements in its own unique way, and what works well in one location may not fit the needs of another. The role of the mentor is to balance the need for community-specific advice with unique attributes of the facility and the elements of Project BOOST. “Often, we use our mentor calls to brainstorm solutions, and the teams are teaching me what will work best in their environment.”

Advice: “Responsibility for hospital change management should not be abdicated to administrators or quality improvement staff members,” he says. “QI is not a sometime thing for some staff; it’s an all-the-time process for every staff member, including physicians, to participate in and actively manage.”

Cheryl O’Malley, MD, FHM

Cheryl O’Malley, MD, FHM

Title: Internal medicine residency program director, Banner Good Samaritan Medical Center, Phoenix

Program: GCMI

Background: Banner Good Samaritan has participated in the BOOST, VTE, and GCMI programs. Dr. O’Malley brought her experience from developing, implementing, and leading local glycemic control efforts to mentoring others.

“When I first started working on our hospital’s process, I had so many questions and asked one of my mentors from residency, Dr. Greg Maynard,” she says. “He helped me to see that people around the country were asking the same questions and invited me to join SHM’s glycemic control work group. When the GCMI program started, I was asked to be a mentor.”

Teachable moment: “When I was a new attending on the wards after residency, my patients would ask me why their blood sugars were so much better controlled at home than in the hospital. Usually, the answer was that they were put on a sliding scale when they came into the hospital,” she says, noting that what was done at home wasn’t going to work in the hospital. Patients needed a different regimen—a more proactive approach than just the customary sliding scale.

“I started to learn more about basal rates, nutrition, and correction insulin regimens in the hospital, but I realized that to really have adequate safety and direction for the nursing staff, it would require a formal order set and systematic approach,” she says.

Success story: “One of my sites invited me to come and present grand rounds at the hospital, and the local physician team leader invited the whole quality team to her home. It was a very exciting team and had achieved a lot. Fifteen or 20 of us spent the evening talking about the project but also just enjoying the collegiality,” Dr. O’Malley says. “Even though we had never seen one another, I instantly knew everyone by voice from spending so much time on the phone. And we knew a lot about one another’s personal lives and careers.”

Lessons learned: “Hearing a program describe what they are doing and knowing that they were far ahead of my own hospital in many ways but still being able to provide an insight or a perspective to help them achieve their own next steps. Everyone has something to learn from another hospital or another discipline. We can all leverage our experiences to improve patient care.”

Advice: “Be patient. This is a really long process of constant improvements. I have been working on glycemic control for 10 years now and still feel like we have many opportunities to further improve.”

Cheryl O’Malley, MD, FHM

Christopher Kim, MD, MBA, SFHM

Title: Clinical associate professor of internal medicine and assistant professor of pediatrics, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor

Program: Project BOOST; Michigan Transitions of Care Collaborative (M-TC2)

Background: Dr. Kim brings clinical, quality improvement, leadership, collaborative learning, and discussion facilitation skills to his work as program director of M-TC2 and as mentor to the sites he works with.

The collaborative is part of a set of state collaborative quality initiatives funded by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. One of those initiatives is focused on improving care transitions between the hospital setting and ambulatory care providers, using Project BOOST tools—expanded to integrate more closely with primary care providers, physician organizations, and ambulatory care. The eight Michigan-based mentors for M-TC2 have all attended SHM’s Mentor University.

Teachable moment: There are local challenges and there are general challenges—those that are commonly shared by most hospitals, Dr. Kim explains. Both need to be overcome when working on an improvement project such as transitions of care. The local hospitalist brings expertise about the former—which are often more difficult to understand and overcome. The mentor brings knowledge and experience of the universal challenges, as well as the benefit of having seen or heard about what other programs have done. Together, they can work to help the organization become better equipped to improve the initiative at hand.

Success story: “One hospital in the collaborative realized that it could roll out the Teach Back concept to both nurses and physicians,” he says. They started to teach residents how to interact with patients and began using this approach in physician-nurse teams. Subsequently, the team shared with the collaborative how physicians have embraced the concept.

Lessons learned: Every site has its successes and challenges, he says. Sharing both sides of the story can only advance the mission of the collaborative, as each organization learns from the successes and failures of the others.

Mentored implementation really does what it’s intended to do—helping to support the sites and keeping an organization on track and accountable for the work it does, because someone external to the organization is working with it and providing information about what other sites are doing.

Advice: Talk with different disciplines and find out how much they long to work with other care providers, and then have discussions about how to make interdisciplinary practice happen. “At our collaborative meetings over time, many of the 24 participating sites have shared their progress—the good things and the struggles,” Dr. Kim says.

Larry Beresford is a freelance writer in Alameda, Calif.

Click here to listen to excerpts of our interview with Dr. Williams

Click here to listen to excerpts of our interview with Dr. Williams

Click here to listen to excerpts of our interview with Dr. Williams

Dr. Kealey

Hippocrates, Epidemics.“The Physician must be able to do good or to do no harm.”

This is part three of my ongoing series on the journey of hospital medicine and how we are poised for greater things yet. In part one, “Tinder and Spark,” macro changes in the American healthcare landscape pressured primary care physicians to get creative with new ways to practice, the most prominent result being the creation of hospitalist practices. Wachter and Goldman provided the spark that gave the field its name and cohesiveness. In part two, “Fuel,” the Baby Boomers shaped the field, setting the stage for the Generation X physicians who fueled HM’s early growth.

But the field might have stagnated there, the fire attenuated, if not for the rise of something new, something that stoked our growth to new heights.

Orlando, Fla., December 2006.

SHM President-Elect Rusty Holman, MD, MHM, was on stage representing hospitalists at the annual Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) National Forum in front of more than 5,000 enthusiastic attendees representing every discipline of clinical care from hundreds of healthcare organizations across the country and internationally. This was a special event. Two years earlier, IHI President Don Berwick, MD, MPP, had launched an audacious campaign, called the 100,000 Lives Campaign, that aimed to prevent the deaths of 100,000 patients in our nation’s hospitals in the following 18 months, not by utilizing some great new technological advance but by changing the culture around safety and quality in our nation’s hospitals and enacting proven safety methods and processes.1 Out of this plan came widespread use of terms and programs that weren’t widely adopted then but are familiar to all of us now: rapid response teams, medicine reconciliation, surgical site infection prevention, and ventilator-acquired pneumonia.

That program estimated that it saved 122,000 lives.¹

IHI was looking to build on the safety and quality infrastructure that had been built up to make the 100,000 Lives Campaign a success and to launch an even bigger program. The 5 Million Lives Campaign’s goal was to reduce incidents of harm in five million patients over the next two years. For this campaign, IHI understood that success could only be achieved with partners. SHM and the field of hospital medicine, which had grown in size and influence, was seen as a critical and influential partner in achieving the goal of reducing harm in our nation’s hospitals. Thus, Dr. Holman was standing on that stage for SHM at the launch of the biggest safety and quality initiative in our nation’s history. SHM was among seven partner organizations, including the American Nurses Association, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the American Heart Association, and the CDC. SHM was the only medical society represented. Pretty heady stuff for a field barely 10 years old. How did we get there? For that story, we need to go back a few years.

In 1984, Libby Zion, an 18-year-old college student, died from serotonin syndrome. A contributing factor was felt to be overworked residents not getting enough sleep. In his landmark 1990 article, “Human Factors in Hazardous Situations,” James Reason, PhD, introduced the world to some key concepts: active versus latent errors and the Swiss cheese model of errors.² These concepts influence our thinking to this day. In 1994, Betsy Lehman, a health reporter for the Boston Globe, died from a massive chemotherapy overdose. That same year Lucian Leape, MD, a Harvard pediatric surgeon, published his influential article in JAMA, “Errors in Medicine,” which called for a systems approach to improving patient safety.³

These key moments in safety and quality, all of which occurred in the years leading up to hospitalists gaining their identity, were but a prelude to the widespread patient safety and quality movement. Like our own social movement, “Patient Safety and Quality” was born with an influential publication. This was the 1999 release of the Institute of Medicine’s “To Err is Human,” a report that reiterated claims that up to 98,000 U.S. patients per year were dying from medical errors.⁴ It also supported Dr. Leape’s earlier work calling for systems changes. In 2001, the Institute of Medicine published a second report, “Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century,” which introduced the six aims for healthcare improvement: safe, timely, effective, efficient, equitable, and patient-centered.⁵

Before 1999, hospitalists were just getting their feet on the ground. Groups were experimenting with practice models and recruiting young talent, mostly with a pitch for a new way to practice with freedom to design their day and often an interesting work schedule.

After the publication of “To Err is Human” in 1999, changes in patient safety and quality began to accelerate. Taking one of the recommendations from “To Err is Human,” which suggested that employers should use their market power to improve quality and safety, the Leapfrog Group, a consortium of large employers, organized in 2000. Leapfrog began rewarding and recognizing hospitals that put accepted safety measures in place.⁶ Suddenly, hospital CEOs began to see tangible rewards for improving quality in their hospitals.

Here is where the hospitalist movement and the patient safety and quality movement began to intersect.

Shift to Quality and Safety

In 2001, the same year “Crossing the Quality Chasm” was published, Congress created the Center for Quality Improvement and Patient Safety within the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Significant funding was suddenly available for quality and safety research, and a more organized reporting mechanism for quality would soon be available.

In 2002, the Joint Commission released its first set of National Patient Safety Goals. There were seven, and key goals for hospitalists included improving the effectiveness of communication among caregivers, reducing the risk of healthcare-acquired infections, and reconciling medications.

And, lastly, as if that weren’t enough activity in the patient safety and quality world, the Joint Commission and CMS released in 2003 the first joint, aligned set of core measures, with which we are all now very familiar, around acute myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, and pneumonia.

Hospital executives were trying to get a handle on the meaning of this flurry of activity for their hospitals. It certainly meant new regulatory requirements. It probably meant greater visibility to the public around what happened behind the walls of their facilities. No doubt dollars on the line wouldn’t be too far behind. They needed help, and they needed it fast.

No longer were hospitalists a small group of young docs roaming the halls; now, instead of just taking care of one patient at a time, they were reaching the threshold of size—and even status in some organizations—where they could leverage their working knowledge of the system and presence on site to affect the various facets of quality now being measured and incented. Additionally, as the information technology (IT) revolution rolled out, hospitalists, mostly tech-savvy Gen X’ers, looked to ease the transition into the new world of EHRs, which promised to serve as a new base for improving quality.

As the C-suite continued making value calculations in their heads, they saw that, in addition to helping them manage the many facets of the transition of primary care and specialty teaching attendings out of the hospital, hospitalists could now be a powerful weapon in helping them stay competitive in the looming patient safety and quality revolution. They pulled out their checkbooks.

When SHM first started gathering data to explore this gap, we discovered that in 2003 the reported median support per FTE of an adult hospitalist in this country was $60,000.⁷ With an estimated 11,000 hospitalists in the country at that time, C-suite funders paid out over $600 million to help overcome the deficit between hospitalist professional billings and salary and benefits. By the time SHM partnered with IHI on the 5 Million Lives Campaign in 2006, the figure stood at well over $2 billion. The 2011 SHM/Medical Group Management Association survey data showed $139,090 support per FTE. With 31,000 U.S. hospitalists estimated at the time, that figure had doubled to over $4 billion in just five years’ time.

The new generation of doctors had come along in the late 1990s looking for a practice that fit their wants and needs. HM gave them what they were looking for: autonomy, the promise of work-life balance, and the ability to help patients in their most vulnerable time. The traditional E&M [evaluation and management]-based funding mechanisms simply weren’t designed to account for physicians who spend all of their time doing the critical cognitive and coordinating clinical work. To account for this, hospitals and medical groups, seeing the value to their organizations in this new specialty, anteed up to cover the difference. That gave us a great beginning.

But it was the convergence of the early hospitalist movement and the emergent patient safety and quality movement that created a synergy that propelled both movements forward. Boosted by the influx of funding directly and indirectly related to patient safety and quality, hospitalists grew in number from an estimated 5,000 physicians at the 1999 publication of “To Err is Human” to north of 40,000 today.

The synergy was evident when SHM President-Elect Dr. Holman, representing our fledgling specialty and society, faced that cheering throng in Orlando alongside Dr. Don Berwick, the face of the patient safety and quality movement.

But that’s not quite the end of the story.

To get us up to the present and on to our bright future, there will be a few more additions to the quality story and an all-new generation arriving on the scene to shake things up.

Dr. Kealey is SHM president and medical director of hospital specialties at HealthPartners Medical Group in St. Paul, Minn.

References

1. Institute for Healthcare Improvement. Overview of the 100,000 Lives Campaign. Available at: http://www.ihi.org/Engage/Initiatives/Completed/5MillionLivesCampaign/Documents/Overview%20of%20the%20100K%20Campaign.pdf. Accessed July 6, 2014.
2. Broadbent DE, Reason J, Baddeley A, eds. Human Factors in Hazardous Situations: Proceedings of a Royal Society Discussion Meeting Held on 28 and 29 June 1989. Gloucestershire, England: Clarendon Press; 1990:475-484.
3. Leape LL. Error in medicine JAMA.1994;272(23):1851-1857.
4. Institute of Medicine. Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS, eds. To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington, D.C.: The National Academy Press; 2000.
5. Institute of Medicine. Committee on Quality of Healthcare in America. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, D.C.: The National Academy Press; 2001.
6. The Leapfrog Group. About Leapfrog. Available at: http://www.leapfroggroup.org/about_leapfrog. Accessed July 6, 2014.
7. Society of Hospital Medicine. SHM’s State of Hospital Medicine Surveys 2003-2012. Available at: www.hospitalmedicine.org/survey. Accessed July 3, 2014.

Dr. Kealey

Hippocrates, Epidemics.“The Physician must be able to do good or to do no harm.”

This is part three of my ongoing series on the journey of hospital medicine and how we are poised for greater things yet. In part one, “Tinder and Spark,” macro changes in the American healthcare landscape pressured primary care physicians to get creative with new ways to practice, the most prominent result being the creation of hospitalist practices. Wachter and Goldman provided the spark that gave the field its name and cohesiveness. In part two, “Fuel,” the Baby Boomers shaped the field, setting the stage for the Generation X physicians who fueled HM’s early growth.

But the field might have stagnated there, the fire attenuated, if not for the rise of something new, something that stoked our growth to new heights.

Orlando, Fla., December 2006.

SHM President-Elect Rusty Holman, MD, MHM, was on stage representing hospitalists at the annual Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) National Forum in front of more than 5,000 enthusiastic attendees representing every discipline of clinical care from hundreds of healthcare organizations across the country and internationally. This was a special event. Two years earlier, IHI President Don Berwick, MD, MPP, had launched an audacious campaign, called the 100,000 Lives Campaign, that aimed to prevent the deaths of 100,000 patients in our nation’s hospitals in the following 18 months, not by utilizing some great new technological advance but by changing the culture around safety and quality in our nation’s hospitals and enacting proven safety methods and processes.1 Out of this plan came widespread use of terms and programs that weren’t widely adopted then but are familiar to all of us now: rapid response teams, medicine reconciliation, surgical site infection prevention, and ventilator-acquired pneumonia.

That program estimated that it saved 122,000 lives.¹

IHI was looking to build on the safety and quality infrastructure that had been built up to make the 100,000 Lives Campaign a success and to launch an even bigger program. The 5 Million Lives Campaign’s goal was to reduce incidents of harm in five million patients over the next two years. For this campaign, IHI understood that success could only be achieved with partners. SHM and the field of hospital medicine, which had grown in size and influence, was seen as a critical and influential partner in achieving the goal of reducing harm in our nation’s hospitals. Thus, Dr. Holman was standing on that stage for SHM at the launch of the biggest safety and quality initiative in our nation’s history. SHM was among seven partner organizations, including the American Nurses Association, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the American Heart Association, and the CDC. SHM was the only medical society represented. Pretty heady stuff for a field barely 10 years old. How did we get there? For that story, we need to go back a few years.

In 1984, Libby Zion, an 18-year-old college student, died from serotonin syndrome. A contributing factor was felt to be overworked residents not getting enough sleep. In his landmark 1990 article, “Human Factors in Hazardous Situations,” James Reason, PhD, introduced the world to some key concepts: active versus latent errors and the Swiss cheese model of errors.² These concepts influence our thinking to this day. In 1994, Betsy Lehman, a health reporter for the Boston Globe, died from a massive chemotherapy overdose. That same year Lucian Leape, MD, a Harvard pediatric surgeon, published his influential article in JAMA, “Errors in Medicine,” which called for a systems approach to improving patient safety.³

These key moments in safety and quality, all of which occurred in the years leading up to hospitalists gaining their identity, were but a prelude to the widespread patient safety and quality movement. Like our own social movement, “Patient Safety and Quality” was born with an influential publication. This was the 1999 release of the Institute of Medicine’s “To Err is Human,” a report that reiterated claims that up to 98,000 U.S. patients per year were dying from medical errors.⁴ It also supported Dr. Leape’s earlier work calling for systems changes. In 2001, the Institute of Medicine published a second report, “Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century,” which introduced the six aims for healthcare improvement: safe, timely, effective, efficient, equitable, and patient-centered.⁵

Before 1999, hospitalists were just getting their feet on the ground. Groups were experimenting with practice models and recruiting young talent, mostly with a pitch for a new way to practice with freedom to design their day and often an interesting work schedule.

After the publication of “To Err is Human” in 1999, changes in patient safety and quality began to accelerate. Taking one of the recommendations from “To Err is Human,” which suggested that employers should use their market power to improve quality and safety, the Leapfrog Group, a consortium of large employers, organized in 2000. Leapfrog began rewarding and recognizing hospitals that put accepted safety measures in place.⁶ Suddenly, hospital CEOs began to see tangible rewards for improving quality in their hospitals.

Here is where the hospitalist movement and the patient safety and quality movement began to intersect.

Shift to Quality and Safety

In 2001, the same year “Crossing the Quality Chasm” was published, Congress created the Center for Quality Improvement and Patient Safety within the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Significant funding was suddenly available for quality and safety research, and a more organized reporting mechanism for quality would soon be available.

In 2002, the Joint Commission released its first set of National Patient Safety Goals. There were seven, and key goals for hospitalists included improving the effectiveness of communication among caregivers, reducing the risk of healthcare-acquired infections, and reconciling medications.

And, lastly, as if that weren’t enough activity in the patient safety and quality world, the Joint Commission and CMS released in 2003 the first joint, aligned set of core measures, with which we are all now very familiar, around acute myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, and pneumonia.

Hospital executives were trying to get a handle on the meaning of this flurry of activity for their hospitals. It certainly meant new regulatory requirements. It probably meant greater visibility to the public around what happened behind the walls of their facilities. No doubt dollars on the line wouldn’t be too far behind. They needed help, and they needed it fast.

No longer were hospitalists a small group of young docs roaming the halls; now, instead of just taking care of one patient at a time, they were reaching the threshold of size—and even status in some organizations—where they could leverage their working knowledge of the system and presence on site to affect the various facets of quality now being measured and incented. Additionally, as the information technology (IT) revolution rolled out, hospitalists, mostly tech-savvy Gen X’ers, looked to ease the transition into the new world of EHRs, which promised to serve as a new base for improving quality.

As the C-suite continued making value calculations in their heads, they saw that, in addition to helping them manage the many facets of the transition of primary care and specialty teaching attendings out of the hospital, hospitalists could now be a powerful weapon in helping them stay competitive in the looming patient safety and quality revolution. They pulled out their checkbooks.

When SHM first started gathering data to explore this gap, we discovered that in 2003 the reported median support per FTE of an adult hospitalist in this country was $60,000.⁷ With an estimated 11,000 hospitalists in the country at that time, C-suite funders paid out over $600 million to help overcome the deficit between hospitalist professional billings and salary and benefits. By the time SHM partnered with IHI on the 5 Million Lives Campaign in 2006, the figure stood at well over $2 billion. The 2011 SHM/Medical Group Management Association survey data showed $139,090 support per FTE. With 31,000 U.S. hospitalists estimated at the time, that figure had doubled to over $4 billion in just five years’ time.

The new generation of doctors had come along in the late 1990s looking for a practice that fit their wants and needs. HM gave them what they were looking for: autonomy, the promise of work-life balance, and the ability to help patients in their most vulnerable time. The traditional E&M [evaluation and management]-based funding mechanisms simply weren’t designed to account for physicians who spend all of their time doing the critical cognitive and coordinating clinical work. To account for this, hospitals and medical groups, seeing the value to their organizations in this new specialty, anteed up to cover the difference. That gave us a great beginning.

But it was the convergence of the early hospitalist movement and the emergent patient safety and quality movement that created a synergy that propelled both movements forward. Boosted by the influx of funding directly and indirectly related to patient safety and quality, hospitalists grew in number from an estimated 5,000 physicians at the 1999 publication of “To Err is Human” to north of 40,000 today.

The synergy was evident when SHM President-Elect Dr. Holman, representing our fledgling specialty and society, faced that cheering throng in Orlando alongside Dr. Don Berwick, the face of the patient safety and quality movement.

But that’s not quite the end of the story.

To get us up to the present and on to our bright future, there will be a few more additions to the quality story and an all-new generation arriving on the scene to shake things up.

Dr. Kealey is SHM president and medical director of hospital specialties at HealthPartners Medical Group in St. Paul, Minn.

References

1. Institute for Healthcare Improvement. Overview of the 100,000 Lives Campaign. Available at: http://www.ihi.org/Engage/Initiatives/Completed/5MillionLivesCampaign/Documents/Overview%20of%20the%20100K%20Campaign.pdf. Accessed July 6, 2014.
2. Broadbent DE, Reason J, Baddeley A, eds. Human Factors in Hazardous Situations: Proceedings of a Royal Society Discussion Meeting Held on 28 and 29 June 1989. Gloucestershire, England: Clarendon Press; 1990:475-484.
3. Leape LL. Error in medicine JAMA.1994;272(23):1851-1857.
4. Institute of Medicine. Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS, eds. To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington, D.C.: The National Academy Press; 2000.
5. Institute of Medicine. Committee on Quality of Healthcare in America. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, D.C.: The National Academy Press; 2001.
6. The Leapfrog Group. About Leapfrog. Available at: http://www.leapfroggroup.org/about_leapfrog. Accessed July 6, 2014.
7. Society of Hospital Medicine. SHM’s State of Hospital Medicine Surveys 2003-2012. Available at: www.hospitalmedicine.org/survey. Accessed July 3, 2014.

Dr. Kealey

Hippocrates, Epidemics.“The Physician must be able to do good or to do no harm.”

This is part three of my ongoing series on the journey of hospital medicine and how we are poised for greater things yet. In part one, “Tinder and Spark,” macro changes in the American healthcare landscape pressured primary care physicians to get creative with new ways to practice, the most prominent result being the creation of hospitalist practices. Wachter and Goldman provided the spark that gave the field its name and cohesiveness. In part two, “Fuel,” the Baby Boomers shaped the field, setting the stage for the Generation X physicians who fueled HM’s early growth.

But the field might have stagnated there, the fire attenuated, if not for the rise of something new, something that stoked our growth to new heights.

Orlando, Fla., December 2006.

SHM President-Elect Rusty Holman, MD, MHM, was on stage representing hospitalists at the annual Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) National Forum in front of more than 5,000 enthusiastic attendees representing every discipline of clinical care from hundreds of healthcare organizations across the country and internationally. This was a special event. Two years earlier, IHI President Don Berwick, MD, MPP, had launched an audacious campaign, called the 100,000 Lives Campaign, that aimed to prevent the deaths of 100,000 patients in our nation’s hospitals in the following 18 months, not by utilizing some great new technological advance but by changing the culture around safety and quality in our nation’s hospitals and enacting proven safety methods and processes.1 Out of this plan came widespread use of terms and programs that weren’t widely adopted then but are familiar to all of us now: rapid response teams, medicine reconciliation, surgical site infection prevention, and ventilator-acquired pneumonia.

That program estimated that it saved 122,000 lives.¹

IHI was looking to build on the safety and quality infrastructure that had been built up to make the 100,000 Lives Campaign a success and to launch an even bigger program. The 5 Million Lives Campaign’s goal was to reduce incidents of harm in five million patients over the next two years. For this campaign, IHI understood that success could only be achieved with partners. SHM and the field of hospital medicine, which had grown in size and influence, was seen as a critical and influential partner in achieving the goal of reducing harm in our nation’s hospitals. Thus, Dr. Holman was standing on that stage for SHM at the launch of the biggest safety and quality initiative in our nation’s history. SHM was among seven partner organizations, including the American Nurses Association, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the American Heart Association, and the CDC. SHM was the only medical society represented. Pretty heady stuff for a field barely 10 years old. How did we get there? For that story, we need to go back a few years.

In 1984, Libby Zion, an 18-year-old college student, died from serotonin syndrome. A contributing factor was felt to be overworked residents not getting enough sleep. In his landmark 1990 article, “Human Factors in Hazardous Situations,” James Reason, PhD, introduced the world to some key concepts: active versus latent errors and the Swiss cheese model of errors.² These concepts influence our thinking to this day. In 1994, Betsy Lehman, a health reporter for the Boston Globe, died from a massive chemotherapy overdose. That same year Lucian Leape, MD, a Harvard pediatric surgeon, published his influential article in JAMA, “Errors in Medicine,” which called for a systems approach to improving patient safety.³

These key moments in safety and quality, all of which occurred in the years leading up to hospitalists gaining their identity, were but a prelude to the widespread patient safety and quality movement. Like our own social movement, “Patient Safety and Quality” was born with an influential publication. This was the 1999 release of the Institute of Medicine’s “To Err is Human,” a report that reiterated claims that up to 98,000 U.S. patients per year were dying from medical errors.⁴ It also supported Dr. Leape’s earlier work calling for systems changes. In 2001, the Institute of Medicine published a second report, “Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century,” which introduced the six aims for healthcare improvement: safe, timely, effective, efficient, equitable, and patient-centered.⁵

Before 1999, hospitalists were just getting their feet on the ground. Groups were experimenting with practice models and recruiting young talent, mostly with a pitch for a new way to practice with freedom to design their day and often an interesting work schedule.

After the publication of “To Err is Human” in 1999, changes in patient safety and quality began to accelerate. Taking one of the recommendations from “To Err is Human,” which suggested that employers should use their market power to improve quality and safety, the Leapfrog Group, a consortium of large employers, organized in 2000. Leapfrog began rewarding and recognizing hospitals that put accepted safety measures in place.⁶ Suddenly, hospital CEOs began to see tangible rewards for improving quality in their hospitals.

Here is where the hospitalist movement and the patient safety and quality movement began to intersect.

Shift to Quality and Safety

In 2001, the same year “Crossing the Quality Chasm” was published, Congress created the Center for Quality Improvement and Patient Safety within the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Significant funding was suddenly available for quality and safety research, and a more organized reporting mechanism for quality would soon be available.

In 2002, the Joint Commission released its first set of National Patient Safety Goals. There were seven, and key goals for hospitalists included improving the effectiveness of communication among caregivers, reducing the risk of healthcare-acquired infections, and reconciling medications.

And, lastly, as if that weren’t enough activity in the patient safety and quality world, the Joint Commission and CMS released in 2003 the first joint, aligned set of core measures, with which we are all now very familiar, around acute myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, and pneumonia.

Hospital executives were trying to get a handle on the meaning of this flurry of activity for their hospitals. It certainly meant new regulatory requirements. It probably meant greater visibility to the public around what happened behind the walls of their facilities. No doubt dollars on the line wouldn’t be too far behind. They needed help, and they needed it fast.

No longer were hospitalists a small group of young docs roaming the halls; now, instead of just taking care of one patient at a time, they were reaching the threshold of size—and even status in some organizations—where they could leverage their working knowledge of the system and presence on site to affect the various facets of quality now being measured and incented. Additionally, as the information technology (IT) revolution rolled out, hospitalists, mostly tech-savvy Gen X’ers, looked to ease the transition into the new world of EHRs, which promised to serve as a new base for improving quality.

As the C-suite continued making value calculations in their heads, they saw that, in addition to helping them manage the many facets of the transition of primary care and specialty teaching attendings out of the hospital, hospitalists could now be a powerful weapon in helping them stay competitive in the looming patient safety and quality revolution. They pulled out their checkbooks.

When SHM first started gathering data to explore this gap, we discovered that in 2003 the reported median support per FTE of an adult hospitalist in this country was $60,000.⁷ With an estimated 11,000 hospitalists in the country at that time, C-suite funders paid out over $600 million to help overcome the deficit between hospitalist professional billings and salary and benefits. By the time SHM partnered with IHI on the 5 Million Lives Campaign in 2006, the figure stood at well over $2 billion. The 2011 SHM/Medical Group Management Association survey data showed $139,090 support per FTE. With 31,000 U.S. hospitalists estimated at the time, that figure had doubled to over $4 billion in just five years’ time.

The new generation of doctors had come along in the late 1990s looking for a practice that fit their wants and needs. HM gave them what they were looking for: autonomy, the promise of work-life balance, and the ability to help patients in their most vulnerable time. The traditional E&M [evaluation and management]-based funding mechanisms simply weren’t designed to account for physicians who spend all of their time doing the critical cognitive and coordinating clinical work. To account for this, hospitals and medical groups, seeing the value to their organizations in this new specialty, anteed up to cover the difference. That gave us a great beginning.

But it was the convergence of the early hospitalist movement and the emergent patient safety and quality movement that created a synergy that propelled both movements forward. Boosted by the influx of funding directly and indirectly related to patient safety and quality, hospitalists grew in number from an estimated 5,000 physicians at the 1999 publication of “To Err is Human” to north of 40,000 today.

The synergy was evident when SHM President-Elect Dr. Holman, representing our fledgling specialty and society, faced that cheering throng in Orlando alongside Dr. Don Berwick, the face of the patient safety and quality movement.

But that’s not quite the end of the story.

To get us up to the present and on to our bright future, there will be a few more additions to the quality story and an all-new generation arriving on the scene to shake things up.

Dr. Kealey is SHM president and medical director of hospital specialties at HealthPartners Medical Group in St. Paul, Minn.

References

1. Institute for Healthcare Improvement. Overview of the 100,000 Lives Campaign. Available at: http://www.ihi.org/Engage/Initiatives/Completed/5MillionLivesCampaign/Documents/Overview%20of%20the%20100K%20Campaign.pdf. Accessed July 6, 2014.
2. Broadbent DE, Reason J, Baddeley A, eds. Human Factors in Hazardous Situations: Proceedings of a Royal Society Discussion Meeting Held on 28 and 29 June 1989. Gloucestershire, England: Clarendon Press; 1990:475-484.
3. Leape LL. Error in medicine JAMA.1994;272(23):1851-1857.
4. Institute of Medicine. Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS, eds. To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington, D.C.: The National Academy Press; 2000.
5. Institute of Medicine. Committee on Quality of Healthcare in America. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, D.C.: The National Academy Press; 2001.
6. The Leapfrog Group. About Leapfrog. Available at: http://www.leapfroggroup.org/about_leapfrog. Accessed July 6, 2014.
7. Society of Hospital Medicine. SHM’s State of Hospital Medicine Surveys 2003-2012. Available at: www.hospitalmedicine.org/survey. Accessed July 3, 2014.

Since 2008, the American Community Survey, conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau, has queried respondents regarding deafness or hearing difficulties. According to these data, about 3.5% of the U.S. population has serious difficulty hearing. Other estimates vary, putting the number higher, especially those that include the numbers of elderly who experience hearing difficulties.

People who are deaf and hard of hearing (DHoH) work in diverse areas of the healthcare field, according to Samuel Atcherson, PhD, associate professor of audiology at the University of Arkansas in Little Rock and registry co-chair for the Association of Medical Professionals with Hearing Losses (www.amphl.org). AMPHL does not have statistics to report on the numbers of DHoH individuals practicing in medical occupations, but Dr. Atcherson noted that, as of 2011, there were 55 physicians, 41 nurses, and eight physician assistants in the membership.

Dr. Moreland and co-authors recently published a national survey that queried deaf physicians and trainees on a variety of subjects (e.g. career satisfaction, satisfaction with education, workplace accommodations). Due to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, more people with hearing impairments are entering healthcare professions. Technological advances, such as electronic stethoscopes, also contribute to this surge.

The authors found that DHoH physicians and trainees responding to their survey were satisfied with multimodal employment and educational accommodations. Based on these results, they surmise, there might be an opportunity to recruit these individuals and further reach the underserved DHoH patient population.

—Gretchen Henkel

Since 2008, the American Community Survey, conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau, has queried respondents regarding deafness or hearing difficulties. According to these data, about 3.5% of the U.S. population has serious difficulty hearing. Other estimates vary, putting the number higher, especially those that include the numbers of elderly who experience hearing difficulties.

People who are deaf and hard of hearing (DHoH) work in diverse areas of the healthcare field, according to Samuel Atcherson, PhD, associate professor of audiology at the University of Arkansas in Little Rock and registry co-chair for the Association of Medical Professionals with Hearing Losses (www.amphl.org). AMPHL does not have statistics to report on the numbers of DHoH individuals practicing in medical occupations, but Dr. Atcherson noted that, as of 2011, there were 55 physicians, 41 nurses, and eight physician assistants in the membership.

Dr. Moreland and co-authors recently published a national survey that queried deaf physicians and trainees on a variety of subjects (e.g. career satisfaction, satisfaction with education, workplace accommodations). Due to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, more people with hearing impairments are entering healthcare professions. Technological advances, such as electronic stethoscopes, also contribute to this surge.

The authors found that DHoH physicians and trainees responding to their survey were satisfied with multimodal employment and educational accommodations. Based on these results, they surmise, there might be an opportunity to recruit these individuals and further reach the underserved DHoH patient population.

—Gretchen Henkel

Since 2008, the American Community Survey, conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau, has queried respondents regarding deafness or hearing difficulties. According to these data, about 3.5% of the U.S. population has serious difficulty hearing. Other estimates vary, putting the number higher, especially those that include the numbers of elderly who experience hearing difficulties.

People who are deaf and hard of hearing (DHoH) work in diverse areas of the healthcare field, according to Samuel Atcherson, PhD, associate professor of audiology at the University of Arkansas in Little Rock and registry co-chair for the Association of Medical Professionals with Hearing Losses (www.amphl.org). AMPHL does not have statistics to report on the numbers of DHoH individuals practicing in medical occupations, but Dr. Atcherson noted that, as of 2011, there were 55 physicians, 41 nurses, and eight physician assistants in the membership.

Dr. Moreland and co-authors recently published a national survey that queried deaf physicians and trainees on a variety of subjects (e.g. career satisfaction, satisfaction with education, workplace accommodations). Due to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, more people with hearing impairments are entering healthcare professions. Technological advances, such as electronic stethoscopes, also contribute to this surge.

The authors found that DHoH physicians and trainees responding to their survey were satisfied with multimodal employment and educational accommodations. Based on these results, they surmise, there might be an opportunity to recruit these individuals and further reach the underserved DHoH patient population.

—Gretchen Henkel

click for large version

Case

A 67-year-old male patient who has depression and is on sertraline presents with increasing confusion over the past week. Initial plasma sodium is 109 mEq/L. On exam, he weighs 70 kg and is euvolemic. His urine osmolarity (Uosm) is 800 mosm/L with a urine sodium (UNa) of 40 mEq/L. He is somnolent but awakens to sternal rub. How should this patient’s hyponatremia be evaluated and managed?

Overview

Hyponatremia, a disorder of excess total body water in relation to sodium, occurs in up to 42% of hospitalized patients.^1,2 Regardless of the cause, hyponatremia is usually associated with the syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone secretion (SIADH) or with the appropriate elevation of antidiuretic hormone (ADH), known as hypovolemia. ADH is produced in the hypothalamus and released in the posterior pituitary in response to increasing plasma osmolarity (pOSM) or effective circulating volume depletion. ADH acts in the cortical collecting duct to increase the number of luminal aquaporin channels, increasing water reabsorption and decreasing plasma osmolarity. When hyponatremia is severe, the movement of water into cells causes cellular brain swelling, and clinical symptoms progress from malaise, headache, and nausea to obtundation, seizures, or respiratory arrest (see Figure 1). Even mild, chronic hyponatremia (120-131 mEq/L) is associated with an increased risk of falls due to mild gait and attention impairment.³

Evaluation

Step 1: Plasma osmolarity

The first step in diagnosing the cause of hyponatremia and treating it is to measure pOSM. The majority of patients with hyponatremia have hypoosmolar hyponatremia and therefore have a low pOSM; however, patients may have normal or high osmolarity. Hyponatremia with normal osmolarity can be caused by pseudohyponatremia (i.e., hyperglycemia, paraproteinemia, hyperlipidemia), severe renal failure, ingestion of excess alcohol, or post-transurethral resection of prostate or bladder.

Hyponatremia with high pOSM occurs as a result of elevated levels of an extra solute in the plasma that does not readily enter cells. This draws water into the extracellular fluid and lowers the sodium concentration. This will most commonly result from hyperglycemia or infusion of mannitol.

Step 2: Assess volume status with physical exam, urine sodium (UNa)

The majority of patients with hyponatremia will have low pOSM. These patients should be categorized by volume status: hypovolemic, euvolemic, or hypervolemic (see Figure 2). On exam, hypervolemia is usually evident, and the cause of hypervolemic hyponatremia is usually elicited from a patient’s history; however, differentiating between hypovolemic and euvolemic hyponatremia by history and physical exam can be difficult, because examination findings are neither sensitive nor specific.⁴ UNa should always be evaluated, especially when differentiating between hypovolemic and euvolemic. This was illustrated in a study of 58 non-edematous patients with hyponatremia. Investigators determined which patients had hypovolemic hyponatremia based on their response to saline infusion. Of the patients identified as hypovolemic using physical exam, only 47% responded to saline. In contrast, a spot UNa of less than 30 mEq/L was 80% sensitive and 100% specific for saline responsiveness.⁵ Although the majority of hypovolemic hyponatremia patients will have a low UNa, the following causes of hypovolemic hyponatremia can result in high UNa: diuretics, adrenal insufficiency, salt-wasting nephropathy, and cerebral salt-wasting.

A low serum uric acid can also be useful in differentiating hypovolemic and euvolemic hyponatremia, which is most commonly caused by SIADH. In SIADH, there is urinary wasting of uric acid, which leads to low serum uric acid. In a study of 105 patients with lung cancer, a serum uric acid of less than 4 mg/dL was 75% sensitive and 89% specific for SIADH.⁶

click for large version

Step 3: Urine osmolarity

After determining volume status, the physician should determine if there is excess ADH by measuring Uosm. Under normal conditions, hyponatremia should suppress ADH secretion and allow the kidney to excrete water by diluting the urine to less than 100 mosm/L. If Uosm is less than 100 mosm/L, then the kidneys are responding appropriately and can only persist in the following situations: The patient is drinking large volumes of water (e.g. primary polydipsia), there is insufficient solute to excrete free water (e.g. beer potomania, “tea and toast” diet), or the patient has a different set point for ADH suppression (i.e., reset osmostat). After determining volume status, UNa, and Uosm, the physician will have narrowed the cause of hyponatremia significantly (see Figure 2). Of note, when SIADH is diagnosed, it is important to look for and reverse causes (see Figure 3).

click for large version

click for large version

Treatment

Severe symptomatic hyponatremia

In patients with severe neurologic symptoms, physicians must balance the need to reduce symptoms quickly with the dangers of overly rapid correction. After its use in marathon runners, several experts have endorsed the following regimen to reduce symptoms rapidly: an intravenous bolus of 100 mL of 3% saline is given and repeated if symptoms persist after 10 minutes.7,8 Once symptoms improve, the basal rate can be calculated using the equation below, but the rate of sodium correction in 24 hours with this regimen should not exceed 6 to 8 mEq/L in 24 hours or 12 to 14 mEq/L in 48 hours.^9,10 This is based on several case studies showing that there were no cases of central pontine myelinolysis (CPM) if correction rates were less than 10 mEq/L over 24 hours.^11,12

It is important to remember that this is only a rough guide, because the equation assumes the entire infusate is retained and there is no sodium or water output. The best way to avoid overly rapid correction is to check serum sodium every two hours and monitor urine output closely. If the patient is making large volumes of urine, serum sodium may be rising too quickly. If the patient corrects too rapidly, it may be possible to avoid CPM by re-lowering the sodium.13 This can be accomplished by giving desmopressin to slow urinary free water loss while simultaneously giving hypotonic fluids.

Asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic hyponatremia

Hypovolemic hyponatremia: Treatment of hypovolemic hyponatremia is aimed at correcting volume status, the underlying problem that drives ADH secretion. The body will always choose to preserve volume over osmolarity. In most cases, normal saline (NS) should be used to restore intravascular volume, and the rate of infusion can be calculated using the same equation as above. Once volume is replete, ADH release will cease. Patients will be in danger of overly rapid correction of serum sodium, so fluids should be switched to hypotonic solutions, such as ½ NS.

Euvolemic Hyponatremia: Euvolemic hyponatremia, typically caused by SIADH, is characterized by a high Uosm (>100 mosm/L) and a high UNa (>30 mEq/L). All patients require free water restriction, and fluid intake should be at least 500 mL below a patient’s urine output, usually one liter or less. If this is ineffective, salt tabs can be given. Salt tabs will increase the solute load, necessitating an increase in urine output. Patients should be given approximately nine grams of salt tabs in three divided doses (equivalent to 1 L of NS). Patients with highly concentrated urine (Uosm >500 mosm/L) will not respond as well to the salt load, because the kidneys will continue to excrete much of the sodium in a concentrated urine. In such patients, a loop diuretic can be used to help excrete free water, because it decreases the Uosm to about ½ NS (154 mOsm/L). One possible regimen is 20-40 mg of oral furosemide two to three times daily.

Hypervolemic Hyponatremia: Hypervolemic hyponatremia is caused by congestive heart failure (CHF), cirrhosis, or nephrotic syndrome. In all cases, there is excess ADH as a result of the carotid baroreceptors sensing a decrease in effective circulation volume. In the case of CHF and cirrhosis, the degree of hyponatremia is a marker of disease severity, but there is no data to show that correction of hyponatremia improves outcomes. Fluid restriction is the cornerstone of therapy, but if the patient’s volume status is not optimized, then loop diuretics may improve hyponatremia through excretion of diluted urine. In addition, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors can improve hyponatremia in CHF by reducing ADH levels and improving cardiac output via afterload reduction.

There has been recent interest in the use of vasopressin V2 receptor antagonists or “vaptans.” The SALT 1 and 2 trials, which included patients with CHF and cirrhosis, showed that they are effective in increasing serum sodium and improving mental function in the short term. But there are concerns about hepatotoxicity, overly rapid correction of serum sodium, lack of mortality benefit, and cost.¹⁴ The latest American Heart Association CHF guidelines recommend (class IIb) vaptans in patients with “hyponatremia that may be causing cognitive symptoms when standard measures have failed.”¹⁵ Tolvaptan, in particular, should not be used in cirrhotic patients due to concerns of hepatotoxicity.

Outcome of the Case

Because of the high UNa and Uosm and the use of a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), the treating physician suspects the patient has SIADH. Given the severe symptoms, he is given 100 mL of 3% hypertonic saline and experiences improvement in his lethargy. Repeat sodium is 112 mEq/L. Using the equation above, a basal rate is calculated:

Change in serum sodium from 1 L of 3% saline= 514 mEq/L -112 mEq/L = 9.4 mEq 43 L

Because the goal correction rate is 6-8 mEq/L in 24 hours and the sodium has already increased by three, the physician elects to increase the sodium by 5 mEq/L for a total of 8 mEq/L for 24 hours:

5.0 mEq x 1000 ml = 532 ml of 3% saline ÷ 24 hours = 22 mL/hr. 9.4 mEq

Serum sodium is checked every two hours. The following day, the sodium is 115 mEq/L and the patient is fully alert. The hypertonic saline is stopped and the patient is maintained on free water restriction. Some 72 hours later, the sodium is 124 mEq/L.

Dr. Chang is co-director of the medicine-geriatrics clerkship, director of education in the division of hospital medicine, and assistant professor in the department of medicine at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York City. Dr. Madeira is clinical instructor in the department of general internal medicine at the NYU School of Medicine and a hospitalist at the VA NY Harbor Healthcare System.

References

1. Hoorn EJ, Lindemans J, Zietse R. Development of severe hyponatraemia in hospitalized patients: Treatment-related risk factors and inadequate management. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2006;21(1):70-76.
2. Hawkins RC. Age and gender as risk factors for hyponatremia and hypernatremia. Clin Chim Acta. 2003;337(1-2):169-172.
3. Renneboog B, Musch W, Vandemergel X, Manto MU, Decaux G. Mild chronic hyponatremia is associated with falls, unsteadiness, and attention deficits. Am J Med. 2006;119(1):71.e1-8.
4. McGee S, Abernethy WB 3rd, Simel DL. The rational clinical examination: Is this patient hypovolemic? JAMA. 1999;281(11):1022-1029.
5. Chung HM, Kluge R, Schrier RW, Anderson RJ. Clinical assessment of extracellular fluid volume in hyponatremia. Am J Med. 1987;83(5):905-908.
6. Passamonte PM. Hypouricemia, inappropriate secretion of antidiuretic hormone, and small cell carcinoma of the lung. Arch Intern Med. 1984;144(8):1569-1570.
7. Verbalis JG, Goldsmith SR, Greenberg A, et al. Diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of hyponatremia: expert panel recommendations. Am J Med. 2013;126(10 Suppl 1):S1-42.
8. Rogers IR, Hook G, Stuempfle KJ, Hoffman MD, Hew-Butler, T. An intervention study of oral versus intravenous hypertonic saline administration in ultramarathon runners with exercise-associated hyponatremia: a preliminary randomized trial. Clin J Sport Med. 2011;21(3):200-203.
9. Adrogué HJ, Madias NE. Hyponatremia. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(21):1581-1589.
10. Tzamaloukas AH, Malhotra D, Rosen BH, Raj DS, Murata GH, Shapiro JI. Principles of management of severe hyponatremia. J Am Heart Assoc. 2013;2(1):e005199.
11. Sterns RH. Severe symptomatic hyponatremia: Treatment and outcome. A study of 64 cases. Ann Intern Med. 1987;107(5):656-664.
12. Karp BI, Laureno R. Pontine and extrapontine myelinolysis: a neurologic disorder following rapid correction of hyponatremia. Medicine (Baltimore). 1993;72(6):359-373.
13. Soupart A, Penninckx R, Crenier L, Stenuit A, Perier O, Decaux G. Prevention of brain demyelination in rats after excessive correction of chronic hyponatremia by serum sodium lowering. Kidney Int. 1994;45(1):193-200.
14. Schrier RW, Gross P, Gheorghiade M, et al. Tolvaptan, a selective oral vasopressin V2-receptor antagonist, for hyponatremia. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(20):2099-2112.
15. Yancy CW, Jessup M, Bozkurt B, et al. 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of heart failure: A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62(16):e147-239.

click for large version

Case

A 67-year-old male patient who has depression and is on sertraline presents with increasing confusion over the past week. Initial plasma sodium is 109 mEq/L. On exam, he weighs 70 kg and is euvolemic. His urine osmolarity (Uosm) is 800 mosm/L with a urine sodium (UNa) of 40 mEq/L. He is somnolent but awakens to sternal rub. How should this patient’s hyponatremia be evaluated and managed?

Overview

Hyponatremia, a disorder of excess total body water in relation to sodium, occurs in up to 42% of hospitalized patients.^1,2 Regardless of the cause, hyponatremia is usually associated with the syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone secretion (SIADH) or with the appropriate elevation of antidiuretic hormone (ADH), known as hypovolemia. ADH is produced in the hypothalamus and released in the posterior pituitary in response to increasing plasma osmolarity (pOSM) or effective circulating volume depletion. ADH acts in the cortical collecting duct to increase the number of luminal aquaporin channels, increasing water reabsorption and decreasing plasma osmolarity. When hyponatremia is severe, the movement of water into cells causes cellular brain swelling, and clinical symptoms progress from malaise, headache, and nausea to obtundation, seizures, or respiratory arrest (see Figure 1). Even mild, chronic hyponatremia (120-131 mEq/L) is associated with an increased risk of falls due to mild gait and attention impairment.³

Evaluation

Step 1: Plasma osmolarity

The first step in diagnosing the cause of hyponatremia and treating it is to measure pOSM. The majority of patients with hyponatremia have hypoosmolar hyponatremia and therefore have a low pOSM; however, patients may have normal or high osmolarity. Hyponatremia with normal osmolarity can be caused by pseudohyponatremia (i.e., hyperglycemia, paraproteinemia, hyperlipidemia), severe renal failure, ingestion of excess alcohol, or post-transurethral resection of prostate or bladder.

Hyponatremia with high pOSM occurs as a result of elevated levels of an extra solute in the plasma that does not readily enter cells. This draws water into the extracellular fluid and lowers the sodium concentration. This will most commonly result from hyperglycemia or infusion of mannitol.

Step 2: Assess volume status with physical exam, urine sodium (UNa)

The majority of patients with hyponatremia will have low pOSM. These patients should be categorized by volume status: hypovolemic, euvolemic, or hypervolemic (see Figure 2). On exam, hypervolemia is usually evident, and the cause of hypervolemic hyponatremia is usually elicited from a patient’s history; however, differentiating between hypovolemic and euvolemic hyponatremia by history and physical exam can be difficult, because examination findings are neither sensitive nor specific.⁴ UNa should always be evaluated, especially when differentiating between hypovolemic and euvolemic. This was illustrated in a study of 58 non-edematous patients with hyponatremia. Investigators determined which patients had hypovolemic hyponatremia based on their response to saline infusion. Of the patients identified as hypovolemic using physical exam, only 47% responded to saline. In contrast, a spot UNa of less than 30 mEq/L was 80% sensitive and 100% specific for saline responsiveness.⁵ Although the majority of hypovolemic hyponatremia patients will have a low UNa, the following causes of hypovolemic hyponatremia can result in high UNa: diuretics, adrenal insufficiency, salt-wasting nephropathy, and cerebral salt-wasting.

A low serum uric acid can also be useful in differentiating hypovolemic and euvolemic hyponatremia, which is most commonly caused by SIADH. In SIADH, there is urinary wasting of uric acid, which leads to low serum uric acid. In a study of 105 patients with lung cancer, a serum uric acid of less than 4 mg/dL was 75% sensitive and 89% specific for SIADH.⁶

click for large version

Step 3: Urine osmolarity

After determining volume status, the physician should determine if there is excess ADH by measuring Uosm. Under normal conditions, hyponatremia should suppress ADH secretion and allow the kidney to excrete water by diluting the urine to less than 100 mosm/L. If Uosm is less than 100 mosm/L, then the kidneys are responding appropriately and can only persist in the following situations: The patient is drinking large volumes of water (e.g. primary polydipsia), there is insufficient solute to excrete free water (e.g. beer potomania, “tea and toast” diet), or the patient has a different set point for ADH suppression (i.e., reset osmostat). After determining volume status, UNa, and Uosm, the physician will have narrowed the cause of hyponatremia significantly (see Figure 2). Of note, when SIADH is diagnosed, it is important to look for and reverse causes (see Figure 3).

click for large version

click for large version

Treatment

Severe symptomatic hyponatremia

In patients with severe neurologic symptoms, physicians must balance the need to reduce symptoms quickly with the dangers of overly rapid correction. After its use in marathon runners, several experts have endorsed the following regimen to reduce symptoms rapidly: an intravenous bolus of 100 mL of 3% saline is given and repeated if symptoms persist after 10 minutes.7,8 Once symptoms improve, the basal rate can be calculated using the equation below, but the rate of sodium correction in 24 hours with this regimen should not exceed 6 to 8 mEq/L in 24 hours or 12 to 14 mEq/L in 48 hours.^9,10 This is based on several case studies showing that there were no cases of central pontine myelinolysis (CPM) if correction rates were less than 10 mEq/L over 24 hours.^11,12

It is important to remember that this is only a rough guide, because the equation assumes the entire infusate is retained and there is no sodium or water output. The best way to avoid overly rapid correction is to check serum sodium every two hours and monitor urine output closely. If the patient is making large volumes of urine, serum sodium may be rising too quickly. If the patient corrects too rapidly, it may be possible to avoid CPM by re-lowering the sodium.13 This can be accomplished by giving desmopressin to slow urinary free water loss while simultaneously giving hypotonic fluids.

Asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic hyponatremia

Hypovolemic hyponatremia: Treatment of hypovolemic hyponatremia is aimed at correcting volume status, the underlying problem that drives ADH secretion. The body will always choose to preserve volume over osmolarity. In most cases, normal saline (NS) should be used to restore intravascular volume, and the rate of infusion can be calculated using the same equation as above. Once volume is replete, ADH release will cease. Patients will be in danger of overly rapid correction of serum sodium, so fluids should be switched to hypotonic solutions, such as ½ NS.

Euvolemic Hyponatremia: Euvolemic hyponatremia, typically caused by SIADH, is characterized by a high Uosm (>100 mosm/L) and a high UNa (>30 mEq/L). All patients require free water restriction, and fluid intake should be at least 500 mL below a patient’s urine output, usually one liter or less. If this is ineffective, salt tabs can be given. Salt tabs will increase the solute load, necessitating an increase in urine output. Patients should be given approximately nine grams of salt tabs in three divided doses (equivalent to 1 L of NS). Patients with highly concentrated urine (Uosm >500 mosm/L) will not respond as well to the salt load, because the kidneys will continue to excrete much of the sodium in a concentrated urine. In such patients, a loop diuretic can be used to help excrete free water, because it decreases the Uosm to about ½ NS (154 mOsm/L). One possible regimen is 20-40 mg of oral furosemide two to three times daily.

Hypervolemic Hyponatremia: Hypervolemic hyponatremia is caused by congestive heart failure (CHF), cirrhosis, or nephrotic syndrome. In all cases, there is excess ADH as a result of the carotid baroreceptors sensing a decrease in effective circulation volume. In the case of CHF and cirrhosis, the degree of hyponatremia is a marker of disease severity, but there is no data to show that correction of hyponatremia improves outcomes. Fluid restriction is the cornerstone of therapy, but if the patient’s volume status is not optimized, then loop diuretics may improve hyponatremia through excretion of diluted urine. In addition, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors can improve hyponatremia in CHF by reducing ADH levels and improving cardiac output via afterload reduction.

There has been recent interest in the use of vasopressin V2 receptor antagonists or “vaptans.” The SALT 1 and 2 trials, which included patients with CHF and cirrhosis, showed that they are effective in increasing serum sodium and improving mental function in the short term. But there are concerns about hepatotoxicity, overly rapid correction of serum sodium, lack of mortality benefit, and cost.¹⁴ The latest American Heart Association CHF guidelines recommend (class IIb) vaptans in patients with “hyponatremia that may be causing cognitive symptoms when standard measures have failed.”¹⁵ Tolvaptan, in particular, should not be used in cirrhotic patients due to concerns of hepatotoxicity.

Outcome of the Case

Because of the high UNa and Uosm and the use of a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), the treating physician suspects the patient has SIADH. Given the severe symptoms, he is given 100 mL of 3% hypertonic saline and experiences improvement in his lethargy. Repeat sodium is 112 mEq/L. Using the equation above, a basal rate is calculated:

Change in serum sodium from 1 L of 3% saline= 514 mEq/L -112 mEq/L = 9.4 mEq 43 L

Because the goal correction rate is 6-8 mEq/L in 24 hours and the sodium has already increased by three, the physician elects to increase the sodium by 5 mEq/L for a total of 8 mEq/L for 24 hours:

5.0 mEq x 1000 ml = 532 ml of 3% saline ÷ 24 hours = 22 mL/hr. 9.4 mEq

Serum sodium is checked every two hours. The following day, the sodium is 115 mEq/L and the patient is fully alert. The hypertonic saline is stopped and the patient is maintained on free water restriction. Some 72 hours later, the sodium is 124 mEq/L.

Dr. Chang is co-director of the medicine-geriatrics clerkship, director of education in the division of hospital medicine, and assistant professor in the department of medicine at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York City. Dr. Madeira is clinical instructor in the department of general internal medicine at the NYU School of Medicine and a hospitalist at the VA NY Harbor Healthcare System.

References

1. Hoorn EJ, Lindemans J, Zietse R. Development of severe hyponatraemia in hospitalized patients: Treatment-related risk factors and inadequate management. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2006;21(1):70-76.
2. Hawkins RC. Age and gender as risk factors for hyponatremia and hypernatremia. Clin Chim Acta. 2003;337(1-2):169-172.
3. Renneboog B, Musch W, Vandemergel X, Manto MU, Decaux G. Mild chronic hyponatremia is associated with falls, unsteadiness, and attention deficits. Am J Med. 2006;119(1):71.e1-8.
4. McGee S, Abernethy WB 3rd, Simel DL. The rational clinical examination: Is this patient hypovolemic? JAMA. 1999;281(11):1022-1029.
5. Chung HM, Kluge R, Schrier RW, Anderson RJ. Clinical assessment of extracellular fluid volume in hyponatremia. Am J Med. 1987;83(5):905-908.
6. Passamonte PM. Hypouricemia, inappropriate secretion of antidiuretic hormone, and small cell carcinoma of the lung. Arch Intern Med. 1984;144(8):1569-1570.
7. Verbalis JG, Goldsmith SR, Greenberg A, et al. Diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of hyponatremia: expert panel recommendations. Am J Med. 2013;126(10 Suppl 1):S1-42.
8. Rogers IR, Hook G, Stuempfle KJ, Hoffman MD, Hew-Butler, T. An intervention study of oral versus intravenous hypertonic saline administration in ultramarathon runners with exercise-associated hyponatremia: a preliminary randomized trial. Clin J Sport Med. 2011;21(3):200-203.
9. Adrogué HJ, Madias NE. Hyponatremia. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(21):1581-1589.
10. Tzamaloukas AH, Malhotra D, Rosen BH, Raj DS, Murata GH, Shapiro JI. Principles of management of severe hyponatremia. J Am Heart Assoc. 2013;2(1):e005199.
11. Sterns RH. Severe symptomatic hyponatremia: Treatment and outcome. A study of 64 cases. Ann Intern Med. 1987;107(5):656-664.
12. Karp BI, Laureno R. Pontine and extrapontine myelinolysis: a neurologic disorder following rapid correction of hyponatremia. Medicine (Baltimore). 1993;72(6):359-373.
13. Soupart A, Penninckx R, Crenier L, Stenuit A, Perier O, Decaux G. Prevention of brain demyelination in rats after excessive correction of chronic hyponatremia by serum sodium lowering. Kidney Int. 1994;45(1):193-200.
14. Schrier RW, Gross P, Gheorghiade M, et al. Tolvaptan, a selective oral vasopressin V2-receptor antagonist, for hyponatremia. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(20):2099-2112.
15. Yancy CW, Jessup M, Bozkurt B, et al. 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of heart failure: A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62(16):e147-239.

click for large version

Case

A 67-year-old male patient who has depression and is on sertraline presents with increasing confusion over the past week. Initial plasma sodium is 109 mEq/L. On exam, he weighs 70 kg and is euvolemic. His urine osmolarity (Uosm) is 800 mosm/L with a urine sodium (UNa) of 40 mEq/L. He is somnolent but awakens to sternal rub. How should this patient’s hyponatremia be evaluated and managed?

Overview

Hyponatremia, a disorder of excess total body water in relation to sodium, occurs in up to 42% of hospitalized patients.^1,2 Regardless of the cause, hyponatremia is usually associated with the syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone secretion (SIADH) or with the appropriate elevation of antidiuretic hormone (ADH), known as hypovolemia. ADH is produced in the hypothalamus and released in the posterior pituitary in response to increasing plasma osmolarity (pOSM) or effective circulating volume depletion. ADH acts in the cortical collecting duct to increase the number of luminal aquaporin channels, increasing water reabsorption and decreasing plasma osmolarity. When hyponatremia is severe, the movement of water into cells causes cellular brain swelling, and clinical symptoms progress from malaise, headache, and nausea to obtundation, seizures, or respiratory arrest (see Figure 1). Even mild, chronic hyponatremia (120-131 mEq/L) is associated with an increased risk of falls due to mild gait and attention impairment.³

Evaluation

Step 1: Plasma osmolarity

The first step in diagnosing the cause of hyponatremia and treating it is to measure pOSM. The majority of patients with hyponatremia have hypoosmolar hyponatremia and therefore have a low pOSM; however, patients may have normal or high osmolarity. Hyponatremia with normal osmolarity can be caused by pseudohyponatremia (i.e., hyperglycemia, paraproteinemia, hyperlipidemia), severe renal failure, ingestion of excess alcohol, or post-transurethral resection of prostate or bladder.

Hyponatremia with high pOSM occurs as a result of elevated levels of an extra solute in the plasma that does not readily enter cells. This draws water into the extracellular fluid and lowers the sodium concentration. This will most commonly result from hyperglycemia or infusion of mannitol.

Step 2: Assess volume status with physical exam, urine sodium (UNa)

The majority of patients with hyponatremia will have low pOSM. These patients should be categorized by volume status: hypovolemic, euvolemic, or hypervolemic (see Figure 2). On exam, hypervolemia is usually evident, and the cause of hypervolemic hyponatremia is usually elicited from a patient’s history; however, differentiating between hypovolemic and euvolemic hyponatremia by history and physical exam can be difficult, because examination findings are neither sensitive nor specific.⁴ UNa should always be evaluated, especially when differentiating between hypovolemic and euvolemic. This was illustrated in a study of 58 non-edematous patients with hyponatremia. Investigators determined which patients had hypovolemic hyponatremia based on their response to saline infusion. Of the patients identified as hypovolemic using physical exam, only 47% responded to saline. In contrast, a spot UNa of less than 30 mEq/L was 80% sensitive and 100% specific for saline responsiveness.⁵ Although the majority of hypovolemic hyponatremia patients will have a low UNa, the following causes of hypovolemic hyponatremia can result in high UNa: diuretics, adrenal insufficiency, salt-wasting nephropathy, and cerebral salt-wasting.

A low serum uric acid can also be useful in differentiating hypovolemic and euvolemic hyponatremia, which is most commonly caused by SIADH. In SIADH, there is urinary wasting of uric acid, which leads to low serum uric acid. In a study of 105 patients with lung cancer, a serum uric acid of less than 4 mg/dL was 75% sensitive and 89% specific for SIADH.⁶

click for large version

Step 3: Urine osmolarity

After determining volume status, the physician should determine if there is excess ADH by measuring Uosm. Under normal conditions, hyponatremia should suppress ADH secretion and allow the kidney to excrete water by diluting the urine to less than 100 mosm/L. If Uosm is less than 100 mosm/L, then the kidneys are responding appropriately and can only persist in the following situations: The patient is drinking large volumes of water (e.g. primary polydipsia), there is insufficient solute to excrete free water (e.g. beer potomania, “tea and toast” diet), or the patient has a different set point for ADH suppression (i.e., reset osmostat). After determining volume status, UNa, and Uosm, the physician will have narrowed the cause of hyponatremia significantly (see Figure 2). Of note, when SIADH is diagnosed, it is important to look for and reverse causes (see Figure 3).

click for large version

click for large version

Treatment

Severe symptomatic hyponatremia

In patients with severe neurologic symptoms, physicians must balance the need to reduce symptoms quickly with the dangers of overly rapid correction. After its use in marathon runners, several experts have endorsed the following regimen to reduce symptoms rapidly: an intravenous bolus of 100 mL of 3% saline is given and repeated if symptoms persist after 10 minutes.7,8 Once symptoms improve, the basal rate can be calculated using the equation below, but the rate of sodium correction in 24 hours with this regimen should not exceed 6 to 8 mEq/L in 24 hours or 12 to 14 mEq/L in 48 hours.^9,10 This is based on several case studies showing that there were no cases of central pontine myelinolysis (CPM) if correction rates were less than 10 mEq/L over 24 hours.^11,12

It is important to remember that this is only a rough guide, because the equation assumes the entire infusate is retained and there is no sodium or water output. The best way to avoid overly rapid correction is to check serum sodium every two hours and monitor urine output closely. If the patient is making large volumes of urine, serum sodium may be rising too quickly. If the patient corrects too rapidly, it may be possible to avoid CPM by re-lowering the sodium.13 This can be accomplished by giving desmopressin to slow urinary free water loss while simultaneously giving hypotonic fluids.

Asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic hyponatremia

Hypovolemic hyponatremia: Treatment of hypovolemic hyponatremia is aimed at correcting volume status, the underlying problem that drives ADH secretion. The body will always choose to preserve volume over osmolarity. In most cases, normal saline (NS) should be used to restore intravascular volume, and the rate of infusion can be calculated using the same equation as above. Once volume is replete, ADH release will cease. Patients will be in danger of overly rapid correction of serum sodium, so fluids should be switched to hypotonic solutions, such as ½ NS.

Euvolemic Hyponatremia: Euvolemic hyponatremia, typically caused by SIADH, is characterized by a high Uosm (>100 mosm/L) and a high UNa (>30 mEq/L). All patients require free water restriction, and fluid intake should be at least 500 mL below a patient’s urine output, usually one liter or less. If this is ineffective, salt tabs can be given. Salt tabs will increase the solute load, necessitating an increase in urine output. Patients should be given approximately nine grams of salt tabs in three divided doses (equivalent to 1 L of NS). Patients with highly concentrated urine (Uosm >500 mosm/L) will not respond as well to the salt load, because the kidneys will continue to excrete much of the sodium in a concentrated urine. In such patients, a loop diuretic can be used to help excrete free water, because it decreases the Uosm to about ½ NS (154 mOsm/L). One possible regimen is 20-40 mg of oral furosemide two to three times daily.

Hypervolemic Hyponatremia: Hypervolemic hyponatremia is caused by congestive heart failure (CHF), cirrhosis, or nephrotic syndrome. In all cases, there is excess ADH as a result of the carotid baroreceptors sensing a decrease in effective circulation volume. In the case of CHF and cirrhosis, the degree of hyponatremia is a marker of disease severity, but there is no data to show that correction of hyponatremia improves outcomes. Fluid restriction is the cornerstone of therapy, but if the patient’s volume status is not optimized, then loop diuretics may improve hyponatremia through excretion of diluted urine. In addition, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors can improve hyponatremia in CHF by reducing ADH levels and improving cardiac output via afterload reduction.

There has been recent interest in the use of vasopressin V2 receptor antagonists or “vaptans.” The SALT 1 and 2 trials, which included patients with CHF and cirrhosis, showed that they are effective in increasing serum sodium and improving mental function in the short term. But there are concerns about hepatotoxicity, overly rapid correction of serum sodium, lack of mortality benefit, and cost.¹⁴ The latest American Heart Association CHF guidelines recommend (class IIb) vaptans in patients with “hyponatremia that may be causing cognitive symptoms when standard measures have failed.”¹⁵ Tolvaptan, in particular, should not be used in cirrhotic patients due to concerns of hepatotoxicity.

Outcome of the Case

Because of the high UNa and Uosm and the use of a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), the treating physician suspects the patient has SIADH. Given the severe symptoms, he is given 100 mL of 3% hypertonic saline and experiences improvement in his lethargy. Repeat sodium is 112 mEq/L. Using the equation above, a basal rate is calculated:

Change in serum sodium from 1 L of 3% saline= 514 mEq/L -112 mEq/L = 9.4 mEq 43 L

Because the goal correction rate is 6-8 mEq/L in 24 hours and the sodium has already increased by three, the physician elects to increase the sodium by 5 mEq/L for a total of 8 mEq/L for 24 hours:

5.0 mEq x 1000 ml = 532 ml of 3% saline ÷ 24 hours = 22 mL/hr. 9.4 mEq

Serum sodium is checked every two hours. The following day, the sodium is 115 mEq/L and the patient is fully alert. The hypertonic saline is stopped and the patient is maintained on free water restriction. Some 72 hours later, the sodium is 124 mEq/L.

Dr. Chang is co-director of the medicine-geriatrics clerkship, director of education in the division of hospital medicine, and assistant professor in the department of medicine at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York City. Dr. Madeira is clinical instructor in the department of general internal medicine at the NYU School of Medicine and a hospitalist at the VA NY Harbor Healthcare System.

References

1. Hoorn EJ, Lindemans J, Zietse R. Development of severe hyponatraemia in hospitalized patients: Treatment-related risk factors and inadequate management. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2006;21(1):70-76.
2. Hawkins RC. Age and gender as risk factors for hyponatremia and hypernatremia. Clin Chim Acta. 2003;337(1-2):169-172.
3. Renneboog B, Musch W, Vandemergel X, Manto MU, Decaux G. Mild chronic hyponatremia is associated with falls, unsteadiness, and attention deficits. Am J Med. 2006;119(1):71.e1-8.
4. McGee S, Abernethy WB 3rd, Simel DL. The rational clinical examination: Is this patient hypovolemic? JAMA. 1999;281(11):1022-1029.
5. Chung HM, Kluge R, Schrier RW, Anderson RJ. Clinical assessment of extracellular fluid volume in hyponatremia. Am J Med. 1987;83(5):905-908.
6. Passamonte PM. Hypouricemia, inappropriate secretion of antidiuretic hormone, and small cell carcinoma of the lung. Arch Intern Med. 1984;144(8):1569-1570.
7. Verbalis JG, Goldsmith SR, Greenberg A, et al. Diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of hyponatremia: expert panel recommendations. Am J Med. 2013;126(10 Suppl 1):S1-42.
8. Rogers IR, Hook G, Stuempfle KJ, Hoffman MD, Hew-Butler, T. An intervention study of oral versus intravenous hypertonic saline administration in ultramarathon runners with exercise-associated hyponatremia: a preliminary randomized trial. Clin J Sport Med. 2011;21(3):200-203.
9. Adrogué HJ, Madias NE. Hyponatremia. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(21):1581-1589.
10. Tzamaloukas AH, Malhotra D, Rosen BH, Raj DS, Murata GH, Shapiro JI. Principles of management of severe hyponatremia. J Am Heart Assoc. 2013;2(1):e005199.
11. Sterns RH. Severe symptomatic hyponatremia: Treatment and outcome. A study of 64 cases. Ann Intern Med. 1987;107(5):656-664.
12. Karp BI, Laureno R. Pontine and extrapontine myelinolysis: a neurologic disorder following rapid correction of hyponatremia. Medicine (Baltimore). 1993;72(6):359-373.
13. Soupart A, Penninckx R, Crenier L, Stenuit A, Perier O, Decaux G. Prevention of brain demyelination in rats after excessive correction of chronic hyponatremia by serum sodium lowering. Kidney Int. 1994;45(1):193-200.
14. Schrier RW, Gross P, Gheorghiade M, et al. Tolvaptan, a selective oral vasopressin V2-receptor antagonist, for hyponatremia. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(20):2099-2112.
15. Yancy CW, Jessup M, Bozkurt B, et al. 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of heart failure: A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62(16):e147-239.

Financial pressures to reduce 30-day hospital readmissions and improve discharge processes continue to grow. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services started by penalizing hospitals for up to 1% of their Medicare reimbursement via the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program. By 2015, the program will penalize hospitals up to 3%.

This is no longer news to the hospital C-suite. A 2013 survey reported that 85% of hospital leaders had addressed the readmissions penalty in their business plan (http://content.hcpro.com/pdf/content/296905.pdf); however, the same survey revealed that only 62% of hospital leaders reported changes to clinical protocols and practices during acute care, and even fewer were providing care navigators or coaches for high-risk patients.

That’s where hospitalists can help. Through SHM’s Project BOOST, hospitalists and hospital-based care teams improve transition from hospital to home. Project BOOST also helps hospitals identify high-risk patients and target risk-specific interventions, a critical part of reducing readmissions.

Beyond the immediate financial implications, implementing programs like Project BOOST to reduce readmissions can position hospitals as leaders for better healthcare in their communities.

“I recommend Project BOOST enthusiastically and unequivocally,” says Manasi Kekan, MD, MS, FACP, medical director for Houston Methodist Hospital. “If implemented efficiently, it could result in a ‘win-win’ situation for patients, the hospital, and the healthcare providers.”

SHM is accepting applications for the 2014 Project BOOST cohort through August 30. For details and application, visit www.hospitalmedicine.org/boost.

Financial pressures to reduce 30-day hospital readmissions and improve discharge processes continue to grow. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services started by penalizing hospitals for up to 1% of their Medicare reimbursement via the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program. By 2015, the program will penalize hospitals up to 3%.

This is no longer news to the hospital C-suite. A 2013 survey reported that 85% of hospital leaders had addressed the readmissions penalty in their business plan (http://content.hcpro.com/pdf/content/296905.pdf); however, the same survey revealed that only 62% of hospital leaders reported changes to clinical protocols and practices during acute care, and even fewer were providing care navigators or coaches for high-risk patients.

That’s where hospitalists can help. Through SHM’s Project BOOST, hospitalists and hospital-based care teams improve transition from hospital to home. Project BOOST also helps hospitals identify high-risk patients and target risk-specific interventions, a critical part of reducing readmissions.

Beyond the immediate financial implications, implementing programs like Project BOOST to reduce readmissions can position hospitals as leaders for better healthcare in their communities.

“I recommend Project BOOST enthusiastically and unequivocally,” says Manasi Kekan, MD, MS, FACP, medical director for Houston Methodist Hospital. “If implemented efficiently, it could result in a ‘win-win’ situation for patients, the hospital, and the healthcare providers.”

SHM is accepting applications for the 2014 Project BOOST cohort through August 30. For details and application, visit www.hospitalmedicine.org/boost.

Financial pressures to reduce 30-day hospital readmissions and improve discharge processes continue to grow. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services started by penalizing hospitals for up to 1% of their Medicare reimbursement via the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program. By 2015, the program will penalize hospitals up to 3%.

This is no longer news to the hospital C-suite. A 2013 survey reported that 85% of hospital leaders had addressed the readmissions penalty in their business plan (http://content.hcpro.com/pdf/content/296905.pdf); however, the same survey revealed that only 62% of hospital leaders reported changes to clinical protocols and practices during acute care, and even fewer were providing care navigators or coaches for high-risk patients.

That’s where hospitalists can help. Through SHM’s Project BOOST, hospitalists and hospital-based care teams improve transition from hospital to home. Project BOOST also helps hospitals identify high-risk patients and target risk-specific interventions, a critical part of reducing readmissions.

Beyond the immediate financial implications, implementing programs like Project BOOST to reduce readmissions can position hospitals as leaders for better healthcare in their communities.

“I recommend Project BOOST enthusiastically and unequivocally,” says Manasi Kekan, MD, MS, FACP, medical director for Houston Methodist Hospital. “If implemented efficiently, it could result in a ‘win-win’ situation for patients, the hospital, and the healthcare providers.”

SHM is accepting applications for the 2014 Project BOOST cohort through August 30. For details and application, visit www.hospitalmedicine.org/boost.