Hospital Medicine

A delay of more than 1 week in admitting elderly hip fracture patients is associated with a significant increase in 1-year mortality, a retrospective, observational study suggests.

Among 867 elderly patients who underwent hip fracture surgery at a university hospital in China and who were available for follow-up, the proportion hospitalized on the day of injury was 25.4%, and the proportion hospitalized on days 1, 2, and 7 after injury were 54.7%, 66.3%, and 12.6%, respectively, reported Wei He, MD, of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China, and colleagues in the World Journal of Emergency Medicine.

The mean time from admission to surgery was 5.2 days. Mortality rates at 1 year, 3 months, and 1 month after surgery were 10.5%, 5.4%, and 3.3%, respectively. Hospitalization at 7 or more days after injury was an independent risk factor for 1-year mortality (odds ratio, 1.76), the authors found.

Although the influence of surgical delay on mortality and morbidity among hip fracture patients has been widely studied, most data focus on surgery timing among hospitalized patients and fail to consider preadmission waiting time, they noted.

The current study aimed to assess outcomes based on “actual preadmission waiting time” through an analysis of data and surgical outcomes from a hospital electronic medical record system and from postoperative telephone interviews. Study subjects were patients aged over 65 years who underwent hip fracture surgery between Jan. 1, 2014, and Dec. 31, 2017. The mean age was 81.4 years, 74.7% of the patients were women, 67.1% had femoral neck fracture, and 56.1% had hip replacement surgery.

The findings, though limited by the retrospective nature of the study and the single-center design, suggest that, under the current conditions in China, admission delay may increase 1-year mortality, they wrote, concluding that “[i]n addition to early surgery highlighted in the guidelines, we also advocate early admission.”

The authors reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: He W et al. World J Emerg Med. 2020;11(1):27-32.

A delay of more than 1 week in admitting elderly hip fracture patients is associated with a significant increase in 1-year mortality, a retrospective, observational study suggests.

Among 867 elderly patients who underwent hip fracture surgery at a university hospital in China and who were available for follow-up, the proportion hospitalized on the day of injury was 25.4%, and the proportion hospitalized on days 1, 2, and 7 after injury were 54.7%, 66.3%, and 12.6%, respectively, reported Wei He, MD, of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China, and colleagues in the World Journal of Emergency Medicine.

The mean time from admission to surgery was 5.2 days. Mortality rates at 1 year, 3 months, and 1 month after surgery were 10.5%, 5.4%, and 3.3%, respectively. Hospitalization at 7 or more days after injury was an independent risk factor for 1-year mortality (odds ratio, 1.76), the authors found.

Although the influence of surgical delay on mortality and morbidity among hip fracture patients has been widely studied, most data focus on surgery timing among hospitalized patients and fail to consider preadmission waiting time, they noted.

The current study aimed to assess outcomes based on “actual preadmission waiting time” through an analysis of data and surgical outcomes from a hospital electronic medical record system and from postoperative telephone interviews. Study subjects were patients aged over 65 years who underwent hip fracture surgery between Jan. 1, 2014, and Dec. 31, 2017. The mean age was 81.4 years, 74.7% of the patients were women, 67.1% had femoral neck fracture, and 56.1% had hip replacement surgery.

The findings, though limited by the retrospective nature of the study and the single-center design, suggest that, under the current conditions in China, admission delay may increase 1-year mortality, they wrote, concluding that “[i]n addition to early surgery highlighted in the guidelines, we also advocate early admission.”

The authors reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: He W et al. World J Emerg Med. 2020;11(1):27-32.

A delay of more than 1 week in admitting elderly hip fracture patients is associated with a significant increase in 1-year mortality, a retrospective, observational study suggests.

Among 867 elderly patients who underwent hip fracture surgery at a university hospital in China and who were available for follow-up, the proportion hospitalized on the day of injury was 25.4%, and the proportion hospitalized on days 1, 2, and 7 after injury were 54.7%, 66.3%, and 12.6%, respectively, reported Wei He, MD, of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China, and colleagues in the World Journal of Emergency Medicine.

The mean time from admission to surgery was 5.2 days. Mortality rates at 1 year, 3 months, and 1 month after surgery were 10.5%, 5.4%, and 3.3%, respectively. Hospitalization at 7 or more days after injury was an independent risk factor for 1-year mortality (odds ratio, 1.76), the authors found.

Although the influence of surgical delay on mortality and morbidity among hip fracture patients has been widely studied, most data focus on surgery timing among hospitalized patients and fail to consider preadmission waiting time, they noted.

The current study aimed to assess outcomes based on “actual preadmission waiting time” through an analysis of data and surgical outcomes from a hospital electronic medical record system and from postoperative telephone interviews. Study subjects were patients aged over 65 years who underwent hip fracture surgery between Jan. 1, 2014, and Dec. 31, 2017. The mean age was 81.4 years, 74.7% of the patients were women, 67.1% had femoral neck fracture, and 56.1% had hip replacement surgery.

The findings, though limited by the retrospective nature of the study and the single-center design, suggest that, under the current conditions in China, admission delay may increase 1-year mortality, they wrote, concluding that “[i]n addition to early surgery highlighted in the guidelines, we also advocate early admission.”

The authors reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: He W et al. World J Emerg Med. 2020;11(1):27-32.

Diseases of the musculoskeletal (MSK) system are common, accounting for some of the most frequent visits to primary care clinics.^1-3 In addition, care for patients with chronic MSK diseases represents a substantial economic burden.^4-6Unfortunately, despite the high prevalence and associated costs of these conditions, numerous reports have concluded that primary care providers (PCPs) are not well prepared to effectively address these problems due to gaps in health professions education (HPE) programs.^7-12 Among other effects, overutilization of high-cost diagnostic tools or specialty care providers are increasingly recognized as important drivers of unnecessary spending.^13-16

In response to this clinical training need, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) developed a portfolio of educational experiences for VHA health care providers and trainees, including both the Salt Lake City and National MSK “mini-residencies.”^17-19 These programs have educated more than 800 individuals. Early observations show a progressive increase in the number of joint injections performed at participant’s VHA clinics as well as a reduction in unnecessary magnetic resonance imaging orders of the knee.^20,21 These findings may be interpreted as markers for improved access to care for veterans as well as cost savings for the health care system.

The success of these early initiatives was recognized by the medical leadership of the VHA Simulation Learning, Education and Research Network (SimLEARN), who requested the Mini-Residency course directors to implement a similar educational program at the National Simulation Center in Orlando, Florida. SimLEARN was created to promote best practices in learning and education and provides a high-tech immersive environment for the development and delivery of simulation-based training curricula to facilitate workforce development.²² This article describes the initial experience of the VHA SimLEARN MSK continuing professional development (CPD) training programs, including curriculum design and educational impact on early learners, and how this informed additional CPD needs to continue advancing MSK education and care.

Methods

The initial vision was inspired by the national MSK Mini-Residency initiative for PCPs, which involved 13 US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers; its development, dissemination, and validity evidence for assessment methods have been previously described.^17,18,23 SimLEARN leadership attended a Mini-Residency, observing the educational experience and identifying learning objectives most aligned with national goals. The director and codirector of the MSK Mini-Residency (MJB, AMB) then worked with SimLEARN using its educational platform and train-the-trainer model to create a condensed 2-day course, centered on primary care evaluation and management of shoulder and knee pain. The course also included elements supporting educational leaders in providing similar trainings at their local facility (Table 1).

Curriculum was introduced through didactics and reinforced in hands-on sessions enhanced by peer-teaching, arthrocentesis task trainers, and simulated patient experiences. At the end of day 1, participants engaged in critical reflection, reviewing knowledge and skills they had acquired.

On day 2, each participant was evaluated using an observed structured clinical examination (OSCE) for the shoulder, followed by an observed structured teaching experience (OSTE). Given the complexity of the physical examination and the greater potential for appropriate interpretation of clinical findings to influence best practice care, the shoulder was emphasized for these experiences. Time constraints of a 2-day program based on SimLEARN format requirements prevented including an additional OSCE for the knee. At the conclusion of the course, faculty and participants discussed strategies for bringing this educational experience to learners at their local facilities as well as for avoiding potential barriers to implementation. The course was accredited through the VHA Employee Education System (EES), and participants received 16 hours of CPD credit.

Participants

Opportunity to attend was communicated through national, regional, and local VHA organizational networks. Participants self-registered online through the VHA Talent Management System, the main learning resource for VHA employee education, and registration was open to both PCPs and clinician educators. Class size was limited to 10 to facilitate detailed faculty observation during skill acquisition experiences, simulations, and assessment exercises.

Program Evaluation

A standard process for evaluating and measuring learning objectives was performed through VHA EES. Self-assessment surveys and OSCEs were used to assess the activity.

Self-assessment surveys were administered at the beginning and end of the program. Content was adapted from that used in the national MSK Mini-Residency initiative and revised by experts in survey design.^18,24,25 Pre- and postcourse surveys asked participants to rate how important it was for them to be competent in evaluating shoulder and knee pain and in performing related joint injections, as well as to rate their level of confidence in their ability to evaluate and manage these conditions. The survey used 5 construct-specific response options distributed equally on a visual scale. Participants’ learning goals were collected on the precourse survey.

Participants’ competence in performing and interpreting a systematic and thorough physical examination of the shoulder and in suggesting a reasonable plan of management were assessed using a single-station OSCE. This tool, which presented learners with a simulated case depicting rotator cuff pathology, has been described in multiple educational settings, and validity evidence supporting its use has been published.^18,19,23 Course faculty conducted the OSCE, one as the simulated patient, the other as the rater. Immediately following the examination, both faculty conducted a debriefing session with each participant. The OSCE was scored using the validated checklist for specific elements of the shoulder exam, followed by a structured sequence of questions exploring participants’ interpretation of findings, diagnostic impressions, and recommendations for initial management. Scores for participants’ differential diagnosis were based on the completeness and specificity of diagnoses given; scores for management plans were based on appropriateness and accuracy of both the primary and secondary approach to treatment or further diagnostic efforts. A global rating (range 1 to 9) was assigned, independent of scores in other domains.

Following the OSCE, participants rotated through a 3-cycle OSTE where they practiced the roles of simulated patient, learner, and educator. Faculty observed each OSTE and led focused debriefing sessions immediately following each rotation to facilitate participants’ critical reflection of their involvement in these elements of the course. This exercise was formative without quantitative assessment of performance.

Statistical Analysis

Pre- and postsurvey data were analyzed using a paired Student t test. Comparisons between multiple variables (eg, OSCE scores by years of experience or level of credentials) were analyzed using analysis of variance. Relationships between variables were analyzed with a Pearson correlation. All statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS, Version 24 (Armonk, NY).

This project was reviewed by the institutional review board of the University of Utah and the Salt Lake City VA and was determined to be exempt from review because the work did not meet the definition of research with human subjects and was considered a quality improvement study.

Results

Twenty-four participants completed the program over 3 course offerings between February and May 2016, and all completed pre- and postcourse self-assessment surveys (Table 2). Self-ratings of the importance of competence in shoulder and knee MSK skills remained high before and after the course, and confidence improved significantly across all learning objectives. Despite the emphasis on the evaluation and management of shoulder pain, participants’ self-confidence still improved significantly with the knee—though these improvements were generally smaller in scale compared with those of the shoulder.

Overall OSCE scores and scores by domain were not found to be statistically different based on either years of experience or by level of credential or specialty (advanced practice registered nurse/physician assistant, PCP, or specialty care physician)(Table 3). However, there was a trend toward higher performance among the specialty care physician group, and a trend toward lower performance among participants with less than 3 years’ experience.

Discussion

Building on the foundation of other successful innovations in MSK education, the first year of the SimLEARN National MSK Training Program demonstrated the feasibility of a 2-day centralized national course as a method to increase participants’ confidence and competence in evaluating and managing MSK problems, and to disseminate a portable curriculum to a range of clinician educators. Although this course focused on developing competence for shoulder skills, including an OSCE on day 2, self-perceived improvements in participants’ ability to evaluate and manage knee pain were observed. Future program refinement and follow-up of participants’ experience and needs may lead to increased time allocated to the knee exam as well as objective measures of competence for knee skills.

In comparing our findings to the work that others have previously described, we looked for reports of CPD programs in 2 contexts: those that focused on acquisition of MSK skills relevant to clinical practice, and those designed as clinician educator or faculty development initiatives. Although there are few reports of MSK-themed CPD experiences designed specifically for nurses and allied health professionals, a recent effort to survey members of these disciplines in the United Kingdom was an important contribution to a systematic needs assessment.^26-28 Increased support from leadership, mostly in terms of time allowance and budgetary support, was identified as an important driver to facilitate participation in MSK CPD experiences. Through SimLEARN, the VHA is investing in CPD, providing the MSK Training Programs and other courses at no cost to its employees.

Most published reports on physician education have not evaluated content knowledge or physical examination skills with measures for which validity evidence has been published.^19,29,30 One notable exception is the 2000 Canadian Viscosupplementation Injector Preceptor experience, in which Bellamy and colleagues examined patient outcomes in evaluating their program.³¹

Our experience is congruent with the work of Macedo and colleagues and Sturpe and colleagues, who described the effectiveness and acceptability of an OSTE for faculty development.^32,33 These studies emphasize debriefing, a critical element in faculty development identified by Steinert and colleagues in a 2006 best evidence medical education (BEME) review.³⁴ The shoulder OSTE was one of the most well-received elements of our course, and each debrief was critical to facilitating rich discussions between educators and practitioners playing the role of teacher or student during this simulated experience, gaining insight into each other’s perspectives.

This program has several significant strengths: First, this is the most recent step in the development of a portfolio of innovative MSK CPD programs that were envisioned through a systematic process involving projections of cost-effectiveness, local pilot testing, and national expansion.^17,18,35 Second, the SimLEARN program uses assessment tools for which validity evidence has been published, made available for reflective critique by educational scholars.^19,23 This supports a national consortium of MSK educators, advancing clinical teaching and educational scholarship, and creating opportunities for interprofessional collaboration in congruence with the vision expressed in the 2010 Institute of Medicine report, “Redesigning Continuing Education in the Health Professions,” as well as the 2016 update of the BEME recommendations for faculty development.^36,37

Our experience with the SimLEARN National MSK Training Program demonstrates need for 2 distinct courses: (1) the MSK Clinician—serving PCPs seeking to develop their skills in evaluating and managing patients with MSK problems; and (2), the MSK Master Educator—for those with preexisting content expertise who would value the introduction to a national curriculum and connections with other MSK master educators. Both of these are now offered regularly through SimLEARN for VHA and US Department of Defense employees. The MSK Clinician program establishes competence in systematically evaluating and managing shoulder and knee MSK problems in an educational setting and prepares participants for subsequent clinical experiences where they can perform related procedures if desired, under appropriate supervision. The Master Educator program introduces partici pants to the clinician curriculum and provides the opportunity to develop an individualized plan for implementation of an MSK educational program at their home institutions. Participants are selected through a competitive application process, and funding for travel to attend the Master Educator program is provided by SimLEARN for participants who are accepted. Additionally, the Master Educator program serves as a repository for potential future SimLEARN MSK Clinician course faculty.

Limitations

The small number of participants may limit the validity of our conclusions. Although we included an OSCE to measure competence in performing and interpreting the shoulder exam, the durability of these skills is not known. Periodic postcourse OSCEs could help determine this and refresh and preserve accuracy in the performance of specific maneuvers. Second, although this experience was rated highly by participants, we do not know the impact of the program on their daily work or career trajectory. Sustained follow-up of learners, perhaps developed on the model of the Long-Term Career Outcome Study, may increase the value of this experience for future participants.³⁸ This program appealed to a diverse pool of learners, with a broad range of precourse expertise and varied expectations of how course experiences would impact their future work and career development. Some clinical educator attendees came from tertiary care facilities affiliated with academic medical centers, held specialist or subspecialist credentials, and had formal responsibilities as leaders in HPE. Other clinical practitioner participants were solitary PCPs, often in rural or home-based settings; although they may have been eager to apply new knowledge and skills in patient care, they neither anticipated nor desired any role as an educator.

Conclusion

The initial SimLEARN MSK Training Program provides PCPs and clinician educators with rich learning experiences, increasing confidence in addressing MSK problems and competence in performing and interpreting a systematic physical examination of the shoulder. The success of this program has created new opportunities for practitioners seeking to strengthen clinical skills and for leaders in health professions education looking to disseminate similar trainings and connect with a national group of educators.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the faculty and staff at the Veterans Health Administration SimLEARN National Simulation Center, the faculty of the Salt Lake City Musculoskeletal Mini-Residency program, the supportive leadership of the George E. Wahlen Salt Lake City Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and the efforts of Danielle Blake for logistical support and data entry.

Diseases of the musculoskeletal (MSK) system are common, accounting for some of the most frequent visits to primary care clinics.^1-3 In addition, care for patients with chronic MSK diseases represents a substantial economic burden.^4-6Unfortunately, despite the high prevalence and associated costs of these conditions, numerous reports have concluded that primary care providers (PCPs) are not well prepared to effectively address these problems due to gaps in health professions education (HPE) programs.^7-12 Among other effects, overutilization of high-cost diagnostic tools or specialty care providers are increasingly recognized as important drivers of unnecessary spending.^13-16

In response to this clinical training need, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) developed a portfolio of educational experiences for VHA health care providers and trainees, including both the Salt Lake City and National MSK “mini-residencies.”^17-19 These programs have educated more than 800 individuals. Early observations show a progressive increase in the number of joint injections performed at participant’s VHA clinics as well as a reduction in unnecessary magnetic resonance imaging orders of the knee.^20,21 These findings may be interpreted as markers for improved access to care for veterans as well as cost savings for the health care system.

The success of these early initiatives was recognized by the medical leadership of the VHA Simulation Learning, Education and Research Network (SimLEARN), who requested the Mini-Residency course directors to implement a similar educational program at the National Simulation Center in Orlando, Florida. SimLEARN was created to promote best practices in learning and education and provides a high-tech immersive environment for the development and delivery of simulation-based training curricula to facilitate workforce development.²² This article describes the initial experience of the VHA SimLEARN MSK continuing professional development (CPD) training programs, including curriculum design and educational impact on early learners, and how this informed additional CPD needs to continue advancing MSK education and care.

Methods

The initial vision was inspired by the national MSK Mini-Residency initiative for PCPs, which involved 13 US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers; its development, dissemination, and validity evidence for assessment methods have been previously described.^17,18,23 SimLEARN leadership attended a Mini-Residency, observing the educational experience and identifying learning objectives most aligned with national goals. The director and codirector of the MSK Mini-Residency (MJB, AMB) then worked with SimLEARN using its educational platform and train-the-trainer model to create a condensed 2-day course, centered on primary care evaluation and management of shoulder and knee pain. The course also included elements supporting educational leaders in providing similar trainings at their local facility (Table 1).

Curriculum was introduced through didactics and reinforced in hands-on sessions enhanced by peer-teaching, arthrocentesis task trainers, and simulated patient experiences. At the end of day 1, participants engaged in critical reflection, reviewing knowledge and skills they had acquired.

On day 2, each participant was evaluated using an observed structured clinical examination (OSCE) for the shoulder, followed by an observed structured teaching experience (OSTE). Given the complexity of the physical examination and the greater potential for appropriate interpretation of clinical findings to influence best practice care, the shoulder was emphasized for these experiences. Time constraints of a 2-day program based on SimLEARN format requirements prevented including an additional OSCE for the knee. At the conclusion of the course, faculty and participants discussed strategies for bringing this educational experience to learners at their local facilities as well as for avoiding potential barriers to implementation. The course was accredited through the VHA Employee Education System (EES), and participants received 16 hours of CPD credit.

Participants

Opportunity to attend was communicated through national, regional, and local VHA organizational networks. Participants self-registered online through the VHA Talent Management System, the main learning resource for VHA employee education, and registration was open to both PCPs and clinician educators. Class size was limited to 10 to facilitate detailed faculty observation during skill acquisition experiences, simulations, and assessment exercises.

Program Evaluation

A standard process for evaluating and measuring learning objectives was performed through VHA EES. Self-assessment surveys and OSCEs were used to assess the activity.

Self-assessment surveys were administered at the beginning and end of the program. Content was adapted from that used in the national MSK Mini-Residency initiative and revised by experts in survey design.^18,24,25 Pre- and postcourse surveys asked participants to rate how important it was for them to be competent in evaluating shoulder and knee pain and in performing related joint injections, as well as to rate their level of confidence in their ability to evaluate and manage these conditions. The survey used 5 construct-specific response options distributed equally on a visual scale. Participants’ learning goals were collected on the precourse survey.

Participants’ competence in performing and interpreting a systematic and thorough physical examination of the shoulder and in suggesting a reasonable plan of management were assessed using a single-station OSCE. This tool, which presented learners with a simulated case depicting rotator cuff pathology, has been described in multiple educational settings, and validity evidence supporting its use has been published.^18,19,23 Course faculty conducted the OSCE, one as the simulated patient, the other as the rater. Immediately following the examination, both faculty conducted a debriefing session with each participant. The OSCE was scored using the validated checklist for specific elements of the shoulder exam, followed by a structured sequence of questions exploring participants’ interpretation of findings, diagnostic impressions, and recommendations for initial management. Scores for participants’ differential diagnosis were based on the completeness and specificity of diagnoses given; scores for management plans were based on appropriateness and accuracy of both the primary and secondary approach to treatment or further diagnostic efforts. A global rating (range 1 to 9) was assigned, independent of scores in other domains.

Following the OSCE, participants rotated through a 3-cycle OSTE where they practiced the roles of simulated patient, learner, and educator. Faculty observed each OSTE and led focused debriefing sessions immediately following each rotation to facilitate participants’ critical reflection of their involvement in these elements of the course. This exercise was formative without quantitative assessment of performance.

Statistical Analysis

Pre- and postsurvey data were analyzed using a paired Student t test. Comparisons between multiple variables (eg, OSCE scores by years of experience or level of credentials) were analyzed using analysis of variance. Relationships between variables were analyzed with a Pearson correlation. All statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS, Version 24 (Armonk, NY).

This project was reviewed by the institutional review board of the University of Utah and the Salt Lake City VA and was determined to be exempt from review because the work did not meet the definition of research with human subjects and was considered a quality improvement study.

Results

Twenty-four participants completed the program over 3 course offerings between February and May 2016, and all completed pre- and postcourse self-assessment surveys (Table 2). Self-ratings of the importance of competence in shoulder and knee MSK skills remained high before and after the course, and confidence improved significantly across all learning objectives. Despite the emphasis on the evaluation and management of shoulder pain, participants’ self-confidence still improved significantly with the knee—though these improvements were generally smaller in scale compared with those of the shoulder.

Overall OSCE scores and scores by domain were not found to be statistically different based on either years of experience or by level of credential or specialty (advanced practice registered nurse/physician assistant, PCP, or specialty care physician)(Table 3). However, there was a trend toward higher performance among the specialty care physician group, and a trend toward lower performance among participants with less than 3 years’ experience.

Discussion

Building on the foundation of other successful innovations in MSK education, the first year of the SimLEARN National MSK Training Program demonstrated the feasibility of a 2-day centralized national course as a method to increase participants’ confidence and competence in evaluating and managing MSK problems, and to disseminate a portable curriculum to a range of clinician educators. Although this course focused on developing competence for shoulder skills, including an OSCE on day 2, self-perceived improvements in participants’ ability to evaluate and manage knee pain were observed. Future program refinement and follow-up of participants’ experience and needs may lead to increased time allocated to the knee exam as well as objective measures of competence for knee skills.

In comparing our findings to the work that others have previously described, we looked for reports of CPD programs in 2 contexts: those that focused on acquisition of MSK skills relevant to clinical practice, and those designed as clinician educator or faculty development initiatives. Although there are few reports of MSK-themed CPD experiences designed specifically for nurses and allied health professionals, a recent effort to survey members of these disciplines in the United Kingdom was an important contribution to a systematic needs assessment.^26-28 Increased support from leadership, mostly in terms of time allowance and budgetary support, was identified as an important driver to facilitate participation in MSK CPD experiences. Through SimLEARN, the VHA is investing in CPD, providing the MSK Training Programs and other courses at no cost to its employees.

Most published reports on physician education have not evaluated content knowledge or physical examination skills with measures for which validity evidence has been published.^19,29,30 One notable exception is the 2000 Canadian Viscosupplementation Injector Preceptor experience, in which Bellamy and colleagues examined patient outcomes in evaluating their program.³¹

Our experience is congruent with the work of Macedo and colleagues and Sturpe and colleagues, who described the effectiveness and acceptability of an OSTE for faculty development.^32,33 These studies emphasize debriefing, a critical element in faculty development identified by Steinert and colleagues in a 2006 best evidence medical education (BEME) review.³⁴ The shoulder OSTE was one of the most well-received elements of our course, and each debrief was critical to facilitating rich discussions between educators and practitioners playing the role of teacher or student during this simulated experience, gaining insight into each other’s perspectives.

This program has several significant strengths: First, this is the most recent step in the development of a portfolio of innovative MSK CPD programs that were envisioned through a systematic process involving projections of cost-effectiveness, local pilot testing, and national expansion.^17,18,35 Second, the SimLEARN program uses assessment tools for which validity evidence has been published, made available for reflective critique by educational scholars.^19,23 This supports a national consortium of MSK educators, advancing clinical teaching and educational scholarship, and creating opportunities for interprofessional collaboration in congruence with the vision expressed in the 2010 Institute of Medicine report, “Redesigning Continuing Education in the Health Professions,” as well as the 2016 update of the BEME recommendations for faculty development.^36,37

Our experience with the SimLEARN National MSK Training Program demonstrates need for 2 distinct courses: (1) the MSK Clinician—serving PCPs seeking to develop their skills in evaluating and managing patients with MSK problems; and (2), the MSK Master Educator—for those with preexisting content expertise who would value the introduction to a national curriculum and connections with other MSK master educators. Both of these are now offered regularly through SimLEARN for VHA and US Department of Defense employees. The MSK Clinician program establishes competence in systematically evaluating and managing shoulder and knee MSK problems in an educational setting and prepares participants for subsequent clinical experiences where they can perform related procedures if desired, under appropriate supervision. The Master Educator program introduces partici pants to the clinician curriculum and provides the opportunity to develop an individualized plan for implementation of an MSK educational program at their home institutions. Participants are selected through a competitive application process, and funding for travel to attend the Master Educator program is provided by SimLEARN for participants who are accepted. Additionally, the Master Educator program serves as a repository for potential future SimLEARN MSK Clinician course faculty.

Limitations

The small number of participants may limit the validity of our conclusions. Although we included an OSCE to measure competence in performing and interpreting the shoulder exam, the durability of these skills is not known. Periodic postcourse OSCEs could help determine this and refresh and preserve accuracy in the performance of specific maneuvers. Second, although this experience was rated highly by participants, we do not know the impact of the program on their daily work or career trajectory. Sustained follow-up of learners, perhaps developed on the model of the Long-Term Career Outcome Study, may increase the value of this experience for future participants.³⁸ This program appealed to a diverse pool of learners, with a broad range of precourse expertise and varied expectations of how course experiences would impact their future work and career development. Some clinical educator attendees came from tertiary care facilities affiliated with academic medical centers, held specialist or subspecialist credentials, and had formal responsibilities as leaders in HPE. Other clinical practitioner participants were solitary PCPs, often in rural or home-based settings; although they may have been eager to apply new knowledge and skills in patient care, they neither anticipated nor desired any role as an educator.

Conclusion

The initial SimLEARN MSK Training Program provides PCPs and clinician educators with rich learning experiences, increasing confidence in addressing MSK problems and competence in performing and interpreting a systematic physical examination of the shoulder. The success of this program has created new opportunities for practitioners seeking to strengthen clinical skills and for leaders in health professions education looking to disseminate similar trainings and connect with a national group of educators.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the faculty and staff at the Veterans Health Administration SimLEARN National Simulation Center, the faculty of the Salt Lake City Musculoskeletal Mini-Residency program, the supportive leadership of the George E. Wahlen Salt Lake City Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and the efforts of Danielle Blake for logistical support and data entry.

Diseases of the musculoskeletal (MSK) system are common, accounting for some of the most frequent visits to primary care clinics.^1-3 In addition, care for patients with chronic MSK diseases represents a substantial economic burden.^4-6Unfortunately, despite the high prevalence and associated costs of these conditions, numerous reports have concluded that primary care providers (PCPs) are not well prepared to effectively address these problems due to gaps in health professions education (HPE) programs.^7-12 Among other effects, overutilization of high-cost diagnostic tools or specialty care providers are increasingly recognized as important drivers of unnecessary spending.^13-16

In response to this clinical training need, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) developed a portfolio of educational experiences for VHA health care providers and trainees, including both the Salt Lake City and National MSK “mini-residencies.”^17-19 These programs have educated more than 800 individuals. Early observations show a progressive increase in the number of joint injections performed at participant’s VHA clinics as well as a reduction in unnecessary magnetic resonance imaging orders of the knee.^20,21 These findings may be interpreted as markers for improved access to care for veterans as well as cost savings for the health care system.

The success of these early initiatives was recognized by the medical leadership of the VHA Simulation Learning, Education and Research Network (SimLEARN), who requested the Mini-Residency course directors to implement a similar educational program at the National Simulation Center in Orlando, Florida. SimLEARN was created to promote best practices in learning and education and provides a high-tech immersive environment for the development and delivery of simulation-based training curricula to facilitate workforce development.²² This article describes the initial experience of the VHA SimLEARN MSK continuing professional development (CPD) training programs, including curriculum design and educational impact on early learners, and how this informed additional CPD needs to continue advancing MSK education and care.

Methods

The initial vision was inspired by the national MSK Mini-Residency initiative for PCPs, which involved 13 US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers; its development, dissemination, and validity evidence for assessment methods have been previously described.^17,18,23 SimLEARN leadership attended a Mini-Residency, observing the educational experience and identifying learning objectives most aligned with national goals. The director and codirector of the MSK Mini-Residency (MJB, AMB) then worked with SimLEARN using its educational platform and train-the-trainer model to create a condensed 2-day course, centered on primary care evaluation and management of shoulder and knee pain. The course also included elements supporting educational leaders in providing similar trainings at their local facility (Table 1).

Curriculum was introduced through didactics and reinforced in hands-on sessions enhanced by peer-teaching, arthrocentesis task trainers, and simulated patient experiences. At the end of day 1, participants engaged in critical reflection, reviewing knowledge and skills they had acquired.

On day 2, each participant was evaluated using an observed structured clinical examination (OSCE) for the shoulder, followed by an observed structured teaching experience (OSTE). Given the complexity of the physical examination and the greater potential for appropriate interpretation of clinical findings to influence best practice care, the shoulder was emphasized for these experiences. Time constraints of a 2-day program based on SimLEARN format requirements prevented including an additional OSCE for the knee. At the conclusion of the course, faculty and participants discussed strategies for bringing this educational experience to learners at their local facilities as well as for avoiding potential barriers to implementation. The course was accredited through the VHA Employee Education System (EES), and participants received 16 hours of CPD credit.

Participants

Opportunity to attend was communicated through national, regional, and local VHA organizational networks. Participants self-registered online through the VHA Talent Management System, the main learning resource for VHA employee education, and registration was open to both PCPs and clinician educators. Class size was limited to 10 to facilitate detailed faculty observation during skill acquisition experiences, simulations, and assessment exercises.

Program Evaluation

A standard process for evaluating and measuring learning objectives was performed through VHA EES. Self-assessment surveys and OSCEs were used to assess the activity.

Self-assessment surveys were administered at the beginning and end of the program. Content was adapted from that used in the national MSK Mini-Residency initiative and revised by experts in survey design.^18,24,25 Pre- and postcourse surveys asked participants to rate how important it was for them to be competent in evaluating shoulder and knee pain and in performing related joint injections, as well as to rate their level of confidence in their ability to evaluate and manage these conditions. The survey used 5 construct-specific response options distributed equally on a visual scale. Participants’ learning goals were collected on the precourse survey.

Participants’ competence in performing and interpreting a systematic and thorough physical examination of the shoulder and in suggesting a reasonable plan of management were assessed using a single-station OSCE. This tool, which presented learners with a simulated case depicting rotator cuff pathology, has been described in multiple educational settings, and validity evidence supporting its use has been published.^18,19,23 Course faculty conducted the OSCE, one as the simulated patient, the other as the rater. Immediately following the examination, both faculty conducted a debriefing session with each participant. The OSCE was scored using the validated checklist for specific elements of the shoulder exam, followed by a structured sequence of questions exploring participants’ interpretation of findings, diagnostic impressions, and recommendations for initial management. Scores for participants’ differential diagnosis were based on the completeness and specificity of diagnoses given; scores for management plans were based on appropriateness and accuracy of both the primary and secondary approach to treatment or further diagnostic efforts. A global rating (range 1 to 9) was assigned, independent of scores in other domains.

Following the OSCE, participants rotated through a 3-cycle OSTE where they practiced the roles of simulated patient, learner, and educator. Faculty observed each OSTE and led focused debriefing sessions immediately following each rotation to facilitate participants’ critical reflection of their involvement in these elements of the course. This exercise was formative without quantitative assessment of performance.

Statistical Analysis

Pre- and postsurvey data were analyzed using a paired Student t test. Comparisons between multiple variables (eg, OSCE scores by years of experience or level of credentials) were analyzed using analysis of variance. Relationships between variables were analyzed with a Pearson correlation. All statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS, Version 24 (Armonk, NY).

This project was reviewed by the institutional review board of the University of Utah and the Salt Lake City VA and was determined to be exempt from review because the work did not meet the definition of research with human subjects and was considered a quality improvement study.

Results

Twenty-four participants completed the program over 3 course offerings between February and May 2016, and all completed pre- and postcourse self-assessment surveys (Table 2). Self-ratings of the importance of competence in shoulder and knee MSK skills remained high before and after the course, and confidence improved significantly across all learning objectives. Despite the emphasis on the evaluation and management of shoulder pain, participants’ self-confidence still improved significantly with the knee—though these improvements were generally smaller in scale compared with those of the shoulder.

Overall OSCE scores and scores by domain were not found to be statistically different based on either years of experience or by level of credential or specialty (advanced practice registered nurse/physician assistant, PCP, or specialty care physician)(Table 3). However, there was a trend toward higher performance among the specialty care physician group, and a trend toward lower performance among participants with less than 3 years’ experience.

Discussion

Building on the foundation of other successful innovations in MSK education, the first year of the SimLEARN National MSK Training Program demonstrated the feasibility of a 2-day centralized national course as a method to increase participants’ confidence and competence in evaluating and managing MSK problems, and to disseminate a portable curriculum to a range of clinician educators. Although this course focused on developing competence for shoulder skills, including an OSCE on day 2, self-perceived improvements in participants’ ability to evaluate and manage knee pain were observed. Future program refinement and follow-up of participants’ experience and needs may lead to increased time allocated to the knee exam as well as objective measures of competence for knee skills.

In comparing our findings to the work that others have previously described, we looked for reports of CPD programs in 2 contexts: those that focused on acquisition of MSK skills relevant to clinical practice, and those designed as clinician educator or faculty development initiatives. Although there are few reports of MSK-themed CPD experiences designed specifically for nurses and allied health professionals, a recent effort to survey members of these disciplines in the United Kingdom was an important contribution to a systematic needs assessment.^26-28 Increased support from leadership, mostly in terms of time allowance and budgetary support, was identified as an important driver to facilitate participation in MSK CPD experiences. Through SimLEARN, the VHA is investing in CPD, providing the MSK Training Programs and other courses at no cost to its employees.

Most published reports on physician education have not evaluated content knowledge or physical examination skills with measures for which validity evidence has been published.^19,29,30 One notable exception is the 2000 Canadian Viscosupplementation Injector Preceptor experience, in which Bellamy and colleagues examined patient outcomes in evaluating their program.³¹

Our experience is congruent with the work of Macedo and colleagues and Sturpe and colleagues, who described the effectiveness and acceptability of an OSTE for faculty development.^32,33 These studies emphasize debriefing, a critical element in faculty development identified by Steinert and colleagues in a 2006 best evidence medical education (BEME) review.³⁴ The shoulder OSTE was one of the most well-received elements of our course, and each debrief was critical to facilitating rich discussions between educators and practitioners playing the role of teacher or student during this simulated experience, gaining insight into each other’s perspectives.

This program has several significant strengths: First, this is the most recent step in the development of a portfolio of innovative MSK CPD programs that were envisioned through a systematic process involving projections of cost-effectiveness, local pilot testing, and national expansion.^17,18,35 Second, the SimLEARN program uses assessment tools for which validity evidence has been published, made available for reflective critique by educational scholars.^19,23 This supports a national consortium of MSK educators, advancing clinical teaching and educational scholarship, and creating opportunities for interprofessional collaboration in congruence with the vision expressed in the 2010 Institute of Medicine report, “Redesigning Continuing Education in the Health Professions,” as well as the 2016 update of the BEME recommendations for faculty development.^36,37

Our experience with the SimLEARN National MSK Training Program demonstrates need for 2 distinct courses: (1) the MSK Clinician—serving PCPs seeking to develop their skills in evaluating and managing patients with MSK problems; and (2), the MSK Master Educator—for those with preexisting content expertise who would value the introduction to a national curriculum and connections with other MSK master educators. Both of these are now offered regularly through SimLEARN for VHA and US Department of Defense employees. The MSK Clinician program establishes competence in systematically evaluating and managing shoulder and knee MSK problems in an educational setting and prepares participants for subsequent clinical experiences where they can perform related procedures if desired, under appropriate supervision. The Master Educator program introduces partici pants to the clinician curriculum and provides the opportunity to develop an individualized plan for implementation of an MSK educational program at their home institutions. Participants are selected through a competitive application process, and funding for travel to attend the Master Educator program is provided by SimLEARN for participants who are accepted. Additionally, the Master Educator program serves as a repository for potential future SimLEARN MSK Clinician course faculty.

Limitations

The small number of participants may limit the validity of our conclusions. Although we included an OSCE to measure competence in performing and interpreting the shoulder exam, the durability of these skills is not known. Periodic postcourse OSCEs could help determine this and refresh and preserve accuracy in the performance of specific maneuvers. Second, although this experience was rated highly by participants, we do not know the impact of the program on their daily work or career trajectory. Sustained follow-up of learners, perhaps developed on the model of the Long-Term Career Outcome Study, may increase the value of this experience for future participants.³⁸ This program appealed to a diverse pool of learners, with a broad range of precourse expertise and varied expectations of how course experiences would impact their future work and career development. Some clinical educator attendees came from tertiary care facilities affiliated with academic medical centers, held specialist or subspecialist credentials, and had formal responsibilities as leaders in HPE. Other clinical practitioner participants were solitary PCPs, often in rural or home-based settings; although they may have been eager to apply new knowledge and skills in patient care, they neither anticipated nor desired any role as an educator.

Conclusion

The initial SimLEARN MSK Training Program provides PCPs and clinician educators with rich learning experiences, increasing confidence in addressing MSK problems and competence in performing and interpreting a systematic physical examination of the shoulder. The success of this program has created new opportunities for practitioners seeking to strengthen clinical skills and for leaders in health professions education looking to disseminate similar trainings and connect with a national group of educators.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the faculty and staff at the Veterans Health Administration SimLEARN National Simulation Center, the faculty of the Salt Lake City Musculoskeletal Mini-Residency program, the supportive leadership of the George E. Wahlen Salt Lake City Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and the efforts of Danielle Blake for logistical support and data entry.

Fall prevention strategies for hospitalized older adults include environmental factors such as adequate room lighting and patient-specific factors such as medications. In 2008, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) implemented a regulatory “shining of the light” on hospital-acquired falls by eliminating hospital payment for fall-related injuries. Shorr et al. found that implementation of the CMS Hospital-Acquired Conditions Initiative was associated with only a modest decline in falls and injurious falls over the first seven years, with the greatest reduction occurring in urban, teaching hospitals.¹ These disappointing findings were mitigated only by the finding that the prevalence of physical restraints decreased over the seven years of observation from 1.6% to 0.6%, suggesting that the modest reductions in falls did not occur at the expense of further restricting the mobility of hospitalized older adults. Shorr et al. concluded that falls may be largely attributable to individual patient risk and may not be prevented through health system quality and safety programs such as those that have achieved successes in never-events, including wrong-side surgery and catheter-associated blood stream infections.² The authors expressed concern that hospital leaders remain in the dark regarding proven fall prevention strategies. They question whether hospital-acquired falls are preventable without restricting the mobility of older adults most at risk for falls.

Hoff et al. found in their 2011 literature review of the first three years following implementation of the 2008 CMS hospital payment polices limited evidence-based approaches to address falls as a spotlighted avoidable hospital-acquired condition.³ Swartzell et al. reported that at some level, every patient admitted to an acute care hospital is at risk for falls. “Patients sick enough to be in the hospital have underlying disease, are receiving physiologically altering medications and treatments, and are likely experiencing pain, fatigue, anxiety, sleep disturbance, and other symptoms that interfere with cognitive and physical functioning. The key to preventing falls among hospitalized patients may lie in addressing how the hospital environment creates risk.”⁴

In 2017, Avanecean et al. published a systematic review of randomized control trials on fall prevention in hospitals.⁵ Three of five studies demonstrated 20%-30% reductions in fall rates, whereas two studies showed no difference in fall rates among control and intervention groups. In the three studies that demonstrated reduced fall rates, standardized fall risk assessments were used to identify patient-specific risks for falls. Individualized care plans addressed gait and balance disorders, delirium and cognitive deficits, vision and hearing impairments, and toileting needs. For example, physical therapists provided instruction on the safe use of walkers for those with gait and balance disorders. Patients with delirium and cognitive deficits received some form of staff alert of unsupervised transfers out of bed, ranging from bed alarms to customized rubber socks that contained pressure alarms. All three successful intervention studies included patient-centered care plans for toileting.

None of the three studies that measured the secondary outcome of fall-related injuries demonstrated impact of interventions, although the rates of injurious falls were low in both the control and intervention groups (2%-5%).^3-5

Since the 2008 CMS policies eliminated hospital payments for complications of falls, patient-centered models of fall risk reduction were widely implemented. The Systems Addressing Frail Elder (SAFE) Care, designed by Ansryan et al. includes nursing, social work, pharmacist, and medical provider assessments.⁶ Team huddles occur daily to establish individualized care plans, although as Shorr et al. highlight, without report of outcomes.² Nurses Improving Care for Healthsystem Elders (NICHE) is an New York University-based nursing education and consultation program that has extended to 566 healthcare organizations.⁷ Factors that promote the adoption of organizational interventions such as NICHE have been identified.⁸ The findings that NICHE is adopted more in larger, urban healthcare systems are consistent with the findings reported by Shorr et al. that fall rate reductions were greater in such hospital settings. Patient-centered care, although time-consuming, may promote staff satisfaction and is associated with reductions in other hospital-acquired conditions such as delirium.⁹

Patient-engaged video surveillance systems are recent technological solutions to reduce falls. One staff monitors multiple patients for behaviors that risk falls such as unsupervised transfers out of bed. Staff can speak to a patient through the monitoring system to request the patient to wait for assistance, while the unit staff are alerted to the fall risk. Bedside caregivers can activate virtual privacy screens during personal patient care.

Shorr et al. appropriately call for studies to further illuminate strategies to reduce hospital-acquired falls. A multihospital report of fall rates before and after the implementation of SAFE Care and NICHE would have sufficient scale to address the impact of these patient-centered interventions on injurious falls. Similarly, patient-engaged video surveillance systems need validation from clinical trials.

Fall prevention strategies for hospitalized older adults include environmental factors such as adequate room lighting and patient-specific factors such as medications. In 2008, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) implemented a regulatory “shining of the light” on hospital-acquired falls by eliminating hospital payment for fall-related injuries. Shorr et al. found that implementation of the CMS Hospital-Acquired Conditions Initiative was associated with only a modest decline in falls and injurious falls over the first seven years, with the greatest reduction occurring in urban, teaching hospitals.¹ These disappointing findings were mitigated only by the finding that the prevalence of physical restraints decreased over the seven years of observation from 1.6% to 0.6%, suggesting that the modest reductions in falls did not occur at the expense of further restricting the mobility of hospitalized older adults. Shorr et al. concluded that falls may be largely attributable to individual patient risk and may not be prevented through health system quality and safety programs such as those that have achieved successes in never-events, including wrong-side surgery and catheter-associated blood stream infections.² The authors expressed concern that hospital leaders remain in the dark regarding proven fall prevention strategies. They question whether hospital-acquired falls are preventable without restricting the mobility of older adults most at risk for falls.

Hoff et al. found in their 2011 literature review of the first three years following implementation of the 2008 CMS hospital payment polices limited evidence-based approaches to address falls as a spotlighted avoidable hospital-acquired condition.³ Swartzell et al. reported that at some level, every patient admitted to an acute care hospital is at risk for falls. “Patients sick enough to be in the hospital have underlying disease, are receiving physiologically altering medications and treatments, and are likely experiencing pain, fatigue, anxiety, sleep disturbance, and other symptoms that interfere with cognitive and physical functioning. The key to preventing falls among hospitalized patients may lie in addressing how the hospital environment creates risk.”⁴

In 2017, Avanecean et al. published a systematic review of randomized control trials on fall prevention in hospitals.⁵ Three of five studies demonstrated 20%-30% reductions in fall rates, whereas two studies showed no difference in fall rates among control and intervention groups. In the three studies that demonstrated reduced fall rates, standardized fall risk assessments were used to identify patient-specific risks for falls. Individualized care plans addressed gait and balance disorders, delirium and cognitive deficits, vision and hearing impairments, and toileting needs. For example, physical therapists provided instruction on the safe use of walkers for those with gait and balance disorders. Patients with delirium and cognitive deficits received some form of staff alert of unsupervised transfers out of bed, ranging from bed alarms to customized rubber socks that contained pressure alarms. All three successful intervention studies included patient-centered care plans for toileting.

None of the three studies that measured the secondary outcome of fall-related injuries demonstrated impact of interventions, although the rates of injurious falls were low in both the control and intervention groups (2%-5%).^3-5

Since the 2008 CMS policies eliminated hospital payments for complications of falls, patient-centered models of fall risk reduction were widely implemented. The Systems Addressing Frail Elder (SAFE) Care, designed by Ansryan et al. includes nursing, social work, pharmacist, and medical provider assessments.⁶ Team huddles occur daily to establish individualized care plans, although as Shorr et al. highlight, without report of outcomes.² Nurses Improving Care for Healthsystem Elders (NICHE) is an New York University-based nursing education and consultation program that has extended to 566 healthcare organizations.⁷ Factors that promote the adoption of organizational interventions such as NICHE have been identified.⁸ The findings that NICHE is adopted more in larger, urban healthcare systems are consistent with the findings reported by Shorr et al. that fall rate reductions were greater in such hospital settings. Patient-centered care, although time-consuming, may promote staff satisfaction and is associated with reductions in other hospital-acquired conditions such as delirium.⁹

Patient-engaged video surveillance systems are recent technological solutions to reduce falls. One staff monitors multiple patients for behaviors that risk falls such as unsupervised transfers out of bed. Staff can speak to a patient through the monitoring system to request the patient to wait for assistance, while the unit staff are alerted to the fall risk. Bedside caregivers can activate virtual privacy screens during personal patient care.

Shorr et al. appropriately call for studies to further illuminate strategies to reduce hospital-acquired falls. A multihospital report of fall rates before and after the implementation of SAFE Care and NICHE would have sufficient scale to address the impact of these patient-centered interventions on injurious falls. Similarly, patient-engaged video surveillance systems need validation from clinical trials.

Fall prevention strategies for hospitalized older adults include environmental factors such as adequate room lighting and patient-specific factors such as medications. In 2008, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) implemented a regulatory “shining of the light” on hospital-acquired falls by eliminating hospital payment for fall-related injuries. Shorr et al. found that implementation of the CMS Hospital-Acquired Conditions Initiative was associated with only a modest decline in falls and injurious falls over the first seven years, with the greatest reduction occurring in urban, teaching hospitals.¹ These disappointing findings were mitigated only by the finding that the prevalence of physical restraints decreased over the seven years of observation from 1.6% to 0.6%, suggesting that the modest reductions in falls did not occur at the expense of further restricting the mobility of hospitalized older adults. Shorr et al. concluded that falls may be largely attributable to individual patient risk and may not be prevented through health system quality and safety programs such as those that have achieved successes in never-events, including wrong-side surgery and catheter-associated blood stream infections.² The authors expressed concern that hospital leaders remain in the dark regarding proven fall prevention strategies. They question whether hospital-acquired falls are preventable without restricting the mobility of older adults most at risk for falls.

Hoff et al. found in their 2011 literature review of the first three years following implementation of the 2008 CMS hospital payment polices limited evidence-based approaches to address falls as a spotlighted avoidable hospital-acquired condition.³ Swartzell et al. reported that at some level, every patient admitted to an acute care hospital is at risk for falls. “Patients sick enough to be in the hospital have underlying disease, are receiving physiologically altering medications and treatments, and are likely experiencing pain, fatigue, anxiety, sleep disturbance, and other symptoms that interfere with cognitive and physical functioning. The key to preventing falls among hospitalized patients may lie in addressing how the hospital environment creates risk.”⁴

In 2017, Avanecean et al. published a systematic review of randomized control trials on fall prevention in hospitals.⁵ Three of five studies demonstrated 20%-30% reductions in fall rates, whereas two studies showed no difference in fall rates among control and intervention groups. In the three studies that demonstrated reduced fall rates, standardized fall risk assessments were used to identify patient-specific risks for falls. Individualized care plans addressed gait and balance disorders, delirium and cognitive deficits, vision and hearing impairments, and toileting needs. For example, physical therapists provided instruction on the safe use of walkers for those with gait and balance disorders. Patients with delirium and cognitive deficits received some form of staff alert of unsupervised transfers out of bed, ranging from bed alarms to customized rubber socks that contained pressure alarms. All three successful intervention studies included patient-centered care plans for toileting.

None of the three studies that measured the secondary outcome of fall-related injuries demonstrated impact of interventions, although the rates of injurious falls were low in both the control and intervention groups (2%-5%).^3-5

Since the 2008 CMS policies eliminated hospital payments for complications of falls, patient-centered models of fall risk reduction were widely implemented. The Systems Addressing Frail Elder (SAFE) Care, designed by Ansryan et al. includes nursing, social work, pharmacist, and medical provider assessments.⁶ Team huddles occur daily to establish individualized care plans, although as Shorr et al. highlight, without report of outcomes.² Nurses Improving Care for Healthsystem Elders (NICHE) is an New York University-based nursing education and consultation program that has extended to 566 healthcare organizations.⁷ Factors that promote the adoption of organizational interventions such as NICHE have been identified.⁸ The findings that NICHE is adopted more in larger, urban healthcare systems are consistent with the findings reported by Shorr et al. that fall rate reductions were greater in such hospital settings. Patient-centered care, although time-consuming, may promote staff satisfaction and is associated with reductions in other hospital-acquired conditions such as delirium.⁹

Patient-engaged video surveillance systems are recent technological solutions to reduce falls. One staff monitors multiple patients for behaviors that risk falls such as unsupervised transfers out of bed. Staff can speak to a patient through the monitoring system to request the patient to wait for assistance, while the unit staff are alerted to the fall risk. Bedside caregivers can activate virtual privacy screens during personal patient care.

Shorr et al. appropriately call for studies to further illuminate strategies to reduce hospital-acquired falls. A multihospital report of fall rates before and after the implementation of SAFE Care and NICHE would have sufficient scale to address the impact of these patient-centered interventions on injurious falls. Similarly, patient-engaged video surveillance systems need validation from clinical trials.

“Never worry alone” is a common mantra that most of us have heard throughout medical training. The premise is simple and well meaning. If a patient has an issue that concerns you, ask someone for help. As a student, this can be a resident; as a resident, this can be an attending. However, for hospitalists, the answer is often a subspecialty consultation. Asking for help never seems to be wrong, but what happens when our worry delays appropriate care with unnecessary consultations? In this month’s issue of the Journal of Hospital Medicine, authors Bellas et al. have investigated this issue through the lens of subspecialty preoperative consultation for patients admitted to a hospitalist comanagement service with a fragility hip fracture requiring surgery.¹

Morbidity and mortality for patients who experience hip fractures are high, and time to appropriate surgery is one of the few modifiable risk factors that may reduce morbidity and mortality.^2,3 Bellas et al. conducted a retrospective cohort study to test the association between preoperative subspecialty consultation and multiple clinically relevant outcomes in patients admitted with an acute hip fracture.¹ All patients were comanaged by a hospitalist and orthopedic surgery, and “consultation” was defined as any preoperative subspecialty consultation requested by the hospitalist. Outcome measures included time to surgery, length of stay, readmission rate, perioperative complications, and 30-day mortality. In total, 36% (177/491) of patients who underwent surgery received a subspecialty preoperative consultation. Unsurprisingly, these patients were older with higher rates of comorbidity. After controlling for age and Charlson Comorbidity Index, preoperative consultation was associated with dramatic delays and increased rates of time to surgery >24 hours (adjusted odds ratio, 4.2; 95% CI: 2.8-6.6). The authors classified 90% of consultations as appropriate, either because of an active condition (eg, acute coronary syndrome) or because admitting physicians documented a perception that patients were at increased risk. However, 73% of consultations had only minor recommendations, such as ordering an ECG or changing the dose of an existing medication, and only 37% of the time did consultations lead to an identifiable change in management as a result of the consultation.

Although striking, integrating these findings into clinical practice is complex. As a retrospective study, patients who received consultations were obviously different from those who did not. The authors attempted to adjust for this but used only age and Charlson Comorbidity Index. Other factors that are both associated with consultations and known to increase mortality—such as frailty and functional status—were not included in their adjustment. Such unmeasured confounders possibly explain at least some, if not all, of the findings that consultations were associated with a doubling of the likelihood of 30-day mortality. In addition, although the authors assessed the appropriateness of consultation and degree of recommendations, their methods for this deserve scrutiny. Two independent providers adjudicated the consultations with excellent agreement (kappa 0.96 for indication, 0.95 for degree of recommendation), but this reliability assessment was done on previously extracted chart data, probably inflating their agreement statistics. Finally, the adjudication of consultant recommendations into minor, moderate, and major categories may oversimplify the outcome of each consultation. For example, all medication recommendations, regardless of type, were considered as minor, and recommendations were considered as major only if they resulted in invasive testing or procedures. This approach may underrepresent the impact of consultations as in clinical practice not all high-impact recommendations result in invasive testing or procedures. Despite these important limitations, Bellas et al. present a compelling case for preoperative consultation being associated with delays in surgery.

How then should this study change practice? The authors’ findings tell two separate but intertwined stories. The first is that preoperative consultation leads to delays in surgery. As patients who received preoperative consultation were obviously sicker, and because delays caused by consultation may lead to increased morbidity and mortality, perhaps the solution is to simply fix the delays. However, this approach ignores the more compelling story the authors tell. More important than the delays was the surprising lack of impact of preoperative consultations. Bellas et al. found that the majority of consultations resulted in only minor recommendations, and more importantly, hospitalists rarely changed treatment as a result. Although patients who received consultations were more ill, consultation rarely changed their care or decreased the risk posed by surgery. Bellas et al. found that only patients with active medical conditions had consultations, which resulted in moderate or major recommendations. These findings highlight an opportunity to better identify patients for whom consultation might be helpful and to prevent delays by avoiding consultation for those unlikely to benefit. There have been several efforts in the orthopedic literature to use guidelines for preoperative cardiac testing to guide cardiology consultation.^4,5,6 One study using this approach reported findings that were extremely similar to those reported by Bellas et al. in that 71% of preoperative cardiology consultations in their institution did not meet the guideline criteria for invasive cardiac testing.⁷ The primary difference between the findings of Bellas et al. and the studies in the orthopedic literature is the presence of the comanaging hospitalist. As more and more patients receive hospitalist comanagement prior to inpatient surgery, it is well within the scope of the hospitalist to differentiate chronic risk factors from active or decompensated medical disease requiring a subspecialist. This is in fact much of the value that a hospitalist adds. Avoiding consultation for patients with only elevated chronic risk factors is an important first step in avoiding unnecessary delays to surgery and an opportunity for hospitalists to improve the care of the patients they comanage.

The goal of teaching trainees to “never worry alone” is to harness the feelings of uncertainty that all providers face to improve patient care. Knowing when to worry is a valuable lesson, but as with all skills, it should be applied thoughtfully and informed by evidence. Appreciating the risks that surgery poses is quintessential to safe perioperative care, but equally important is understanding that inappropriate consultations can create risks from needless delays and testing. Only in balancing these two concerns, and appreciating when it is appropriate to worry, can we provide the highest quality of care to our patients.

“Never worry alone” is a common mantra that most of us have heard throughout medical training. The premise is simple and well meaning. If a patient has an issue that concerns you, ask someone for help. As a student, this can be a resident; as a resident, this can be an attending. However, for hospitalists, the answer is often a subspecialty consultation. Asking for help never seems to be wrong, but what happens when our worry delays appropriate care with unnecessary consultations? In this month’s issue of the Journal of Hospital Medicine, authors Bellas et al. have investigated this issue through the lens of subspecialty preoperative consultation for patients admitted to a hospitalist comanagement service with a fragility hip fracture requiring surgery.¹

Morbidity and mortality for patients who experience hip fractures are high, and time to appropriate surgery is one of the few modifiable risk factors that may reduce morbidity and mortality.^2,3 Bellas et al. conducted a retrospective cohort study to test the association between preoperative subspecialty consultation and multiple clinically relevant outcomes in patients admitted with an acute hip fracture.¹ All patients were comanaged by a hospitalist and orthopedic surgery, and “consultation” was defined as any preoperative subspecialty consultation requested by the hospitalist. Outcome measures included time to surgery, length of stay, readmission rate, perioperative complications, and 30-day mortality. In total, 36% (177/491) of patients who underwent surgery received a subspecialty preoperative consultation. Unsurprisingly, these patients were older with higher rates of comorbidity. After controlling for age and Charlson Comorbidity Index, preoperative consultation was associated with dramatic delays and increased rates of time to surgery >24 hours (adjusted odds ratio, 4.2; 95% CI: 2.8-6.6). The authors classified 90% of consultations as appropriate, either because of an active condition (eg, acute coronary syndrome) or because admitting physicians documented a perception that patients were at increased risk. However, 73% of consultations had only minor recommendations, such as ordering an ECG or changing the dose of an existing medication, and only 37% of the time did consultations lead to an identifiable change in management as a result of the consultation.

Although striking, integrating these findings into clinical practice is complex. As a retrospective study, patients who received consultations were obviously different from those who did not. The authors attempted to adjust for this but used only age and Charlson Comorbidity Index. Other factors that are both associated with consultations and known to increase mortality—such as frailty and functional status—were not included in their adjustment. Such unmeasured confounders possibly explain at least some, if not all, of the findings that consultations were associated with a doubling of the likelihood of 30-day mortality. In addition, although the authors assessed the appropriateness of consultation and degree of recommendations, their methods for this deserve scrutiny. Two independent providers adjudicated the consultations with excellent agreement (kappa 0.96 for indication, 0.95 for degree of recommendation), but this reliability assessment was done on previously extracted chart data, probably inflating their agreement statistics. Finally, the adjudication of consultant recommendations into minor, moderate, and major categories may oversimplify the outcome of each consultation. For example, all medication recommendations, regardless of type, were considered as minor, and recommendations were considered as major only if they resulted in invasive testing or procedures. This approach may underrepresent the impact of consultations as in clinical practice not all high-impact recommendations result in invasive testing or procedures. Despite these important limitations, Bellas et al. present a compelling case for preoperative consultation being associated with delays in surgery.

How then should this study change practice? The authors’ findings tell two separate but intertwined stories. The first is that preoperative consultation leads to delays in surgery. As patients who received preoperative consultation were obviously sicker, and because delays caused by consultation may lead to increased morbidity and mortality, perhaps the solution is to simply fix the delays. However, this approach ignores the more compelling story the authors tell. More important than the delays was the surprising lack of impact of preoperative consultations. Bellas et al. found that the majority of consultations resulted in only minor recommendations, and more importantly, hospitalists rarely changed treatment as a result. Although patients who received consultations were more ill, consultation rarely changed their care or decreased the risk posed by surgery. Bellas et al. found that only patients with active medical conditions had consultations, which resulted in moderate or major recommendations. These findings highlight an opportunity to better identify patients for whom consultation might be helpful and to prevent delays by avoiding consultation for those unlikely to benefit. There have been several efforts in the orthopedic literature to use guidelines for preoperative cardiac testing to guide cardiology consultation.^4,5,6 One study using this approach reported findings that were extremely similar to those reported by Bellas et al. in that 71% of preoperative cardiology consultations in their institution did not meet the guideline criteria for invasive cardiac testing.⁷ The primary difference between the findings of Bellas et al. and the studies in the orthopedic literature is the presence of the comanaging hospitalist. As more and more patients receive hospitalist comanagement prior to inpatient surgery, it is well within the scope of the hospitalist to differentiate chronic risk factors from active or decompensated medical disease requiring a subspecialist. This is in fact much of the value that a hospitalist adds. Avoiding consultation for patients with only elevated chronic risk factors is an important first step in avoiding unnecessary delays to surgery and an opportunity for hospitalists to improve the care of the patients they comanage.

The goal of teaching trainees to “never worry alone” is to harness the feelings of uncertainty that all providers face to improve patient care. Knowing when to worry is a valuable lesson, but as with all skills, it should be applied thoughtfully and informed by evidence. Appreciating the risks that surgery poses is quintessential to safe perioperative care, but equally important is understanding that inappropriate consultations can create risks from needless delays and testing. Only in balancing these two concerns, and appreciating when it is appropriate to worry, can we provide the highest quality of care to our patients.

“Never worry alone” is a common mantra that most of us have heard throughout medical training. The premise is simple and well meaning. If a patient has an issue that concerns you, ask someone for help. As a student, this can be a resident; as a resident, this can be an attending. However, for hospitalists, the answer is often a subspecialty consultation. Asking for help never seems to be wrong, but what happens when our worry delays appropriate care with unnecessary consultations? In this month’s issue of the Journal of Hospital Medicine, authors Bellas et al. have investigated this issue through the lens of subspecialty preoperative consultation for patients admitted to a hospitalist comanagement service with a fragility hip fracture requiring surgery.¹

Morbidity and mortality for patients who experience hip fractures are high, and time to appropriate surgery is one of the few modifiable risk factors that may reduce morbidity and mortality.^2,3 Bellas et al. conducted a retrospective cohort study to test the association between preoperative subspecialty consultation and multiple clinically relevant outcomes in patients admitted with an acute hip fracture.¹ All patients were comanaged by a hospitalist and orthopedic surgery, and “consultation” was defined as any preoperative subspecialty consultation requested by the hospitalist. Outcome measures included time to surgery, length of stay, readmission rate, perioperative complications, and 30-day mortality. In total, 36% (177/491) of patients who underwent surgery received a subspecialty preoperative consultation. Unsurprisingly, these patients were older with higher rates of comorbidity. After controlling for age and Charlson Comorbidity Index, preoperative consultation was associated with dramatic delays and increased rates of time to surgery >24 hours (adjusted odds ratio, 4.2; 95% CI: 2.8-6.6). The authors classified 90% of consultations as appropriate, either because of an active condition (eg, acute coronary syndrome) or because admitting physicians documented a perception that patients were at increased risk. However, 73% of consultations had only minor recommendations, such as ordering an ECG or changing the dose of an existing medication, and only 37% of the time did consultations lead to an identifiable change in management as a result of the consultation.

Although striking, integrating these findings into clinical practice is complex. As a retrospective study, patients who received consultations were obviously different from those who did not. The authors attempted to adjust for this but used only age and Charlson Comorbidity Index. Other factors that are both associated with consultations and known to increase mortality—such as frailty and functional status—were not included in their adjustment. Such unmeasured confounders possibly explain at least some, if not all, of the findings that consultations were associated with a doubling of the likelihood of 30-day mortality. In addition, although the authors assessed the appropriateness of consultation and degree of recommendations, their methods for this deserve scrutiny. Two independent providers adjudicated the consultations with excellent agreement (kappa 0.96 for indication, 0.95 for degree of recommendation), but this reliability assessment was done on previously extracted chart data, probably inflating their agreement statistics. Finally, the adjudication of consultant recommendations into minor, moderate, and major categories may oversimplify the outcome of each consultation. For example, all medication recommendations, regardless of type, were considered as minor, and recommendations were considered as major only if they resulted in invasive testing or procedures. This approach may underrepresent the impact of consultations as in clinical practice not all high-impact recommendations result in invasive testing or procedures. Despite these important limitations, Bellas et al. present a compelling case for preoperative consultation being associated with delays in surgery.

How then should this study change practice? The authors’ findings tell two separate but intertwined stories. The first is that preoperative consultation leads to delays in surgery. As patients who received preoperative consultation were obviously sicker, and because delays caused by consultation may lead to increased morbidity and mortality, perhaps the solution is to simply fix the delays. However, this approach ignores the more compelling story the authors tell. More important than the delays was the surprising lack of impact of preoperative consultations. Bellas et al. found that the majority of consultations resulted in only minor recommendations, and more importantly, hospitalists rarely changed treatment as a result. Although patients who received consultations were more ill, consultation rarely changed their care or decreased the risk posed by surgery. Bellas et al. found that only patients with active medical conditions had consultations, which resulted in moderate or major recommendations. These findings highlight an opportunity to better identify patients for whom consultation might be helpful and to prevent delays by avoiding consultation for those unlikely to benefit. There have been several efforts in the orthopedic literature to use guidelines for preoperative cardiac testing to guide cardiology consultation.^4,5,6 One study using this approach reported findings that were extremely similar to those reported by Bellas et al. in that 71% of preoperative cardiology consultations in their institution did not meet the guideline criteria for invasive cardiac testing.⁷ The primary difference between the findings of Bellas et al. and the studies in the orthopedic literature is the presence of the comanaging hospitalist. As more and more patients receive hospitalist comanagement prior to inpatient surgery, it is well within the scope of the hospitalist to differentiate chronic risk factors from active or decompensated medical disease requiring a subspecialist. This is in fact much of the value that a hospitalist adds. Avoiding consultation for patients with only elevated chronic risk factors is an important first step in avoiding unnecessary delays to surgery and an opportunity for hospitalists to improve the care of the patients they comanage.

The goal of teaching trainees to “never worry alone” is to harness the feelings of uncertainty that all providers face to improve patient care. Knowing when to worry is a valuable lesson, but as with all skills, it should be applied thoughtfully and informed by evidence. Appreciating the risks that surgery poses is quintessential to safe perioperative care, but equally important is understanding that inappropriate consultations can create risks from needless delays and testing. Only in balancing these two concerns, and appreciating when it is appropriate to worry, can we provide the highest quality of care to our patients.

Even though I could not remember her name, I remembered her story, and I would bet that my colleagues did as well. She was someone that we had all cared for at one time or another. She frequently presented to the hospital with chest pain or shortness of breath attributable to a combination of longstanding congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and cocaine abuse. But most tragic of all, she was homeless, which meant that she was frequently hospitalized not only for medical complaints but also for a night’s shelter and a bite of food. Even though she often refused medical treatment and social workers’ efforts to stabilize her housing situation, the staff in the emergency room and observation unit all knew her by name and greeted her like an old friend. And then one day she stopped showing up to the hospital. Sitting in the emergency department (ED), I overheard that she was found outside of a storefront and had passed away. Saddened by her death, which was not unexpected given her medical issues, I still wondered if we had done right by her during the hundreds of times that she had come to our hospital. Clinicians at busy safety-net hospitals face these questions every day, and it would seem beyond doubt that our duty is to address both medical and nonmedical determinants of health of everyone that walks through our door. But is this in fact the right thing to do? Is it possible that we unwittingly expose these vulnerable patients to risks from hospitalization alone?

In this month’s Journal of Hospital Medicine, Sekijima et al. sought to quantify precisely the risks of hospitalization, particularly among the subset of patients whose “severity” of medical problems alone might not have warranted hospital admission, a scenario known colloquially as a “social” admission.¹ In real time, an inhouse triage physician classified patients as being admitted with or without “definite medical acuity.” Investigators retrospectively identified adverse events and illness acuity using standardized instruments, the Institute for Healthcare Improvement Global Trigger Tool and Emergency Severity Index, respectively. Despite the acknowledged differences in the patient population and the inherent subjectivity within the designation process, Sekijima et al. found no statistically significant difference in the percentage of admissions with an adverse event nor in the rate of adverse events per 1,000 patient days. Falls, oversedation/hypotension and code/arrest/rapid response activation were the most frequently encountered adverse events.

Delving deeper into the origin of admissions without definite medical acuity, the authors identified homelessness, lack of outpatient social support, substance use disorder, and lack of outpatient medical support as the most common reasons for “nonmedical” admissions. As healthcare providers, we recognize that these factors are generally long-term, chronic socioeconomic determinants of health. Despite our objective knowledge that we are limited in our ability to fix these problems on a short-term basis, the authors’ observations reflect our compulsion to try and help in any way possible. Patients admitted without definite medical acuity were more vulnerable and had higher rates of public insurance and housing insecurity. However, they were less acutely ill, as indicated by lower Emergency Severity Index scores. These factors were not associated with statistically significant differences in either 48-hour ED readmission or 30-day hospital readmission rates.

The process of appropriately triaging patients to an inpatient setting is challenging because of wide variability in both patients and ED providers. Hospitalists are increasingly recognized as an additional resource to assist in the triage process, as we are uniquely in a position to view the patient’s clinical presentation within the context of their anticipated clinical trajectory, promote effective utilization of inpatient bed availability, and anticipate potential barriers to discharge. Graduate medical education now identifies the triage process as a specific milestone within the transitions of care competency, as it requires mastery of interpersonal communication, professionalism, systems-based thinking, and patient-centered care.² However, many institutions lack a dedicated faculty member to perform the triage role. Our institution recently examined the feasibility of instituting a daily “huddle” between the admitting hospitalist and the ED to facilitate interdepartmental communication to create care plans in patient triage and to promote patient throughput. Available admission beds are valuable commodities, and one challenge is that the ED makes disposition decisions without knowledge of the number of available beds in the hospital. The goal of the huddle was to quickly discuss all patients potentially requiring admission prior to the final disposition decision and to address any modifiable factors to potentially prevent a “social” admission with social work early in the day. Further work is in progress to determine if introducing flexibility within existing provider roles can improve the triage process in a measurable and efficient manner.

Many challenges remain as we balance the medical needs of patients with any potential social drivers that necessitate admission to the inpatient hospital setting. From an ED perspective, social support and community follow-up were “universally considered powerful influences on admission,” and other factors such as time of day, clinical volume, and the four-hour waiting time target also played a significant role in the decision to admit.³ Hunter et al. found that admissions with moderate to low acuity may be shorter or less costly,⁴ which presents an interesting question of cost-effectiveness as an avenue for further study. As clinicians, we are intuitively aware of the subjective risk of hospitalization itself, and this work provides new objective evidence that hospitalization confers specific and quantifiable risks. Though we can undoubtedly use this knowledge to guide internal decisions about admissions and discharges, do we also have an obligation to inform our patients about these risks in real time? Ultimately, hospitalization itself might be viewed as a “procedure” or intervention that has inherent risks for all who receive it, regardless of the individual patient or hospital characteristics. As hospitalists, we should continue to strive to reduce these risks, but we should also initiate a conversation about the risks and benefits of hospitalization similarly to how we discuss other procedures with patients and their families.

Even though I could not remember her name, I remembered her story, and I would bet that my colleagues did as well. She was someone that we had all cared for at one time or another. She frequently presented to the hospital with chest pain or shortness of breath attributable to a combination of longstanding congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and cocaine abuse. But most tragic of all, she was homeless, which meant that she was frequently hospitalized not only for medical complaints but also for a night’s shelter and a bite of food. Even though she often refused medical treatment and social workers’ efforts to stabilize her housing situation, the staff in the emergency room and observation unit all knew her by name and greeted her like an old friend. And then one day she stopped showing up to the hospital. Sitting in the emergency department (ED), I overheard that she was found outside of a storefront and had passed away. Saddened by her death, which was not unexpected given her medical issues, I still wondered if we had done right by her during the hundreds of times that she had come to our hospital. Clinicians at busy safety-net hospitals face these questions every day, and it would seem beyond doubt that our duty is to address both medical and nonmedical determinants of health of everyone that walks through our door. But is this in fact the right thing to do? Is it possible that we unwittingly expose these vulnerable patients to risks from hospitalization alone?

In this month’s Journal of Hospital Medicine, Sekijima et al. sought to quantify precisely the risks of hospitalization, particularly among the subset of patients whose “severity” of medical problems alone might not have warranted hospital admission, a scenario known colloquially as a “social” admission.¹ In real time, an inhouse triage physician classified patients as being admitted with or without “definite medical acuity.” Investigators retrospectively identified adverse events and illness acuity using standardized instruments, the Institute for Healthcare Improvement Global Trigger Tool and Emergency Severity Index, respectively. Despite the acknowledged differences in the patient population and the inherent subjectivity within the designation process, Sekijima et al. found no statistically significant difference in the percentage of admissions with an adverse event nor in the rate of adverse events per 1,000 patient days. Falls, oversedation/hypotension and code/arrest/rapid response activation were the most frequently encountered adverse events.

Delving deeper into the origin of admissions without definite medical acuity, the authors identified homelessness, lack of outpatient social support, substance use disorder, and lack of outpatient medical support as the most common reasons for “nonmedical” admissions. As healthcare providers, we recognize that these factors are generally long-term, chronic socioeconomic determinants of health. Despite our objective knowledge that we are limited in our ability to fix these problems on a short-term basis, the authors’ observations reflect our compulsion to try and help in any way possible. Patients admitted without definite medical acuity were more vulnerable and had higher rates of public insurance and housing insecurity. However, they were less acutely ill, as indicated by lower Emergency Severity Index scores. These factors were not associated with statistically significant differences in either 48-hour ED readmission or 30-day hospital readmission rates.

The process of appropriately triaging patients to an inpatient setting is challenging because of wide variability in both patients and ED providers. Hospitalists are increasingly recognized as an additional resource to assist in the triage process, as we are uniquely in a position to view the patient’s clinical presentation within the context of their anticipated clinical trajectory, promote effective utilization of inpatient bed availability, and anticipate potential barriers to discharge. Graduate medical education now identifies the triage process as a specific milestone within the transitions of care competency, as it requires mastery of interpersonal communication, professionalism, systems-based thinking, and patient-centered care.² However, many institutions lack a dedicated faculty member to perform the triage role. Our institution recently examined the feasibility of instituting a daily “huddle” between the admitting hospitalist and the ED to facilitate interdepartmental communication to create care plans in patient triage and to promote patient throughput. Available admission beds are valuable commodities, and one challenge is that the ED makes disposition decisions without knowledge of the number of available beds in the hospital. The goal of the huddle was to quickly discuss all patients potentially requiring admission prior to the final disposition decision and to address any modifiable factors to potentially prevent a “social” admission with social work early in the day. Further work is in progress to determine if introducing flexibility within existing provider roles can improve the triage process in a measurable and efficient manner.

Many challenges remain as we balance the medical needs of patients with any potential social drivers that necessitate admission to the inpatient hospital setting. From an ED perspective, social support and community follow-up were “universally considered powerful influences on admission,” and other factors such as time of day, clinical volume, and the four-hour waiting time target also played a significant role in the decision to admit.³ Hunter et al. found that admissions with moderate to low acuity may be shorter or less costly,⁴ which presents an interesting question of cost-effectiveness as an avenue for further study. As clinicians, we are intuitively aware of the subjective risk of hospitalization itself, and this work provides new objective evidence that hospitalization confers specific and quantifiable risks. Though we can undoubtedly use this knowledge to guide internal decisions about admissions and discharges, do we also have an obligation to inform our patients about these risks in real time? Ultimately, hospitalization itself might be viewed as a “procedure” or intervention that has inherent risks for all who receive it, regardless of the individual patient or hospital characteristics. As hospitalists, we should continue to strive to reduce these risks, but we should also initiate a conversation about the risks and benefits of hospitalization similarly to how we discuss other procedures with patients and their families.

Even though I could not remember her name, I remembered her story, and I would bet that my colleagues did as well. She was someone that we had all cared for at one time or another. She frequently presented to the hospital with chest pain or shortness of breath attributable to a combination of longstanding congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and cocaine abuse. But most tragic of all, she was homeless, which meant that she was frequently hospitalized not only for medical complaints but also for a night’s shelter and a bite of food. Even though she often refused medical treatment and social workers’ efforts to stabilize her housing situation, the staff in the emergency room and observation unit all knew her by name and greeted her like an old friend. And then one day she stopped showing up to the hospital. Sitting in the emergency department (ED), I overheard that she was found outside of a storefront and had passed away. Saddened by her death, which was not unexpected given her medical issues, I still wondered if we had done right by her during the hundreds of times that she had come to our hospital. Clinicians at busy safety-net hospitals face these questions every day, and it would seem beyond doubt that our duty is to address both medical and nonmedical determinants of health of everyone that walks through our door. But is this in fact the right thing to do? Is it possible that we unwittingly expose these vulnerable patients to risks from hospitalization alone?

In this month’s Journal of Hospital Medicine, Sekijima et al. sought to quantify precisely the risks of hospitalization, particularly among the subset of patients whose “severity” of medical problems alone might not have warranted hospital admission, a scenario known colloquially as a “social” admission.¹ In real time, an inhouse triage physician classified patients as being admitted with or without “definite medical acuity.” Investigators retrospectively identified adverse events and illness acuity using standardized instruments, the Institute for Healthcare Improvement Global Trigger Tool and Emergency Severity Index, respectively. Despite the acknowledged differences in the patient population and the inherent subjectivity within the designation process, Sekijima et al. found no statistically significant difference in the percentage of admissions with an adverse event nor in the rate of adverse events per 1,000 patient days. Falls, oversedation/hypotension and code/arrest/rapid response activation were the most frequently encountered adverse events.

Delving deeper into the origin of admissions without definite medical acuity, the authors identified homelessness, lack of outpatient social support, substance use disorder, and lack of outpatient medical support as the most common reasons for “nonmedical” admissions. As healthcare providers, we recognize that these factors are generally long-term, chronic socioeconomic determinants of health. Despite our objective knowledge that we are limited in our ability to fix these problems on a short-term basis, the authors’ observations reflect our compulsion to try and help in any way possible. Patients admitted without definite medical acuity were more vulnerable and had higher rates of public insurance and housing insecurity. However, they were less acutely ill, as indicated by lower Emergency Severity Index scores. These factors were not associated with statistically significant differences in either 48-hour ED readmission or 30-day hospital readmission rates.

The process of appropriately triaging patients to an inpatient setting is challenging because of wide variability in both patients and ED providers. Hospitalists are increasingly recognized as an additional resource to assist in the triage process, as we are uniquely in a position to view the patient’s clinical presentation within the context of their anticipated clinical trajectory, promote effective utilization of inpatient bed availability, and anticipate potential barriers to discharge. Graduate medical education now identifies the triage process as a specific milestone within the transitions of care competency, as it requires mastery of interpersonal communication, professionalism, systems-based thinking, and patient-centered care.² However, many institutions lack a dedicated faculty member to perform the triage role. Our institution recently examined the feasibility of instituting a daily “huddle” between the admitting hospitalist and the ED to facilitate interdepartmental communication to create care plans in patient triage and to promote patient throughput. Available admission beds are valuable commodities, and one challenge is that the ED makes disposition decisions without knowledge of the number of available beds in the hospital. The goal of the huddle was to quickly discuss all patients potentially requiring admission prior to the final disposition decision and to address any modifiable factors to potentially prevent a “social” admission with social work early in the day. Further work is in progress to determine if introducing flexibility within existing provider roles can improve the triage process in a measurable and efficient manner.

Many challenges remain as we balance the medical needs of patients with any potential social drivers that necessitate admission to the inpatient hospital setting. From an ED perspective, social support and community follow-up were “universally considered powerful influences on admission,” and other factors such as time of day, clinical volume, and the four-hour waiting time target also played a significant role in the decision to admit.³ Hunter et al. found that admissions with moderate to low acuity may be shorter or less costly,⁴ which presents an interesting question of cost-effectiveness as an avenue for further study. As clinicians, we are intuitively aware of the subjective risk of hospitalization itself, and this work provides new objective evidence that hospitalization confers specific and quantifiable risks. Though we can undoubtedly use this knowledge to guide internal decisions about admissions and discharges, do we also have an obligation to inform our patients about these risks in real time? Ultimately, hospitalization itself might be viewed as a “procedure” or intervention that has inherent risks for all who receive it, regardless of the individual patient or hospital characteristics. As hospitalists, we should continue to strive to reduce these risks, but we should also initiate a conversation about the risks and benefits of hospitalization similarly to how we discuss other procedures with patients and their families.

“If you define the problem correctly, you almost have the solution.”
—Steve Jobs

In the classic tale of a chaotic kitchen before an important dinner, two feuding chefs urgently need the only remaining orange in the pantry for their respective dishes. The first chef asserts its necessity for his prized sauce. The second chef retorts that her dessert will be ruined without it. After an emotion-laden battle, they finally agree to compromise, cutting the orange in half. The first chef squeezes the juice out of his half of the orange for his sauce, while the second grates half the zest she needs for her cake. Each chef had less of the orange than their recipe needed, but figured this was the best they could do given the dispute.¹

Conflict frequently occurs for hospitalists leading change efforts, managing service lines, and caring for patients. Often conflict can help clarify a decision or course of action. However, when navigated poorly, disputes can also consume precious energy and sap the goodwill and cooperation needed to effectively lead change and ensure excellent clinical care. Worse yet, ineffective conversations can result in begrudging and ultimately value-destroying agreements, as the chefs above demonstrate.

Instead of focusing on someone’s position (the need for the orange), successful leaders first seek to understand all discernible underlying interests (zest, juice) and motivations (creating a signature dish) of each party.¹ Essential to this process is swift recognition of the conflict and self-regulation. Rather than succumbing to strong fight-or-flight reactions, the wise hospitalist first takes inventory of their own interests and calmly applies a known schema, similar to their approach to common clinical scenarios.

So how can you get to the underlying interests effectively? We use a three-step process reminding us of the benefits of the orange’s ACID.²

Ask open-ended questions and closely listen to their responses. Listening more than talking is critical to this process. When facing conflict, it is common to listen only to refute the other’s position. Instead, actively suppress your instinct to “reload” and seek to genuinely understand the other’s perspective. Continue to ask clarifying questions until you feel you understand their interests.

A new hire requests a higher salary than offered. Ask with curiosity: “Can you tell me more about some of your financial priorities? Even if I can’t do much about the dollar figure, there may be benefits and other helpful tips I can suggest.”

Restate your understanding of their interests from listening. This critical step serves to confirm your good-faith effort to address a common problem and to demonstrate that you have heard their perspective accurately. Even if you ultimately cannot agree on a solution to the dispute at hand, demonstrating an understanding of their perspective helps to preserve the relationship, which can be useful for future conflicts.

“I am hearing that you are hoping to save money for the future, to pay down outstanding loans, and to expand your family. Is that right?”

Accurately defining interests and demonstrating your understanding will maximize the possibility of mutually acceptable solutions. Share your own perspective, being careful to describe your underlying interests, not positions. What mutual goals do you share? What potential solutions were not immediately evident based on positions alone? During this process, remain open to arriving at a solution that you had not anticipated.

“While I unfortunately have little wiggle room on annual salary, there are some options for loan repayment, housing down payment assistance, and low-cost childcare at the health system, which is where my kids went.”

Whether you are a chef or a hospitalist and whether you are dividing oranges or clinical shifts, understanding the interests buried within the conflict will help define and potentially solve the problem. When you encounter an orange, remember the value of its ACID.

Acknowledgement

The authors wish to thank Charlie Wray, DO, Division of Hospital Medicine, San Francisco VA, for assistance with revisions of early drafts.

“If you define the problem correctly, you almost have the solution.”
—Steve Jobs

In the classic tale of a chaotic kitchen before an important dinner, two feuding chefs urgently need the only remaining orange in the pantry for their respective dishes. The first chef asserts its necessity for his prized sauce. The second chef retorts that her dessert will be ruined without it. After an emotion-laden battle, they finally agree to compromise, cutting the orange in half. The first chef squeezes the juice out of his half of the orange for his sauce, while the second grates half the zest she needs for her cake. Each chef had less of the orange than their recipe needed, but figured this was the best they could do given the dispute.¹

Conflict frequently occurs for hospitalists leading change efforts, managing service lines, and caring for patients. Often conflict can help clarify a decision or course of action. However, when navigated poorly, disputes can also consume precious energy and sap the goodwill and cooperation needed to effectively lead change and ensure excellent clinical care. Worse yet, ineffective conversations can result in begrudging and ultimately value-destroying agreements, as the chefs above demonstrate.

Instead of focusing on someone’s position (the need for the orange), successful leaders first seek to understand all discernible underlying interests (zest, juice) and motivations (creating a signature dish) of each party.¹ Essential to this process is swift recognition of the conflict and self-regulation. Rather than succumbing to strong fight-or-flight reactions, the wise hospitalist first takes inventory of their own interests and calmly applies a known schema, similar to their approach to common clinical scenarios.

So how can you get to the underlying interests effectively? We use a three-step process reminding us of the benefits of the orange’s ACID.²

Ask open-ended questions and closely listen to their responses. Listening more than talking is critical to this process. When facing conflict, it is common to listen only to refute the other’s position. Instead, actively suppress your instinct to “reload” and seek to genuinely understand the other’s perspective. Continue to ask clarifying questions until you feel you understand their interests.

A new hire requests a higher salary than offered. Ask with curiosity: “Can you tell me more about some of your financial priorities? Even if I can’t do much about the dollar figure, there may be benefits and other helpful tips I can suggest.”

Restate your understanding of their interests from listening. This critical step serves to confirm your good-faith effort to address a common problem and to demonstrate that you have heard their perspective accurately. Even if you ultimately cannot agree on a solution to the dispute at hand, demonstrating an understanding of their perspective helps to preserve the relationship, which can be useful for future conflicts.

“I am hearing that you are hoping to save money for the future, to pay down outstanding loans, and to expand your family. Is that right?”

Accurately defining interests and demonstrating your understanding will maximize the possibility of mutually acceptable solutions. Share your own perspective, being careful to describe your underlying interests, not positions. What mutual goals do you share? What potential solutions were not immediately evident based on positions alone? During this process, remain open to arriving at a solution that you had not anticipated.

“While I unfortunately have little wiggle room on annual salary, there are some options for loan repayment, housing down payment assistance, and low-cost childcare at the health system, which is where my kids went.”

Whether you are a chef or a hospitalist and whether you are dividing oranges or clinical shifts, understanding the interests buried within the conflict will help define and potentially solve the problem. When you encounter an orange, remember the value of its ACID.

Acknowledgement

The authors wish to thank Charlie Wray, DO, Division of Hospital Medicine, San Francisco VA, for assistance with revisions of early drafts.

“If you define the problem correctly, you almost have the solution.”
—Steve Jobs

In the classic tale of a chaotic kitchen before an important dinner, two feuding chefs urgently need the only remaining orange in the pantry for their respective dishes. The first chef asserts its necessity for his prized sauce. The second chef retorts that her dessert will be ruined without it. After an emotion-laden battle, they finally agree to compromise, cutting the orange in half. The first chef squeezes the juice out of his half of the orange for his sauce, while the second grates half the zest she needs for her cake. Each chef had less of the orange than their recipe needed, but figured this was the best they could do given the dispute.¹

Conflict frequently occurs for hospitalists leading change efforts, managing service lines, and caring for patients. Often conflict can help clarify a decision or course of action. However, when navigated poorly, disputes can also consume precious energy and sap the goodwill and cooperation needed to effectively lead change and ensure excellent clinical care. Worse yet, ineffective conversations can result in begrudging and ultimately value-destroying agreements, as the chefs above demonstrate.

Instead of focusing on someone’s position (the need for the orange), successful leaders first seek to understand all discernible underlying interests (zest, juice) and motivations (creating a signature dish) of each party.¹ Essential to this process is swift recognition of the conflict and self-regulation. Rather than succumbing to strong fight-or-flight reactions, the wise hospitalist first takes inventory of their own interests and calmly applies a known schema, similar to their approach to common clinical scenarios.

So how can you get to the underlying interests effectively? We use a three-step process reminding us of the benefits of the orange’s ACID.²

Ask open-ended questions and closely listen to their responses. Listening more than talking is critical to this process. When facing conflict, it is common to listen only to refute the other’s position. Instead, actively suppress your instinct to “reload” and seek to genuinely understand the other’s perspective. Continue to ask clarifying questions until you feel you understand their interests.

A new hire requests a higher salary than offered. Ask with curiosity: “Can you tell me more about some of your financial priorities? Even if I can’t do much about the dollar figure, there may be benefits and other helpful tips I can suggest.”

Restate your understanding of their interests from listening. This critical step serves to confirm your good-faith effort to address a common problem and to demonstrate that you have heard their perspective accurately. Even if you ultimately cannot agree on a solution to the dispute at hand, demonstrating an understanding of their perspective helps to preserve the relationship, which can be useful for future conflicts.

“I am hearing that you are hoping to save money for the future, to pay down outstanding loans, and to expand your family. Is that right?”

Accurately defining interests and demonstrating your understanding will maximize the possibility of mutually acceptable solutions. Share your own perspective, being careful to describe your underlying interests, not positions. What mutual goals do you share? What potential solutions were not immediately evident based on positions alone? During this process, remain open to arriving at a solution that you had not anticipated.

“While I unfortunately have little wiggle room on annual salary, there are some options for loan repayment, housing down payment assistance, and low-cost childcare at the health system, which is where my kids went.”

Whether you are a chef or a hospitalist and whether you are dividing oranges or clinical shifts, understanding the interests buried within the conflict will help define and potentially solve the problem. When you encounter an orange, remember the value of its ACID.

Acknowledgement

The authors wish to thank Charlie Wray, DO, Division of Hospital Medicine, San Francisco VA, for assistance with revisions of early drafts.

I appreciate the input from Dr. Rauch regarding the terminology of “fellowship” in regards to APP postgraduate training programs.¹ When researching these programs, the overwhelming majority we surveyed described themselves as fellowships. Because of this, we chose to use the same nomenclature. The survey we used was meant to explore and quantify certain discreet components of program creation and execution, and further study would be needed to shed light on how they name themselves.

While it is not known if the term “fellowship” in this context would be confusing to patients, it does seem that the ideal terminology has not yet been clarified. In 2014, the American Association of Nurse Practitioners released a position statement that, for NP postgraduate training programs, the term “fellowship” should be used above other terms.² We were unable to find a similar position statement regarding postgraduate physician assistant training, but did note that the Association of Post-Graduate PA Programs website uses the terms “residency” and “fellowship” seemingly interchangeably.³ As most of the programs that we surveyed train mixed groups of nurse practitioners and physician assistants, developing unified language will be an important step in the future.

I appreciate the input from Dr. Rauch regarding the terminology of “fellowship” in regards to APP postgraduate training programs.¹ When researching these programs, the overwhelming majority we surveyed described themselves as fellowships. Because of this, we chose to use the same nomenclature. The survey we used was meant to explore and quantify certain discreet components of program creation and execution, and further study would be needed to shed light on how they name themselves.

While it is not known if the term “fellowship” in this context would be confusing to patients, it does seem that the ideal terminology has not yet been clarified. In 2014, the American Association of Nurse Practitioners released a position statement that, for NP postgraduate training programs, the term “fellowship” should be used above other terms.² We were unable to find a similar position statement regarding postgraduate physician assistant training, but did note that the Association of Post-Graduate PA Programs website uses the terms “residency” and “fellowship” seemingly interchangeably.³ As most of the programs that we surveyed train mixed groups of nurse practitioners and physician assistants, developing unified language will be an important step in the future.

I appreciate the input from Dr. Rauch regarding the terminology of “fellowship” in regards to APP postgraduate training programs.¹ When researching these programs, the overwhelming majority we surveyed described themselves as fellowships. Because of this, we chose to use the same nomenclature. The survey we used was meant to explore and quantify certain discreet components of program creation and execution, and further study would be needed to shed light on how they name themselves.

While it is not known if the term “fellowship” in this context would be confusing to patients, it does seem that the ideal terminology has not yet been clarified. In 2014, the American Association of Nurse Practitioners released a position statement that, for NP postgraduate training programs, the term “fellowship” should be used above other terms.² We were unable to find a similar position statement regarding postgraduate physician assistant training, but did note that the Association of Post-Graduate PA Programs website uses the terms “residency” and “fellowship” seemingly interchangeably.³ As most of the programs that we surveyed train mixed groups of nurse practitioners and physician assistants, developing unified language will be an important step in the future.

I read with interest the recent article by Klimpl et al. “The Current State of Advanced Practice provider Fellowships in Hospital Medicine: A Survey of Program Directors.”¹ I appreciate the description of the variation in training as well as the discussion points about the driving forces behind the training programs. However, I am concerned about the terminology used, specifically “fellowship,” and how it can create confusion for patients. Accredited medical/surgical fellowships have a precise meaning and convey an assurance of standardized additional training. Even many non-Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education fellowships within a single field have a shared curriculum. Using the same terminology for other medical providers may be seen as equating their post-training competency with physicians who have completed fellowship training. As the authors point out, there is a wide divergence in the clinical experience required to become a licensed practitioner among NPs, PAs, and physicians. As such, using the same terminology for their respective training programs makes it difficult for the public to differentiate between them.

I read with interest the recent article by Klimpl et al. “The Current State of Advanced Practice provider Fellowships in Hospital Medicine: A Survey of Program Directors.”¹ I appreciate the description of the variation in training as well as the discussion points about the driving forces behind the training programs. However, I am concerned about the terminology used, specifically “fellowship,” and how it can create confusion for patients. Accredited medical/surgical fellowships have a precise meaning and convey an assurance of standardized additional training. Even many non-Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education fellowships within a single field have a shared curriculum. Using the same terminology for other medical providers may be seen as equating their post-training competency with physicians who have completed fellowship training. As the authors point out, there is a wide divergence in the clinical experience required to become a licensed practitioner among NPs, PAs, and physicians. As such, using the same terminology for their respective training programs makes it difficult for the public to differentiate between them.

I read with interest the recent article by Klimpl et al. “The Current State of Advanced Practice provider Fellowships in Hospital Medicine: A Survey of Program Directors.”¹ I appreciate the description of the variation in training as well as the discussion points about the driving forces behind the training programs. However, I am concerned about the terminology used, specifically “fellowship,” and how it can create confusion for patients. Accredited medical/surgical fellowships have a precise meaning and convey an assurance of standardized additional training. Even many non-Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education fellowships within a single field have a shared curriculum. Using the same terminology for other medical providers may be seen as equating their post-training competency with physicians who have completed fellowship training. As the authors point out, there is a wide divergence in the clinical experience required to become a licensed practitioner among NPs, PAs, and physicians. As such, using the same terminology for their respective training programs makes it difficult for the public to differentiate between them.

A 73-year-old man presents to the emergency department with sepsis secondary to community-acquired pneumonia. The patient requires supplemental oxygen and is started on intravenous antibiotics. His admitting physician expects he will need more than two nights of hospital care and suggests that inpatient status, rather than outpatient (observation) status, would be appropriate under Medicare’s “Two-Midnight Rule.” The physician also suspects the patient may need a brief stay in a skilled nursing facility (SNF) following the mentioned hospitalization and notes that the patient has a Medicare Advantage plan (Table) and wonders if the Two-Midnight Rule applies. Further, she questions whether Medicare’s “Three-Midnight Rule” for SNF benefits will factor in the patient’s discharge planning.

Since the 1970s, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has allowed enrollees to receive their Medicare benefits from privately managed health plans through the so-called Medicare Advantage programs. CMS contracts with commercial insurers who, in exchange for a set payment per Medicare enrollee, “accept full responsibility (ie, risk) for the costs of their enrollees’ care.”¹ Over the past 20 years the percent of Medicare Advantage enrollees has nearly doubled nationwide, from 18% to 34%, and is projected to grow even further to 42% by 2028.^2,3 The reasons beneficiaries choose to enroll in Medicare Advantage over Traditional Medicare have yet to be thoroughly studied; ease of enrollment and plan administration, as well as lower deductibles, copays, and out-of-pocket maximums for in-network services, are thought to be some of the driving factors.

The federal government has asserted two goals for the development of Medicare Advantage: beneficiary choice and economic efficiency.¹ Medicare Advantage plans must be actuarially equal to Traditional Medicare but do not have to cover services in precisely the same way. Medicare Advantage plans may achieve cost savings through narrower networks, strict control of access to SNF services and acute care inpatient rehabilitation, and prior authorization requirements, the latter of which has received recent congressional attention.^4,5 On the other hand, many Medicare Advantage plans offer dental, fitness, optical, and caregiver benefits that are not included under Traditional Medicare. Beneficiaries can theoretically compare the coverage and costs of Traditional Medicare to Medicare Advantage programs and make informed choices based on their individualized needs. The second stated goal for the Medicare Advantage option assumes that privately managed plans provide care at lower costs compared with CMS; this assumption has yet to be confirmed with solid data. Indeed, a recent analysis comparing the overall costs of Medicare Advantage to those of Traditional Medicare concluded that Medicare Advantage costs CMS more than Traditional Medicare,⁶ perhaps in part due to risk adjustment practices.⁷

There are a number of areas of uncertainty regarding the specifics of how Medicare Advantage plans work, including Medicare Advantage programs’ use of outpatient (observation) stays. CMS has tried to provide guidance to healthcare organizations and clinicians regarding the appropriate use of inpatient hospitalizations for patients with Traditional Medicare, including the implementation of the Two-Midnight Rule in 2013. According to the rule, clinicians should place inpatient admission orders when they reasonably expect a patient’s care to extend across two midnights.⁸ Such admission decisions are subject to review by Medicare contractors and Quality Improvement Organizations.

In contrast, Medicare Advantage plans which enter into contracts with specific healthcare systems are not required to abide by CMS’ guidelines for the Two-Midnight Rule.⁹ When Medicare Advantage firms negotiate contracts with individual hospitals and healthcare organizations, CMS has been clear that such contracts are not required to include the Two-Midnight Rule when it comes to making hospitalization status decisions.¹⁰ Instead, in these instances, Medicare Advantage plans often use proprietary decision tools containing clinical criteria, such as Milliman Care Guidelines or InterQual, and/or their own plan’s internal criteria as part of the decision-making process to grant inpatient or outpatient (observation) status. More importantly, CMS has stated that for hospitals and healthcare systems that do not contract with Medicare Advantage programs, the Two-Midnight Rule should apply when it comes to making hospitalization status decisions.¹⁰

Implications for Patients

Currently, there are no data available to compare between Medicare Advantage enrollees and traditional medicine beneficiaries in terms of the frequency of observation use and out-of-pocket cost for observation stays. As alluded to in the patient’s case, the use of outpatient (observation) status has implications for a patient’s posthospitalization SNF benefit. Under Traditional Medicare, patients must be hospitalized for three consecutive inpatient midnights in order to qualify for the SNF benefit. Time spent under outpatient (observation) status does not count toward this three-day requirement. Interestingly, some Medicare Advantage programs have demonstrated innovation in this area, waiving the three inpatient midnight requirement for their beneficiaries;¹¹ there is evidence, however, that compared with their Traditional Medicare counterparts, Medicare Advantage beneficiaries are admitted to lower quality SNFs.¹² The posthospitalization consequences of an inpatient versus outpatient (observation) status determination for a Medicare Advantage beneficiary is thus unclear, further complicating the decision-making process for patients when it comes to choosing a Medicare policy, and for providers when it comes to choosing an admission status.

Implications for Clinicians and Healthcare Systems

After performing an initial history and physical exam, if a healthcare provider determines that a patient requires hospitalization, an order is placed to classify the stay as inpatient or outpatient (observation). For beneficiaries with Traditional Medicare or a Medicare Advantage plan that has not contracted with the hospital, clinicians should follow the Two-Midnight Rule for making this determination. For contracted Medicare Advantage, the rules are variable. Under Medicare’s Conditions of Participation, hospitals and healthcare organizations are required to have utilization management (UM) programs to assist physicians in making appropriate admission decisions. UM reviews can happen at any point during or after a patient’s stay, however, and physicians may have to make decisions using their best judgment at the time of admission without real-time input from UM teams.

Outpatient (observation) care and the challenges surrounding appropriate status orders have complicated the admission decision. In one study of 2014 Traditional Medicare claims, almost half of outpatient (observation) stays contained a status change.¹³ Based on a recent survey of hospitalist physicians, about two-thirds of hospitalists report at least monthly requests from patients to change their status.¹⁴ Hospital medicine physicians report that these requests “can severely damage the therapeutic bond”¹⁴ between provider and patient because the provider must assign status based on CMS rules, not patient request.

CMS could improve the current system in one of two ways. First, CMS could require that all Medicare Advantage plans follow the same polices as Traditional Medicare policies regarding the Two- and Three-Midnight Rules. This would eliminate the need for both hospitals and healthcare organizations to dedicate time and resources to negotiating with each Medicare Advantage program and to managing each Medicare Advantage patient admission based on a specific contract. Ideally, CMS could completely eliminate its outpatient (observation) policy so that all hospitalizations are treated exactly the same, classified under the same billing status and with beneficiaries having the same postacute benefit. This would be consistent with the sentiment behind the recent Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) report suggesting that CMS consider counting outpatient midnights toward the three-midnight requirement for postacute SNF care “so that beneficiaries receiving similar hospital care have similar access to these services.”¹⁵

The physician in the example above should tell their patient that they will be admitted as an inpatient given her expectation that the patient will need hospitalization for oxygen support, parenteral antibiotics, and evaluation by physical therapy to determine a medically appropriate discharge plan. The physician should document the medical necessity for the admission, specifically her expectation that the patient will require at least two midnights of medically necessary hospital care. If the patient has Traditional Medicare, this documentation, along with the inpatient status order, will fulfill the requirements for an inpatient stay. If the patient has a Medicare Advantage plan, the physician can advise the patient that the plan administrators will ultimately determine if an inpatient stay will be covered or denied.

In the proposed clinical scenario, the rules determining the patient’s hospitalization status depend on whether the hospital contracts with the patient’s Medicare Advantage plan, and if so, what the contracted criteria are in determining inpatient and outpatient (observation) status. The physician could consider real-time input from the hospital’s UM team, if available. Regardless of UM input, if the physician hospitalizes the patient as an inpatient, the Medicare Advantage plan administrators will make a determination regarding the appropriateness of the admission status, as well as whether the patient qualifies for posthospitalization Medicare SNF benefits (if requested) and, additionally, which SNFs will be covered. If denied, the hospitalist will have the option of a peer-to-peer discussion with the insurance company to overturn the denial. Given the confusion, complexity, and implications presented by this admission status decision-making process, standardization across Traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage plans, or a budget-neutral plan to eliminate status distinction altogether, is certainly warranted.

A 73-year-old man presents to the emergency department with sepsis secondary to community-acquired pneumonia. The patient requires supplemental oxygen and is started on intravenous antibiotics. His admitting physician expects he will need more than two nights of hospital care and suggests that inpatient status, rather than outpatient (observation) status, would be appropriate under Medicare’s “Two-Midnight Rule.” The physician also suspects the patient may need a brief stay in a skilled nursing facility (SNF) following the mentioned hospitalization and notes that the patient has a Medicare Advantage plan (Table) and wonders if the Two-Midnight Rule applies. Further, she questions whether Medicare’s “Three-Midnight Rule” for SNF benefits will factor in the patient’s discharge planning.

Since the 1970s, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has allowed enrollees to receive their Medicare benefits from privately managed health plans through the so-called Medicare Advantage programs. CMS contracts with commercial insurers who, in exchange for a set payment per Medicare enrollee, “accept full responsibility (ie, risk) for the costs of their enrollees’ care.”¹ Over the past 20 years the percent of Medicare Advantage enrollees has nearly doubled nationwide, from 18% to 34%, and is projected to grow even further to 42% by 2028.^2,3 The reasons beneficiaries choose to enroll in Medicare Advantage over Traditional Medicare have yet to be thoroughly studied; ease of enrollment and plan administration, as well as lower deductibles, copays, and out-of-pocket maximums for in-network services, are thought to be some of the driving factors.

The federal government has asserted two goals for the development of Medicare Advantage: beneficiary choice and economic efficiency.¹ Medicare Advantage plans must be actuarially equal to Traditional Medicare but do not have to cover services in precisely the same way. Medicare Advantage plans may achieve cost savings through narrower networks, strict control of access to SNF services and acute care inpatient rehabilitation, and prior authorization requirements, the latter of which has received recent congressional attention.^4,5 On the other hand, many Medicare Advantage plans offer dental, fitness, optical, and caregiver benefits that are not included under Traditional Medicare. Beneficiaries can theoretically compare the coverage and costs of Traditional Medicare to Medicare Advantage programs and make informed choices based on their individualized needs. The second stated goal for the Medicare Advantage option assumes that privately managed plans provide care at lower costs compared with CMS; this assumption has yet to be confirmed with solid data. Indeed, a recent analysis comparing the overall costs of Medicare Advantage to those of Traditional Medicare concluded that Medicare Advantage costs CMS more than Traditional Medicare,⁶ perhaps in part due to risk adjustment practices.⁷

There are a number of areas of uncertainty regarding the specifics of how Medicare Advantage plans work, including Medicare Advantage programs’ use of outpatient (observation) stays. CMS has tried to provide guidance to healthcare organizations and clinicians regarding the appropriate use of inpatient hospitalizations for patients with Traditional Medicare, including the implementation of the Two-Midnight Rule in 2013. According to the rule, clinicians should place inpatient admission orders when they reasonably expect a patient’s care to extend across two midnights.⁸ Such admission decisions are subject to review by Medicare contractors and Quality Improvement Organizations.

In contrast, Medicare Advantage plans which enter into contracts with specific healthcare systems are not required to abide by CMS’ guidelines for the Two-Midnight Rule.⁹ When Medicare Advantage firms negotiate contracts with individual hospitals and healthcare organizations, CMS has been clear that such contracts are not required to include the Two-Midnight Rule when it comes to making hospitalization status decisions.¹⁰ Instead, in these instances, Medicare Advantage plans often use proprietary decision tools containing clinical criteria, such as Milliman Care Guidelines or InterQual, and/or their own plan’s internal criteria as part of the decision-making process to grant inpatient or outpatient (observation) status. More importantly, CMS has stated that for hospitals and healthcare systems that do not contract with Medicare Advantage programs, the Two-Midnight Rule should apply when it comes to making hospitalization status decisions.¹⁰

Implications for Patients

Currently, there are no data available to compare between Medicare Advantage enrollees and traditional medicine beneficiaries in terms of the frequency of observation use and out-of-pocket cost for observation stays. As alluded to in the patient’s case, the use of outpatient (observation) status has implications for a patient’s posthospitalization SNF benefit. Under Traditional Medicare, patients must be hospitalized for three consecutive inpatient midnights in order to qualify for the SNF benefit. Time spent under outpatient (observation) status does not count toward this three-day requirement. Interestingly, some Medicare Advantage programs have demonstrated innovation in this area, waiving the three inpatient midnight requirement for their beneficiaries;¹¹ there is evidence, however, that compared with their Traditional Medicare counterparts, Medicare Advantage beneficiaries are admitted to lower quality SNFs.¹² The posthospitalization consequences of an inpatient versus outpatient (observation) status determination for a Medicare Advantage beneficiary is thus unclear, further complicating the decision-making process for patients when it comes to choosing a Medicare policy, and for providers when it comes to choosing an admission status.

Implications for Clinicians and Healthcare Systems

After performing an initial history and physical exam, if a healthcare provider determines that a patient requires hospitalization, an order is placed to classify the stay as inpatient or outpatient (observation). For beneficiaries with Traditional Medicare or a Medicare Advantage plan that has not contracted with the hospital, clinicians should follow the Two-Midnight Rule for making this determination. For contracted Medicare Advantage, the rules are variable. Under Medicare’s Conditions of Participation, hospitals and healthcare organizations are required to have utilization management (UM) programs to assist physicians in making appropriate admission decisions. UM reviews can happen at any point during or after a patient’s stay, however, and physicians may have to make decisions using their best judgment at the time of admission without real-time input from UM teams.

Outpatient (observation) care and the challenges surrounding appropriate status orders have complicated the admission decision. In one study of 2014 Traditional Medicare claims, almost half of outpatient (observation) stays contained a status change.¹³ Based on a recent survey of hospitalist physicians, about two-thirds of hospitalists report at least monthly requests from patients to change their status.¹⁴ Hospital medicine physicians report that these requests “can severely damage the therapeutic bond”¹⁴ between provider and patient because the provider must assign status based on CMS rules, not patient request.

CMS could improve the current system in one of two ways. First, CMS could require that all Medicare Advantage plans follow the same polices as Traditional Medicare policies regarding the Two- and Three-Midnight Rules. This would eliminate the need for both hospitals and healthcare organizations to dedicate time and resources to negotiating with each Medicare Advantage program and to managing each Medicare Advantage patient admission based on a specific contract. Ideally, CMS could completely eliminate its outpatient (observation) policy so that all hospitalizations are treated exactly the same, classified under the same billing status and with beneficiaries having the same postacute benefit. This would be consistent with the sentiment behind the recent Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) report suggesting that CMS consider counting outpatient midnights toward the three-midnight requirement for postacute SNF care “so that beneficiaries receiving similar hospital care have similar access to these services.”¹⁵

The physician in the example above should tell their patient that they will be admitted as an inpatient given her expectation that the patient will need hospitalization for oxygen support, parenteral antibiotics, and evaluation by physical therapy to determine a medically appropriate discharge plan. The physician should document the medical necessity for the admission, specifically her expectation that the patient will require at least two midnights of medically necessary hospital care. If the patient has Traditional Medicare, this documentation, along with the inpatient status order, will fulfill the requirements for an inpatient stay. If the patient has a Medicare Advantage plan, the physician can advise the patient that the plan administrators will ultimately determine if an inpatient stay will be covered or denied.

In the proposed clinical scenario, the rules determining the patient’s hospitalization status depend on whether the hospital contracts with the patient’s Medicare Advantage plan, and if so, what the contracted criteria are in determining inpatient and outpatient (observation) status. The physician could consider real-time input from the hospital’s UM team, if available. Regardless of UM input, if the physician hospitalizes the patient as an inpatient, the Medicare Advantage plan administrators will make a determination regarding the appropriateness of the admission status, as well as whether the patient qualifies for posthospitalization Medicare SNF benefits (if requested) and, additionally, which SNFs will be covered. If denied, the hospitalist will have the option of a peer-to-peer discussion with the insurance company to overturn the denial. Given the confusion, complexity, and implications presented by this admission status decision-making process, standardization across Traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage plans, or a budget-neutral plan to eliminate status distinction altogether, is certainly warranted.

A 73-year-old man presents to the emergency department with sepsis secondary to community-acquired pneumonia. The patient requires supplemental oxygen and is started on intravenous antibiotics. His admitting physician expects he will need more than two nights of hospital care and suggests that inpatient status, rather than outpatient (observation) status, would be appropriate under Medicare’s “Two-Midnight Rule.” The physician also suspects the patient may need a brief stay in a skilled nursing facility (SNF) following the mentioned hospitalization and notes that the patient has a Medicare Advantage plan (Table) and wonders if the Two-Midnight Rule applies. Further, she questions whether Medicare’s “Three-Midnight Rule” for SNF benefits will factor in the patient’s discharge planning.

Since the 1970s, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has allowed enrollees to receive their Medicare benefits from privately managed health plans through the so-called Medicare Advantage programs. CMS contracts with commercial insurers who, in exchange for a set payment per Medicare enrollee, “accept full responsibility (ie, risk) for the costs of their enrollees’ care.”¹ Over the past 20 years the percent of Medicare Advantage enrollees has nearly doubled nationwide, from 18% to 34%, and is projected to grow even further to 42% by 2028.^2,3 The reasons beneficiaries choose to enroll in Medicare Advantage over Traditional Medicare have yet to be thoroughly studied; ease of enrollment and plan administration, as well as lower deductibles, copays, and out-of-pocket maximums for in-network services, are thought to be some of the driving factors.

The federal government has asserted two goals for the development of Medicare Advantage: beneficiary choice and economic efficiency.¹ Medicare Advantage plans must be actuarially equal to Traditional Medicare but do not have to cover services in precisely the same way. Medicare Advantage plans may achieve cost savings through narrower networks, strict control of access to SNF services and acute care inpatient rehabilitation, and prior authorization requirements, the latter of which has received recent congressional attention.^4,5 On the other hand, many Medicare Advantage plans offer dental, fitness, optical, and caregiver benefits that are not included under Traditional Medicare. Beneficiaries can theoretically compare the coverage and costs of Traditional Medicare to Medicare Advantage programs and make informed choices based on their individualized needs. The second stated goal for the Medicare Advantage option assumes that privately managed plans provide care at lower costs compared with CMS; this assumption has yet to be confirmed with solid data. Indeed, a recent analysis comparing the overall costs of Medicare Advantage to those of Traditional Medicare concluded that Medicare Advantage costs CMS more than Traditional Medicare,⁶ perhaps in part due to risk adjustment practices.⁷

There are a number of areas of uncertainty regarding the specifics of how Medicare Advantage plans work, including Medicare Advantage programs’ use of outpatient (observation) stays. CMS has tried to provide guidance to healthcare organizations and clinicians regarding the appropriate use of inpatient hospitalizations for patients with Traditional Medicare, including the implementation of the Two-Midnight Rule in 2013. According to the rule, clinicians should place inpatient admission orders when they reasonably expect a patient’s care to extend across two midnights.⁸ Such admission decisions are subject to review by Medicare contractors and Quality Improvement Organizations.

In contrast, Medicare Advantage plans which enter into contracts with specific healthcare systems are not required to abide by CMS’ guidelines for the Two-Midnight Rule.⁹ When Medicare Advantage firms negotiate contracts with individual hospitals and healthcare organizations, CMS has been clear that such contracts are not required to include the Two-Midnight Rule when it comes to making hospitalization status decisions.¹⁰ Instead, in these instances, Medicare Advantage plans often use proprietary decision tools containing clinical criteria, such as Milliman Care Guidelines or InterQual, and/or their own plan’s internal criteria as part of the decision-making process to grant inpatient or outpatient (observation) status. More importantly, CMS has stated that for hospitals and healthcare systems that do not contract with Medicare Advantage programs, the Two-Midnight Rule should apply when it comes to making hospitalization status decisions.¹⁰

Implications for Patients

Currently, there are no data available to compare between Medicare Advantage enrollees and traditional medicine beneficiaries in terms of the frequency of observation use and out-of-pocket cost for observation stays. As alluded to in the patient’s case, the use of outpatient (observation) status has implications for a patient’s posthospitalization SNF benefit. Under Traditional Medicare, patients must be hospitalized for three consecutive inpatient midnights in order to qualify for the SNF benefit. Time spent under outpatient (observation) status does not count toward this three-day requirement. Interestingly, some Medicare Advantage programs have demonstrated innovation in this area, waiving the three inpatient midnight requirement for their beneficiaries;¹¹ there is evidence, however, that compared with their Traditional Medicare counterparts, Medicare Advantage beneficiaries are admitted to lower quality SNFs.¹² The posthospitalization consequences of an inpatient versus outpatient (observation) status determination for a Medicare Advantage beneficiary is thus unclear, further complicating the decision-making process for patients when it comes to choosing a Medicare policy, and for providers when it comes to choosing an admission status.

Implications for Clinicians and Healthcare Systems

After performing an initial history and physical exam, if a healthcare provider determines that a patient requires hospitalization, an order is placed to classify the stay as inpatient or outpatient (observation). For beneficiaries with Traditional Medicare or a Medicare Advantage plan that has not contracted with the hospital, clinicians should follow the Two-Midnight Rule for making this determination. For contracted Medicare Advantage, the rules are variable. Under Medicare’s Conditions of Participation, hospitals and healthcare organizations are required to have utilization management (UM) programs to assist physicians in making appropriate admission decisions. UM reviews can happen at any point during or after a patient’s stay, however, and physicians may have to make decisions using their best judgment at the time of admission without real-time input from UM teams.

Outpatient (observation) care and the challenges surrounding appropriate status orders have complicated the admission decision. In one study of 2014 Traditional Medicare claims, almost half of outpatient (observation) stays contained a status change.¹³ Based on a recent survey of hospitalist physicians, about two-thirds of hospitalists report at least monthly requests from patients to change their status.¹⁴ Hospital medicine physicians report that these requests “can severely damage the therapeutic bond”¹⁴ between provider and patient because the provider must assign status based on CMS rules, not patient request.

CMS could improve the current system in one of two ways. First, CMS could require that all Medicare Advantage plans follow the same polices as Traditional Medicare policies regarding the Two- and Three-Midnight Rules. This would eliminate the need for both hospitals and healthcare organizations to dedicate time and resources to negotiating with each Medicare Advantage program and to managing each Medicare Advantage patient admission based on a specific contract. Ideally, CMS could completely eliminate its outpatient (observation) policy so that all hospitalizations are treated exactly the same, classified under the same billing status and with beneficiaries having the same postacute benefit. This would be consistent with the sentiment behind the recent Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) report suggesting that CMS consider counting outpatient midnights toward the three-midnight requirement for postacute SNF care “so that beneficiaries receiving similar hospital care have similar access to these services.”¹⁵

The physician in the example above should tell their patient that they will be admitted as an inpatient given her expectation that the patient will need hospitalization for oxygen support, parenteral antibiotics, and evaluation by physical therapy to determine a medically appropriate discharge plan. The physician should document the medical necessity for the admission, specifically her expectation that the patient will require at least two midnights of medically necessary hospital care. If the patient has Traditional Medicare, this documentation, along with the inpatient status order, will fulfill the requirements for an inpatient stay. If the patient has a Medicare Advantage plan, the physician can advise the patient that the plan administrators will ultimately determine if an inpatient stay will be covered or denied.

In the proposed clinical scenario, the rules determining the patient’s hospitalization status depend on whether the hospital contracts with the patient’s Medicare Advantage plan, and if so, what the contracted criteria are in determining inpatient and outpatient (observation) status. The physician could consider real-time input from the hospital’s UM team, if available. Regardless of UM input, if the physician hospitalizes the patient as an inpatient, the Medicare Advantage plan administrators will make a determination regarding the appropriateness of the admission status, as well as whether the patient qualifies for posthospitalization Medicare SNF benefits (if requested) and, additionally, which SNFs will be covered. If denied, the hospitalist will have the option of a peer-to-peer discussion with the insurance company to overturn the denial. Given the confusion, complexity, and implications presented by this admission status decision-making process, standardization across Traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage plans, or a budget-neutral plan to eliminate status distinction altogether, is certainly warranted.

The Journal of Hospital Medicine introduced the Choosing Wisely^®: Next Steps in Improving Healthcare Value series in 2015¹ as a companion to the popular Choosing Wisely^®: Things We Do For No Reason^™ series² that was introduced in October in the same year. Both series were created in partnership with the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation and were designed in the spirit of the Choosing Wisely^® campaign’s mission to “promote conversations between clinicians and patients” in choosing care supported by evidence that minimizes harm, including avoidance of unnecessary treatments and tests.³ The Choosing Wisely^®: Next Steps in Improving Healthcare Value series extends these principles as a forum for manuscripts that focus on translating value-based concepts into daily operations, including systems-level care delivery redesign initiatives, payment model innovations, and analyses of relevant policies or practice trends.

Since its inception, 16 Choosing Wisely^®: Next Steps in Improving Healthcare Value manuscripts have been published, encompassing a wide range of topics such as postacute care transitions,⁴ the role of hospital medicine practice within accountable care organizations (ACOs),⁵ and quality and value at end-of-life.⁶

Few physicians receive health policy training.^7,8 Hospital medicine practitioners are a core component of the workforce, driving change and value-based improvements at almost every inpatient facility across the country. Regardless of their background or experience, hospital medicine practitioners must interface with legislation, regulation, and other policies every day while providing patient care. Intentional, value-based improvements are more likely to succeed if those providing direct patient care understand health policies, particularly the effects of those policies on transactional, point-of-care decisions.

We are pleased to expand the Choosing Wisely^®: Next Steps in Improving Healthcare Value series to include articles exploring health policy implications at the bedside. These articles will use common clinical scenarios to illuminate health policies most germane to hospital medicine practitioners and present applications of the policies as they relate to value at the level of patient–provider interactions. Each article will present a clinical scenario, explain key policy terms, address implications of specific policies in clinical practice, and propose how those policies can be improved (Appendix). Going forward, Choosing Wisely^®: Next Steps in Improving Healthcare Value manuscript titles will include either “Policy in Clinical Practice” or “Improving Healthcare Value” to better establish a connection to the series and distinguish between the two article types.

The first Choosing Wisely^®: Next Steps in Improving Healthcare Value—Implications of Health Policy on Clinical Decision-Making manuscript appears in this issue of the Journal of Hospital Medicine.⁹ As is the current practice for Choosing Wisely^®: Next Steps in Improving Healthcare Value, authors are requested to send series editors a 500-word precis for review to ensure topic suitability before submission of a full manuscript. The precis, as well as any questions pertaining to the new series, can be directed to [email protected].

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation for supporting this series.

The Journal of Hospital Medicine introduced the Choosing Wisely^®: Next Steps in Improving Healthcare Value series in 2015¹ as a companion to the popular Choosing Wisely^®: Things We Do For No Reason^™ series² that was introduced in October in the same year. Both series were created in partnership with the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation and were designed in the spirit of the Choosing Wisely^® campaign’s mission to “promote conversations between clinicians and patients” in choosing care supported by evidence that minimizes harm, including avoidance of unnecessary treatments and tests.³ The Choosing Wisely^®: Next Steps in Improving Healthcare Value series extends these principles as a forum for manuscripts that focus on translating value-based concepts into daily operations, including systems-level care delivery redesign initiatives, payment model innovations, and analyses of relevant policies or practice trends.

Since its inception, 16 Choosing Wisely^®: Next Steps in Improving Healthcare Value manuscripts have been published, encompassing a wide range of topics such as postacute care transitions,⁴ the role of hospital medicine practice within accountable care organizations (ACOs),⁵ and quality and value at end-of-life.⁶

Few physicians receive health policy training.^7,8 Hospital medicine practitioners are a core component of the workforce, driving change and value-based improvements at almost every inpatient facility across the country. Regardless of their background or experience, hospital medicine practitioners must interface with legislation, regulation, and other policies every day while providing patient care. Intentional, value-based improvements are more likely to succeed if those providing direct patient care understand health policies, particularly the effects of those policies on transactional, point-of-care decisions.

We are pleased to expand the Choosing Wisely^®: Next Steps in Improving Healthcare Value series to include articles exploring health policy implications at the bedside. These articles will use common clinical scenarios to illuminate health policies most germane to hospital medicine practitioners and present applications of the policies as they relate to value at the level of patient–provider interactions. Each article will present a clinical scenario, explain key policy terms, address implications of specific policies in clinical practice, and propose how those policies can be improved (Appendix). Going forward, Choosing Wisely^®: Next Steps in Improving Healthcare Value manuscript titles will include either “Policy in Clinical Practice” or “Improving Healthcare Value” to better establish a connection to the series and distinguish between the two article types.

The first Choosing Wisely^®: Next Steps in Improving Healthcare Value—Implications of Health Policy on Clinical Decision-Making manuscript appears in this issue of the Journal of Hospital Medicine.⁹ As is the current practice for Choosing Wisely^®: Next Steps in Improving Healthcare Value, authors are requested to send series editors a 500-word precis for review to ensure topic suitability before submission of a full manuscript. The precis, as well as any questions pertaining to the new series, can be directed to [email protected].

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation for supporting this series.

The Journal of Hospital Medicine introduced the Choosing Wisely^®: Next Steps in Improving Healthcare Value series in 2015¹ as a companion to the popular Choosing Wisely^®: Things We Do For No Reason^™ series² that was introduced in October in the same year. Both series were created in partnership with the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation and were designed in the spirit of the Choosing Wisely^® campaign’s mission to “promote conversations between clinicians and patients” in choosing care supported by evidence that minimizes harm, including avoidance of unnecessary treatments and tests.³ The Choosing Wisely^®: Next Steps in Improving Healthcare Value series extends these principles as a forum for manuscripts that focus on translating value-based concepts into daily operations, including systems-level care delivery redesign initiatives, payment model innovations, and analyses of relevant policies or practice trends.

Since its inception, 16 Choosing Wisely^®: Next Steps in Improving Healthcare Value manuscripts have been published, encompassing a wide range of topics such as postacute care transitions,⁴ the role of hospital medicine practice within accountable care organizations (ACOs),⁵ and quality and value at end-of-life.⁶

Few physicians receive health policy training.^7,8 Hospital medicine practitioners are a core component of the workforce, driving change and value-based improvements at almost every inpatient facility across the country. Regardless of their background or experience, hospital medicine practitioners must interface with legislation, regulation, and other policies every day while providing patient care. Intentional, value-based improvements are more likely to succeed if those providing direct patient care understand health policies, particularly the effects of those policies on transactional, point-of-care decisions.

We are pleased to expand the Choosing Wisely^®: Next Steps in Improving Healthcare Value series to include articles exploring health policy implications at the bedside. These articles will use common clinical scenarios to illuminate health policies most germane to hospital medicine practitioners and present applications of the policies as they relate to value at the level of patient–provider interactions. Each article will present a clinical scenario, explain key policy terms, address implications of specific policies in clinical practice, and propose how those policies can be improved (Appendix). Going forward, Choosing Wisely^®: Next Steps in Improving Healthcare Value manuscript titles will include either “Policy in Clinical Practice” or “Improving Healthcare Value” to better establish a connection to the series and distinguish between the two article types.

The first Choosing Wisely^®: Next Steps in Improving Healthcare Value—Implications of Health Policy on Clinical Decision-Making manuscript appears in this issue of the Journal of Hospital Medicine.⁹ As is the current practice for Choosing Wisely^®: Next Steps in Improving Healthcare Value, authors are requested to send series editors a 500-word precis for review to ensure topic suitability before submission of a full manuscript. The precis, as well as any questions pertaining to the new series, can be directed to [email protected].

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation for supporting this series.