User login
A Time to Be Recognized
Like so many things in HM, the story of how hospitalists first learned about the focused practice program is a modern one.
It started with a text message, which led to a blog post, which reached thousands of readers, many of them hospitalists interested in how to bolster their bona fides in a specialty known for its explosive growth in recent years.
Now, hospitalists certified in internal medicine have the opportunity to reinforce their commitment to the specialty by maintaining their certification through the Focused Practice in Hospital Medicine pathway offered by the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM). The Focused Practice in Hospital Medicine (FPHM) Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program enables hospitalists to distinguish their practice within the larger specialty of internal medicine.
The Evolution of FPHM
The new pathway has been years in the making, and it reflects the growing influence of HM in healthcare, according to ABIM Chief Medical Officer Eric Holmboe, MD. He sees the FPHM as the result of a combination of factors, including the fact that the specialty now has more than 30,000 hospitalists practicing nationwide. “If you look at the past years, this has been a viable and vibrant practice,” he says. “If you look at the number of people doing hospital medicine, it’s a factor.”
For Holmboe, it also is a shift in how individuals are recognized based on their practice areas. “This is an acknowledgement by ABIM and the American Board of Medical Specialties to look at Maintenance of Certification in terms of what the individual actually does,” he explains. “Hospitalists play a very important role in the hospital.”
He also credits the leadership of the HM movement—especially pioneers like Robert Wachter, MD, FHM. One of HM’s most ardent champions, Dr. Wachter, chief of the hospital medicine division, professor, and associate chair of the Department of Medicine at the University of California at San Francisco, worked with ABIM to find a way to recognize hospitalists’ specialized skill sets and their commitment to inpatient medicine. After more than a decade of advocating for a board-certified process to recognize the field, Dr. Wachter, an ABIM board member, began receiving multiple text messages from colleagues announcing that ABIM had approved the focused-practice program. He wrote a post on his blog, Wachter’s World (www.wachtersworld.com), that outlined the need for the FPHM and the significance for aspiring hospitalists.
“In any case, this is an important milestone for the field,” Dr. Wachter wrote in his Sept. 23, 2009, blog entry, “Board Certification for Hospitalists: It’s Heeeere!” “In fact, when I first began speaking to groups of hospitalists nearly 15 years ago, I often showed a slide listing the elements of a true specialty, and one by one we’ve ticked them off,” wrote Dr. Wachter, a former SHM president. “The only unchecked box was recognition of the field as a legitimate ‘specialty,’ as codified by the ABMS board certification process.”
Unchecked, that is, until now.
In early 2011, the medical world will be introduced to the first internists recognized for their focus in HM. For Holmboe, the FPHM is the beginning of an even larger movement.
“The goal is continued interest: getting people involved in quality in their hospital and encouraging people to change behaviors and be recognized by patients and credentialists as valuable,” he says. “That’s the primary mission of ABIM: using certification to improve care.”
Fellow in Hospital Medicine Spotlight
O’Neil Pyke, MD, FHM
Dr. Pyke is a clinical instructor at Commonwealth Medical College and a medical director at the Wyoming Valley Health Care System in Wilkes-Barre, Pa. He also serves as a consultant for various hospitalist programs, most actively for his own private consulting company, AMP Hospitalist Consulting, which partners with Salem, N.H.-based physician staffing company Medicus Healthcare Solutions.
Undergraduate Education: Queens College, City University of New York, Flushing, N.Y.
Medical School: Ohio State University College of Medicine and Public Health, Columbus
Notable: Dr. Pyke was born in Jamaica and moved to New York during high school. He says he owes everything to his parents. His parents, who had no education beyond high school, pushed Dr. Pyke and his siblings to achieve more than they did. His sister is an OB-GYN and his brother is pursuing a medical degree.
FYI: Dr. Pyke enjoys playing golf, cheering for his beloved Ohio State Buckeyes, and spends every Friday night with his wife and two daughters—he even admits to watching “chick flicks” on family night.
For more information about the FHM designation, visit www.hospitalmedicine.org/fellows.
Requirements and Process
Shortly after the program’s approval, ABIM, which administers the FPHM program, went to work in defining the process for the FPHM application and building infrastructure to support the tests. Holmboe expects ABIM will be ready to process pre-applications by April or May. While some details may change, the FPHM application will dovetail with ABIM’s MOC process.
Although hospitalists’ MOC must be current in order to apply for FPHM, hospitalists can begin the FPHM application process at any time. Hospitalists do not need to wait until their next MOC renewal.
Before beginning the application process, hospitalists should ensure that they are eligible. ABIM requires FPHM candidates to have:
- A current or previous ABIM certification in internal medicine;
- A valid, unrestricted medical license and confirmation of good standing in the local practice community;
- ACLS certification; and
- At least three years of hospital medicine practice experience.
Candidates who meet the requirements can then begin the enrollment process by:
- Submitting attestations. Both the hospitalist and a senior officer at the hospital must provide attestations that demonstrate the hospitalist’s experience in HM and his or her commitment to the principles of the specialty.
- Performing a self-assessment. Hospitalists must quantify their experience in HM through an MOC self-assessment. Candidates must achieve at least 100 MOC points. Successful applicants must submit a new self-assessment every three years. The self-assessment can be conducted before or after the exam.
- Taking the MOC examination in Hospital Medicine. Registration for the first HM examination will begin in May. The exam will be conducted in October, and diplomates can take the exam at any time in the process.
Passing the exam and completing the other requirements will earn ABIM diplomats recognition as “Board Certified in Internal Medicine with a Focused Practice in Hospital Medicine.” ABIM will notify successful applicants in late 2010 and ship personalized certificates in early 2011. TH
Brendon Shank is a freelance writer based in Philadelphia.
Like so many things in HM, the story of how hospitalists first learned about the focused practice program is a modern one.
It started with a text message, which led to a blog post, which reached thousands of readers, many of them hospitalists interested in how to bolster their bona fides in a specialty known for its explosive growth in recent years.
Now, hospitalists certified in internal medicine have the opportunity to reinforce their commitment to the specialty by maintaining their certification through the Focused Practice in Hospital Medicine pathway offered by the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM). The Focused Practice in Hospital Medicine (FPHM) Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program enables hospitalists to distinguish their practice within the larger specialty of internal medicine.
The Evolution of FPHM
The new pathway has been years in the making, and it reflects the growing influence of HM in healthcare, according to ABIM Chief Medical Officer Eric Holmboe, MD. He sees the FPHM as the result of a combination of factors, including the fact that the specialty now has more than 30,000 hospitalists practicing nationwide. “If you look at the past years, this has been a viable and vibrant practice,” he says. “If you look at the number of people doing hospital medicine, it’s a factor.”
For Holmboe, it also is a shift in how individuals are recognized based on their practice areas. “This is an acknowledgement by ABIM and the American Board of Medical Specialties to look at Maintenance of Certification in terms of what the individual actually does,” he explains. “Hospitalists play a very important role in the hospital.”
He also credits the leadership of the HM movement—especially pioneers like Robert Wachter, MD, FHM. One of HM’s most ardent champions, Dr. Wachter, chief of the hospital medicine division, professor, and associate chair of the Department of Medicine at the University of California at San Francisco, worked with ABIM to find a way to recognize hospitalists’ specialized skill sets and their commitment to inpatient medicine. After more than a decade of advocating for a board-certified process to recognize the field, Dr. Wachter, an ABIM board member, began receiving multiple text messages from colleagues announcing that ABIM had approved the focused-practice program. He wrote a post on his blog, Wachter’s World (www.wachtersworld.com), that outlined the need for the FPHM and the significance for aspiring hospitalists.
“In any case, this is an important milestone for the field,” Dr. Wachter wrote in his Sept. 23, 2009, blog entry, “Board Certification for Hospitalists: It’s Heeeere!” “In fact, when I first began speaking to groups of hospitalists nearly 15 years ago, I often showed a slide listing the elements of a true specialty, and one by one we’ve ticked them off,” wrote Dr. Wachter, a former SHM president. “The only unchecked box was recognition of the field as a legitimate ‘specialty,’ as codified by the ABMS board certification process.”
Unchecked, that is, until now.
In early 2011, the medical world will be introduced to the first internists recognized for their focus in HM. For Holmboe, the FPHM is the beginning of an even larger movement.
“The goal is continued interest: getting people involved in quality in their hospital and encouraging people to change behaviors and be recognized by patients and credentialists as valuable,” he says. “That’s the primary mission of ABIM: using certification to improve care.”
Fellow in Hospital Medicine Spotlight
O’Neil Pyke, MD, FHM
Dr. Pyke is a clinical instructor at Commonwealth Medical College and a medical director at the Wyoming Valley Health Care System in Wilkes-Barre, Pa. He also serves as a consultant for various hospitalist programs, most actively for his own private consulting company, AMP Hospitalist Consulting, which partners with Salem, N.H.-based physician staffing company Medicus Healthcare Solutions.
Undergraduate Education: Queens College, City University of New York, Flushing, N.Y.
Medical School: Ohio State University College of Medicine and Public Health, Columbus
Notable: Dr. Pyke was born in Jamaica and moved to New York during high school. He says he owes everything to his parents. His parents, who had no education beyond high school, pushed Dr. Pyke and his siblings to achieve more than they did. His sister is an OB-GYN and his brother is pursuing a medical degree.
FYI: Dr. Pyke enjoys playing golf, cheering for his beloved Ohio State Buckeyes, and spends every Friday night with his wife and two daughters—he even admits to watching “chick flicks” on family night.
For more information about the FHM designation, visit www.hospitalmedicine.org/fellows.
Requirements and Process
Shortly after the program’s approval, ABIM, which administers the FPHM program, went to work in defining the process for the FPHM application and building infrastructure to support the tests. Holmboe expects ABIM will be ready to process pre-applications by April or May. While some details may change, the FPHM application will dovetail with ABIM’s MOC process.
Although hospitalists’ MOC must be current in order to apply for FPHM, hospitalists can begin the FPHM application process at any time. Hospitalists do not need to wait until their next MOC renewal.
Before beginning the application process, hospitalists should ensure that they are eligible. ABIM requires FPHM candidates to have:
- A current or previous ABIM certification in internal medicine;
- A valid, unrestricted medical license and confirmation of good standing in the local practice community;
- ACLS certification; and
- At least three years of hospital medicine practice experience.
Candidates who meet the requirements can then begin the enrollment process by:
- Submitting attestations. Both the hospitalist and a senior officer at the hospital must provide attestations that demonstrate the hospitalist’s experience in HM and his or her commitment to the principles of the specialty.
- Performing a self-assessment. Hospitalists must quantify their experience in HM through an MOC self-assessment. Candidates must achieve at least 100 MOC points. Successful applicants must submit a new self-assessment every three years. The self-assessment can be conducted before or after the exam.
- Taking the MOC examination in Hospital Medicine. Registration for the first HM examination will begin in May. The exam will be conducted in October, and diplomates can take the exam at any time in the process.
Passing the exam and completing the other requirements will earn ABIM diplomats recognition as “Board Certified in Internal Medicine with a Focused Practice in Hospital Medicine.” ABIM will notify successful applicants in late 2010 and ship personalized certificates in early 2011. TH
Brendon Shank is a freelance writer based in Philadelphia.
Like so many things in HM, the story of how hospitalists first learned about the focused practice program is a modern one.
It started with a text message, which led to a blog post, which reached thousands of readers, many of them hospitalists interested in how to bolster their bona fides in a specialty known for its explosive growth in recent years.
Now, hospitalists certified in internal medicine have the opportunity to reinforce their commitment to the specialty by maintaining their certification through the Focused Practice in Hospital Medicine pathway offered by the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM). The Focused Practice in Hospital Medicine (FPHM) Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program enables hospitalists to distinguish their practice within the larger specialty of internal medicine.
The Evolution of FPHM
The new pathway has been years in the making, and it reflects the growing influence of HM in healthcare, according to ABIM Chief Medical Officer Eric Holmboe, MD. He sees the FPHM as the result of a combination of factors, including the fact that the specialty now has more than 30,000 hospitalists practicing nationwide. “If you look at the past years, this has been a viable and vibrant practice,” he says. “If you look at the number of people doing hospital medicine, it’s a factor.”
For Holmboe, it also is a shift in how individuals are recognized based on their practice areas. “This is an acknowledgement by ABIM and the American Board of Medical Specialties to look at Maintenance of Certification in terms of what the individual actually does,” he explains. “Hospitalists play a very important role in the hospital.”
He also credits the leadership of the HM movement—especially pioneers like Robert Wachter, MD, FHM. One of HM’s most ardent champions, Dr. Wachter, chief of the hospital medicine division, professor, and associate chair of the Department of Medicine at the University of California at San Francisco, worked with ABIM to find a way to recognize hospitalists’ specialized skill sets and their commitment to inpatient medicine. After more than a decade of advocating for a board-certified process to recognize the field, Dr. Wachter, an ABIM board member, began receiving multiple text messages from colleagues announcing that ABIM had approved the focused-practice program. He wrote a post on his blog, Wachter’s World (www.wachtersworld.com), that outlined the need for the FPHM and the significance for aspiring hospitalists.
“In any case, this is an important milestone for the field,” Dr. Wachter wrote in his Sept. 23, 2009, blog entry, “Board Certification for Hospitalists: It’s Heeeere!” “In fact, when I first began speaking to groups of hospitalists nearly 15 years ago, I often showed a slide listing the elements of a true specialty, and one by one we’ve ticked them off,” wrote Dr. Wachter, a former SHM president. “The only unchecked box was recognition of the field as a legitimate ‘specialty,’ as codified by the ABMS board certification process.”
Unchecked, that is, until now.
In early 2011, the medical world will be introduced to the first internists recognized for their focus in HM. For Holmboe, the FPHM is the beginning of an even larger movement.
“The goal is continued interest: getting people involved in quality in their hospital and encouraging people to change behaviors and be recognized by patients and credentialists as valuable,” he says. “That’s the primary mission of ABIM: using certification to improve care.”
Fellow in Hospital Medicine Spotlight
O’Neil Pyke, MD, FHM
Dr. Pyke is a clinical instructor at Commonwealth Medical College and a medical director at the Wyoming Valley Health Care System in Wilkes-Barre, Pa. He also serves as a consultant for various hospitalist programs, most actively for his own private consulting company, AMP Hospitalist Consulting, which partners with Salem, N.H.-based physician staffing company Medicus Healthcare Solutions.
Undergraduate Education: Queens College, City University of New York, Flushing, N.Y.
Medical School: Ohio State University College of Medicine and Public Health, Columbus
Notable: Dr. Pyke was born in Jamaica and moved to New York during high school. He says he owes everything to his parents. His parents, who had no education beyond high school, pushed Dr. Pyke and his siblings to achieve more than they did. His sister is an OB-GYN and his brother is pursuing a medical degree.
FYI: Dr. Pyke enjoys playing golf, cheering for his beloved Ohio State Buckeyes, and spends every Friday night with his wife and two daughters—he even admits to watching “chick flicks” on family night.
For more information about the FHM designation, visit www.hospitalmedicine.org/fellows.
Requirements and Process
Shortly after the program’s approval, ABIM, which administers the FPHM program, went to work in defining the process for the FPHM application and building infrastructure to support the tests. Holmboe expects ABIM will be ready to process pre-applications by April or May. While some details may change, the FPHM application will dovetail with ABIM’s MOC process.
Although hospitalists’ MOC must be current in order to apply for FPHM, hospitalists can begin the FPHM application process at any time. Hospitalists do not need to wait until their next MOC renewal.
Before beginning the application process, hospitalists should ensure that they are eligible. ABIM requires FPHM candidates to have:
- A current or previous ABIM certification in internal medicine;
- A valid, unrestricted medical license and confirmation of good standing in the local practice community;
- ACLS certification; and
- At least three years of hospital medicine practice experience.
Candidates who meet the requirements can then begin the enrollment process by:
- Submitting attestations. Both the hospitalist and a senior officer at the hospital must provide attestations that demonstrate the hospitalist’s experience in HM and his or her commitment to the principles of the specialty.
- Performing a self-assessment. Hospitalists must quantify their experience in HM through an MOC self-assessment. Candidates must achieve at least 100 MOC points. Successful applicants must submit a new self-assessment every three years. The self-assessment can be conducted before or after the exam.
- Taking the MOC examination in Hospital Medicine. Registration for the first HM examination will begin in May. The exam will be conducted in October, and diplomates can take the exam at any time in the process.
Passing the exam and completing the other requirements will earn ABIM diplomats recognition as “Board Certified in Internal Medicine with a Focused Practice in Hospital Medicine.” ABIM will notify successful applicants in late 2010 and ship personalized certificates in early 2011. TH
Brendon Shank is a freelance writer based in Philadelphia.
Prevent Defense
Three U.S. medical centers have been recognized for innovative approaches to preventing DVT and its potentially fatal complications, which include pulmonary embolism (PE). Central to each of the DVT prevention strategies is a risk assessment tool that is easy to use, built directly into routine care, and linked directly to guideline-recommended choices for prophylaxis.
The University of California at San Diego (UCSD) Medical Center, Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, and the Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center in Washington, D.C., each received the first DVTeamCare Hospital Award. The North American Thrombosis Forum (NATF), in conjunction with pharmaceutical company Eisai Inc., recognized each center’s accomplishment based upon an evaluation by an independent panel of expert judges.
—Gregory A. Maynard, MD, FHM, hospital medicine division chief, University of California at San Diego
The award reflects NATF’s goal of enhancing thrombosis education, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment to improve patient outcomes, says NATF Executive Director Ilene Sussman, PhD. Dr. Sussman notes that DVT affects more than 600,000 Americans annually, kills more than 100,000, and is one of the leading causes of preventable deaths in hospitals. Preventable DVT-related complication is on Medicare’s list of “never events,” for which hospitals will no longer be reimbursed.
UCSD, representing medical centers with more than 200 beds, imbedded its VTE prevention protocol into admission, transfer, and perioperative order sets across all medical and surgical services, says Gregory A. Maynard, MD, FHM, hospital medicine division chief. The protocol flags three levels of DVT risk, notes possible contraindications for a particular kind of patient, and presents a set of options for guideline-recommended prophylaxis. The protocol can be paper- or computer-based. Prompting concurrent intervention is a central component of UCSD’s implementation strategy, “identifying in real-time patients who are not receiving the right DVT prophylaxis and having a front-line nurse or pharmacist intervene appropriately,” Dr. Maynard explains.
The percent of UCSD’s patients on adequate prophylaxis rose to more than 98% in the past two years, up from about 50% before the intervention, while preventable VTE dropped by 85%—about 50 fewer cases per year in a hospital with fewer than 300 beds. “Having DVT prevention protocols such as these in place allows hospitalists to provide better care with less effort by leaving hospitalists free to focus on more complicated patient-care issues,” Dr. Maynard says.
UCSD has partnered with SHM to develop DVT prevention toolkits and mentored collaboratives, with which hospitalists can take the lead on QI projects at their local institutions. SHM’s online VTE Implementation Guide is available at www.hospitalmedicine.org/ResourceRoomRedesign/RR_VTE/VTE_Home.cfm.
Johns Hopkins Hospital, representing medical centers with more than 200 beds, developed a mandatory computer-based decision-support system to facilitate specialty-specific risk-factor assessment and the application of risk-appropriate VTE prophylaxis, says Michael Streiff, MD, FACP, director of Johns Hopkins’ Anticoagulation Management Service and Outpatient Clinic, and a member of its Evidence-Based Practice Center. Before a physician can issue any orders—medications, lab tests, nursing instructions, etc.—using a physician transfer order set, the computerized order-entry system automatically guides them through a concise set of questions about a patient’s DVT risk factors, contraindications for blood thinners, and guideline-recommended prophylaxis choices, Dr. Streiff says.
Since implementing the system, the percent of patients being DVT-risk-stratified within 24 hours of hospital admission rose to more than 90%, and nearly 9 in 10 of the appropriate patients are now receiving risk-appropriate, American College of Chest Physicians-approved DVT prophylaxis, up from about 26% before the intervention, Dr. Streiff notes.
The VA Medical Center in Washington, D.C., representing medical centers with fewer than 200 beds, participated in a mentorship collaborative with UCSD’s Dr. Maynard and designed a seven-step process that walks providers through an evidence-based risk-factor assessment to determine appropriate thromboprophylactic therapy, says Divya Shroff, MD, associate chief of staff, Informatics. The guideline-driven steps are integrated into the VA’s computerized patient medical record system and take no more than 60 seconds to follow, says pharmacy practice resident Jovonne H. Jones, PharmD. The steps include:
- Assess patient DVT risk level;
- Educate patient about the order;
- Identify contraindications, if any;
- Choose prophylaxis drug or device;
- Accept order for drug or device;
- Check if additional prophylactic method is needed; and
- Accept the final order.
After the intervention, the rate at which patients receive appropriate prophylaxis upon admission more than doubled. Twenty VA medical centers around the country are in the process of implementing the system, Jones says.
The award-winning protocols will be presented at an NATF-hosted program April 9 at Harvard Medical School. The protocols and implementation plans will be made available at www.DVTeamCareAward.com to help other hospitals enhance their efforts to prevent DVT. TH
Chris Guadagnino is a freelance medical writer based in Philadelphia.
Three U.S. medical centers have been recognized for innovative approaches to preventing DVT and its potentially fatal complications, which include pulmonary embolism (PE). Central to each of the DVT prevention strategies is a risk assessment tool that is easy to use, built directly into routine care, and linked directly to guideline-recommended choices for prophylaxis.
The University of California at San Diego (UCSD) Medical Center, Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, and the Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center in Washington, D.C., each received the first DVTeamCare Hospital Award. The North American Thrombosis Forum (NATF), in conjunction with pharmaceutical company Eisai Inc., recognized each center’s accomplishment based upon an evaluation by an independent panel of expert judges.
—Gregory A. Maynard, MD, FHM, hospital medicine division chief, University of California at San Diego
The award reflects NATF’s goal of enhancing thrombosis education, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment to improve patient outcomes, says NATF Executive Director Ilene Sussman, PhD. Dr. Sussman notes that DVT affects more than 600,000 Americans annually, kills more than 100,000, and is one of the leading causes of preventable deaths in hospitals. Preventable DVT-related complication is on Medicare’s list of “never events,” for which hospitals will no longer be reimbursed.
UCSD, representing medical centers with more than 200 beds, imbedded its VTE prevention protocol into admission, transfer, and perioperative order sets across all medical and surgical services, says Gregory A. Maynard, MD, FHM, hospital medicine division chief. The protocol flags three levels of DVT risk, notes possible contraindications for a particular kind of patient, and presents a set of options for guideline-recommended prophylaxis. The protocol can be paper- or computer-based. Prompting concurrent intervention is a central component of UCSD’s implementation strategy, “identifying in real-time patients who are not receiving the right DVT prophylaxis and having a front-line nurse or pharmacist intervene appropriately,” Dr. Maynard explains.
The percent of UCSD’s patients on adequate prophylaxis rose to more than 98% in the past two years, up from about 50% before the intervention, while preventable VTE dropped by 85%—about 50 fewer cases per year in a hospital with fewer than 300 beds. “Having DVT prevention protocols such as these in place allows hospitalists to provide better care with less effort by leaving hospitalists free to focus on more complicated patient-care issues,” Dr. Maynard says.
UCSD has partnered with SHM to develop DVT prevention toolkits and mentored collaboratives, with which hospitalists can take the lead on QI projects at their local institutions. SHM’s online VTE Implementation Guide is available at www.hospitalmedicine.org/ResourceRoomRedesign/RR_VTE/VTE_Home.cfm.
Johns Hopkins Hospital, representing medical centers with more than 200 beds, developed a mandatory computer-based decision-support system to facilitate specialty-specific risk-factor assessment and the application of risk-appropriate VTE prophylaxis, says Michael Streiff, MD, FACP, director of Johns Hopkins’ Anticoagulation Management Service and Outpatient Clinic, and a member of its Evidence-Based Practice Center. Before a physician can issue any orders—medications, lab tests, nursing instructions, etc.—using a physician transfer order set, the computerized order-entry system automatically guides them through a concise set of questions about a patient’s DVT risk factors, contraindications for blood thinners, and guideline-recommended prophylaxis choices, Dr. Streiff says.
Since implementing the system, the percent of patients being DVT-risk-stratified within 24 hours of hospital admission rose to more than 90%, and nearly 9 in 10 of the appropriate patients are now receiving risk-appropriate, American College of Chest Physicians-approved DVT prophylaxis, up from about 26% before the intervention, Dr. Streiff notes.
The VA Medical Center in Washington, D.C., representing medical centers with fewer than 200 beds, participated in a mentorship collaborative with UCSD’s Dr. Maynard and designed a seven-step process that walks providers through an evidence-based risk-factor assessment to determine appropriate thromboprophylactic therapy, says Divya Shroff, MD, associate chief of staff, Informatics. The guideline-driven steps are integrated into the VA’s computerized patient medical record system and take no more than 60 seconds to follow, says pharmacy practice resident Jovonne H. Jones, PharmD. The steps include:
- Assess patient DVT risk level;
- Educate patient about the order;
- Identify contraindications, if any;
- Choose prophylaxis drug or device;
- Accept order for drug or device;
- Check if additional prophylactic method is needed; and
- Accept the final order.
After the intervention, the rate at which patients receive appropriate prophylaxis upon admission more than doubled. Twenty VA medical centers around the country are in the process of implementing the system, Jones says.
The award-winning protocols will be presented at an NATF-hosted program April 9 at Harvard Medical School. The protocols and implementation plans will be made available at www.DVTeamCareAward.com to help other hospitals enhance their efforts to prevent DVT. TH
Chris Guadagnino is a freelance medical writer based in Philadelphia.
Three U.S. medical centers have been recognized for innovative approaches to preventing DVT and its potentially fatal complications, which include pulmonary embolism (PE). Central to each of the DVT prevention strategies is a risk assessment tool that is easy to use, built directly into routine care, and linked directly to guideline-recommended choices for prophylaxis.
The University of California at San Diego (UCSD) Medical Center, Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, and the Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center in Washington, D.C., each received the first DVTeamCare Hospital Award. The North American Thrombosis Forum (NATF), in conjunction with pharmaceutical company Eisai Inc., recognized each center’s accomplishment based upon an evaluation by an independent panel of expert judges.
—Gregory A. Maynard, MD, FHM, hospital medicine division chief, University of California at San Diego
The award reflects NATF’s goal of enhancing thrombosis education, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment to improve patient outcomes, says NATF Executive Director Ilene Sussman, PhD. Dr. Sussman notes that DVT affects more than 600,000 Americans annually, kills more than 100,000, and is one of the leading causes of preventable deaths in hospitals. Preventable DVT-related complication is on Medicare’s list of “never events,” for which hospitals will no longer be reimbursed.
UCSD, representing medical centers with more than 200 beds, imbedded its VTE prevention protocol into admission, transfer, and perioperative order sets across all medical and surgical services, says Gregory A. Maynard, MD, FHM, hospital medicine division chief. The protocol flags three levels of DVT risk, notes possible contraindications for a particular kind of patient, and presents a set of options for guideline-recommended prophylaxis. The protocol can be paper- or computer-based. Prompting concurrent intervention is a central component of UCSD’s implementation strategy, “identifying in real-time patients who are not receiving the right DVT prophylaxis and having a front-line nurse or pharmacist intervene appropriately,” Dr. Maynard explains.
The percent of UCSD’s patients on adequate prophylaxis rose to more than 98% in the past two years, up from about 50% before the intervention, while preventable VTE dropped by 85%—about 50 fewer cases per year in a hospital with fewer than 300 beds. “Having DVT prevention protocols such as these in place allows hospitalists to provide better care with less effort by leaving hospitalists free to focus on more complicated patient-care issues,” Dr. Maynard says.
UCSD has partnered with SHM to develop DVT prevention toolkits and mentored collaboratives, with which hospitalists can take the lead on QI projects at their local institutions. SHM’s online VTE Implementation Guide is available at www.hospitalmedicine.org/ResourceRoomRedesign/RR_VTE/VTE_Home.cfm.
Johns Hopkins Hospital, representing medical centers with more than 200 beds, developed a mandatory computer-based decision-support system to facilitate specialty-specific risk-factor assessment and the application of risk-appropriate VTE prophylaxis, says Michael Streiff, MD, FACP, director of Johns Hopkins’ Anticoagulation Management Service and Outpatient Clinic, and a member of its Evidence-Based Practice Center. Before a physician can issue any orders—medications, lab tests, nursing instructions, etc.—using a physician transfer order set, the computerized order-entry system automatically guides them through a concise set of questions about a patient’s DVT risk factors, contraindications for blood thinners, and guideline-recommended prophylaxis choices, Dr. Streiff says.
Since implementing the system, the percent of patients being DVT-risk-stratified within 24 hours of hospital admission rose to more than 90%, and nearly 9 in 10 of the appropriate patients are now receiving risk-appropriate, American College of Chest Physicians-approved DVT prophylaxis, up from about 26% before the intervention, Dr. Streiff notes.
The VA Medical Center in Washington, D.C., representing medical centers with fewer than 200 beds, participated in a mentorship collaborative with UCSD’s Dr. Maynard and designed a seven-step process that walks providers through an evidence-based risk-factor assessment to determine appropriate thromboprophylactic therapy, says Divya Shroff, MD, associate chief of staff, Informatics. The guideline-driven steps are integrated into the VA’s computerized patient medical record system and take no more than 60 seconds to follow, says pharmacy practice resident Jovonne H. Jones, PharmD. The steps include:
- Assess patient DVT risk level;
- Educate patient about the order;
- Identify contraindications, if any;
- Choose prophylaxis drug or device;
- Accept order for drug or device;
- Check if additional prophylactic method is needed; and
- Accept the final order.
After the intervention, the rate at which patients receive appropriate prophylaxis upon admission more than doubled. Twenty VA medical centers around the country are in the process of implementing the system, Jones says.
The award-winning protocols will be presented at an NATF-hosted program April 9 at Harvard Medical School. The protocols and implementation plans will be made available at www.DVTeamCareAward.com to help other hospitals enhance their efforts to prevent DVT. TH
Chris Guadagnino is a freelance medical writer based in Philadelphia.
HM Growth: Phase 2
The growth of our medical specialty is old news. Yes, we now number about 30,000; yes, we now manage the medical care of 50% of hospitalized Medicare patients; yes, hospitalists are in two-thirds of U.S. hospitals. I could go on and on. But recently, I have observed a different type of growth altogether. It is the growth of stability.
In the recent history of HM, the focus was on the increasing number of hospitals that had hospitalists, the growth of SHM’s membership, the growth of our annual meeting, and the ever-increasing number of doctors who, at least when surveyed, called themselves hospitalists. It all looked so impressive.
Many of you know, however, that when you lifted up the hood of our field, it was not always as it seemed. HM actually was a bit unstable. Some doctors who called themselves hospitalists were, in reality, biding time until they moved on to a “real job” or went off to do a fellowship. Multiple groups competed for patients within any given hospital, and also competed for doctors. There were numerous jobs available for any given hospitalist, and, as a result, some groups had substantial turnover despite growth in numbers. In these programs, the group photo from one year to the next had an entirely new set of faces.
Instability did not just affect rank-and-file hospitalists; it also existed within programmatic leadership and entire programs. Annually in many hospitals, the hospitalists had to convince administration that the hospital needed hospitalists and that they were worthy of support. Unfortunately, it was not always successful, so some programs vanished.
Five years ago in Michigan, we were working to create a multihospital safety consortium. We had several participating institutions, all with hospitalist programs. One day, my secretary complained that every time she sent an e-mail to the consortium listserv, a handful would bounce back and indicate a handful of e-mail addresses no longer were in service, or note that an individual had “left the program.” Some of them were HM program directors. Follow-up calls showed that the program had a new director or had folded. In some cases, however, they were just too busy figuring out how to survive instead of focus on safety issues.
Fortunately, that all appears to be changing.
From Unknown to Accepted to Counted On
I have seen the change in my own institution. We, of course, continue to negotiate with hospital administration, but it is no longer about whether we should continue the program or not. Negotiations now center on line items in the budget, how much space we need, where we anticipate future growth, and what quality and safety initiatives we’re working on.
I like to think that the HM program is important infrastructure. Just as you can’t imagine a hospital without an ED or an ICU, the same holds true for the HM program.
Perhaps an even better analogy could be found in technologic innovation. Back when Al Gore invented the Internet, having an Internet connection at home was viewed as a luxury. Now, it nearly is a necessity. Just like HM programs! (OK, maybe that was a stretch.)
There also is stability within the faculty ranks. Many of our faculty have been here for years and plan to stay. Turnover has decreased dramatically. This is not unique to our program, but anecdotally is happening everywhere. In fact, we are in the process of launching additional multihospital HM-based safety projects and collaboratives. And when I reach out to programs to ask them to participate, the directors of these programs are the same ones when I last checked. If they have moved on, it has been to assume a local leadership role. The group photos also show all the same old faces, plus a few new ones. There really has been some stabilization in the field.
New Paradigm Here to Stay
The factors behind this newfound stability are numerous. Among them is the recognized importance of a well-managed HM program. In many institutions, the alternatives to hospitalists (primary-care physicians, surgeons managing all post-operative care, specialists admitting their own patients, etc.) have left the building. There is no going back, and there is no “plan B” if HM programs fold.
The recognition by prospective hospitalists—residents and students—that HM is a viable career path has increased interest in the field, and, in turn, has given many programs more choices among qualified applicants. Hospitalists currently employed in a reasonably functioning program are less likely to jump ship every year looking for something slightly better. And I expect the current economic climate has been a factor as well. As hospitals see operating margins erode, plans for infrastructure growth are delayed, funding for new programs shrinks, and hospitalist groups are asked to do more with less. In other words, they are not hiring as many new hospitalists.
In some sense, the perceived slowing in the growth of hospitalists might be concerning. I see it a different way. Slowing growth in overall numbers allows programs and the field to stabilize a bit, and this growth in stability creates enormous opportunity. Programs formerly struggling to survive can begin to innovate. We’ve seen that in Michigan, as the interest among hospitalist programs that want to participate in QI collaborations has grown. And when we hear what some programs are working on, it’s an impressive list of high-impact projects.
Hospitalists are taking ownership of care transitions, prevention of hospital-acquired complications, and disease-based QI initiatives centered on patients with heart failure, COPD, and diabetes.
Nationally, we have seen hospitalist programs coming together to successfully compete for federal research grants or foundation support targeting important national healthcare priorities. If the current healthcare reform legislation passes, it will better position HM to lead the transformation of healthcare in U.S. hospitals.
My big hope is that 10 to 20 years from now, HM is better known for its second phase of growth. Right now, we are more famous for our rapid growth and, to some extent, our impact on efficiency of care. Efficiency clearly is important; dollars saved from waste can be better put to use improving quality. But I want the field to be judged by our ability to innovate, improve the quality of hospital-care delivery, and to generate new knowledge that advances the care of all patients. Those accomplishments will have a more lasting impact on healthcare.
The stabilization of HM is making all of this possible. Our population expects and deserves great things from the nation’s fastest-growing “specialty,” and I am optimistic we will not let them down. TH
Dr. Flanders is president of SHM.
The growth of our medical specialty is old news. Yes, we now number about 30,000; yes, we now manage the medical care of 50% of hospitalized Medicare patients; yes, hospitalists are in two-thirds of U.S. hospitals. I could go on and on. But recently, I have observed a different type of growth altogether. It is the growth of stability.
In the recent history of HM, the focus was on the increasing number of hospitals that had hospitalists, the growth of SHM’s membership, the growth of our annual meeting, and the ever-increasing number of doctors who, at least when surveyed, called themselves hospitalists. It all looked so impressive.
Many of you know, however, that when you lifted up the hood of our field, it was not always as it seemed. HM actually was a bit unstable. Some doctors who called themselves hospitalists were, in reality, biding time until they moved on to a “real job” or went off to do a fellowship. Multiple groups competed for patients within any given hospital, and also competed for doctors. There were numerous jobs available for any given hospitalist, and, as a result, some groups had substantial turnover despite growth in numbers. In these programs, the group photo from one year to the next had an entirely new set of faces.
Instability did not just affect rank-and-file hospitalists; it also existed within programmatic leadership and entire programs. Annually in many hospitals, the hospitalists had to convince administration that the hospital needed hospitalists and that they were worthy of support. Unfortunately, it was not always successful, so some programs vanished.
Five years ago in Michigan, we were working to create a multihospital safety consortium. We had several participating institutions, all with hospitalist programs. One day, my secretary complained that every time she sent an e-mail to the consortium listserv, a handful would bounce back and indicate a handful of e-mail addresses no longer were in service, or note that an individual had “left the program.” Some of them were HM program directors. Follow-up calls showed that the program had a new director or had folded. In some cases, however, they were just too busy figuring out how to survive instead of focus on safety issues.
Fortunately, that all appears to be changing.
From Unknown to Accepted to Counted On
I have seen the change in my own institution. We, of course, continue to negotiate with hospital administration, but it is no longer about whether we should continue the program or not. Negotiations now center on line items in the budget, how much space we need, where we anticipate future growth, and what quality and safety initiatives we’re working on.
I like to think that the HM program is important infrastructure. Just as you can’t imagine a hospital without an ED or an ICU, the same holds true for the HM program.
Perhaps an even better analogy could be found in technologic innovation. Back when Al Gore invented the Internet, having an Internet connection at home was viewed as a luxury. Now, it nearly is a necessity. Just like HM programs! (OK, maybe that was a stretch.)
There also is stability within the faculty ranks. Many of our faculty have been here for years and plan to stay. Turnover has decreased dramatically. This is not unique to our program, but anecdotally is happening everywhere. In fact, we are in the process of launching additional multihospital HM-based safety projects and collaboratives. And when I reach out to programs to ask them to participate, the directors of these programs are the same ones when I last checked. If they have moved on, it has been to assume a local leadership role. The group photos also show all the same old faces, plus a few new ones. There really has been some stabilization in the field.
New Paradigm Here to Stay
The factors behind this newfound stability are numerous. Among them is the recognized importance of a well-managed HM program. In many institutions, the alternatives to hospitalists (primary-care physicians, surgeons managing all post-operative care, specialists admitting their own patients, etc.) have left the building. There is no going back, and there is no “plan B” if HM programs fold.
The recognition by prospective hospitalists—residents and students—that HM is a viable career path has increased interest in the field, and, in turn, has given many programs more choices among qualified applicants. Hospitalists currently employed in a reasonably functioning program are less likely to jump ship every year looking for something slightly better. And I expect the current economic climate has been a factor as well. As hospitals see operating margins erode, plans for infrastructure growth are delayed, funding for new programs shrinks, and hospitalist groups are asked to do more with less. In other words, they are not hiring as many new hospitalists.
In some sense, the perceived slowing in the growth of hospitalists might be concerning. I see it a different way. Slowing growth in overall numbers allows programs and the field to stabilize a bit, and this growth in stability creates enormous opportunity. Programs formerly struggling to survive can begin to innovate. We’ve seen that in Michigan, as the interest among hospitalist programs that want to participate in QI collaborations has grown. And when we hear what some programs are working on, it’s an impressive list of high-impact projects.
Hospitalists are taking ownership of care transitions, prevention of hospital-acquired complications, and disease-based QI initiatives centered on patients with heart failure, COPD, and diabetes.
Nationally, we have seen hospitalist programs coming together to successfully compete for federal research grants or foundation support targeting important national healthcare priorities. If the current healthcare reform legislation passes, it will better position HM to lead the transformation of healthcare in U.S. hospitals.
My big hope is that 10 to 20 years from now, HM is better known for its second phase of growth. Right now, we are more famous for our rapid growth and, to some extent, our impact on efficiency of care. Efficiency clearly is important; dollars saved from waste can be better put to use improving quality. But I want the field to be judged by our ability to innovate, improve the quality of hospital-care delivery, and to generate new knowledge that advances the care of all patients. Those accomplishments will have a more lasting impact on healthcare.
The stabilization of HM is making all of this possible. Our population expects and deserves great things from the nation’s fastest-growing “specialty,” and I am optimistic we will not let them down. TH
Dr. Flanders is president of SHM.
The growth of our medical specialty is old news. Yes, we now number about 30,000; yes, we now manage the medical care of 50% of hospitalized Medicare patients; yes, hospitalists are in two-thirds of U.S. hospitals. I could go on and on. But recently, I have observed a different type of growth altogether. It is the growth of stability.
In the recent history of HM, the focus was on the increasing number of hospitals that had hospitalists, the growth of SHM’s membership, the growth of our annual meeting, and the ever-increasing number of doctors who, at least when surveyed, called themselves hospitalists. It all looked so impressive.
Many of you know, however, that when you lifted up the hood of our field, it was not always as it seemed. HM actually was a bit unstable. Some doctors who called themselves hospitalists were, in reality, biding time until they moved on to a “real job” or went off to do a fellowship. Multiple groups competed for patients within any given hospital, and also competed for doctors. There were numerous jobs available for any given hospitalist, and, as a result, some groups had substantial turnover despite growth in numbers. In these programs, the group photo from one year to the next had an entirely new set of faces.
Instability did not just affect rank-and-file hospitalists; it also existed within programmatic leadership and entire programs. Annually in many hospitals, the hospitalists had to convince administration that the hospital needed hospitalists and that they were worthy of support. Unfortunately, it was not always successful, so some programs vanished.
Five years ago in Michigan, we were working to create a multihospital safety consortium. We had several participating institutions, all with hospitalist programs. One day, my secretary complained that every time she sent an e-mail to the consortium listserv, a handful would bounce back and indicate a handful of e-mail addresses no longer were in service, or note that an individual had “left the program.” Some of them were HM program directors. Follow-up calls showed that the program had a new director or had folded. In some cases, however, they were just too busy figuring out how to survive instead of focus on safety issues.
Fortunately, that all appears to be changing.
From Unknown to Accepted to Counted On
I have seen the change in my own institution. We, of course, continue to negotiate with hospital administration, but it is no longer about whether we should continue the program or not. Negotiations now center on line items in the budget, how much space we need, where we anticipate future growth, and what quality and safety initiatives we’re working on.
I like to think that the HM program is important infrastructure. Just as you can’t imagine a hospital without an ED or an ICU, the same holds true for the HM program.
Perhaps an even better analogy could be found in technologic innovation. Back when Al Gore invented the Internet, having an Internet connection at home was viewed as a luxury. Now, it nearly is a necessity. Just like HM programs! (OK, maybe that was a stretch.)
There also is stability within the faculty ranks. Many of our faculty have been here for years and plan to stay. Turnover has decreased dramatically. This is not unique to our program, but anecdotally is happening everywhere. In fact, we are in the process of launching additional multihospital HM-based safety projects and collaboratives. And when I reach out to programs to ask them to participate, the directors of these programs are the same ones when I last checked. If they have moved on, it has been to assume a local leadership role. The group photos also show all the same old faces, plus a few new ones. There really has been some stabilization in the field.
New Paradigm Here to Stay
The factors behind this newfound stability are numerous. Among them is the recognized importance of a well-managed HM program. In many institutions, the alternatives to hospitalists (primary-care physicians, surgeons managing all post-operative care, specialists admitting their own patients, etc.) have left the building. There is no going back, and there is no “plan B” if HM programs fold.
The recognition by prospective hospitalists—residents and students—that HM is a viable career path has increased interest in the field, and, in turn, has given many programs more choices among qualified applicants. Hospitalists currently employed in a reasonably functioning program are less likely to jump ship every year looking for something slightly better. And I expect the current economic climate has been a factor as well. As hospitals see operating margins erode, plans for infrastructure growth are delayed, funding for new programs shrinks, and hospitalist groups are asked to do more with less. In other words, they are not hiring as many new hospitalists.
In some sense, the perceived slowing in the growth of hospitalists might be concerning. I see it a different way. Slowing growth in overall numbers allows programs and the field to stabilize a bit, and this growth in stability creates enormous opportunity. Programs formerly struggling to survive can begin to innovate. We’ve seen that in Michigan, as the interest among hospitalist programs that want to participate in QI collaborations has grown. And when we hear what some programs are working on, it’s an impressive list of high-impact projects.
Hospitalists are taking ownership of care transitions, prevention of hospital-acquired complications, and disease-based QI initiatives centered on patients with heart failure, COPD, and diabetes.
Nationally, we have seen hospitalist programs coming together to successfully compete for federal research grants or foundation support targeting important national healthcare priorities. If the current healthcare reform legislation passes, it will better position HM to lead the transformation of healthcare in U.S. hospitals.
My big hope is that 10 to 20 years from now, HM is better known for its second phase of growth. Right now, we are more famous for our rapid growth and, to some extent, our impact on efficiency of care. Efficiency clearly is important; dollars saved from waste can be better put to use improving quality. But I want the field to be judged by our ability to innovate, improve the quality of hospital-care delivery, and to generate new knowledge that advances the care of all patients. Those accomplishments will have a more lasting impact on healthcare.
The stabilization of HM is making all of this possible. Our population expects and deserves great things from the nation’s fastest-growing “specialty,” and I am optimistic we will not let them down. TH
Dr. Flanders is president of SHM.