User login
For MD-IQ use only
Endocrine-disrupting plastics pose growing health threat
Many types of plastics pose an unrecognized threat to human health by leaching endocrine-disrupting chemicals, and a new report from the Endocrine Society and the International Pollutants Elimination Network presents their dangers and risks.
Written in a consumer-friendly form designed to guide public interest groups and policy makers, the report also can be used by clinicians to inform discussions with patients about the potential dangers of plastics and how they can reduce their exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals.
The report, Plastics, EDCs, & Health, defines endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) as “an exogenous chemical, or mixture of chemicals, that interferes with any aspect of hormone action.” Hormones in the body must be released at specific times, and therefore interference with their normal activity can have profound effects on health in areas including growth and reproductive development, according to the report.
The available data show “more and more information about the different chemicals and the different effects they are having,” said lead author, Jodi Flaws, PhD, of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, in a virtual press conference accompanying the release of the report.
Although numerous EDCs have been identified, a recent study suggested that many potentially dangerous chemical additives remain unknown because they are identified as confidential or simply not well described, the report authors said. In addition, creation of more plastic products will likely lead to increased exposure to EDCs and make health problems worse, said report coauthor Pauliina Damdimopoulou, PhD, of the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm.
Lesser-known EDCs populate consumer products
Most consumers are aware of bisphenol A and phthalates as known EDCs, said Dr. Flaws, but the report identifies other lesser-known EDCs including per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), dioxins, flame retardants, and UV stabilizers.
For example, PFAS have been used for decades in a range of consumer products including stain resistant clothes, fast food wrappers, carpet and furniture treatments, cookware, and firefighting foams, according to the report. Consequently, PFAS have become common in many water sources including surface water, drinking water, and ground water because of how they are disposed. “Consumption of fish and other aquatic creatures caught in waterways contaminated with PFAS also poses heightened risks due to bioaccumulation of persistent chemicals in these animals,” the report authors noted. Human exposures to PFAS have been documented in urine, serum, plasma, placenta, umbilical cord, breast milk, and fetal tissues, they added.
Brominated flame retardants are another lesser-known EDC highlighted in the report. These chemical additives are used in plastics such as electronics cases to reduce the spread of fire, as well as in furniture foam and other building materials, the authors wrote. UV stabilizers, which also have been linked to health problems, often are used in manufacturing cars and other machinery.
Microplastics create large risk
Microplastics, defined as plastic particles less than 5 mm in diameter, are another source of exposure to EDCs that is not well publicized, according to the report. Plastic waste disposal often leads to the release of microplastics, which can infiltrate soil and water. Plastic waste is often dumped or burned; outdoor burning of plastic causes emission of dioxins into the air and ground.
“Not only do microplastics contain endogenous chemical additives, which are not bound to the microplastic and can leach out of the microplastic and expose the population, they can also bind and accumulate toxic chemicals from the surrounding environment such as sea water and sediment,” the report authors said.
Recycling is not an easy answer, either. Often more chemicals are created and released during the process of using plastics to make other plastics, according to the report.
Overall, more awareness of the potential for increased exposure to EDCs and support of strategies to seek out alternatives to hazardous chemicals is needed at the global level, the authors wrote. For example, the European Union has proposed a chemicals strategy that includes improved classification of EDCs and banning identified EDCs in consumer products.
New data support ongoing dangers
“It was important to produce the report at this time because several new studies came out on the effects of EDCs from plastics on human health,” Dr. Flaws said in an interview. “Further, there was not previously a single source that brought together all the information in a manner that was targeted towards the public, policy makers, and others,” she said.
Dr. Flaws said that what has surprised her most in the recent research is the fact that plastics contain such a range of chemicals and EDCs.
“A good take-home message [from the report] is that plastics can contain endocrine-disrupting chemicals that can interfere with normal hormones and lead to adverse health outcomes,” she said. “I suggest limiting the use of plastics as much as possible. I know this is very hard to do, so if someone needs to use plastic, they should not heat food or drink in plastic containers,” she emphasized. Individuals also can limit reuse of plastics over and over,” she said. “Heating and repeated use/washing often causes plastics to leach EDCs into food and drink that we then get into our bodies.”
Additional research is needed to understand the mechanisms by which EDCs from plastics cause damage, Dr. Flaws emphasized. “Given that it is not possible to eliminate plastics at this time, if we understood mechanisms of action, we could develop ways to prevent toxicity or treat EDC-induced adverse health outcomes,” she said. “We also need research designed to develop plastics or ‘green materials’ that do not contain endocrine disruptors and do not cause health problems or damage the environment,” she noted.
The report was produced as a joint effort of the Endocrine Society and International Pollutants Elimination Network. The report authors had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Many types of plastics pose an unrecognized threat to human health by leaching endocrine-disrupting chemicals, and a new report from the Endocrine Society and the International Pollutants Elimination Network presents their dangers and risks.
Written in a consumer-friendly form designed to guide public interest groups and policy makers, the report also can be used by clinicians to inform discussions with patients about the potential dangers of plastics and how they can reduce their exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals.
The report, Plastics, EDCs, & Health, defines endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) as “an exogenous chemical, or mixture of chemicals, that interferes with any aspect of hormone action.” Hormones in the body must be released at specific times, and therefore interference with their normal activity can have profound effects on health in areas including growth and reproductive development, according to the report.
The available data show “more and more information about the different chemicals and the different effects they are having,” said lead author, Jodi Flaws, PhD, of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, in a virtual press conference accompanying the release of the report.
Although numerous EDCs have been identified, a recent study suggested that many potentially dangerous chemical additives remain unknown because they are identified as confidential or simply not well described, the report authors said. In addition, creation of more plastic products will likely lead to increased exposure to EDCs and make health problems worse, said report coauthor Pauliina Damdimopoulou, PhD, of the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm.
Lesser-known EDCs populate consumer products
Most consumers are aware of bisphenol A and phthalates as known EDCs, said Dr. Flaws, but the report identifies other lesser-known EDCs including per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), dioxins, flame retardants, and UV stabilizers.
For example, PFAS have been used for decades in a range of consumer products including stain resistant clothes, fast food wrappers, carpet and furniture treatments, cookware, and firefighting foams, according to the report. Consequently, PFAS have become common in many water sources including surface water, drinking water, and ground water because of how they are disposed. “Consumption of fish and other aquatic creatures caught in waterways contaminated with PFAS also poses heightened risks due to bioaccumulation of persistent chemicals in these animals,” the report authors noted. Human exposures to PFAS have been documented in urine, serum, plasma, placenta, umbilical cord, breast milk, and fetal tissues, they added.
Brominated flame retardants are another lesser-known EDC highlighted in the report. These chemical additives are used in plastics such as electronics cases to reduce the spread of fire, as well as in furniture foam and other building materials, the authors wrote. UV stabilizers, which also have been linked to health problems, often are used in manufacturing cars and other machinery.
Microplastics create large risk
Microplastics, defined as plastic particles less than 5 mm in diameter, are another source of exposure to EDCs that is not well publicized, according to the report. Plastic waste disposal often leads to the release of microplastics, which can infiltrate soil and water. Plastic waste is often dumped or burned; outdoor burning of plastic causes emission of dioxins into the air and ground.
“Not only do microplastics contain endogenous chemical additives, which are not bound to the microplastic and can leach out of the microplastic and expose the population, they can also bind and accumulate toxic chemicals from the surrounding environment such as sea water and sediment,” the report authors said.
Recycling is not an easy answer, either. Often more chemicals are created and released during the process of using plastics to make other plastics, according to the report.
Overall, more awareness of the potential for increased exposure to EDCs and support of strategies to seek out alternatives to hazardous chemicals is needed at the global level, the authors wrote. For example, the European Union has proposed a chemicals strategy that includes improved classification of EDCs and banning identified EDCs in consumer products.
New data support ongoing dangers
“It was important to produce the report at this time because several new studies came out on the effects of EDCs from plastics on human health,” Dr. Flaws said in an interview. “Further, there was not previously a single source that brought together all the information in a manner that was targeted towards the public, policy makers, and others,” she said.
Dr. Flaws said that what has surprised her most in the recent research is the fact that plastics contain such a range of chemicals and EDCs.
“A good take-home message [from the report] is that plastics can contain endocrine-disrupting chemicals that can interfere with normal hormones and lead to adverse health outcomes,” she said. “I suggest limiting the use of plastics as much as possible. I know this is very hard to do, so if someone needs to use plastic, they should not heat food or drink in plastic containers,” she emphasized. Individuals also can limit reuse of plastics over and over,” she said. “Heating and repeated use/washing often causes plastics to leach EDCs into food and drink that we then get into our bodies.”
Additional research is needed to understand the mechanisms by which EDCs from plastics cause damage, Dr. Flaws emphasized. “Given that it is not possible to eliminate plastics at this time, if we understood mechanisms of action, we could develop ways to prevent toxicity or treat EDC-induced adverse health outcomes,” she said. “We also need research designed to develop plastics or ‘green materials’ that do not contain endocrine disruptors and do not cause health problems or damage the environment,” she noted.
The report was produced as a joint effort of the Endocrine Society and International Pollutants Elimination Network. The report authors had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Many types of plastics pose an unrecognized threat to human health by leaching endocrine-disrupting chemicals, and a new report from the Endocrine Society and the International Pollutants Elimination Network presents their dangers and risks.
Written in a consumer-friendly form designed to guide public interest groups and policy makers, the report also can be used by clinicians to inform discussions with patients about the potential dangers of plastics and how they can reduce their exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals.
The report, Plastics, EDCs, & Health, defines endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) as “an exogenous chemical, or mixture of chemicals, that interferes with any aspect of hormone action.” Hormones in the body must be released at specific times, and therefore interference with their normal activity can have profound effects on health in areas including growth and reproductive development, according to the report.
The available data show “more and more information about the different chemicals and the different effects they are having,” said lead author, Jodi Flaws, PhD, of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, in a virtual press conference accompanying the release of the report.
Although numerous EDCs have been identified, a recent study suggested that many potentially dangerous chemical additives remain unknown because they are identified as confidential or simply not well described, the report authors said. In addition, creation of more plastic products will likely lead to increased exposure to EDCs and make health problems worse, said report coauthor Pauliina Damdimopoulou, PhD, of the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm.
Lesser-known EDCs populate consumer products
Most consumers are aware of bisphenol A and phthalates as known EDCs, said Dr. Flaws, but the report identifies other lesser-known EDCs including per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), dioxins, flame retardants, and UV stabilizers.
For example, PFAS have been used for decades in a range of consumer products including stain resistant clothes, fast food wrappers, carpet and furniture treatments, cookware, and firefighting foams, according to the report. Consequently, PFAS have become common in many water sources including surface water, drinking water, and ground water because of how they are disposed. “Consumption of fish and other aquatic creatures caught in waterways contaminated with PFAS also poses heightened risks due to bioaccumulation of persistent chemicals in these animals,” the report authors noted. Human exposures to PFAS have been documented in urine, serum, plasma, placenta, umbilical cord, breast milk, and fetal tissues, they added.
Brominated flame retardants are another lesser-known EDC highlighted in the report. These chemical additives are used in plastics such as electronics cases to reduce the spread of fire, as well as in furniture foam and other building materials, the authors wrote. UV stabilizers, which also have been linked to health problems, often are used in manufacturing cars and other machinery.
Microplastics create large risk
Microplastics, defined as plastic particles less than 5 mm in diameter, are another source of exposure to EDCs that is not well publicized, according to the report. Plastic waste disposal often leads to the release of microplastics, which can infiltrate soil and water. Plastic waste is often dumped or burned; outdoor burning of plastic causes emission of dioxins into the air and ground.
“Not only do microplastics contain endogenous chemical additives, which are not bound to the microplastic and can leach out of the microplastic and expose the population, they can also bind and accumulate toxic chemicals from the surrounding environment such as sea water and sediment,” the report authors said.
Recycling is not an easy answer, either. Often more chemicals are created and released during the process of using plastics to make other plastics, according to the report.
Overall, more awareness of the potential for increased exposure to EDCs and support of strategies to seek out alternatives to hazardous chemicals is needed at the global level, the authors wrote. For example, the European Union has proposed a chemicals strategy that includes improved classification of EDCs and banning identified EDCs in consumer products.
New data support ongoing dangers
“It was important to produce the report at this time because several new studies came out on the effects of EDCs from plastics on human health,” Dr. Flaws said in an interview. “Further, there was not previously a single source that brought together all the information in a manner that was targeted towards the public, policy makers, and others,” she said.
Dr. Flaws said that what has surprised her most in the recent research is the fact that plastics contain such a range of chemicals and EDCs.
“A good take-home message [from the report] is that plastics can contain endocrine-disrupting chemicals that can interfere with normal hormones and lead to adverse health outcomes,” she said. “I suggest limiting the use of plastics as much as possible. I know this is very hard to do, so if someone needs to use plastic, they should not heat food or drink in plastic containers,” she emphasized. Individuals also can limit reuse of plastics over and over,” she said. “Heating and repeated use/washing often causes plastics to leach EDCs into food and drink that we then get into our bodies.”
Additional research is needed to understand the mechanisms by which EDCs from plastics cause damage, Dr. Flaws emphasized. “Given that it is not possible to eliminate plastics at this time, if we understood mechanisms of action, we could develop ways to prevent toxicity or treat EDC-induced adverse health outcomes,” she said. “We also need research designed to develop plastics or ‘green materials’ that do not contain endocrine disruptors and do not cause health problems or damage the environment,” she noted.
The report was produced as a joint effort of the Endocrine Society and International Pollutants Elimination Network. The report authors had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Bias against hiring hospitalists trained in family medicine still persists
Outdated perceptions of family medicine
A family medicine trained doctor, fresh out of residency, visits a career website to scout out prospective hospitalist jobs in their region. As they scroll through the job listings, they come across one opportunity at a nearby hospital system that seems like a good fit. The listing offers a competitive salary and comprehensive benefits for the position, and mentions hospitalists in the department will have the opportunity to teach medical students.
The only problem? The position is for internal medicine trained doctors only. After searching through several more listings with the same internal medicine requirement, the pool of jobs available to the family medicine doctor seems much smaller.
When Robert M. Wachter, MD, MHM, and Lee Goldman, MD coined the term “hospitalist” in a 1996 New England Journal of Medicine article, hospitalists were primarily clinicians with an internal medicine background, filling the gap created by family medicine doctors who increasingly devoted their time to patients in their practice and spent less time rounding in the hospital.
As family medicine doctors have returned to hospital medicine, it has become difficult to find positions as hospitalists due to a preference by some recruiters and employers that favors internal medicine physicians over those who are trained in family medicine. The preference for internal medicine physicians is sometimes overt, such as a requirement on a job application. But the preference can also surface after a physician has already applied for a position, and they will then discover a recruiter is actually looking for someone with a background in internal medicine. In other cases, family medicine physicians find out after applying that applicants with a background in family medicine are considered, but they’re expected to have additional training or certification not listed on the job application.
The situation can even be as stark as a hospital system hiring an internal medicine doctor just out of residency over a family medicine doctor with years of experience as a board-certified physician. Hiring practices in large systems across multiple states sometimes don’t just favor internal medicine, they are entirely focused on internal medicine hospitalists, said experts who spoke with The Hospitalist.
Outdated perceptions of family medicine
Victoria McCurry, MD, current chair of the Society of Hospital Medicine’s family medicine Special Interest Group (SIG) Executive Committee and Faculty Director of Inpatient Services at UPMC McKeesport (Pa.) Family Medicine Residency, said hearsay inside the family medicine community influenced her first job search looking for hospitalist positions as a family medicine physician.
“I was intentional about choosing places that I assumed would be open to family medicine,” she said. “I avoided the downtown urban academic hospitals, the ones that had a large internal medicine residency and fellowship presence, because I assumed that they would not hire me.
“There’s a recognition that depending on the system that you’re in and their history with family medicine trained hospitalists, it can be difficult as a family physician to seek employment,” Dr. McCurry said.
“When I graduated from my residency in 2014, I did not have the same opportunities to be a hospitalist as an internal medicine resident would have,” said Shyam Odeti, MD, a family-practice-trained hospitalist who works at Ballad Health in Johnson City, Tenn. “The perception is family medicine physicians are not trained for hospitalist practice. It’s an old perception.”
This perception may have to do with the mindset of the leadership where a doctor has had residency training, according to Usman Chaudhry, MD, a family medicine hospitalist with Texas Health Physicians Group and leader of the National Advocacy subcommittee for the Family Medicine Executive Council in SHM. Residents trained in bigger university hospital systems where internal medicine (IM) residents do mostly inpatient – in addition to outpatient services – and family medicine (FM) residents do mostly outpatient – including pediatrics and ob/gyn clinics in addition to inpatient services – may believe that to be the case in other systems too, Dr. Chaudhry explained.
“When you go to community hospital residency programs, it’s totally different,” he said. “It all depends. If you have only family medicine residency in a community hospital, they tend to do all training of inpatient clinical medicine, as IM training would in any other program”
Dr. McCurry noted that there seems to be a persisting, mental assumption that as a family medicine doctor, you’re only going to be practicing outpatient only or maybe urgent care, which is historically just not the case. “If that’s ingrained within the local hospital system, then it will be difficult for that system to hire a family medicine-trained hospitalist,” she said.
Another source of outdated perceptions of family medicine come from hospital and institutional bylaws that have written internal medicine training in as a requirement for hospitalists. “In many bigger systems, and even in the smaller hospital community and regional hospitals, the bylaws of the hospitals were written approximately 20 years ago,” Dr. Chaudhry said.
Unless someone has advocated for updating a hospital or institution’s bylaws, they may have outdated requirements for hospitalists. “The situation right now is, in a lot of urban hospitals, they would be able to give a hospitalist position to internal medicine residents who just graduated, not even board certified, but they cannot give it to a hospitalist trained in family medicine who has worked for 10 years and is board certified, just because of the bylaws,” said Dr. Odeti who is also co-chair for the SHM National Advocacy subcommittee of hospitalists trained in family medicine. “There is no good rhyme or reason to it. It is just there and they haven’t changed it.”
Dr. Chaudhry added that no one provides an adequate reason for the bias during the hiring process. “If you ask the recruiter, they would say ‘the employer asked me [to do it this way].’ If you ask the employers, they say ‘the hospital’s bylaws say that.’ And then, we request changes to the hospital bylaws because you don’t have access to them. So the burden of responsibility falls on the shoulders of hospitalists in leadership positions to request equal privileges from the hospital boards for FM-trained hospitalists.”
Experience, education closes some gaps
Over the years, the American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM) and SHM have offered several opportunities for family medicine doctors to demonstrate their experience and training in hospital medicine. In 2010, ABFM began offering the Focused Recognition of Hospital Medicine board examination, together with the American Board of Internal Medicine. SHM also offers hospitalist fellowships and a designation of Fellow in Hospital Medicine (FHM) for health care professionals. In 2015, ABFM and SHM released a joint statement encouraging the growth of hospitalists trained in family medicine (HTFM) and outlining these opportunities.
These measures help fill a gap in both IM and FM training, but also appear to have some effect in convincing recruiters and employers to consider family medicine doctors for hospitalist positions. An abstract published at Hospital Medicine 2014 reviewed 252 hospitalist positions listed in journals and search engines attempted to document the disparities in job listings, the perceptions of physician recruiters, and how factors like experience, training, and certification impacted a family medicine physician’s likelihood to be considered for a position. HTFMs were explicitly mentioned as being eligible in 119 of 252 positions (47%). The investigators then sent surveys out to physician recruiters of the remaining 133 positions asking whether HTFMs were being considered for the position. The results of the survey showed 66% of the recruiters were open to HTFMs, while 34% of recruiters said they did not have a willingness to hire HTFMs.
That willingness to hire changed based on the level of experience, training, and certification. More than one-fourth (29%) of physician recruiters said institutional bylaws prevented hiring of HTFMs. If respondents earned a Recognition of Focused Practice in Hospital Medicine (RFPHM) board examination, 78% of physician recruiters would reconsider hiring the candidate. If the HTFM applicant had prior experience in hospital medicine, 87% of physician recruiters said they would consider the candidate. HTFMs who earned a Designation of Fellow in Hospital Medicine (FHM) from SHM would be reconsidered by 93% of physician recruiters who initially refused the HTFM candidate. All physician recruiters said they would reconsider if the candidate had a fellowship in hospital medicine.
However, to date, there is no official American College of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-recognized hospitalist board certification or designated specialty credentialing. This can lead to situations where family medicine trained physicians are applying for jobs without the necessary requirements for the position, because those requirements may not be immediately obvious when first applying to a position. “There’s often no specification until you apply and then are informed that you don’t qualify – ‘Oh, no, you haven’t completed a fellowship,’ or the added qualification in hospital medicine,” Dr. McCurry said.
The 2015 joint statement from AAFP and SHM asserts that “more than two-thirds of HTFMs are also involved in the training of residents and medical students, enhancing the skills of our future physicians.” But when HTFMs do find positions, they may be limited in other ways, such as being prohibited from serving on the faculty of internal medicine residency programs and teaching internal medicine residents. When Dr. Odeti was medical director for Johnston Memorial Hospital in Abingdon, Va., he said he encountered this issue.
“If you are a hospitalist who is internal medicine trained, then you can teach FM or IM, whereas if you’re family medicine trained, you cannot teach internal medicine residents,” he said. “What happened with me, I had to prioritize recruiting internal medicine residents over FM residents to be able to staff IM teaching faculty.”
A rule change has been lobbied by SHM, under the direction of SHM family medicine SIG former chair David Goldstein, MD, to address this issue that would allow HTFMs with a FPHM designation to teach IM residents. The change was quietly made by the ACGME Review Committee for Internal Medicine in 2017, Dr. McCurry said, but implementation of the change has been slow.
“Essentially, the change was made in 2017 to allow for family medicine trainied physicians who have the FPHM designation to teach IM residents, but this knowledge has not been widely dispersed or policies updated to clearly reflect this change,” Dr. McCurry said. “It is a significant change, however, because prior to that, there were explicit policies preventing a family medicine hospitalist from teaching internal medicine residents even if they were experienced.”
FM physicians uniquely suited for HM
Requirements aside, it is “arguably not the case” that family medicine physicians need these extra certifications and fellowships to serve as hospitalists, Dr. McCurry said. It is difficult to quantify IM and FM hospitalist quality outcomes due to challenges with attribution, Dr. Odeti noted. One 2007 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine looked at patient quality and cost of care across the hospitalist model, and family medicine practitioners providing inpatients care. The investigators found similar outcomes in the internist model and with family practitioners providing inpatient care. Dr. Odeti said this research supports “the fact that family medicine physicians are equally competent as internists in providing inpatient care.”
Dr. Odeti argued that family medicine training is valuable for work as a hospitalist. “Hospital medicine is a team sport. You have a quarterback, you have a wide receiver, you have a running back. Everybody has a role to play and everybody has their own strength,” he said.
Family medicine hospitalists are uniquely positioned to handle the shift within hospital medicine from volume to value-based care. “That does not depend solely on what we do within the hospital. It depends a lot on what we do for the patients as they get out of the hospital into the community,” he explained.
Family medicine hospitalists are also well prepared to handle the continuum of care for patients in the hospital. “In their training, FM hospitalists have their own patient panels and they have complete ownership of their patient in their training, so they are prepared because they know how to set up things for outpatients,” Dr. Odeti explained.
“Every hospitalist group needs to use the family medicine doctors to their advantage,” he said. “A family medicine trained hospitalist should be part of every good hospitalist group, is what I would say.”
HTFMs are growing within SHM
HTFMs are “all over,” being represented in smaller hospitals, larger hospitals, and university hospitals in every state. “But to reach those positions, they probably have to go over more hurdles and have fewer opportunities,” Dr. Chaudhry said.
There isn’t a completely accurate count of family medicine hospitalists in the United States. Out of an estimated 50,000 hospitalists in the U. S., about 16,000 hospitalists are members of SHM. A number of family medicine hospitalists may also take AAFP membership instead of SHM, Dr. Odeti explained.
However, there are a growing number of hospitalists within SHM with a family medicine background. In the 2007-2008 Society of Hospital Medicine Annual Survey, 3.7% of U.S. hospitalists claimed family medicine training. That number increased to 6.9% of physicians who answered the SHM membership data report in 2010.
A Medscape Hospitalist Lifestyle, Happiness & Burnout Report from 2019 estimates 17% of hospitalists are trained in family medicine. In the latest State of Hospital Medicine Report published in 2020, 38.6% of hospital medicine groups containing family medicine trained physicians were part of a university, medical school, or faculty practice; 79.6% did not have academic status; 83.8% were at a non-teaching hospital; 60.7% were in a group in a non-teaching service at a teaching hospital; and 52.8% were in a group at a combination teaching/non-teaching service at a teaching hospital.
Although the Report did not specify whether family medicine hospitalists were mainly in rural or urban areas, “some of us do practice in underserved area hospitals where you have the smaller ICU model, critical access hospitals, potentially dealing with a whole gamut of inpatient medicine from ER, to the hospital inpatient adult cases, to critical care level,” Dr. McCurry said.
“But then, there are a large number of us who practice in private groups or at large hospitals, academic centers around the country,” she added. “There’s a range of family medicine trained hospitalist practice areas.”
Equal recognition for HTFM in HM
The SHM family medicine SIG has been working to highlight the issue of hiring practices for HTFMs, and is taking a number of actions to bring greater awareness and recognition to family medicine hospitalists.
The family medicine SIG is looking at steps for requesting a new joint statement from ABFM and SHM focused on hiring practices for family medicine physicians as hospitalists. “I think it’s worth considering now that we’re at a point where we comprise about one-fifth of hospitalists as family medicine docs,” Dr. McCurry said. “Is it time to take that joint statement to the next step, and seek a review of how we can improve the balance of hiring in terms of favoring more balanced consideration now that there are a lot more family medicine trained hospitalists than historically?
“I think the call is really to help us all move to that next step in terms of identifying any of the lingering vestiges of expectation that are really no longer applicable to the hiring practices, or shouldn’t be,” she said.
The next step will be to ask hospitals with internal medicine only requirements for hospitalists to update their bylaws to include family medicine physicians when considering candidates for hospitalist positions. If SHM does not make a distinction to grant Fellow in Hospital Medicine status between internal medicine and family medicine trained hospitalists, “then there should not be any distinction, or there should not be any hindrance by the recruiters, by the bigger systems, as well as by the employers” in hiring a family medicine trained physician for a hospitalist position, Dr. Chaudhry said.
Dr. Odeti, who serves in several leadership roles within Ballad Health, describes the system as being friendly to HTFMs. About one-fourth of the hospitalists in Ballad Health are trained in family medicine. But when Dr. Odeti started his hospitalist practice, he was only one of a handful of HTFMs. He sees a future where the accomplishments and contributions of HTFMs will pave the way for future hospitalists. “Access into the urban hospitals is key, and I hope that SHM and the HTFM SIG will act as a catalyst for this change,” he said.
Colleagues of family medicine hospitalists, especially those in leadership positions at hospitals, can help by raising awareness, as can “those of our colleagues who sit on medical executive committees within their hospitals to review their bylaws, to see what the policies are, and encourage more competitiveness,” Dr. McCurry said. “Truly, the best candidate for the position, regardless of background and training, is what you want. You want the best colleagues for your fellow hospitalists. You want the best physician for your patients in the hospital.”
If training and all other things are equal, family medicine physicians should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, she said. “I think that that puts the burden back on any good medical committee, and a good medical committee member who is an SHM member as well, to say, ‘If we are committed to quality patient care, we want to encourage the recruitment of all physicians that are truly the best physicians to reduce that distinction between FM and IM in order to allow those best candidates to present, whether they are FM or IM.’ That’s all that we’re asking.”
Dr. Chaudhry emphasized that the preference for internal medicine trained physicians isn’t intentional. “It’s not as if the systems are trying to do it,” he said. “I think it is more like everybody needs to be educated. And through the platform of the Society of Hospital Medicine, I think we can make a difference. It will be a slow change, but we’ll have to keep on working on it.”
Dr. Odeti, Dr. McCurry, and Dr. Chaudhry have no relevant financial disclosures.
Outdated perceptions of family medicine
Outdated perceptions of family medicine
A family medicine trained doctor, fresh out of residency, visits a career website to scout out prospective hospitalist jobs in their region. As they scroll through the job listings, they come across one opportunity at a nearby hospital system that seems like a good fit. The listing offers a competitive salary and comprehensive benefits for the position, and mentions hospitalists in the department will have the opportunity to teach medical students.
The only problem? The position is for internal medicine trained doctors only. After searching through several more listings with the same internal medicine requirement, the pool of jobs available to the family medicine doctor seems much smaller.
When Robert M. Wachter, MD, MHM, and Lee Goldman, MD coined the term “hospitalist” in a 1996 New England Journal of Medicine article, hospitalists were primarily clinicians with an internal medicine background, filling the gap created by family medicine doctors who increasingly devoted their time to patients in their practice and spent less time rounding in the hospital.
As family medicine doctors have returned to hospital medicine, it has become difficult to find positions as hospitalists due to a preference by some recruiters and employers that favors internal medicine physicians over those who are trained in family medicine. The preference for internal medicine physicians is sometimes overt, such as a requirement on a job application. But the preference can also surface after a physician has already applied for a position, and they will then discover a recruiter is actually looking for someone with a background in internal medicine. In other cases, family medicine physicians find out after applying that applicants with a background in family medicine are considered, but they’re expected to have additional training or certification not listed on the job application.
The situation can even be as stark as a hospital system hiring an internal medicine doctor just out of residency over a family medicine doctor with years of experience as a board-certified physician. Hiring practices in large systems across multiple states sometimes don’t just favor internal medicine, they are entirely focused on internal medicine hospitalists, said experts who spoke with The Hospitalist.
Outdated perceptions of family medicine
Victoria McCurry, MD, current chair of the Society of Hospital Medicine’s family medicine Special Interest Group (SIG) Executive Committee and Faculty Director of Inpatient Services at UPMC McKeesport (Pa.) Family Medicine Residency, said hearsay inside the family medicine community influenced her first job search looking for hospitalist positions as a family medicine physician.
“I was intentional about choosing places that I assumed would be open to family medicine,” she said. “I avoided the downtown urban academic hospitals, the ones that had a large internal medicine residency and fellowship presence, because I assumed that they would not hire me.
“There’s a recognition that depending on the system that you’re in and their history with family medicine trained hospitalists, it can be difficult as a family physician to seek employment,” Dr. McCurry said.
“When I graduated from my residency in 2014, I did not have the same opportunities to be a hospitalist as an internal medicine resident would have,” said Shyam Odeti, MD, a family-practice-trained hospitalist who works at Ballad Health in Johnson City, Tenn. “The perception is family medicine physicians are not trained for hospitalist practice. It’s an old perception.”
This perception may have to do with the mindset of the leadership where a doctor has had residency training, according to Usman Chaudhry, MD, a family medicine hospitalist with Texas Health Physicians Group and leader of the National Advocacy subcommittee for the Family Medicine Executive Council in SHM. Residents trained in bigger university hospital systems where internal medicine (IM) residents do mostly inpatient – in addition to outpatient services – and family medicine (FM) residents do mostly outpatient – including pediatrics and ob/gyn clinics in addition to inpatient services – may believe that to be the case in other systems too, Dr. Chaudhry explained.
“When you go to community hospital residency programs, it’s totally different,” he said. “It all depends. If you have only family medicine residency in a community hospital, they tend to do all training of inpatient clinical medicine, as IM training would in any other program”
Dr. McCurry noted that there seems to be a persisting, mental assumption that as a family medicine doctor, you’re only going to be practicing outpatient only or maybe urgent care, which is historically just not the case. “If that’s ingrained within the local hospital system, then it will be difficult for that system to hire a family medicine-trained hospitalist,” she said.
Another source of outdated perceptions of family medicine come from hospital and institutional bylaws that have written internal medicine training in as a requirement for hospitalists. “In many bigger systems, and even in the smaller hospital community and regional hospitals, the bylaws of the hospitals were written approximately 20 years ago,” Dr. Chaudhry said.
Unless someone has advocated for updating a hospital or institution’s bylaws, they may have outdated requirements for hospitalists. “The situation right now is, in a lot of urban hospitals, they would be able to give a hospitalist position to internal medicine residents who just graduated, not even board certified, but they cannot give it to a hospitalist trained in family medicine who has worked for 10 years and is board certified, just because of the bylaws,” said Dr. Odeti who is also co-chair for the SHM National Advocacy subcommittee of hospitalists trained in family medicine. “There is no good rhyme or reason to it. It is just there and they haven’t changed it.”
Dr. Chaudhry added that no one provides an adequate reason for the bias during the hiring process. “If you ask the recruiter, they would say ‘the employer asked me [to do it this way].’ If you ask the employers, they say ‘the hospital’s bylaws say that.’ And then, we request changes to the hospital bylaws because you don’t have access to them. So the burden of responsibility falls on the shoulders of hospitalists in leadership positions to request equal privileges from the hospital boards for FM-trained hospitalists.”
Experience, education closes some gaps
Over the years, the American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM) and SHM have offered several opportunities for family medicine doctors to demonstrate their experience and training in hospital medicine. In 2010, ABFM began offering the Focused Recognition of Hospital Medicine board examination, together with the American Board of Internal Medicine. SHM also offers hospitalist fellowships and a designation of Fellow in Hospital Medicine (FHM) for health care professionals. In 2015, ABFM and SHM released a joint statement encouraging the growth of hospitalists trained in family medicine (HTFM) and outlining these opportunities.
These measures help fill a gap in both IM and FM training, but also appear to have some effect in convincing recruiters and employers to consider family medicine doctors for hospitalist positions. An abstract published at Hospital Medicine 2014 reviewed 252 hospitalist positions listed in journals and search engines attempted to document the disparities in job listings, the perceptions of physician recruiters, and how factors like experience, training, and certification impacted a family medicine physician’s likelihood to be considered for a position. HTFMs were explicitly mentioned as being eligible in 119 of 252 positions (47%). The investigators then sent surveys out to physician recruiters of the remaining 133 positions asking whether HTFMs were being considered for the position. The results of the survey showed 66% of the recruiters were open to HTFMs, while 34% of recruiters said they did not have a willingness to hire HTFMs.
That willingness to hire changed based on the level of experience, training, and certification. More than one-fourth (29%) of physician recruiters said institutional bylaws prevented hiring of HTFMs. If respondents earned a Recognition of Focused Practice in Hospital Medicine (RFPHM) board examination, 78% of physician recruiters would reconsider hiring the candidate. If the HTFM applicant had prior experience in hospital medicine, 87% of physician recruiters said they would consider the candidate. HTFMs who earned a Designation of Fellow in Hospital Medicine (FHM) from SHM would be reconsidered by 93% of physician recruiters who initially refused the HTFM candidate. All physician recruiters said they would reconsider if the candidate had a fellowship in hospital medicine.
However, to date, there is no official American College of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-recognized hospitalist board certification or designated specialty credentialing. This can lead to situations where family medicine trained physicians are applying for jobs without the necessary requirements for the position, because those requirements may not be immediately obvious when first applying to a position. “There’s often no specification until you apply and then are informed that you don’t qualify – ‘Oh, no, you haven’t completed a fellowship,’ or the added qualification in hospital medicine,” Dr. McCurry said.
The 2015 joint statement from AAFP and SHM asserts that “more than two-thirds of HTFMs are also involved in the training of residents and medical students, enhancing the skills of our future physicians.” But when HTFMs do find positions, they may be limited in other ways, such as being prohibited from serving on the faculty of internal medicine residency programs and teaching internal medicine residents. When Dr. Odeti was medical director for Johnston Memorial Hospital in Abingdon, Va., he said he encountered this issue.
“If you are a hospitalist who is internal medicine trained, then you can teach FM or IM, whereas if you’re family medicine trained, you cannot teach internal medicine residents,” he said. “What happened with me, I had to prioritize recruiting internal medicine residents over FM residents to be able to staff IM teaching faculty.”
A rule change has been lobbied by SHM, under the direction of SHM family medicine SIG former chair David Goldstein, MD, to address this issue that would allow HTFMs with a FPHM designation to teach IM residents. The change was quietly made by the ACGME Review Committee for Internal Medicine in 2017, Dr. McCurry said, but implementation of the change has been slow.
“Essentially, the change was made in 2017 to allow for family medicine trainied physicians who have the FPHM designation to teach IM residents, but this knowledge has not been widely dispersed or policies updated to clearly reflect this change,” Dr. McCurry said. “It is a significant change, however, because prior to that, there were explicit policies preventing a family medicine hospitalist from teaching internal medicine residents even if they were experienced.”
FM physicians uniquely suited for HM
Requirements aside, it is “arguably not the case” that family medicine physicians need these extra certifications and fellowships to serve as hospitalists, Dr. McCurry said. It is difficult to quantify IM and FM hospitalist quality outcomes due to challenges with attribution, Dr. Odeti noted. One 2007 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine looked at patient quality and cost of care across the hospitalist model, and family medicine practitioners providing inpatients care. The investigators found similar outcomes in the internist model and with family practitioners providing inpatient care. Dr. Odeti said this research supports “the fact that family medicine physicians are equally competent as internists in providing inpatient care.”
Dr. Odeti argued that family medicine training is valuable for work as a hospitalist. “Hospital medicine is a team sport. You have a quarterback, you have a wide receiver, you have a running back. Everybody has a role to play and everybody has their own strength,” he said.
Family medicine hospitalists are uniquely positioned to handle the shift within hospital medicine from volume to value-based care. “That does not depend solely on what we do within the hospital. It depends a lot on what we do for the patients as they get out of the hospital into the community,” he explained.
Family medicine hospitalists are also well prepared to handle the continuum of care for patients in the hospital. “In their training, FM hospitalists have their own patient panels and they have complete ownership of their patient in their training, so they are prepared because they know how to set up things for outpatients,” Dr. Odeti explained.
“Every hospitalist group needs to use the family medicine doctors to their advantage,” he said. “A family medicine trained hospitalist should be part of every good hospitalist group, is what I would say.”
HTFMs are growing within SHM
HTFMs are “all over,” being represented in smaller hospitals, larger hospitals, and university hospitals in every state. “But to reach those positions, they probably have to go over more hurdles and have fewer opportunities,” Dr. Chaudhry said.
There isn’t a completely accurate count of family medicine hospitalists in the United States. Out of an estimated 50,000 hospitalists in the U. S., about 16,000 hospitalists are members of SHM. A number of family medicine hospitalists may also take AAFP membership instead of SHM, Dr. Odeti explained.
However, there are a growing number of hospitalists within SHM with a family medicine background. In the 2007-2008 Society of Hospital Medicine Annual Survey, 3.7% of U.S. hospitalists claimed family medicine training. That number increased to 6.9% of physicians who answered the SHM membership data report in 2010.
A Medscape Hospitalist Lifestyle, Happiness & Burnout Report from 2019 estimates 17% of hospitalists are trained in family medicine. In the latest State of Hospital Medicine Report published in 2020, 38.6% of hospital medicine groups containing family medicine trained physicians were part of a university, medical school, or faculty practice; 79.6% did not have academic status; 83.8% were at a non-teaching hospital; 60.7% were in a group in a non-teaching service at a teaching hospital; and 52.8% were in a group at a combination teaching/non-teaching service at a teaching hospital.
Although the Report did not specify whether family medicine hospitalists were mainly in rural or urban areas, “some of us do practice in underserved area hospitals where you have the smaller ICU model, critical access hospitals, potentially dealing with a whole gamut of inpatient medicine from ER, to the hospital inpatient adult cases, to critical care level,” Dr. McCurry said.
“But then, there are a large number of us who practice in private groups or at large hospitals, academic centers around the country,” she added. “There’s a range of family medicine trained hospitalist practice areas.”
Equal recognition for HTFM in HM
The SHM family medicine SIG has been working to highlight the issue of hiring practices for HTFMs, and is taking a number of actions to bring greater awareness and recognition to family medicine hospitalists.
The family medicine SIG is looking at steps for requesting a new joint statement from ABFM and SHM focused on hiring practices for family medicine physicians as hospitalists. “I think it’s worth considering now that we’re at a point where we comprise about one-fifth of hospitalists as family medicine docs,” Dr. McCurry said. “Is it time to take that joint statement to the next step, and seek a review of how we can improve the balance of hiring in terms of favoring more balanced consideration now that there are a lot more family medicine trained hospitalists than historically?
“I think the call is really to help us all move to that next step in terms of identifying any of the lingering vestiges of expectation that are really no longer applicable to the hiring practices, or shouldn’t be,” she said.
The next step will be to ask hospitals with internal medicine only requirements for hospitalists to update their bylaws to include family medicine physicians when considering candidates for hospitalist positions. If SHM does not make a distinction to grant Fellow in Hospital Medicine status between internal medicine and family medicine trained hospitalists, “then there should not be any distinction, or there should not be any hindrance by the recruiters, by the bigger systems, as well as by the employers” in hiring a family medicine trained physician for a hospitalist position, Dr. Chaudhry said.
Dr. Odeti, who serves in several leadership roles within Ballad Health, describes the system as being friendly to HTFMs. About one-fourth of the hospitalists in Ballad Health are trained in family medicine. But when Dr. Odeti started his hospitalist practice, he was only one of a handful of HTFMs. He sees a future where the accomplishments and contributions of HTFMs will pave the way for future hospitalists. “Access into the urban hospitals is key, and I hope that SHM and the HTFM SIG will act as a catalyst for this change,” he said.
Colleagues of family medicine hospitalists, especially those in leadership positions at hospitals, can help by raising awareness, as can “those of our colleagues who sit on medical executive committees within their hospitals to review their bylaws, to see what the policies are, and encourage more competitiveness,” Dr. McCurry said. “Truly, the best candidate for the position, regardless of background and training, is what you want. You want the best colleagues for your fellow hospitalists. You want the best physician for your patients in the hospital.”
If training and all other things are equal, family medicine physicians should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, she said. “I think that that puts the burden back on any good medical committee, and a good medical committee member who is an SHM member as well, to say, ‘If we are committed to quality patient care, we want to encourage the recruitment of all physicians that are truly the best physicians to reduce that distinction between FM and IM in order to allow those best candidates to present, whether they are FM or IM.’ That’s all that we’re asking.”
Dr. Chaudhry emphasized that the preference for internal medicine trained physicians isn’t intentional. “It’s not as if the systems are trying to do it,” he said. “I think it is more like everybody needs to be educated. And through the platform of the Society of Hospital Medicine, I think we can make a difference. It will be a slow change, but we’ll have to keep on working on it.”
Dr. Odeti, Dr. McCurry, and Dr. Chaudhry have no relevant financial disclosures.
A family medicine trained doctor, fresh out of residency, visits a career website to scout out prospective hospitalist jobs in their region. As they scroll through the job listings, they come across one opportunity at a nearby hospital system that seems like a good fit. The listing offers a competitive salary and comprehensive benefits for the position, and mentions hospitalists in the department will have the opportunity to teach medical students.
The only problem? The position is for internal medicine trained doctors only. After searching through several more listings with the same internal medicine requirement, the pool of jobs available to the family medicine doctor seems much smaller.
When Robert M. Wachter, MD, MHM, and Lee Goldman, MD coined the term “hospitalist” in a 1996 New England Journal of Medicine article, hospitalists were primarily clinicians with an internal medicine background, filling the gap created by family medicine doctors who increasingly devoted their time to patients in their practice and spent less time rounding in the hospital.
As family medicine doctors have returned to hospital medicine, it has become difficult to find positions as hospitalists due to a preference by some recruiters and employers that favors internal medicine physicians over those who are trained in family medicine. The preference for internal medicine physicians is sometimes overt, such as a requirement on a job application. But the preference can also surface after a physician has already applied for a position, and they will then discover a recruiter is actually looking for someone with a background in internal medicine. In other cases, family medicine physicians find out after applying that applicants with a background in family medicine are considered, but they’re expected to have additional training or certification not listed on the job application.
The situation can even be as stark as a hospital system hiring an internal medicine doctor just out of residency over a family medicine doctor with years of experience as a board-certified physician. Hiring practices in large systems across multiple states sometimes don’t just favor internal medicine, they are entirely focused on internal medicine hospitalists, said experts who spoke with The Hospitalist.
Outdated perceptions of family medicine
Victoria McCurry, MD, current chair of the Society of Hospital Medicine’s family medicine Special Interest Group (SIG) Executive Committee and Faculty Director of Inpatient Services at UPMC McKeesport (Pa.) Family Medicine Residency, said hearsay inside the family medicine community influenced her first job search looking for hospitalist positions as a family medicine physician.
“I was intentional about choosing places that I assumed would be open to family medicine,” she said. “I avoided the downtown urban academic hospitals, the ones that had a large internal medicine residency and fellowship presence, because I assumed that they would not hire me.
“There’s a recognition that depending on the system that you’re in and their history with family medicine trained hospitalists, it can be difficult as a family physician to seek employment,” Dr. McCurry said.
“When I graduated from my residency in 2014, I did not have the same opportunities to be a hospitalist as an internal medicine resident would have,” said Shyam Odeti, MD, a family-practice-trained hospitalist who works at Ballad Health in Johnson City, Tenn. “The perception is family medicine physicians are not trained for hospitalist practice. It’s an old perception.”
This perception may have to do with the mindset of the leadership where a doctor has had residency training, according to Usman Chaudhry, MD, a family medicine hospitalist with Texas Health Physicians Group and leader of the National Advocacy subcommittee for the Family Medicine Executive Council in SHM. Residents trained in bigger university hospital systems where internal medicine (IM) residents do mostly inpatient – in addition to outpatient services – and family medicine (FM) residents do mostly outpatient – including pediatrics and ob/gyn clinics in addition to inpatient services – may believe that to be the case in other systems too, Dr. Chaudhry explained.
“When you go to community hospital residency programs, it’s totally different,” he said. “It all depends. If you have only family medicine residency in a community hospital, they tend to do all training of inpatient clinical medicine, as IM training would in any other program”
Dr. McCurry noted that there seems to be a persisting, mental assumption that as a family medicine doctor, you’re only going to be practicing outpatient only or maybe urgent care, which is historically just not the case. “If that’s ingrained within the local hospital system, then it will be difficult for that system to hire a family medicine-trained hospitalist,” she said.
Another source of outdated perceptions of family medicine come from hospital and institutional bylaws that have written internal medicine training in as a requirement for hospitalists. “In many bigger systems, and even in the smaller hospital community and regional hospitals, the bylaws of the hospitals were written approximately 20 years ago,” Dr. Chaudhry said.
Unless someone has advocated for updating a hospital or institution’s bylaws, they may have outdated requirements for hospitalists. “The situation right now is, in a lot of urban hospitals, they would be able to give a hospitalist position to internal medicine residents who just graduated, not even board certified, but they cannot give it to a hospitalist trained in family medicine who has worked for 10 years and is board certified, just because of the bylaws,” said Dr. Odeti who is also co-chair for the SHM National Advocacy subcommittee of hospitalists trained in family medicine. “There is no good rhyme or reason to it. It is just there and they haven’t changed it.”
Dr. Chaudhry added that no one provides an adequate reason for the bias during the hiring process. “If you ask the recruiter, they would say ‘the employer asked me [to do it this way].’ If you ask the employers, they say ‘the hospital’s bylaws say that.’ And then, we request changes to the hospital bylaws because you don’t have access to them. So the burden of responsibility falls on the shoulders of hospitalists in leadership positions to request equal privileges from the hospital boards for FM-trained hospitalists.”
Experience, education closes some gaps
Over the years, the American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM) and SHM have offered several opportunities for family medicine doctors to demonstrate their experience and training in hospital medicine. In 2010, ABFM began offering the Focused Recognition of Hospital Medicine board examination, together with the American Board of Internal Medicine. SHM also offers hospitalist fellowships and a designation of Fellow in Hospital Medicine (FHM) for health care professionals. In 2015, ABFM and SHM released a joint statement encouraging the growth of hospitalists trained in family medicine (HTFM) and outlining these opportunities.
These measures help fill a gap in both IM and FM training, but also appear to have some effect in convincing recruiters and employers to consider family medicine doctors for hospitalist positions. An abstract published at Hospital Medicine 2014 reviewed 252 hospitalist positions listed in journals and search engines attempted to document the disparities in job listings, the perceptions of physician recruiters, and how factors like experience, training, and certification impacted a family medicine physician’s likelihood to be considered for a position. HTFMs were explicitly mentioned as being eligible in 119 of 252 positions (47%). The investigators then sent surveys out to physician recruiters of the remaining 133 positions asking whether HTFMs were being considered for the position. The results of the survey showed 66% of the recruiters were open to HTFMs, while 34% of recruiters said they did not have a willingness to hire HTFMs.
That willingness to hire changed based on the level of experience, training, and certification. More than one-fourth (29%) of physician recruiters said institutional bylaws prevented hiring of HTFMs. If respondents earned a Recognition of Focused Practice in Hospital Medicine (RFPHM) board examination, 78% of physician recruiters would reconsider hiring the candidate. If the HTFM applicant had prior experience in hospital medicine, 87% of physician recruiters said they would consider the candidate. HTFMs who earned a Designation of Fellow in Hospital Medicine (FHM) from SHM would be reconsidered by 93% of physician recruiters who initially refused the HTFM candidate. All physician recruiters said they would reconsider if the candidate had a fellowship in hospital medicine.
However, to date, there is no official American College of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-recognized hospitalist board certification or designated specialty credentialing. This can lead to situations where family medicine trained physicians are applying for jobs without the necessary requirements for the position, because those requirements may not be immediately obvious when first applying to a position. “There’s often no specification until you apply and then are informed that you don’t qualify – ‘Oh, no, you haven’t completed a fellowship,’ or the added qualification in hospital medicine,” Dr. McCurry said.
The 2015 joint statement from AAFP and SHM asserts that “more than two-thirds of HTFMs are also involved in the training of residents and medical students, enhancing the skills of our future physicians.” But when HTFMs do find positions, they may be limited in other ways, such as being prohibited from serving on the faculty of internal medicine residency programs and teaching internal medicine residents. When Dr. Odeti was medical director for Johnston Memorial Hospital in Abingdon, Va., he said he encountered this issue.
“If you are a hospitalist who is internal medicine trained, then you can teach FM or IM, whereas if you’re family medicine trained, you cannot teach internal medicine residents,” he said. “What happened with me, I had to prioritize recruiting internal medicine residents over FM residents to be able to staff IM teaching faculty.”
A rule change has been lobbied by SHM, under the direction of SHM family medicine SIG former chair David Goldstein, MD, to address this issue that would allow HTFMs with a FPHM designation to teach IM residents. The change was quietly made by the ACGME Review Committee for Internal Medicine in 2017, Dr. McCurry said, but implementation of the change has been slow.
“Essentially, the change was made in 2017 to allow for family medicine trainied physicians who have the FPHM designation to teach IM residents, but this knowledge has not been widely dispersed or policies updated to clearly reflect this change,” Dr. McCurry said. “It is a significant change, however, because prior to that, there were explicit policies preventing a family medicine hospitalist from teaching internal medicine residents even if they were experienced.”
FM physicians uniquely suited for HM
Requirements aside, it is “arguably not the case” that family medicine physicians need these extra certifications and fellowships to serve as hospitalists, Dr. McCurry said. It is difficult to quantify IM and FM hospitalist quality outcomes due to challenges with attribution, Dr. Odeti noted. One 2007 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine looked at patient quality and cost of care across the hospitalist model, and family medicine practitioners providing inpatients care. The investigators found similar outcomes in the internist model and with family practitioners providing inpatient care. Dr. Odeti said this research supports “the fact that family medicine physicians are equally competent as internists in providing inpatient care.”
Dr. Odeti argued that family medicine training is valuable for work as a hospitalist. “Hospital medicine is a team sport. You have a quarterback, you have a wide receiver, you have a running back. Everybody has a role to play and everybody has their own strength,” he said.
Family medicine hospitalists are uniquely positioned to handle the shift within hospital medicine from volume to value-based care. “That does not depend solely on what we do within the hospital. It depends a lot on what we do for the patients as they get out of the hospital into the community,” he explained.
Family medicine hospitalists are also well prepared to handle the continuum of care for patients in the hospital. “In their training, FM hospitalists have their own patient panels and they have complete ownership of their patient in their training, so they are prepared because they know how to set up things for outpatients,” Dr. Odeti explained.
“Every hospitalist group needs to use the family medicine doctors to their advantage,” he said. “A family medicine trained hospitalist should be part of every good hospitalist group, is what I would say.”
HTFMs are growing within SHM
HTFMs are “all over,” being represented in smaller hospitals, larger hospitals, and university hospitals in every state. “But to reach those positions, they probably have to go over more hurdles and have fewer opportunities,” Dr. Chaudhry said.
There isn’t a completely accurate count of family medicine hospitalists in the United States. Out of an estimated 50,000 hospitalists in the U. S., about 16,000 hospitalists are members of SHM. A number of family medicine hospitalists may also take AAFP membership instead of SHM, Dr. Odeti explained.
However, there are a growing number of hospitalists within SHM with a family medicine background. In the 2007-2008 Society of Hospital Medicine Annual Survey, 3.7% of U.S. hospitalists claimed family medicine training. That number increased to 6.9% of physicians who answered the SHM membership data report in 2010.
A Medscape Hospitalist Lifestyle, Happiness & Burnout Report from 2019 estimates 17% of hospitalists are trained in family medicine. In the latest State of Hospital Medicine Report published in 2020, 38.6% of hospital medicine groups containing family medicine trained physicians were part of a university, medical school, or faculty practice; 79.6% did not have academic status; 83.8% were at a non-teaching hospital; 60.7% were in a group in a non-teaching service at a teaching hospital; and 52.8% were in a group at a combination teaching/non-teaching service at a teaching hospital.
Although the Report did not specify whether family medicine hospitalists were mainly in rural or urban areas, “some of us do practice in underserved area hospitals where you have the smaller ICU model, critical access hospitals, potentially dealing with a whole gamut of inpatient medicine from ER, to the hospital inpatient adult cases, to critical care level,” Dr. McCurry said.
“But then, there are a large number of us who practice in private groups or at large hospitals, academic centers around the country,” she added. “There’s a range of family medicine trained hospitalist practice areas.”
Equal recognition for HTFM in HM
The SHM family medicine SIG has been working to highlight the issue of hiring practices for HTFMs, and is taking a number of actions to bring greater awareness and recognition to family medicine hospitalists.
The family medicine SIG is looking at steps for requesting a new joint statement from ABFM and SHM focused on hiring practices for family medicine physicians as hospitalists. “I think it’s worth considering now that we’re at a point where we comprise about one-fifth of hospitalists as family medicine docs,” Dr. McCurry said. “Is it time to take that joint statement to the next step, and seek a review of how we can improve the balance of hiring in terms of favoring more balanced consideration now that there are a lot more family medicine trained hospitalists than historically?
“I think the call is really to help us all move to that next step in terms of identifying any of the lingering vestiges of expectation that are really no longer applicable to the hiring practices, or shouldn’t be,” she said.
The next step will be to ask hospitals with internal medicine only requirements for hospitalists to update their bylaws to include family medicine physicians when considering candidates for hospitalist positions. If SHM does not make a distinction to grant Fellow in Hospital Medicine status between internal medicine and family medicine trained hospitalists, “then there should not be any distinction, or there should not be any hindrance by the recruiters, by the bigger systems, as well as by the employers” in hiring a family medicine trained physician for a hospitalist position, Dr. Chaudhry said.
Dr. Odeti, who serves in several leadership roles within Ballad Health, describes the system as being friendly to HTFMs. About one-fourth of the hospitalists in Ballad Health are trained in family medicine. But when Dr. Odeti started his hospitalist practice, he was only one of a handful of HTFMs. He sees a future where the accomplishments and contributions of HTFMs will pave the way for future hospitalists. “Access into the urban hospitals is key, and I hope that SHM and the HTFM SIG will act as a catalyst for this change,” he said.
Colleagues of family medicine hospitalists, especially those in leadership positions at hospitals, can help by raising awareness, as can “those of our colleagues who sit on medical executive committees within their hospitals to review their bylaws, to see what the policies are, and encourage more competitiveness,” Dr. McCurry said. “Truly, the best candidate for the position, regardless of background and training, is what you want. You want the best colleagues for your fellow hospitalists. You want the best physician for your patients in the hospital.”
If training and all other things are equal, family medicine physicians should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, she said. “I think that that puts the burden back on any good medical committee, and a good medical committee member who is an SHM member as well, to say, ‘If we are committed to quality patient care, we want to encourage the recruitment of all physicians that are truly the best physicians to reduce that distinction between FM and IM in order to allow those best candidates to present, whether they are FM or IM.’ That’s all that we’re asking.”
Dr. Chaudhry emphasized that the preference for internal medicine trained physicians isn’t intentional. “It’s not as if the systems are trying to do it,” he said. “I think it is more like everybody needs to be educated. And through the platform of the Society of Hospital Medicine, I think we can make a difference. It will be a slow change, but we’ll have to keep on working on it.”
Dr. Odeti, Dr. McCurry, and Dr. Chaudhry have no relevant financial disclosures.
Quick Byte: Global health before COVID-19
How quickly things change. On September 23, 2019 – months before the COVID-19 pandemic struck – at a UN High-Level Meeting on Universal Health Coverage, heads of state from around the world pledged to achieve universal health coverage by 2030.
“This will be an unprecedented moment in public health: according to the declaration being negotiated by member states, this commitment is being made globally ‘for the first time.’ Whether or not the new commitment succeeds will depend on a large degree of advocacy at the national level.”
Reference
1. Carter M, Emmel A. The Global Community Has Pledged To Achieve Universal Health Coverage: What’s It Going To Take? Health Affairs Blog, 2019 Sept 23. doi: 10.1377/hblog20190920.827005.
How quickly things change. On September 23, 2019 – months before the COVID-19 pandemic struck – at a UN High-Level Meeting on Universal Health Coverage, heads of state from around the world pledged to achieve universal health coverage by 2030.
“This will be an unprecedented moment in public health: according to the declaration being negotiated by member states, this commitment is being made globally ‘for the first time.’ Whether or not the new commitment succeeds will depend on a large degree of advocacy at the national level.”
Reference
1. Carter M, Emmel A. The Global Community Has Pledged To Achieve Universal Health Coverage: What’s It Going To Take? Health Affairs Blog, 2019 Sept 23. doi: 10.1377/hblog20190920.827005.
How quickly things change. On September 23, 2019 – months before the COVID-19 pandemic struck – at a UN High-Level Meeting on Universal Health Coverage, heads of state from around the world pledged to achieve universal health coverage by 2030.
“This will be an unprecedented moment in public health: according to the declaration being negotiated by member states, this commitment is being made globally ‘for the first time.’ Whether or not the new commitment succeeds will depend on a large degree of advocacy at the national level.”
Reference
1. Carter M, Emmel A. The Global Community Has Pledged To Achieve Universal Health Coverage: What’s It Going To Take? Health Affairs Blog, 2019 Sept 23. doi: 10.1377/hblog20190920.827005.
Getting to secure text messaging in health care
Health care teams are searching for solutions
Hospitalists and health care teams struggle with issues related to text messaging in the workplace. “It’s happening whether an institution has a secure text messaging platform or not,” said Philip Hagedorn, MD, MBI, associate chief medical information officer at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.
“Many places reacted to this reality by procuring a solution – take your pick of secure text messaging platforms – and implementing it, but bypassed an opportunity to think about how we tailor the use of this culturally ubiquitous medium to the health care setting,” he said.It doesn’t work to just drop a secure text messaging platform into clinical systems and expect that health care practitioners will know how to use them appropriately, Dr. Hagedorn says. “The way we use text messaging in our lives outside health care inevitably bleeds into how we use the medium at work, but it shouldn’t. The needs are different and the stakes are higher for communication in the health care setting.”
In a paper looking at the issue, Dr. Hagedorn and co-authors laid out critical areas of concern, such as text messaging becoming a form of alarm fatigue and also increasing the likelihood of communication error.
“It’s my hope that fellow hospitalists can use this as an opportunity to think deeply about how we communicate in health care,” he said. “If we don’t think critically about how and where something like text messaging should be used in medicine, we risk facing unintended consequences for our patients.”The article discusses several steps for mitigating the risks laid out, including proactive surveillance and targeted training. “These are starting points, and I’m sure there are plenty of other creative solutions out there. We wanted to get the conversation going. We’d love to hear from others who face similar issues or have come up with interesting solutions.”
Reference
1. Hagedorn PA, et al. Secure Text Messaging in Healthcare: Latent Threats and Opportunities to Improve Patient Safety. J Hosp Med. 2020 June;15(6):378-380. Published Online First 2019 Sept 18. doi: 10.12788/jhm.3305
Health care teams are searching for solutions
Health care teams are searching for solutions
Hospitalists and health care teams struggle with issues related to text messaging in the workplace. “It’s happening whether an institution has a secure text messaging platform or not,” said Philip Hagedorn, MD, MBI, associate chief medical information officer at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.
“Many places reacted to this reality by procuring a solution – take your pick of secure text messaging platforms – and implementing it, but bypassed an opportunity to think about how we tailor the use of this culturally ubiquitous medium to the health care setting,” he said.It doesn’t work to just drop a secure text messaging platform into clinical systems and expect that health care practitioners will know how to use them appropriately, Dr. Hagedorn says. “The way we use text messaging in our lives outside health care inevitably bleeds into how we use the medium at work, but it shouldn’t. The needs are different and the stakes are higher for communication in the health care setting.”
In a paper looking at the issue, Dr. Hagedorn and co-authors laid out critical areas of concern, such as text messaging becoming a form of alarm fatigue and also increasing the likelihood of communication error.
“It’s my hope that fellow hospitalists can use this as an opportunity to think deeply about how we communicate in health care,” he said. “If we don’t think critically about how and where something like text messaging should be used in medicine, we risk facing unintended consequences for our patients.”The article discusses several steps for mitigating the risks laid out, including proactive surveillance and targeted training. “These are starting points, and I’m sure there are plenty of other creative solutions out there. We wanted to get the conversation going. We’d love to hear from others who face similar issues or have come up with interesting solutions.”
Reference
1. Hagedorn PA, et al. Secure Text Messaging in Healthcare: Latent Threats and Opportunities to Improve Patient Safety. J Hosp Med. 2020 June;15(6):378-380. Published Online First 2019 Sept 18. doi: 10.12788/jhm.3305
Hospitalists and health care teams struggle with issues related to text messaging in the workplace. “It’s happening whether an institution has a secure text messaging platform or not,” said Philip Hagedorn, MD, MBI, associate chief medical information officer at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.
“Many places reacted to this reality by procuring a solution – take your pick of secure text messaging platforms – and implementing it, but bypassed an opportunity to think about how we tailor the use of this culturally ubiquitous medium to the health care setting,” he said.It doesn’t work to just drop a secure text messaging platform into clinical systems and expect that health care practitioners will know how to use them appropriately, Dr. Hagedorn says. “The way we use text messaging in our lives outside health care inevitably bleeds into how we use the medium at work, but it shouldn’t. The needs are different and the stakes are higher for communication in the health care setting.”
In a paper looking at the issue, Dr. Hagedorn and co-authors laid out critical areas of concern, such as text messaging becoming a form of alarm fatigue and also increasing the likelihood of communication error.
“It’s my hope that fellow hospitalists can use this as an opportunity to think deeply about how we communicate in health care,” he said. “If we don’t think critically about how and where something like text messaging should be used in medicine, we risk facing unintended consequences for our patients.”The article discusses several steps for mitigating the risks laid out, including proactive surveillance and targeted training. “These are starting points, and I’m sure there are plenty of other creative solutions out there. We wanted to get the conversation going. We’d love to hear from others who face similar issues or have come up with interesting solutions.”
Reference
1. Hagedorn PA, et al. Secure Text Messaging in Healthcare: Latent Threats and Opportunities to Improve Patient Safety. J Hosp Med. 2020 June;15(6):378-380. Published Online First 2019 Sept 18. doi: 10.12788/jhm.3305
Fracking sites tied to increased heart failure hospitalizations
Living near hydraulic fracturing is associated with increased risk of hospitalization in people with heart failure (HF), a new study from Pennsylvania suggests.
The link was strongest among those with more severe heart failure but patients with either HF phenotype showed this association of increased risk with exposure to fracking activities, according to the investigators, led by Tara P. McAlexander, PhD, MPH, Drexel University Dornsife School of Public Health in Philadelphia.
“Our understanding has expanded well beyond the famous Harvard Six Cities study to know that it’s not just a short-term uptick in air pollution that›s going to send someone to the hospital a couple days later,” said Dr. McAlexander in an interview, referring to the study conducted from the mid-1970s through 1991. “We know that people who live in these environments and are exposed for long periods of time may have long-term detrimental effects.”
Although questions remain about specific mechanisms and how best to assess exposure, the evidence is mounting in a way that is consistent with the biologic hypotheses of how fracking would adversely affect health, Dr. McAlexander said. “We have many studies now on adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg.”
Pennsylvania is a hot spot for fracking, also known as unconventional natural gas development (UNGD), with more than 12,000 wells drilled in the Marcellus shale since 2004. The shale extends from upstate New York in the north to northeastern Kentucky and Tennessee in the south and covers about 72,000 square miles. Last year, Pennsylvania pledged $3 million to study clusters of rare pediatric cancers and asthma near fracking operations. A recent grand jury report concluded government officials failed to protect residents from the health effects of fracking.
Fracking involves a cascade of activities that can trigger neural circuitry, sympathetic activation, and inflammation – all well-known pathways that potentiate heart failure, said Sanjay Rajagopalan, MD, who has researched the health effects of air pollution for two decades and was not involved with the study.
“If you think about it, it’s like environmental perturbation on steroids in some ways where they are pulling the trigger from a variety of different ways: noise, air pollution, social displacement, psychosocial impacts, economic disparities. So it’s not at all surprising that they saw an association,” said Dr. Rajagopalan, chief of cardiovascular medicine at University Hospitals Harrington Heart & Vascular Institute and director of the Case Western Cardiovascular Research Institute, both in Cleveland, Ohio.
As reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Dr. McAlexander and colleagues at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, used electronic health data from the Geisinger Health System to identify 9,054 patients with heart failure seen between 2008 and 2015. Of these, 5,839 patients had an incident HF hospitalization and 3,215 served as controls. Geisinger operates 13 hospitals and two research centers in 45 of Pennsylvania’s 67 counties, serving more than 3 million of the state’s residents.
Patients’ residential addresses were used to identify latitude and longitude coordinates that were matched with 9,669 UNGD wells in Pennsylvania and the location of major and minor roadways. The researchers also calculated a measure of community socioeconomic deprivation.
The adjusted odds of hospitalization were higher for patients in the highest quartile of exposure for three of the four UNGD phases: pad preparation (odds ratio, 1.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.35-2.13), stimulation or the actual fracking (OR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.35-2.40), and production (OR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.07-2.45).
Dr. McAlexander said she initially thought the lack of association with drilling (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.75-1.27) was a mistake but noted that the drilling metric reflects a shorter time period than, for example, 30 days needed to clear the well pad and bring in the necessary equipment.
Stronger associations between pad preparation, fracking, and production are also consistent with the known increases in air pollution, traffic, and noise associated with these phases.
Individuals with more severe HF had greater odds of hospitalization, but the effect sizes were generally comparable between HF with preserved versus reduced ejection fraction. For those with the highest exposure to fracking, the odds ratios for hospitalization reached 2.25 (95% CI, 1.56-3.25) and 2.09 (95% CI, 1.44-3.03), respectively.
Notably, patients who could be phenotyped versus those who could not were more likely to die, to be hospitalized for HF, and to have a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index and other relevant diagnoses like myocardial infarction.
“Clinicians need to be increasingly aware that the environments their patients are in are a huge factor in their disease progression and outlook,” McAlexander said. “We know that UNGD, specifically now, is something that could be impacting a heart failure patient’s survival.”
She also suggested that the findings may also spur more advocacy work and “across-silo” collaboration between clinicians and environmental researchers.
Dr. Rajagopalan said there is increasing recognition that physicians need to be aware of environmental health links as extreme events like the California and Oregon wildfires and coastal flooding become increasingly common. “Unfortunately, unconventional is becoming the new convention.”
The problem for many physicians, however, is just having enough bandwidth to get through the day and get enough learning to keep above water, he said. Artificial intelligence could be used to seed electronic medical records with other personalized information from a bevy of sources including smartphones and the internet of things, but fundamental changes are also needed in the educational process to emphasize the environment.
“It’s going to take a huge societal shift in the way we view commodities, what we consider healthy, etc, but it can happen very quickly because all it takes is a crisis like COVID-19 to bring people to their knees and make them understand how this is going to take over our lives over the next decade,” Dr. Rajagopalan said.
The scientific community has been calling for “good” epidemiologic studies on the health effects of fracking since the early 2010s, Barrak Alahmad, MBChB, MPH, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Haitham Khraishah, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, point out in an accompanying editorial.
The current study applied “extensive and rigorous methods” involving both the design and statistical approach, including use of a negative control analysis to assess for sources of spurious causal inference, several sensitivity analyses, and controlled for a wide range of covariates.
“Their results were consistent and robust across all these measures,” the editorialists wrote. “Most importantly, the effect size is probably too large to be explained away by an unmeasured confounder.”
Dr. Alahmad and Dr. Khraishah call for advancements in exposure assessment, citing a recent study reporting that ambient particle radioactivity near unconventional oil and gas sites could induce adverse health effects. Other unmet needs include a better understanding of racial disparities in the impacts of fracking and a fine-tuning of cause-specific cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.
The study was supported by training grants from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences to Dr. McAlexander and principal investigator Brian Schwartz, MD. The authors, Dr. Rajagopalan, Dr. Alahmad, and Dr. Khraishah have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Living near hydraulic fracturing is associated with increased risk of hospitalization in people with heart failure (HF), a new study from Pennsylvania suggests.
The link was strongest among those with more severe heart failure but patients with either HF phenotype showed this association of increased risk with exposure to fracking activities, according to the investigators, led by Tara P. McAlexander, PhD, MPH, Drexel University Dornsife School of Public Health in Philadelphia.
“Our understanding has expanded well beyond the famous Harvard Six Cities study to know that it’s not just a short-term uptick in air pollution that›s going to send someone to the hospital a couple days later,” said Dr. McAlexander in an interview, referring to the study conducted from the mid-1970s through 1991. “We know that people who live in these environments and are exposed for long periods of time may have long-term detrimental effects.”
Although questions remain about specific mechanisms and how best to assess exposure, the evidence is mounting in a way that is consistent with the biologic hypotheses of how fracking would adversely affect health, Dr. McAlexander said. “We have many studies now on adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg.”
Pennsylvania is a hot spot for fracking, also known as unconventional natural gas development (UNGD), with more than 12,000 wells drilled in the Marcellus shale since 2004. The shale extends from upstate New York in the north to northeastern Kentucky and Tennessee in the south and covers about 72,000 square miles. Last year, Pennsylvania pledged $3 million to study clusters of rare pediatric cancers and asthma near fracking operations. A recent grand jury report concluded government officials failed to protect residents from the health effects of fracking.
Fracking involves a cascade of activities that can trigger neural circuitry, sympathetic activation, and inflammation – all well-known pathways that potentiate heart failure, said Sanjay Rajagopalan, MD, who has researched the health effects of air pollution for two decades and was not involved with the study.
“If you think about it, it’s like environmental perturbation on steroids in some ways where they are pulling the trigger from a variety of different ways: noise, air pollution, social displacement, psychosocial impacts, economic disparities. So it’s not at all surprising that they saw an association,” said Dr. Rajagopalan, chief of cardiovascular medicine at University Hospitals Harrington Heart & Vascular Institute and director of the Case Western Cardiovascular Research Institute, both in Cleveland, Ohio.
As reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Dr. McAlexander and colleagues at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, used electronic health data from the Geisinger Health System to identify 9,054 patients with heart failure seen between 2008 and 2015. Of these, 5,839 patients had an incident HF hospitalization and 3,215 served as controls. Geisinger operates 13 hospitals and two research centers in 45 of Pennsylvania’s 67 counties, serving more than 3 million of the state’s residents.
Patients’ residential addresses were used to identify latitude and longitude coordinates that were matched with 9,669 UNGD wells in Pennsylvania and the location of major and minor roadways. The researchers also calculated a measure of community socioeconomic deprivation.
The adjusted odds of hospitalization were higher for patients in the highest quartile of exposure for three of the four UNGD phases: pad preparation (odds ratio, 1.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.35-2.13), stimulation or the actual fracking (OR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.35-2.40), and production (OR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.07-2.45).
Dr. McAlexander said she initially thought the lack of association with drilling (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.75-1.27) was a mistake but noted that the drilling metric reflects a shorter time period than, for example, 30 days needed to clear the well pad and bring in the necessary equipment.
Stronger associations between pad preparation, fracking, and production are also consistent with the known increases in air pollution, traffic, and noise associated with these phases.
Individuals with more severe HF had greater odds of hospitalization, but the effect sizes were generally comparable between HF with preserved versus reduced ejection fraction. For those with the highest exposure to fracking, the odds ratios for hospitalization reached 2.25 (95% CI, 1.56-3.25) and 2.09 (95% CI, 1.44-3.03), respectively.
Notably, patients who could be phenotyped versus those who could not were more likely to die, to be hospitalized for HF, and to have a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index and other relevant diagnoses like myocardial infarction.
“Clinicians need to be increasingly aware that the environments their patients are in are a huge factor in their disease progression and outlook,” McAlexander said. “We know that UNGD, specifically now, is something that could be impacting a heart failure patient’s survival.”
She also suggested that the findings may also spur more advocacy work and “across-silo” collaboration between clinicians and environmental researchers.
Dr. Rajagopalan said there is increasing recognition that physicians need to be aware of environmental health links as extreme events like the California and Oregon wildfires and coastal flooding become increasingly common. “Unfortunately, unconventional is becoming the new convention.”
The problem for many physicians, however, is just having enough bandwidth to get through the day and get enough learning to keep above water, he said. Artificial intelligence could be used to seed electronic medical records with other personalized information from a bevy of sources including smartphones and the internet of things, but fundamental changes are also needed in the educational process to emphasize the environment.
“It’s going to take a huge societal shift in the way we view commodities, what we consider healthy, etc, but it can happen very quickly because all it takes is a crisis like COVID-19 to bring people to their knees and make them understand how this is going to take over our lives over the next decade,” Dr. Rajagopalan said.
The scientific community has been calling for “good” epidemiologic studies on the health effects of fracking since the early 2010s, Barrak Alahmad, MBChB, MPH, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Haitham Khraishah, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, point out in an accompanying editorial.
The current study applied “extensive and rigorous methods” involving both the design and statistical approach, including use of a negative control analysis to assess for sources of spurious causal inference, several sensitivity analyses, and controlled for a wide range of covariates.
“Their results were consistent and robust across all these measures,” the editorialists wrote. “Most importantly, the effect size is probably too large to be explained away by an unmeasured confounder.”
Dr. Alahmad and Dr. Khraishah call for advancements in exposure assessment, citing a recent study reporting that ambient particle radioactivity near unconventional oil and gas sites could induce adverse health effects. Other unmet needs include a better understanding of racial disparities in the impacts of fracking and a fine-tuning of cause-specific cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.
The study was supported by training grants from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences to Dr. McAlexander and principal investigator Brian Schwartz, MD. The authors, Dr. Rajagopalan, Dr. Alahmad, and Dr. Khraishah have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Living near hydraulic fracturing is associated with increased risk of hospitalization in people with heart failure (HF), a new study from Pennsylvania suggests.
The link was strongest among those with more severe heart failure but patients with either HF phenotype showed this association of increased risk with exposure to fracking activities, according to the investigators, led by Tara P. McAlexander, PhD, MPH, Drexel University Dornsife School of Public Health in Philadelphia.
“Our understanding has expanded well beyond the famous Harvard Six Cities study to know that it’s not just a short-term uptick in air pollution that›s going to send someone to the hospital a couple days later,” said Dr. McAlexander in an interview, referring to the study conducted from the mid-1970s through 1991. “We know that people who live in these environments and are exposed for long periods of time may have long-term detrimental effects.”
Although questions remain about specific mechanisms and how best to assess exposure, the evidence is mounting in a way that is consistent with the biologic hypotheses of how fracking would adversely affect health, Dr. McAlexander said. “We have many studies now on adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg.”
Pennsylvania is a hot spot for fracking, also known as unconventional natural gas development (UNGD), with more than 12,000 wells drilled in the Marcellus shale since 2004. The shale extends from upstate New York in the north to northeastern Kentucky and Tennessee in the south and covers about 72,000 square miles. Last year, Pennsylvania pledged $3 million to study clusters of rare pediatric cancers and asthma near fracking operations. A recent grand jury report concluded government officials failed to protect residents from the health effects of fracking.
Fracking involves a cascade of activities that can trigger neural circuitry, sympathetic activation, and inflammation – all well-known pathways that potentiate heart failure, said Sanjay Rajagopalan, MD, who has researched the health effects of air pollution for two decades and was not involved with the study.
“If you think about it, it’s like environmental perturbation on steroids in some ways where they are pulling the trigger from a variety of different ways: noise, air pollution, social displacement, psychosocial impacts, economic disparities. So it’s not at all surprising that they saw an association,” said Dr. Rajagopalan, chief of cardiovascular medicine at University Hospitals Harrington Heart & Vascular Institute and director of the Case Western Cardiovascular Research Institute, both in Cleveland, Ohio.
As reported in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Dr. McAlexander and colleagues at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, used electronic health data from the Geisinger Health System to identify 9,054 patients with heart failure seen between 2008 and 2015. Of these, 5,839 patients had an incident HF hospitalization and 3,215 served as controls. Geisinger operates 13 hospitals and two research centers in 45 of Pennsylvania’s 67 counties, serving more than 3 million of the state’s residents.
Patients’ residential addresses were used to identify latitude and longitude coordinates that were matched with 9,669 UNGD wells in Pennsylvania and the location of major and minor roadways. The researchers also calculated a measure of community socioeconomic deprivation.
The adjusted odds of hospitalization were higher for patients in the highest quartile of exposure for three of the four UNGD phases: pad preparation (odds ratio, 1.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.35-2.13), stimulation or the actual fracking (OR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.35-2.40), and production (OR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.07-2.45).
Dr. McAlexander said she initially thought the lack of association with drilling (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.75-1.27) was a mistake but noted that the drilling metric reflects a shorter time period than, for example, 30 days needed to clear the well pad and bring in the necessary equipment.
Stronger associations between pad preparation, fracking, and production are also consistent with the known increases in air pollution, traffic, and noise associated with these phases.
Individuals with more severe HF had greater odds of hospitalization, but the effect sizes were generally comparable between HF with preserved versus reduced ejection fraction. For those with the highest exposure to fracking, the odds ratios for hospitalization reached 2.25 (95% CI, 1.56-3.25) and 2.09 (95% CI, 1.44-3.03), respectively.
Notably, patients who could be phenotyped versus those who could not were more likely to die, to be hospitalized for HF, and to have a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index and other relevant diagnoses like myocardial infarction.
“Clinicians need to be increasingly aware that the environments their patients are in are a huge factor in their disease progression and outlook,” McAlexander said. “We know that UNGD, specifically now, is something that could be impacting a heart failure patient’s survival.”
She also suggested that the findings may also spur more advocacy work and “across-silo” collaboration between clinicians and environmental researchers.
Dr. Rajagopalan said there is increasing recognition that physicians need to be aware of environmental health links as extreme events like the California and Oregon wildfires and coastal flooding become increasingly common. “Unfortunately, unconventional is becoming the new convention.”
The problem for many physicians, however, is just having enough bandwidth to get through the day and get enough learning to keep above water, he said. Artificial intelligence could be used to seed electronic medical records with other personalized information from a bevy of sources including smartphones and the internet of things, but fundamental changes are also needed in the educational process to emphasize the environment.
“It’s going to take a huge societal shift in the way we view commodities, what we consider healthy, etc, but it can happen very quickly because all it takes is a crisis like COVID-19 to bring people to their knees and make them understand how this is going to take over our lives over the next decade,” Dr. Rajagopalan said.
The scientific community has been calling for “good” epidemiologic studies on the health effects of fracking since the early 2010s, Barrak Alahmad, MBChB, MPH, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, and Haitham Khraishah, MD, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, point out in an accompanying editorial.
The current study applied “extensive and rigorous methods” involving both the design and statistical approach, including use of a negative control analysis to assess for sources of spurious causal inference, several sensitivity analyses, and controlled for a wide range of covariates.
“Their results were consistent and robust across all these measures,” the editorialists wrote. “Most importantly, the effect size is probably too large to be explained away by an unmeasured confounder.”
Dr. Alahmad and Dr. Khraishah call for advancements in exposure assessment, citing a recent study reporting that ambient particle radioactivity near unconventional oil and gas sites could induce adverse health effects. Other unmet needs include a better understanding of racial disparities in the impacts of fracking and a fine-tuning of cause-specific cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.
The study was supported by training grants from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences to Dr. McAlexander and principal investigator Brian Schwartz, MD. The authors, Dr. Rajagopalan, Dr. Alahmad, and Dr. Khraishah have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
To D or not to D? Vitamin D doesn’t reduce falls in older adults
Higher doses of vitamin D supplementation not only show no benefit in the prevention of falls in older adults at increased risk of falling, compared with the lowest doses, but they appear to increase the risk, new research shows.
Based on the findings, supplemental vitamin D above the minimum dose of 200 IU/day likely has little benefit, lead author Lawrence J. Appel, MD, MPH, told this news organization.
“In the absence of any benefit of 1,000 IU/day versus 2,000 IU/day [of vitamin D supplementation] on falls, along with the potential for harm from doses above 1,000 IU/day, it is hard to recommend a dose above 200 IU/day in older-aged persons, unless there is a compelling reason,” asserted Dr. Appel, director of the Welch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology, and Clinical Research at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore.
“More is not always better – and it may even be worse,” when it comes to vitamin D’s role in the prevention of falls, he said.
The research, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, adds important evidence in the ongoing struggle to prevent falls, says Bruce R. Troen, MD, in an accompanying editorial.
“Falls and their deleterious consequences remain a substantial risk for older adults and a huge challenge for health care teams,” writes Dr. Troen, a physician-investigator with the Veterans Affairs Western New York Healthcare System.
However, commenting in an interview, Dr. Troen cautions: “There are many epidemiological studies that are correlative, not causative, that do show a likelihood for benefit [with vitamin D supplementation]. … Therefore, there’s no reason for clinicians to discontinue vitamin D in individuals because of this study.”
“If you’re monitoring an older adult who is frail and has multiple comorbidities, you want to know what their vitamin D level is [and] provide them an appropriate supplement if needed,” he emphasized.
Some guidelines already reflect the lack of evidence of any role of vitamin D supplementation in the prevention of falls, including those of the 2018 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which, in a reversal of its 2012 recommendation, now does not recommend vitamin D supplementation for fall prevention in older persons without osteoporosis or vitamin D deficiency, Dr. Appel and colleagues note.
No prevention of falls regardless of baseline vitamin D
As part of STURDY (Study to understand fall reduction and vitamin D in you), Dr. Appel and colleagues enrolled 688 community-dwelling participants who had an elevated risk of falling, defined as a serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] level of 25 to 72.5 nmol/L (10-29 ng/dL).
Participants were a mean age of 77.2 years and had a mean total 25(OH)D level of 55.3 nmol/L at enrollment.
They were randomized to one of four doses of vitamin D3, including 200 IU/day (the control group), or 1,000, 2,000, or 4,000 IU/day.
The highest doses were found to be associated with worse – not better – outcomes including a shorter time to hospitalization or death, compared with the 1,000-IU/day group. The higher-dose groups were therefore switched to a dose of 1,000 IU/day or lower, and all participants were followed for up to 2 years.
Overall, 63% experienced falls over the course of the study, which, though high, was consistent with the study’s criteria of participants having an elevated fall risk.
Of the 667 participants who completed the trial, no benefit in prevention of falling was seen across any of the doses, compared with the control group dose of 200 IU/day, regardless of participants’ baseline vitamin D levels.
Safety analyses showed that even in the 1,000-IU/day group, a higher risk of first serious fall and first fall with hospitalization was seen compared with the 200-IU/day group.
A limitation is that the study did not have a placebo group, however, “200 IU/day is a very small dose, probably homeopathic,” Dr. Appel said. “It was likely close to a placebo,” he said.
Caveats: comorbidities, subgroups
In his editorial, Dr. Troen notes other studies, including VITAL (Vitamin D and Omega-3 Trial) also found no reduction in falls with higher vitamin D doses; however, that study did not show any significant risks with the higher doses.
He adds that the current study lacks information on subsets of participants.
“We don’t have enough information about the existing comorbidities and medications that these people are on to be able to pull back the layers. Maybe there is a subgroup that should not be getting 4,000 IU, whereas another subgroup may not be harmed and you may decide that patient can benefit,” he said.
Furthermore, the trial doesn’t address groups such as nursing home residents.
“I have, for instance, 85-year-olds with vitamin D levels of maybe 20 nmol/L with multiple medical issues, but levels that low were not included in the study, so this is a tricky business, but the bottom line is first, do no harm,” he said.
“We really need trials that factor in the multiple different aspects so we can come up, hopefully, with a holistic and interdisciplinary approach, which is usually the best way to optimize care for frail older adults,” he concluded.
The study received funding from the National Institute of Aging.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Higher doses of vitamin D supplementation not only show no benefit in the prevention of falls in older adults at increased risk of falling, compared with the lowest doses, but they appear to increase the risk, new research shows.
Based on the findings, supplemental vitamin D above the minimum dose of 200 IU/day likely has little benefit, lead author Lawrence J. Appel, MD, MPH, told this news organization.
“In the absence of any benefit of 1,000 IU/day versus 2,000 IU/day [of vitamin D supplementation] on falls, along with the potential for harm from doses above 1,000 IU/day, it is hard to recommend a dose above 200 IU/day in older-aged persons, unless there is a compelling reason,” asserted Dr. Appel, director of the Welch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology, and Clinical Research at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore.
“More is not always better – and it may even be worse,” when it comes to vitamin D’s role in the prevention of falls, he said.
The research, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, adds important evidence in the ongoing struggle to prevent falls, says Bruce R. Troen, MD, in an accompanying editorial.
“Falls and their deleterious consequences remain a substantial risk for older adults and a huge challenge for health care teams,” writes Dr. Troen, a physician-investigator with the Veterans Affairs Western New York Healthcare System.
However, commenting in an interview, Dr. Troen cautions: “There are many epidemiological studies that are correlative, not causative, that do show a likelihood for benefit [with vitamin D supplementation]. … Therefore, there’s no reason for clinicians to discontinue vitamin D in individuals because of this study.”
“If you’re monitoring an older adult who is frail and has multiple comorbidities, you want to know what their vitamin D level is [and] provide them an appropriate supplement if needed,” he emphasized.
Some guidelines already reflect the lack of evidence of any role of vitamin D supplementation in the prevention of falls, including those of the 2018 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which, in a reversal of its 2012 recommendation, now does not recommend vitamin D supplementation for fall prevention in older persons without osteoporosis or vitamin D deficiency, Dr. Appel and colleagues note.
No prevention of falls regardless of baseline vitamin D
As part of STURDY (Study to understand fall reduction and vitamin D in you), Dr. Appel and colleagues enrolled 688 community-dwelling participants who had an elevated risk of falling, defined as a serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] level of 25 to 72.5 nmol/L (10-29 ng/dL).
Participants were a mean age of 77.2 years and had a mean total 25(OH)D level of 55.3 nmol/L at enrollment.
They were randomized to one of four doses of vitamin D3, including 200 IU/day (the control group), or 1,000, 2,000, or 4,000 IU/day.
The highest doses were found to be associated with worse – not better – outcomes including a shorter time to hospitalization or death, compared with the 1,000-IU/day group. The higher-dose groups were therefore switched to a dose of 1,000 IU/day or lower, and all participants were followed for up to 2 years.
Overall, 63% experienced falls over the course of the study, which, though high, was consistent with the study’s criteria of participants having an elevated fall risk.
Of the 667 participants who completed the trial, no benefit in prevention of falling was seen across any of the doses, compared with the control group dose of 200 IU/day, regardless of participants’ baseline vitamin D levels.
Safety analyses showed that even in the 1,000-IU/day group, a higher risk of first serious fall and first fall with hospitalization was seen compared with the 200-IU/day group.
A limitation is that the study did not have a placebo group, however, “200 IU/day is a very small dose, probably homeopathic,” Dr. Appel said. “It was likely close to a placebo,” he said.
Caveats: comorbidities, subgroups
In his editorial, Dr. Troen notes other studies, including VITAL (Vitamin D and Omega-3 Trial) also found no reduction in falls with higher vitamin D doses; however, that study did not show any significant risks with the higher doses.
He adds that the current study lacks information on subsets of participants.
“We don’t have enough information about the existing comorbidities and medications that these people are on to be able to pull back the layers. Maybe there is a subgroup that should not be getting 4,000 IU, whereas another subgroup may not be harmed and you may decide that patient can benefit,” he said.
Furthermore, the trial doesn’t address groups such as nursing home residents.
“I have, for instance, 85-year-olds with vitamin D levels of maybe 20 nmol/L with multiple medical issues, but levels that low were not included in the study, so this is a tricky business, but the bottom line is first, do no harm,” he said.
“We really need trials that factor in the multiple different aspects so we can come up, hopefully, with a holistic and interdisciplinary approach, which is usually the best way to optimize care for frail older adults,” he concluded.
The study received funding from the National Institute of Aging.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Higher doses of vitamin D supplementation not only show no benefit in the prevention of falls in older adults at increased risk of falling, compared with the lowest doses, but they appear to increase the risk, new research shows.
Based on the findings, supplemental vitamin D above the minimum dose of 200 IU/day likely has little benefit, lead author Lawrence J. Appel, MD, MPH, told this news organization.
“In the absence of any benefit of 1,000 IU/day versus 2,000 IU/day [of vitamin D supplementation] on falls, along with the potential for harm from doses above 1,000 IU/day, it is hard to recommend a dose above 200 IU/day in older-aged persons, unless there is a compelling reason,” asserted Dr. Appel, director of the Welch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology, and Clinical Research at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore.
“More is not always better – and it may even be worse,” when it comes to vitamin D’s role in the prevention of falls, he said.
The research, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, adds important evidence in the ongoing struggle to prevent falls, says Bruce R. Troen, MD, in an accompanying editorial.
“Falls and their deleterious consequences remain a substantial risk for older adults and a huge challenge for health care teams,” writes Dr. Troen, a physician-investigator with the Veterans Affairs Western New York Healthcare System.
However, commenting in an interview, Dr. Troen cautions: “There are many epidemiological studies that are correlative, not causative, that do show a likelihood for benefit [with vitamin D supplementation]. … Therefore, there’s no reason for clinicians to discontinue vitamin D in individuals because of this study.”
“If you’re monitoring an older adult who is frail and has multiple comorbidities, you want to know what their vitamin D level is [and] provide them an appropriate supplement if needed,” he emphasized.
Some guidelines already reflect the lack of evidence of any role of vitamin D supplementation in the prevention of falls, including those of the 2018 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which, in a reversal of its 2012 recommendation, now does not recommend vitamin D supplementation for fall prevention in older persons without osteoporosis or vitamin D deficiency, Dr. Appel and colleagues note.
No prevention of falls regardless of baseline vitamin D
As part of STURDY (Study to understand fall reduction and vitamin D in you), Dr. Appel and colleagues enrolled 688 community-dwelling participants who had an elevated risk of falling, defined as a serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] level of 25 to 72.5 nmol/L (10-29 ng/dL).
Participants were a mean age of 77.2 years and had a mean total 25(OH)D level of 55.3 nmol/L at enrollment.
They were randomized to one of four doses of vitamin D3, including 200 IU/day (the control group), or 1,000, 2,000, or 4,000 IU/day.
The highest doses were found to be associated with worse – not better – outcomes including a shorter time to hospitalization or death, compared with the 1,000-IU/day group. The higher-dose groups were therefore switched to a dose of 1,000 IU/day or lower, and all participants were followed for up to 2 years.
Overall, 63% experienced falls over the course of the study, which, though high, was consistent with the study’s criteria of participants having an elevated fall risk.
Of the 667 participants who completed the trial, no benefit in prevention of falling was seen across any of the doses, compared with the control group dose of 200 IU/day, regardless of participants’ baseline vitamin D levels.
Safety analyses showed that even in the 1,000-IU/day group, a higher risk of first serious fall and first fall with hospitalization was seen compared with the 200-IU/day group.
A limitation is that the study did not have a placebo group, however, “200 IU/day is a very small dose, probably homeopathic,” Dr. Appel said. “It was likely close to a placebo,” he said.
Caveats: comorbidities, subgroups
In his editorial, Dr. Troen notes other studies, including VITAL (Vitamin D and Omega-3 Trial) also found no reduction in falls with higher vitamin D doses; however, that study did not show any significant risks with the higher doses.
He adds that the current study lacks information on subsets of participants.
“We don’t have enough information about the existing comorbidities and medications that these people are on to be able to pull back the layers. Maybe there is a subgroup that should not be getting 4,000 IU, whereas another subgroup may not be harmed and you may decide that patient can benefit,” he said.
Furthermore, the trial doesn’t address groups such as nursing home residents.
“I have, for instance, 85-year-olds with vitamin D levels of maybe 20 nmol/L with multiple medical issues, but levels that low were not included in the study, so this is a tricky business, but the bottom line is first, do no harm,” he said.
“We really need trials that factor in the multiple different aspects so we can come up, hopefully, with a holistic and interdisciplinary approach, which is usually the best way to optimize care for frail older adults,” he concluded.
The study received funding from the National Institute of Aging.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Phase 1 study: Beta-blocker may improve melanoma treatment response
Response rates were high without dose-limiting toxicities in a small phase 1 study that evaluated the addition of propranolol to pembrolizumab in treatment-naive patients with metastatic melanoma.
“To our knowledge, this effort is the,” wrote the two co-first authors, Shipra Gandhi, MD, and Manu Pandey, MBBS, from the Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, N.Y., and coauthors.
The need for combinations built on anti-PD1 checkpoint inhibitor therapy strategies in metastatic melanoma that safely improve outcomes is underscored by the high (59%) grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse event (TRAE) rates when an anti-CTLA4 agent (ipilimumab) was added to an anti-PD-1 agent (nivolumab), they noted. In contrast, a TRAE rate of only 17% has been reported with pembrolizumab monotherapy.
The phase 1b study was stimulated by preclinical, retrospective observations of improved overall survival (OS) in cancer patients treated with beta-blockers. These were preceded by murine melanoma studies showing decreased tumor growth and metastasis with the nonselective beta-blocker propranolol. “Propranolol exerts an antitumor effect,” the authors stated, “by favorably modulating the tumor microenvironment (TME) by decreasing myeloid-derived suppressor cells and increasing CD8+ T-cell and natural killer cells in the TME.” Other research in a melanoma model in chronically-stressed mice has demonstrated synergy between an anti-PD1 antibody and propranolol.
“We know that stress can have a significant negative effect on health, but the extent to which stress may impact the outcome of cancer therapy is not well understood at all,” Dr. Ghandi said in a statement provided by Roswell Park. “We set out to better understand this relationship and to explore its implications for cancer treatment.”
The investigators recruited nine White adults (median age 65 years) with treatment-naive, histologically confirmed unresectable stage III or IV melanoma and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1 to the open-label, single arm, nonrandomized, single-center, dose-finding study. Patients received standard of care intravenous pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks and, in three groups, propranolol doses of 10 mg, 20 mg, or 30 mg twice a day until 2 years on study or disease progression or the development of dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs). Assessing the safety and efficacy (overall response rate [ORR] within 6 months of starting therapy) of pembrolizumab with the increasing doses of propranolol and selecting the recommended phase 2 dose were the study’s primary objectives.
Objective responses (complete or partial responses) were reported in seven of the nine patients, with partial tumor responses in two patients in the propranolol 10-mg group, two partial responses in the 20-mg group, and three partial responses in the 30-mg group.
While all patients experienced TRAEs, only one was above grade 2. The most commonly reported TRAEs were fatigue, rash and vitiligo, reported in four of the nine patients. Two patients in the 20-mg twice-a-day group discontinued therapy because of TRAEs (hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis and labyrinthitis). No DLTs were observed at any of the three dose levels, and no deaths occurred on study treatment.
The authors said that propranolol 30 mg twice a day was chosen as the recommended phase 2 dose, because in combination with pembrolizumab, there were no DLTs, and preliminary antitumor efficacy was observed in all three patients. Also, in all three patients, the investigators observed a trend toward higher CD8+T-cell percentage, higher ratios of CD8+T-cell/ Treg and CD8+T-cell/ polymorphonuclear myeloid-derived suppressor cells. They underscored, however, that the small size and significant heterogeneity in biomarkers made a statistically sound and meaningful interpretation of biomarkers for deciding the phase 2 dose difficult.
“In repurposing propranolol,” Dr. Pandey said in the Roswell statement, “we’ve gained important insights on how to manage stress in people with cancer – who can face dangerously elevated levels of mental and physical stress related to their diagnosis and treatment.”
In an interview, one of the two senior authors, Elizabeth Repasky, PhD, professor of oncology and immunology at Roswell Park, said, “it’s exciting that an extremely inexpensive drug like propranolol that could be used in every country around the world could have an impact on cancer by blocking stress, especially chronic stress.” Her murine research showing that adding propranolol to immunotherapy or radiotherapy or chemotherapy improved tumor growth control provided rationale for the current study.
“The breakthrough in this study is that it reveals the immune system as the best target to look at, and shows that what stress reduction is doing is improving a patient’s immune response to his or her own tumor,” Dr. Repasky said. “The mind/body connection is so important, but we have not had a handle on how to study it,” she added.
Further research funded by Herd of Hope grants at Roswell will look at tumor effects of propranolol and nonpharmacological reducers of chronic stress such as exercise, meditation, yoga, and Tai Chi, with first studies in breast cancer.
The study was funded by Roswell Park, private, and NIH grants. The authors had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Gandhi S et al. Clin Cancer Res. 2020 Oct 30. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-20-2381
Response rates were high without dose-limiting toxicities in a small phase 1 study that evaluated the addition of propranolol to pembrolizumab in treatment-naive patients with metastatic melanoma.
“To our knowledge, this effort is the,” wrote the two co-first authors, Shipra Gandhi, MD, and Manu Pandey, MBBS, from the Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, N.Y., and coauthors.
The need for combinations built on anti-PD1 checkpoint inhibitor therapy strategies in metastatic melanoma that safely improve outcomes is underscored by the high (59%) grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse event (TRAE) rates when an anti-CTLA4 agent (ipilimumab) was added to an anti-PD-1 agent (nivolumab), they noted. In contrast, a TRAE rate of only 17% has been reported with pembrolizumab monotherapy.
The phase 1b study was stimulated by preclinical, retrospective observations of improved overall survival (OS) in cancer patients treated with beta-blockers. These were preceded by murine melanoma studies showing decreased tumor growth and metastasis with the nonselective beta-blocker propranolol. “Propranolol exerts an antitumor effect,” the authors stated, “by favorably modulating the tumor microenvironment (TME) by decreasing myeloid-derived suppressor cells and increasing CD8+ T-cell and natural killer cells in the TME.” Other research in a melanoma model in chronically-stressed mice has demonstrated synergy between an anti-PD1 antibody and propranolol.
“We know that stress can have a significant negative effect on health, but the extent to which stress may impact the outcome of cancer therapy is not well understood at all,” Dr. Ghandi said in a statement provided by Roswell Park. “We set out to better understand this relationship and to explore its implications for cancer treatment.”
The investigators recruited nine White adults (median age 65 years) with treatment-naive, histologically confirmed unresectable stage III or IV melanoma and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1 to the open-label, single arm, nonrandomized, single-center, dose-finding study. Patients received standard of care intravenous pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks and, in three groups, propranolol doses of 10 mg, 20 mg, or 30 mg twice a day until 2 years on study or disease progression or the development of dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs). Assessing the safety and efficacy (overall response rate [ORR] within 6 months of starting therapy) of pembrolizumab with the increasing doses of propranolol and selecting the recommended phase 2 dose were the study’s primary objectives.
Objective responses (complete or partial responses) were reported in seven of the nine patients, with partial tumor responses in two patients in the propranolol 10-mg group, two partial responses in the 20-mg group, and three partial responses in the 30-mg group.
While all patients experienced TRAEs, only one was above grade 2. The most commonly reported TRAEs were fatigue, rash and vitiligo, reported in four of the nine patients. Two patients in the 20-mg twice-a-day group discontinued therapy because of TRAEs (hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis and labyrinthitis). No DLTs were observed at any of the three dose levels, and no deaths occurred on study treatment.
The authors said that propranolol 30 mg twice a day was chosen as the recommended phase 2 dose, because in combination with pembrolizumab, there were no DLTs, and preliminary antitumor efficacy was observed in all three patients. Also, in all three patients, the investigators observed a trend toward higher CD8+T-cell percentage, higher ratios of CD8+T-cell/ Treg and CD8+T-cell/ polymorphonuclear myeloid-derived suppressor cells. They underscored, however, that the small size and significant heterogeneity in biomarkers made a statistically sound and meaningful interpretation of biomarkers for deciding the phase 2 dose difficult.
“In repurposing propranolol,” Dr. Pandey said in the Roswell statement, “we’ve gained important insights on how to manage stress in people with cancer – who can face dangerously elevated levels of mental and physical stress related to their diagnosis and treatment.”
In an interview, one of the two senior authors, Elizabeth Repasky, PhD, professor of oncology and immunology at Roswell Park, said, “it’s exciting that an extremely inexpensive drug like propranolol that could be used in every country around the world could have an impact on cancer by blocking stress, especially chronic stress.” Her murine research showing that adding propranolol to immunotherapy or radiotherapy or chemotherapy improved tumor growth control provided rationale for the current study.
“The breakthrough in this study is that it reveals the immune system as the best target to look at, and shows that what stress reduction is doing is improving a patient’s immune response to his or her own tumor,” Dr. Repasky said. “The mind/body connection is so important, but we have not had a handle on how to study it,” she added.
Further research funded by Herd of Hope grants at Roswell will look at tumor effects of propranolol and nonpharmacological reducers of chronic stress such as exercise, meditation, yoga, and Tai Chi, with first studies in breast cancer.
The study was funded by Roswell Park, private, and NIH grants. The authors had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Gandhi S et al. Clin Cancer Res. 2020 Oct 30. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-20-2381
Response rates were high without dose-limiting toxicities in a small phase 1 study that evaluated the addition of propranolol to pembrolizumab in treatment-naive patients with metastatic melanoma.
“To our knowledge, this effort is the,” wrote the two co-first authors, Shipra Gandhi, MD, and Manu Pandey, MBBS, from the Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, N.Y., and coauthors.
The need for combinations built on anti-PD1 checkpoint inhibitor therapy strategies in metastatic melanoma that safely improve outcomes is underscored by the high (59%) grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse event (TRAE) rates when an anti-CTLA4 agent (ipilimumab) was added to an anti-PD-1 agent (nivolumab), they noted. In contrast, a TRAE rate of only 17% has been reported with pembrolizumab monotherapy.
The phase 1b study was stimulated by preclinical, retrospective observations of improved overall survival (OS) in cancer patients treated with beta-blockers. These were preceded by murine melanoma studies showing decreased tumor growth and metastasis with the nonselective beta-blocker propranolol. “Propranolol exerts an antitumor effect,” the authors stated, “by favorably modulating the tumor microenvironment (TME) by decreasing myeloid-derived suppressor cells and increasing CD8+ T-cell and natural killer cells in the TME.” Other research in a melanoma model in chronically-stressed mice has demonstrated synergy between an anti-PD1 antibody and propranolol.
“We know that stress can have a significant negative effect on health, but the extent to which stress may impact the outcome of cancer therapy is not well understood at all,” Dr. Ghandi said in a statement provided by Roswell Park. “We set out to better understand this relationship and to explore its implications for cancer treatment.”
The investigators recruited nine White adults (median age 65 years) with treatment-naive, histologically confirmed unresectable stage III or IV melanoma and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1 to the open-label, single arm, nonrandomized, single-center, dose-finding study. Patients received standard of care intravenous pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks and, in three groups, propranolol doses of 10 mg, 20 mg, or 30 mg twice a day until 2 years on study or disease progression or the development of dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs). Assessing the safety and efficacy (overall response rate [ORR] within 6 months of starting therapy) of pembrolizumab with the increasing doses of propranolol and selecting the recommended phase 2 dose were the study’s primary objectives.
Objective responses (complete or partial responses) were reported in seven of the nine patients, with partial tumor responses in two patients in the propranolol 10-mg group, two partial responses in the 20-mg group, and three partial responses in the 30-mg group.
While all patients experienced TRAEs, only one was above grade 2. The most commonly reported TRAEs were fatigue, rash and vitiligo, reported in four of the nine patients. Two patients in the 20-mg twice-a-day group discontinued therapy because of TRAEs (hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis and labyrinthitis). No DLTs were observed at any of the three dose levels, and no deaths occurred on study treatment.
The authors said that propranolol 30 mg twice a day was chosen as the recommended phase 2 dose, because in combination with pembrolizumab, there were no DLTs, and preliminary antitumor efficacy was observed in all three patients. Also, in all three patients, the investigators observed a trend toward higher CD8+T-cell percentage, higher ratios of CD8+T-cell/ Treg and CD8+T-cell/ polymorphonuclear myeloid-derived suppressor cells. They underscored, however, that the small size and significant heterogeneity in biomarkers made a statistically sound and meaningful interpretation of biomarkers for deciding the phase 2 dose difficult.
“In repurposing propranolol,” Dr. Pandey said in the Roswell statement, “we’ve gained important insights on how to manage stress in people with cancer – who can face dangerously elevated levels of mental and physical stress related to their diagnosis and treatment.”
In an interview, one of the two senior authors, Elizabeth Repasky, PhD, professor of oncology and immunology at Roswell Park, said, “it’s exciting that an extremely inexpensive drug like propranolol that could be used in every country around the world could have an impact on cancer by blocking stress, especially chronic stress.” Her murine research showing that adding propranolol to immunotherapy or radiotherapy or chemotherapy improved tumor growth control provided rationale for the current study.
“The breakthrough in this study is that it reveals the immune system as the best target to look at, and shows that what stress reduction is doing is improving a patient’s immune response to his or her own tumor,” Dr. Repasky said. “The mind/body connection is so important, but we have not had a handle on how to study it,” she added.
Further research funded by Herd of Hope grants at Roswell will look at tumor effects of propranolol and nonpharmacological reducers of chronic stress such as exercise, meditation, yoga, and Tai Chi, with first studies in breast cancer.
The study was funded by Roswell Park, private, and NIH grants. The authors had no disclosures.
SOURCE: Gandhi S et al. Clin Cancer Res. 2020 Oct 30. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-20-2381
FROM CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
New residency matching sets record, says NRMP
beginning in 2021, the NRMP reported.
“Specifically, the 2020 MSMP included 6,847 applicants submitting certified rank order lists (an 8.9% increase), 2042 programs submitting certified rank order lists (a 4.3% increase), 5,734 positions (a 2.8% increase), and 5,208 positions filled (a 6.1% increase),” according to a news release.
The MSMP now includes 14 internal medicine subspecialties and four sub-subspecialties. The MSMP offered 5,734 positions this year, and 5,208 (90.8%) were successfully filled. That represents an increase of almost 3 percentage points, compared with last year’s results.
Among those subspecialties that offered 30 positions or more, the most competitive were allergy and immunology, cardiovascular disease, clinical cardiac electrophysiology, gastroenterology, hematology and oncology, and pulmonary/critical care. Each of those filled at least 95% of available slots. More than half of the positions were filled by U.S. MDs.
By contrast, the least competitive subspecialties were geriatric medicine and nephrology. Programs in these two fields filled less than 75% of positions offered. Less than 45% were filled by U.S. MDs.
More than 76% of the 6,847 applicants who submitted rank order lists (5,208) matched into residency programs.
The number of U.S. MDs in this category increased nearly 7% over last year, with a total of 2,935. The number of DO graduates increased as well, with a total of 855, which was 9.6% more than the previous year.
More U.S. citizens who graduated from international medical schools matched this year as well; 1,087 placed into subspecialty residency, a 9% increase, compared with last year.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
beginning in 2021, the NRMP reported.
“Specifically, the 2020 MSMP included 6,847 applicants submitting certified rank order lists (an 8.9% increase), 2042 programs submitting certified rank order lists (a 4.3% increase), 5,734 positions (a 2.8% increase), and 5,208 positions filled (a 6.1% increase),” according to a news release.
The MSMP now includes 14 internal medicine subspecialties and four sub-subspecialties. The MSMP offered 5,734 positions this year, and 5,208 (90.8%) were successfully filled. That represents an increase of almost 3 percentage points, compared with last year’s results.
Among those subspecialties that offered 30 positions or more, the most competitive were allergy and immunology, cardiovascular disease, clinical cardiac electrophysiology, gastroenterology, hematology and oncology, and pulmonary/critical care. Each of those filled at least 95% of available slots. More than half of the positions were filled by U.S. MDs.
By contrast, the least competitive subspecialties were geriatric medicine and nephrology. Programs in these two fields filled less than 75% of positions offered. Less than 45% were filled by U.S. MDs.
More than 76% of the 6,847 applicants who submitted rank order lists (5,208) matched into residency programs.
The number of U.S. MDs in this category increased nearly 7% over last year, with a total of 2,935. The number of DO graduates increased as well, with a total of 855, which was 9.6% more than the previous year.
More U.S. citizens who graduated from international medical schools matched this year as well; 1,087 placed into subspecialty residency, a 9% increase, compared with last year.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
beginning in 2021, the NRMP reported.
“Specifically, the 2020 MSMP included 6,847 applicants submitting certified rank order lists (an 8.9% increase), 2042 programs submitting certified rank order lists (a 4.3% increase), 5,734 positions (a 2.8% increase), and 5,208 positions filled (a 6.1% increase),” according to a news release.
The MSMP now includes 14 internal medicine subspecialties and four sub-subspecialties. The MSMP offered 5,734 positions this year, and 5,208 (90.8%) were successfully filled. That represents an increase of almost 3 percentage points, compared with last year’s results.
Among those subspecialties that offered 30 positions or more, the most competitive were allergy and immunology, cardiovascular disease, clinical cardiac electrophysiology, gastroenterology, hematology and oncology, and pulmonary/critical care. Each of those filled at least 95% of available slots. More than half of the positions were filled by U.S. MDs.
By contrast, the least competitive subspecialties were geriatric medicine and nephrology. Programs in these two fields filled less than 75% of positions offered. Less than 45% were filled by U.S. MDs.
More than 76% of the 6,847 applicants who submitted rank order lists (5,208) matched into residency programs.
The number of U.S. MDs in this category increased nearly 7% over last year, with a total of 2,935. The number of DO graduates increased as well, with a total of 855, which was 9.6% more than the previous year.
More U.S. citizens who graduated from international medical schools matched this year as well; 1,087 placed into subspecialty residency, a 9% increase, compared with last year.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Rounding to make the hospital go ‘round
Hospitalists and performance incentive measures
No matter how you spin it, hospitalists are key to making the world of the hospital go ‘round, making their daily work of paramount interest to both hospitals and health systems.
Hospitalists are the primary attending physicians for patients in the hospital while also bridging the patient and their needs to the services of other subspecialists, allied health professionals, and when needed, postacute services. In this way, patients are efficiently moved along the acute care experience with multiple process and outcome measures being recorded along the way.
Some of these common performance incentive measures are determined by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services while others may be of interest to third party payers. Often surrogate markers of process metrics (i.e. order set usage for certain diagnoses) are measured and incentivized as a way of directionally measuring small steps that each hospitalist can reliably control toward a presumably associated improvement in mortality or readmissions, for instance. Still other measures such as length of stay or timely completion of documentation have more to do with hospital operations, regulatory governance, and finance.
There are a variety of performance incentive metrics reported in the 2020 SoHM Report. Survey respondents could choose all measures that applied as compensation measures for their group in the past year. The most common metrics reported include patient satisfaction (48.7%), citizenship (45.8%), accuracy or timeliness of documentation (32.8%), and clinical process measures (30.7%).
It is important to acknowledge that most of these metrics are objective measurements and can be measured down to the individual physician. However, some of the objective measures, such as patient satisfaction data, must rely on agreed upon methods of attribution – which can include anything from attributing based on admitting physician, discharging attending, or the attending with the greatest number of days (i.e. daily charges) seeing the patient. Because of challenges with attribution, groups may opt for group measurement of metrics for some of the compensation metrics where attribution is most muddy.
For performance incentive metrics that may be more subjective, such as citizenship, it is important for hospitalist leaders to consider having a method of determining a person’s contribution with a rubric as well as some shared decision making among a committee of leaders or team members to promote fairness in compensation.
Hospital leaders must also recognize that what is measured will lead to “performance” in that area. The perfect example here is the “early morning discharge time/orders” which is a compensation metric in 27.6% of hospitalist groups. Most agree that having some early discharges, up to maybe 25%-30% of the total number of discharges before noon, can be helpful with hospital throughput. The trick here is that if a patient can be discharged that early, it is likely that some of those patients could have gone home the evening prior. It is important for hospitalist physician leaders and administrators to think about the behaviors that are incentivized in compensation metrics to ensure that the result is indeed helpful.
Other hospitalist compensation metrics such as readmissions are most effectively addressed if there are multiple physician teams working toward the same metric. Hospitalist work does effect readmissions within the first 7 days of discharge based on available evidence.1 Preventing readmissions from days 8-30 following discharge are more amenable to outpatient and home-based interventions. Also, effective readmission work involves collaboration among the emergency physician team, surgeons, primary care, and subspecialty physicians. So while having this as a compensation metric will gain the attention of hospitalist physicians, the work will be most effective when it is shared with other teams.
Overall, performance incentive metrics for hospitalists can be effective in allowing hospitals and hospitalist groups to partner toward achieving important outcomes for patients. Easy and frequent sharing of data on meaningful metrics with hospitalists is important to effect change. Also, hospital leadership can facilitate collaboration among nursing and multiple physician groups to promote a team culture with hospitalists in achieving goals related to performance incentive metrics.
Dr. McNeal is the division director of inpatient medicine at Baylor Scott & White Medical Center in Temple, Tex.
Reference
1. Graham, et al. Preventability of Early Versus Late Hospital Readmissions in a National Cohort of General Medicine Patients. Ann Intern Med. 2018 Jun 5;168(11):766-74.
Hospitalists and performance incentive measures
Hospitalists and performance incentive measures
No matter how you spin it, hospitalists are key to making the world of the hospital go ‘round, making their daily work of paramount interest to both hospitals and health systems.
Hospitalists are the primary attending physicians for patients in the hospital while also bridging the patient and their needs to the services of other subspecialists, allied health professionals, and when needed, postacute services. In this way, patients are efficiently moved along the acute care experience with multiple process and outcome measures being recorded along the way.
Some of these common performance incentive measures are determined by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services while others may be of interest to third party payers. Often surrogate markers of process metrics (i.e. order set usage for certain diagnoses) are measured and incentivized as a way of directionally measuring small steps that each hospitalist can reliably control toward a presumably associated improvement in mortality or readmissions, for instance. Still other measures such as length of stay or timely completion of documentation have more to do with hospital operations, regulatory governance, and finance.
There are a variety of performance incentive metrics reported in the 2020 SoHM Report. Survey respondents could choose all measures that applied as compensation measures for their group in the past year. The most common metrics reported include patient satisfaction (48.7%), citizenship (45.8%), accuracy or timeliness of documentation (32.8%), and clinical process measures (30.7%).
It is important to acknowledge that most of these metrics are objective measurements and can be measured down to the individual physician. However, some of the objective measures, such as patient satisfaction data, must rely on agreed upon methods of attribution – which can include anything from attributing based on admitting physician, discharging attending, or the attending with the greatest number of days (i.e. daily charges) seeing the patient. Because of challenges with attribution, groups may opt for group measurement of metrics for some of the compensation metrics where attribution is most muddy.
For performance incentive metrics that may be more subjective, such as citizenship, it is important for hospitalist leaders to consider having a method of determining a person’s contribution with a rubric as well as some shared decision making among a committee of leaders or team members to promote fairness in compensation.
Hospital leaders must also recognize that what is measured will lead to “performance” in that area. The perfect example here is the “early morning discharge time/orders” which is a compensation metric in 27.6% of hospitalist groups. Most agree that having some early discharges, up to maybe 25%-30% of the total number of discharges before noon, can be helpful with hospital throughput. The trick here is that if a patient can be discharged that early, it is likely that some of those patients could have gone home the evening prior. It is important for hospitalist physician leaders and administrators to think about the behaviors that are incentivized in compensation metrics to ensure that the result is indeed helpful.
Other hospitalist compensation metrics such as readmissions are most effectively addressed if there are multiple physician teams working toward the same metric. Hospitalist work does effect readmissions within the first 7 days of discharge based on available evidence.1 Preventing readmissions from days 8-30 following discharge are more amenable to outpatient and home-based interventions. Also, effective readmission work involves collaboration among the emergency physician team, surgeons, primary care, and subspecialty physicians. So while having this as a compensation metric will gain the attention of hospitalist physicians, the work will be most effective when it is shared with other teams.
Overall, performance incentive metrics for hospitalists can be effective in allowing hospitals and hospitalist groups to partner toward achieving important outcomes for patients. Easy and frequent sharing of data on meaningful metrics with hospitalists is important to effect change. Also, hospital leadership can facilitate collaboration among nursing and multiple physician groups to promote a team culture with hospitalists in achieving goals related to performance incentive metrics.
Dr. McNeal is the division director of inpatient medicine at Baylor Scott & White Medical Center in Temple, Tex.
Reference
1. Graham, et al. Preventability of Early Versus Late Hospital Readmissions in a National Cohort of General Medicine Patients. Ann Intern Med. 2018 Jun 5;168(11):766-74.
No matter how you spin it, hospitalists are key to making the world of the hospital go ‘round, making their daily work of paramount interest to both hospitals and health systems.
Hospitalists are the primary attending physicians for patients in the hospital while also bridging the patient and their needs to the services of other subspecialists, allied health professionals, and when needed, postacute services. In this way, patients are efficiently moved along the acute care experience with multiple process and outcome measures being recorded along the way.
Some of these common performance incentive measures are determined by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services while others may be of interest to third party payers. Often surrogate markers of process metrics (i.e. order set usage for certain diagnoses) are measured and incentivized as a way of directionally measuring small steps that each hospitalist can reliably control toward a presumably associated improvement in mortality or readmissions, for instance. Still other measures such as length of stay or timely completion of documentation have more to do with hospital operations, regulatory governance, and finance.
There are a variety of performance incentive metrics reported in the 2020 SoHM Report. Survey respondents could choose all measures that applied as compensation measures for their group in the past year. The most common metrics reported include patient satisfaction (48.7%), citizenship (45.8%), accuracy or timeliness of documentation (32.8%), and clinical process measures (30.7%).
It is important to acknowledge that most of these metrics are objective measurements and can be measured down to the individual physician. However, some of the objective measures, such as patient satisfaction data, must rely on agreed upon methods of attribution – which can include anything from attributing based on admitting physician, discharging attending, or the attending with the greatest number of days (i.e. daily charges) seeing the patient. Because of challenges with attribution, groups may opt for group measurement of metrics for some of the compensation metrics where attribution is most muddy.
For performance incentive metrics that may be more subjective, such as citizenship, it is important for hospitalist leaders to consider having a method of determining a person’s contribution with a rubric as well as some shared decision making among a committee of leaders or team members to promote fairness in compensation.
Hospital leaders must also recognize that what is measured will lead to “performance” in that area. The perfect example here is the “early morning discharge time/orders” which is a compensation metric in 27.6% of hospitalist groups. Most agree that having some early discharges, up to maybe 25%-30% of the total number of discharges before noon, can be helpful with hospital throughput. The trick here is that if a patient can be discharged that early, it is likely that some of those patients could have gone home the evening prior. It is important for hospitalist physician leaders and administrators to think about the behaviors that are incentivized in compensation metrics to ensure that the result is indeed helpful.
Other hospitalist compensation metrics such as readmissions are most effectively addressed if there are multiple physician teams working toward the same metric. Hospitalist work does effect readmissions within the first 7 days of discharge based on available evidence.1 Preventing readmissions from days 8-30 following discharge are more amenable to outpatient and home-based interventions. Also, effective readmission work involves collaboration among the emergency physician team, surgeons, primary care, and subspecialty physicians. So while having this as a compensation metric will gain the attention of hospitalist physicians, the work will be most effective when it is shared with other teams.
Overall, performance incentive metrics for hospitalists can be effective in allowing hospitals and hospitalist groups to partner toward achieving important outcomes for patients. Easy and frequent sharing of data on meaningful metrics with hospitalists is important to effect change. Also, hospital leadership can facilitate collaboration among nursing and multiple physician groups to promote a team culture with hospitalists in achieving goals related to performance incentive metrics.
Dr. McNeal is the division director of inpatient medicine at Baylor Scott & White Medical Center in Temple, Tex.
Reference
1. Graham, et al. Preventability of Early Versus Late Hospital Readmissions in a National Cohort of General Medicine Patients. Ann Intern Med. 2018 Jun 5;168(11):766-74.
Biden chooses California Attorney General Xavier Becerra to head HHS
If confirmed by the US Senate, Becerra will face the challenge of overseeing the federal agency charged with protecting the health of all Americans in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. At the time of the announcement, nearly 15 million Americans had tested positive for COVID-19 and more than 280,000 had died.
Becerra served 12 terms in Congress, representing the Los Angeles area. Although his public health experience is limited, he served on the Congressional Ways and Means Committee overseeing health-related issues. Becerra is known as an advocate for the health and well-being of women in particular.
The American College of Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American Psychiatric Association wrote a letter to Biden on December 3 urging him to select leaders with medical and healthcare expertise, in particular physicians.
“We believe that your administration and the country would be well-served by the appointment of qualified physicians to serve in key positions critical to advancing the health of our nation,” they wrote. “Therefore, our organizations, which represent more than 400,000 front-line physicians practicing in the United States, write to request that you identify and appoint physicians to healthcare leadership positions within your administration.”
Recent advocacy
Becerra has worked with Republican attorneys general to lobby HHS to increase access to remdesivir to treat people with COVID-19.
As attorney general, Becerra filed more than 100 lawsuits against the Trump administration. In November, he also represented more than 20 states in arguments supporting the Affordable Care Act before the Supreme Court.
On December 4, Becerra joined with attorneys general from 23 states and the District of Columbia opposing a proposed rule from the outgoing Trump administration. The rule would deregulate HHS and “sunset”many agency provisions before Trump leaves office next month.
Becerra will be the first Latino appointed as HHS secretary, which furthers Biden’s goal to create a diverse cabinet. Becerra has been attorney general of California since 2017, replacing Vice President-elect Kamala Harris when she became senator.
Biden’s choice of Becerra was unexpected, according to The New York Times, and he was not the only candidate. Speculation was that Biden initially considered Vivek Murthy, MD, later chosen as the next US surgeon general, as well New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham and Rhode Island Gov. Gina Raimondo.
A huge undertaking
As HHS secretary, Becerra would oversee a wide range of federal agencies, including the US Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
The fiscal year 2021 budget proposed for HHS includes $94.5 billion in discretionary budget authority and $1.3 trillion in mandatory funding. Overall, HHS controls nearly one quarter of all federal expenditures and provides more grant money than all other federal agencies combined.
Becerra, 62, grew up in Sacramento, California. He was the first in his family to graduate from college. He received his undergraduate and law degrees from Stanford University.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
If confirmed by the US Senate, Becerra will face the challenge of overseeing the federal agency charged with protecting the health of all Americans in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. At the time of the announcement, nearly 15 million Americans had tested positive for COVID-19 and more than 280,000 had died.
Becerra served 12 terms in Congress, representing the Los Angeles area. Although his public health experience is limited, he served on the Congressional Ways and Means Committee overseeing health-related issues. Becerra is known as an advocate for the health and well-being of women in particular.
The American College of Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American Psychiatric Association wrote a letter to Biden on December 3 urging him to select leaders with medical and healthcare expertise, in particular physicians.
“We believe that your administration and the country would be well-served by the appointment of qualified physicians to serve in key positions critical to advancing the health of our nation,” they wrote. “Therefore, our organizations, which represent more than 400,000 front-line physicians practicing in the United States, write to request that you identify and appoint physicians to healthcare leadership positions within your administration.”
Recent advocacy
Becerra has worked with Republican attorneys general to lobby HHS to increase access to remdesivir to treat people with COVID-19.
As attorney general, Becerra filed more than 100 lawsuits against the Trump administration. In November, he also represented more than 20 states in arguments supporting the Affordable Care Act before the Supreme Court.
On December 4, Becerra joined with attorneys general from 23 states and the District of Columbia opposing a proposed rule from the outgoing Trump administration. The rule would deregulate HHS and “sunset”many agency provisions before Trump leaves office next month.
Becerra will be the first Latino appointed as HHS secretary, which furthers Biden’s goal to create a diverse cabinet. Becerra has been attorney general of California since 2017, replacing Vice President-elect Kamala Harris when she became senator.
Biden’s choice of Becerra was unexpected, according to The New York Times, and he was not the only candidate. Speculation was that Biden initially considered Vivek Murthy, MD, later chosen as the next US surgeon general, as well New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham and Rhode Island Gov. Gina Raimondo.
A huge undertaking
As HHS secretary, Becerra would oversee a wide range of federal agencies, including the US Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
The fiscal year 2021 budget proposed for HHS includes $94.5 billion in discretionary budget authority and $1.3 trillion in mandatory funding. Overall, HHS controls nearly one quarter of all federal expenditures and provides more grant money than all other federal agencies combined.
Becerra, 62, grew up in Sacramento, California. He was the first in his family to graduate from college. He received his undergraduate and law degrees from Stanford University.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
If confirmed by the US Senate, Becerra will face the challenge of overseeing the federal agency charged with protecting the health of all Americans in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. At the time of the announcement, nearly 15 million Americans had tested positive for COVID-19 and more than 280,000 had died.
Becerra served 12 terms in Congress, representing the Los Angeles area. Although his public health experience is limited, he served on the Congressional Ways and Means Committee overseeing health-related issues. Becerra is known as an advocate for the health and well-being of women in particular.
The American College of Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American Psychiatric Association wrote a letter to Biden on December 3 urging him to select leaders with medical and healthcare expertise, in particular physicians.
“We believe that your administration and the country would be well-served by the appointment of qualified physicians to serve in key positions critical to advancing the health of our nation,” they wrote. “Therefore, our organizations, which represent more than 400,000 front-line physicians practicing in the United States, write to request that you identify and appoint physicians to healthcare leadership positions within your administration.”
Recent advocacy
Becerra has worked with Republican attorneys general to lobby HHS to increase access to remdesivir to treat people with COVID-19.
As attorney general, Becerra filed more than 100 lawsuits against the Trump administration. In November, he also represented more than 20 states in arguments supporting the Affordable Care Act before the Supreme Court.
On December 4, Becerra joined with attorneys general from 23 states and the District of Columbia opposing a proposed rule from the outgoing Trump administration. The rule would deregulate HHS and “sunset”many agency provisions before Trump leaves office next month.
Becerra will be the first Latino appointed as HHS secretary, which furthers Biden’s goal to create a diverse cabinet. Becerra has been attorney general of California since 2017, replacing Vice President-elect Kamala Harris when she became senator.
Biden’s choice of Becerra was unexpected, according to The New York Times, and he was not the only candidate. Speculation was that Biden initially considered Vivek Murthy, MD, later chosen as the next US surgeon general, as well New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham and Rhode Island Gov. Gina Raimondo.
A huge undertaking
As HHS secretary, Becerra would oversee a wide range of federal agencies, including the US Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
The fiscal year 2021 budget proposed for HHS includes $94.5 billion in discretionary budget authority and $1.3 trillion in mandatory funding. Overall, HHS controls nearly one quarter of all federal expenditures and provides more grant money than all other federal agencies combined.
Becerra, 62, grew up in Sacramento, California. He was the first in his family to graduate from college. He received his undergraduate and law degrees from Stanford University.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.