Mixed Topics

There’s a senior faculty member you respect, and you want to pick their brain about a career decision you face. How do you go about this? Send an email, cold? What if you don’t hear back? Were they too busy or disinclined, or did it just get overlooked in the heap?

Do you try and catch up with them in the hallway at the annual conference and introduce yourself? What if it’s rushed or awkward?

How about someone plans a lunch for you to attend, and you sit down with this person with a block of time to chat? Now that sounds like a much better option.

This is the idea behind the Resident and Student Luncheon at HM19. At Monday’s luncheon, residents and students can have a conversation, facilitated by Society of Hospital Medicine committee members, with experienced faculty members in quality improvement, pediatrics, informatics, advocacy, and other areas.

Brian Kwan, MD, FHM, chair of the Physicians-in-Training SHM committee, said the event is meant to clear a path to interactions.

“Say you’re attending the tracks – you’ll meet people maybe next to you, but it’s sometimes hard to start those conversations,” he said. “So I think that what the luncheon allows them to do is provide a place [to meet]. And it’s a little bit more formal, because we have a structure to it. We have a program that we follow in order to kind of provide structure. That way it allows people to really get in and make the connection.”

The luncheon is open at no extra charge to resident and student SHM members. It is capped at a total of 100 attendees, including the 10 invited faculty experts – 1 per table – and Physicians-in-Training committee members, who will be there to help make introductions and move the discussion along. Residents and students first will sit at a table and hear faculty introductions – which might give them exposure to an area about which they are unfamiliar – and then have an opportunity to interact with faculty at their table. After that they will move to a table of their choosing for the second half of the event.

The luncheon often involves big names attendees see on stage. The details are still being ironed out for this year, but past luncheon guests have included keynote speakers and Bob Wachter, MD, MHM, chair of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, who is considered the “father of hospital medicine.”

Dr. Kwan said the event can have big implications for a young hospitalist’s career. A current committee member, he said, met their current employer at the luncheon.

The event also is envisioned as a way for students and residents to meet and discuss their career options, Dr. Kwan said.

“It’s an opportunity to both have residents and students connect, but also for them to potentially connect to other aspects of hospital medicine that they might be interested in,” he said.

The luncheon is only one way that HM19 planners have made a point to meet the needs of those who have just embarked on their careers.

The Early-Career Hospitalist track, which runs from 10:35 a.m. to 1:50 p.m. on Monday, includes sessions on common scenarios encountered at night (“Call Night: Common Scenarios Encountered and Strategies to Make it Through the Night,” 10:35 a.m. – 11:15 a.m., Annapolis) an introduction to hospitalist billing (“Hospitalist Billing 101,” 11:25 a.m. – 12:05 p.m., Annapolis), and important bedrock literature (“A Whirlwind Tour of Famous Landmark [Articles]: Must-Know Literature to Impress Your Peers and Attendings,” 1:10 p.m. – 1:50 p.m., Annapolis).

An interview workshop is also planned (Tuesday, 6:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m., Magnolia 3) and a Trivia Night for residents and students is also being considered, Dr. Kwan said.

Kevin Vuernick, membership engagement manager for SHM, said that these events are a response to feedback gleaned from those early in their career, including focus groups with students and residents.

“One of the things we heard was that they would love opportunities to network with other physicians or with members who have been at the Society for a while and are established in their careers, and how they can break into specifically hospital medicine,” he said. The luncheon is “just an hour but at least it gives them a healthy dose of being able to interact with people one on one or in a smaller setting.”

Resident and Student Luncheon
Monday, 12:00 p.m. –1:00 p.m.
National Harbor 4-5

There’s a senior faculty member you respect, and you want to pick their brain about a career decision you face. How do you go about this? Send an email, cold? What if you don’t hear back? Were they too busy or disinclined, or did it just get overlooked in the heap?

Do you try and catch up with them in the hallway at the annual conference and introduce yourself? What if it’s rushed or awkward?

How about someone plans a lunch for you to attend, and you sit down with this person with a block of time to chat? Now that sounds like a much better option.

This is the idea behind the Resident and Student Luncheon at HM19. At Monday’s luncheon, residents and students can have a conversation, facilitated by Society of Hospital Medicine committee members, with experienced faculty members in quality improvement, pediatrics, informatics, advocacy, and other areas.

Brian Kwan, MD, FHM, chair of the Physicians-in-Training SHM committee, said the event is meant to clear a path to interactions.

“Say you’re attending the tracks – you’ll meet people maybe next to you, but it’s sometimes hard to start those conversations,” he said. “So I think that what the luncheon allows them to do is provide a place [to meet]. And it’s a little bit more formal, because we have a structure to it. We have a program that we follow in order to kind of provide structure. That way it allows people to really get in and make the connection.”

The luncheon is open at no extra charge to resident and student SHM members. It is capped at a total of 100 attendees, including the 10 invited faculty experts – 1 per table – and Physicians-in-Training committee members, who will be there to help make introductions and move the discussion along. Residents and students first will sit at a table and hear faculty introductions – which might give them exposure to an area about which they are unfamiliar – and then have an opportunity to interact with faculty at their table. After that they will move to a table of their choosing for the second half of the event.

The luncheon often involves big names attendees see on stage. The details are still being ironed out for this year, but past luncheon guests have included keynote speakers and Bob Wachter, MD, MHM, chair of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, who is considered the “father of hospital medicine.”

Dr. Kwan said the event can have big implications for a young hospitalist’s career. A current committee member, he said, met their current employer at the luncheon.

The event also is envisioned as a way for students and residents to meet and discuss their career options, Dr. Kwan said.

“It’s an opportunity to both have residents and students connect, but also for them to potentially connect to other aspects of hospital medicine that they might be interested in,” he said.

The luncheon is only one way that HM19 planners have made a point to meet the needs of those who have just embarked on their careers.

The Early-Career Hospitalist track, which runs from 10:35 a.m. to 1:50 p.m. on Monday, includes sessions on common scenarios encountered at night (“Call Night: Common Scenarios Encountered and Strategies to Make it Through the Night,” 10:35 a.m. – 11:15 a.m., Annapolis) an introduction to hospitalist billing (“Hospitalist Billing 101,” 11:25 a.m. – 12:05 p.m., Annapolis), and important bedrock literature (“A Whirlwind Tour of Famous Landmark [Articles]: Must-Know Literature to Impress Your Peers and Attendings,” 1:10 p.m. – 1:50 p.m., Annapolis).

An interview workshop is also planned (Tuesday, 6:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m., Magnolia 3) and a Trivia Night for residents and students is also being considered, Dr. Kwan said.

Kevin Vuernick, membership engagement manager for SHM, said that these events are a response to feedback gleaned from those early in their career, including focus groups with students and residents.

“One of the things we heard was that they would love opportunities to network with other physicians or with members who have been at the Society for a while and are established in their careers, and how they can break into specifically hospital medicine,” he said. The luncheon is “just an hour but at least it gives them a healthy dose of being able to interact with people one on one or in a smaller setting.”

Resident and Student Luncheon
Monday, 12:00 p.m. –1:00 p.m.
National Harbor 4-5

There’s a senior faculty member you respect, and you want to pick their brain about a career decision you face. How do you go about this? Send an email, cold? What if you don’t hear back? Were they too busy or disinclined, or did it just get overlooked in the heap?

Do you try and catch up with them in the hallway at the annual conference and introduce yourself? What if it’s rushed or awkward?

How about someone plans a lunch for you to attend, and you sit down with this person with a block of time to chat? Now that sounds like a much better option.

This is the idea behind the Resident and Student Luncheon at HM19. At Monday’s luncheon, residents and students can have a conversation, facilitated by Society of Hospital Medicine committee members, with experienced faculty members in quality improvement, pediatrics, informatics, advocacy, and other areas.

Brian Kwan, MD, FHM, chair of the Physicians-in-Training SHM committee, said the event is meant to clear a path to interactions.

“Say you’re attending the tracks – you’ll meet people maybe next to you, but it’s sometimes hard to start those conversations,” he said. “So I think that what the luncheon allows them to do is provide a place [to meet]. And it’s a little bit more formal, because we have a structure to it. We have a program that we follow in order to kind of provide structure. That way it allows people to really get in and make the connection.”

The luncheon is open at no extra charge to resident and student SHM members. It is capped at a total of 100 attendees, including the 10 invited faculty experts – 1 per table – and Physicians-in-Training committee members, who will be there to help make introductions and move the discussion along. Residents and students first will sit at a table and hear faculty introductions – which might give them exposure to an area about which they are unfamiliar – and then have an opportunity to interact with faculty at their table. After that they will move to a table of their choosing for the second half of the event.

The luncheon often involves big names attendees see on stage. The details are still being ironed out for this year, but past luncheon guests have included keynote speakers and Bob Wachter, MD, MHM, chair of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, who is considered the “father of hospital medicine.”

Dr. Kwan said the event can have big implications for a young hospitalist’s career. A current committee member, he said, met their current employer at the luncheon.

The event also is envisioned as a way for students and residents to meet and discuss their career options, Dr. Kwan said.

“It’s an opportunity to both have residents and students connect, but also for them to potentially connect to other aspects of hospital medicine that they might be interested in,” he said.

The luncheon is only one way that HM19 planners have made a point to meet the needs of those who have just embarked on their careers.

The Early-Career Hospitalist track, which runs from 10:35 a.m. to 1:50 p.m. on Monday, includes sessions on common scenarios encountered at night (“Call Night: Common Scenarios Encountered and Strategies to Make it Through the Night,” 10:35 a.m. – 11:15 a.m., Annapolis) an introduction to hospitalist billing (“Hospitalist Billing 101,” 11:25 a.m. – 12:05 p.m., Annapolis), and important bedrock literature (“A Whirlwind Tour of Famous Landmark [Articles]: Must-Know Literature to Impress Your Peers and Attendings,” 1:10 p.m. – 1:50 p.m., Annapolis).

An interview workshop is also planned (Tuesday, 6:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m., Magnolia 3) and a Trivia Night for residents and students is also being considered, Dr. Kwan said.

Kevin Vuernick, membership engagement manager for SHM, said that these events are a response to feedback gleaned from those early in their career, including focus groups with students and residents.

“One of the things we heard was that they would love opportunities to network with other physicians or with members who have been at the Society for a while and are established in their careers, and how they can break into specifically hospital medicine,” he said. The luncheon is “just an hour but at least it gives them a healthy dose of being able to interact with people one on one or in a smaller setting.”

Resident and Student Luncheon
Monday, 12:00 p.m. –1:00 p.m.
National Harbor 4-5

At the 2019 Annual Conference, the Society of Hospital Medicine is building on its commitment to develop global relationships and serve as a resource for hospital-based medicine programs around the world. The International Lounge at HM19 complements a busy day of sessions and offers attendees a chance to unwind and expand their perspective on international hospital medicine.

“Once again SHM will provide a special place for our international attendees at HM 2019 to network and meet with SHM board members, hospitalist leaders, and fellow attendees,” Laurence Wellikson, MD, MHM, CEO of SHM, said in an interview. The International Lounge will be held in National Harbor 3 and will be open on March 26 from 10:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m.

While no formal presentations are scheduled for the International Lounge, the goal is to provide an informal place to gather and communicate, said Dr. Wellikson.

However, some programs and special events related to international hospital medicine are scheduled for other points during the annual conference. A panel discussion on March 25 from 12:45 to 1:30 p.m. will focus on hospital medicine in Brazil, Holland, and the United Arab Emirates and will include information on the growth of hospital medicine internationally. In addition, an International Special Interest Forum will be held on March 25 from 4:30 until 5:30 p.m. in Magnolia 1.

“If you are from outside the U.S. or if you are interested in networking with or learning more about the growth of hospital medicine around the world, then consider visiting the International Lounge on March 26 or attending the Special Interest Forum or the panel discussion on March 25,” Dr. Wellikson said.

Hospitalist medicine is the fastest growing specialty in the United States, and the field continues to expand beyond the United States, according to a report published in 2018 in the International Journal of General Medicine.

Reasons for the growth of international hospital medicine remain similar to those in the United States despite differences in cultural norms, regulations, and health care systems, according to the report. Drivers of hospitalist programs abroad include interest in optimizing hospital operations, containing costs, and improving quality and safety of patient care. The report cited lack of training, care transitions, low compensation, and stigma as barriers to the development of hospitalist programs internationally. However, continued support from the United States to support international hospitalist groups as they organize will help support the growth of hospitalist medicine worldwide, the authors noted.

Throughout the year, SHM supports the growth of international chapters under the staff support of Lisa Kroll, and any attendees with questions about international hospital medicine programs can contact her at [email protected]. Ongoing SHM goals in support of international hospital medicine include an Internet-based regional community on the society’s HMX platform, as well as helping international chapters get organized and develop their own meetings.
 

International Hospital Medicine in U.A.E., Brazil and Holland
Monday, 12:45 – 1:30 p.m.
Potomac ABCD

International Special Interest Forum
Monday, 4:30 – 5:30 p.m.
Magnolia 1

At the 2019 Annual Conference, the Society of Hospital Medicine is building on its commitment to develop global relationships and serve as a resource for hospital-based medicine programs around the world. The International Lounge at HM19 complements a busy day of sessions and offers attendees a chance to unwind and expand their perspective on international hospital medicine.

“Once again SHM will provide a special place for our international attendees at HM 2019 to network and meet with SHM board members, hospitalist leaders, and fellow attendees,” Laurence Wellikson, MD, MHM, CEO of SHM, said in an interview. The International Lounge will be held in National Harbor 3 and will be open on March 26 from 10:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m.

While no formal presentations are scheduled for the International Lounge, the goal is to provide an informal place to gather and communicate, said Dr. Wellikson.

However, some programs and special events related to international hospital medicine are scheduled for other points during the annual conference. A panel discussion on March 25 from 12:45 to 1:30 p.m. will focus on hospital medicine in Brazil, Holland, and the United Arab Emirates and will include information on the growth of hospital medicine internationally. In addition, an International Special Interest Forum will be held on March 25 from 4:30 until 5:30 p.m. in Magnolia 1.

“If you are from outside the U.S. or if you are interested in networking with or learning more about the growth of hospital medicine around the world, then consider visiting the International Lounge on March 26 or attending the Special Interest Forum or the panel discussion on March 25,” Dr. Wellikson said.

Hospitalist medicine is the fastest growing specialty in the United States, and the field continues to expand beyond the United States, according to a report published in 2018 in the International Journal of General Medicine.

Reasons for the growth of international hospital medicine remain similar to those in the United States despite differences in cultural norms, regulations, and health care systems, according to the report. Drivers of hospitalist programs abroad include interest in optimizing hospital operations, containing costs, and improving quality and safety of patient care. The report cited lack of training, care transitions, low compensation, and stigma as barriers to the development of hospitalist programs internationally. However, continued support from the United States to support international hospitalist groups as they organize will help support the growth of hospitalist medicine worldwide, the authors noted.

Throughout the year, SHM supports the growth of international chapters under the staff support of Lisa Kroll, and any attendees with questions about international hospital medicine programs can contact her at [email protected]. Ongoing SHM goals in support of international hospital medicine include an Internet-based regional community on the society’s HMX platform, as well as helping international chapters get organized and develop their own meetings.
 

International Hospital Medicine in U.A.E., Brazil and Holland
Monday, 12:45 – 1:30 p.m.
Potomac ABCD

International Special Interest Forum
Monday, 4:30 – 5:30 p.m.
Magnolia 1

At the 2019 Annual Conference, the Society of Hospital Medicine is building on its commitment to develop global relationships and serve as a resource for hospital-based medicine programs around the world. The International Lounge at HM19 complements a busy day of sessions and offers attendees a chance to unwind and expand their perspective on international hospital medicine.

“Once again SHM will provide a special place for our international attendees at HM 2019 to network and meet with SHM board members, hospitalist leaders, and fellow attendees,” Laurence Wellikson, MD, MHM, CEO of SHM, said in an interview. The International Lounge will be held in National Harbor 3 and will be open on March 26 from 10:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m.

While no formal presentations are scheduled for the International Lounge, the goal is to provide an informal place to gather and communicate, said Dr. Wellikson.

However, some programs and special events related to international hospital medicine are scheduled for other points during the annual conference. A panel discussion on March 25 from 12:45 to 1:30 p.m. will focus on hospital medicine in Brazil, Holland, and the United Arab Emirates and will include information on the growth of hospital medicine internationally. In addition, an International Special Interest Forum will be held on March 25 from 4:30 until 5:30 p.m. in Magnolia 1.

“If you are from outside the U.S. or if you are interested in networking with or learning more about the growth of hospital medicine around the world, then consider visiting the International Lounge on March 26 or attending the Special Interest Forum or the panel discussion on March 25,” Dr. Wellikson said.

Hospitalist medicine is the fastest growing specialty in the United States, and the field continues to expand beyond the United States, according to a report published in 2018 in the International Journal of General Medicine.

Reasons for the growth of international hospital medicine remain similar to those in the United States despite differences in cultural norms, regulations, and health care systems, according to the report. Drivers of hospitalist programs abroad include interest in optimizing hospital operations, containing costs, and improving quality and safety of patient care. The report cited lack of training, care transitions, low compensation, and stigma as barriers to the development of hospitalist programs internationally. However, continued support from the United States to support international hospitalist groups as they organize will help support the growth of hospitalist medicine worldwide, the authors noted.

Throughout the year, SHM supports the growth of international chapters under the staff support of Lisa Kroll, and any attendees with questions about international hospital medicine programs can contact her at [email protected]. Ongoing SHM goals in support of international hospital medicine include an Internet-based regional community on the society’s HMX platform, as well as helping international chapters get organized and develop their own meetings.
 

International Hospital Medicine in U.A.E., Brazil and Holland
Monday, 12:45 – 1:30 p.m.
Potomac ABCD

International Special Interest Forum
Monday, 4:30 – 5:30 p.m.
Magnolia 1

Monday, March 25

12:15 - 1:15 p.m., Product Theater 1
Procalcitonin 2019: Potential and Pitfalls
Speaker: Gregory B. Seymann, MD,
vice chief and professor of hospital medicine,
University of California, San Diego
Sponsored by Thermo Fisher Scientific

12:15 - 1:15 p.m., Product Theater 2
Hospitalization for Heart Failure: A Bad Omen or an Opportunity?
Speakers: Christopher Vagnoni, MD,
hospitalist medical director,
AnMed Medical Center for In Compass Health, Inc., Anderson, S.C.
Patrick McCann, MD, medical director of heart failure
and mechanical circulatory support
Palmetto Health USC Medical Group, Columbia, SC
Sponsored by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.

12:15 - 1:15 p.m., Product Theater 3
Evolution of Select Treatment Options for Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome or Prior MI
Speaker: John Venditto, MD, MBA, 
senior medical director, cardiovascular metabolic disease, 
U.S. Medical Affairs – AstraZeneca
Sponsored by AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP

Tuesday, March 26

12:30 - 1:30 p.m., Product Theater 1
Reduction in the Risk of Stroke and Systemic Embolism in Patients with Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation (NVAF)
Speaker: Charles J. Dow, MD, FACC,
cardiologist, Harvard Medical School, Boston
Sponsored by Pfizer

12:30 - 1:30 p.m., Product Theater 2
Improving Outcomes for Hospitalized Patients with HFrEF: Looking Beyond Stabilization
Speaker: Jennifer Brown, MD
Heart Failure Specialist
Medstar Cardiology Associates
Annapolis, MD
Sponsored by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.

12:30 - 1:30 p.m., Product Theater 3
The Role of the Hospital Medicine Specialist in Managing Transitions of Care in Acute Coronary Syndrome
Speaker: John Venditto, MD, MBA, 
senior medical director, cardiovascular metabolic disease,
U.S. Medical Affairs – AstraZeneca
Sponsored by AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP

Monday, March 25

12:15 - 1:15 p.m., Product Theater 1
Procalcitonin 2019: Potential and Pitfalls
Speaker: Gregory B. Seymann, MD,
vice chief and professor of hospital medicine,
University of California, San Diego
Sponsored by Thermo Fisher Scientific

12:15 - 1:15 p.m., Product Theater 2
Hospitalization for Heart Failure: A Bad Omen or an Opportunity?
Speakers: Christopher Vagnoni, MD,
hospitalist medical director,
AnMed Medical Center for In Compass Health, Inc., Anderson, S.C.
Patrick McCann, MD, medical director of heart failure
and mechanical circulatory support
Palmetto Health USC Medical Group, Columbia, SC
Sponsored by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.

12:15 - 1:15 p.m., Product Theater 3
Evolution of Select Treatment Options for Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome or Prior MI
Speaker: John Venditto, MD, MBA, 
senior medical director, cardiovascular metabolic disease, 
U.S. Medical Affairs – AstraZeneca
Sponsored by AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP

Tuesday, March 26

12:30 - 1:30 p.m., Product Theater 1
Reduction in the Risk of Stroke and Systemic Embolism in Patients with Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation (NVAF)
Speaker: Charles J. Dow, MD, FACC,
cardiologist, Harvard Medical School, Boston
Sponsored by Pfizer

12:30 - 1:30 p.m., Product Theater 2
Improving Outcomes for Hospitalized Patients with HFrEF: Looking Beyond Stabilization
Speaker: Jennifer Brown, MD
Heart Failure Specialist
Medstar Cardiology Associates
Annapolis, MD
Sponsored by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.

12:30 - 1:30 p.m., Product Theater 3
The Role of the Hospital Medicine Specialist in Managing Transitions of Care in Acute Coronary Syndrome
Speaker: John Venditto, MD, MBA, 
senior medical director, cardiovascular metabolic disease,
U.S. Medical Affairs – AstraZeneca
Sponsored by AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP

Monday, March 25

12:15 - 1:15 p.m., Product Theater 1
Procalcitonin 2019: Potential and Pitfalls
Speaker: Gregory B. Seymann, MD,
vice chief and professor of hospital medicine,
University of California, San Diego
Sponsored by Thermo Fisher Scientific

12:15 - 1:15 p.m., Product Theater 2
Hospitalization for Heart Failure: A Bad Omen or an Opportunity?
Speakers: Christopher Vagnoni, MD,
hospitalist medical director,
AnMed Medical Center for In Compass Health, Inc., Anderson, S.C.
Patrick McCann, MD, medical director of heart failure
and mechanical circulatory support
Palmetto Health USC Medical Group, Columbia, SC
Sponsored by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.

12:15 - 1:15 p.m., Product Theater 3
Evolution of Select Treatment Options for Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome or Prior MI
Speaker: John Venditto, MD, MBA, 
senior medical director, cardiovascular metabolic disease, 
U.S. Medical Affairs – AstraZeneca
Sponsored by AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP

Tuesday, March 26

12:30 - 1:30 p.m., Product Theater 1
Reduction in the Risk of Stroke and Systemic Embolism in Patients with Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation (NVAF)
Speaker: Charles J. Dow, MD, FACC,
cardiologist, Harvard Medical School, Boston
Sponsored by Pfizer

12:30 - 1:30 p.m., Product Theater 2
Improving Outcomes for Hospitalized Patients with HFrEF: Looking Beyond Stabilization
Speaker: Jennifer Brown, MD
Heart Failure Specialist
Medstar Cardiology Associates
Annapolis, MD
Sponsored by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.

12:30 - 1:30 p.m., Product Theater 3
The Role of the Hospital Medicine Specialist in Managing Transitions of Care in Acute Coronary Syndrome
Speaker: John Venditto, MD, MBA, 
senior medical director, cardiovascular metabolic disease,
U.S. Medical Affairs – AstraZeneca
Sponsored by AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP

According to a new survey report released by The Physicians Foundation, 80% of physicians across all specialties report being at full capacity or overextended, and 78% reported sometimes, often, or always experiencing feelings of burnout.

Sixty-two percent of U.S. doctors are pessimistic about the future of medicine, and 49% wouldn’t recommend medicine as a career to their children. This paints a pretty grim picture of medical practice in the United States in 2018.

The survey is conducted every other year by The Physicians Foundation with the assistance of Merritt Hawkins, and I wrote a blog post about the 2016 survey results, which showed alarming levels of disengagement and burnout. So, I thought it would be worthwhile looking over the 2018 report to see if anything has improved.

It appears that things haven’t changed much for doctors since 2016 regarding their attitudes toward their work. The biggest take-away from this year’s survey is that doctors overall are working fewer hours and seeing fewer patients but still struggling with morale and burnout. One important trend that was highlighted is the move toward employment by hospitals or integrated delivery systems; only 31% of physicians are independent practice owners or partners, vs. 49% in the first such survey conducted in 2012. Interestingly, employed doctors tend to work longer hours but see fewer patients compared with their practice-owner colleagues.

The 39-question survey is sent out via e-mail to more than 700,000 physicians (everyone the AMA or Merritt Hawkins has in their databases), and this year 8,774 physicians responded; the statistics geniuses at the University of Tennessee say the survey results have a margin of error of +/– 1.057%. Interestingly, that’s less than half of the 17,236 physicians who responded to the survey in 2016, and I wonder if the reduction in response rate itself indicates an increased level of disengagement among doctors.

Doctors expressed similar frustrations with specific aspects of their work this year, compared with 2016. The single biggest frustration cited by doctors was EHRs (39% this year vs. 27% in 2016), followed by regulatory/insurance requirements (down to 38% from 58% in 2016) and loss of clinical autonomy (37% vs. 32% in 2016). Survey respondents reported working an average of 51.4 hours per week, of which 11.4 hours (22%) are spent on nonclinical (paperwork) duties.

Read the full post at hospitalleader.org.
 

Also on The Hospital Leader

• I don’t want someone like you caring for me by Gopi Astik, MD
• CMS added care transition codes a few years back. How’s that goin’? by Brad Flansbaum, DO, MPH, MHM
• Sleepless in the hospital no more: Lessons learned during the SIESTA Study by Vineet Arora, MD, MAPP, MHM
• Are you committing malpractice by not treating opioid use disorder in the hospital? by Chris Moriates, MD

According to a new survey report released by The Physicians Foundation, 80% of physicians across all specialties report being at full capacity or overextended, and 78% reported sometimes, often, or always experiencing feelings of burnout.

Sixty-two percent of U.S. doctors are pessimistic about the future of medicine, and 49% wouldn’t recommend medicine as a career to their children. This paints a pretty grim picture of medical practice in the United States in 2018.

The survey is conducted every other year by The Physicians Foundation with the assistance of Merritt Hawkins, and I wrote a blog post about the 2016 survey results, which showed alarming levels of disengagement and burnout. So, I thought it would be worthwhile looking over the 2018 report to see if anything has improved.

It appears that things haven’t changed much for doctors since 2016 regarding their attitudes toward their work. The biggest take-away from this year’s survey is that doctors overall are working fewer hours and seeing fewer patients but still struggling with morale and burnout. One important trend that was highlighted is the move toward employment by hospitals or integrated delivery systems; only 31% of physicians are independent practice owners or partners, vs. 49% in the first such survey conducted in 2012. Interestingly, employed doctors tend to work longer hours but see fewer patients compared with their practice-owner colleagues.

The 39-question survey is sent out via e-mail to more than 700,000 physicians (everyone the AMA or Merritt Hawkins has in their databases), and this year 8,774 physicians responded; the statistics geniuses at the University of Tennessee say the survey results have a margin of error of +/– 1.057%. Interestingly, that’s less than half of the 17,236 physicians who responded to the survey in 2016, and I wonder if the reduction in response rate itself indicates an increased level of disengagement among doctors.

Doctors expressed similar frustrations with specific aspects of their work this year, compared with 2016. The single biggest frustration cited by doctors was EHRs (39% this year vs. 27% in 2016), followed by regulatory/insurance requirements (down to 38% from 58% in 2016) and loss of clinical autonomy (37% vs. 32% in 2016). Survey respondents reported working an average of 51.4 hours per week, of which 11.4 hours (22%) are spent on nonclinical (paperwork) duties.

Read the full post at hospitalleader.org.
 

Also on The Hospital Leader

• I don’t want someone like you caring for me by Gopi Astik, MD
• CMS added care transition codes a few years back. How’s that goin’? by Brad Flansbaum, DO, MPH, MHM
• Sleepless in the hospital no more: Lessons learned during the SIESTA Study by Vineet Arora, MD, MAPP, MHM
• Are you committing malpractice by not treating opioid use disorder in the hospital? by Chris Moriates, MD

According to a new survey report released by The Physicians Foundation, 80% of physicians across all specialties report being at full capacity or overextended, and 78% reported sometimes, often, or always experiencing feelings of burnout.

Sixty-two percent of U.S. doctors are pessimistic about the future of medicine, and 49% wouldn’t recommend medicine as a career to their children. This paints a pretty grim picture of medical practice in the United States in 2018.

The survey is conducted every other year by The Physicians Foundation with the assistance of Merritt Hawkins, and I wrote a blog post about the 2016 survey results, which showed alarming levels of disengagement and burnout. So, I thought it would be worthwhile looking over the 2018 report to see if anything has improved.

It appears that things haven’t changed much for doctors since 2016 regarding their attitudes toward their work. The biggest take-away from this year’s survey is that doctors overall are working fewer hours and seeing fewer patients but still struggling with morale and burnout. One important trend that was highlighted is the move toward employment by hospitals or integrated delivery systems; only 31% of physicians are independent practice owners or partners, vs. 49% in the first such survey conducted in 2012. Interestingly, employed doctors tend to work longer hours but see fewer patients compared with their practice-owner colleagues.

The 39-question survey is sent out via e-mail to more than 700,000 physicians (everyone the AMA or Merritt Hawkins has in their databases), and this year 8,774 physicians responded; the statistics geniuses at the University of Tennessee say the survey results have a margin of error of +/– 1.057%. Interestingly, that’s less than half of the 17,236 physicians who responded to the survey in 2016, and I wonder if the reduction in response rate itself indicates an increased level of disengagement among doctors.

Doctors expressed similar frustrations with specific aspects of their work this year, compared with 2016. The single biggest frustration cited by doctors was EHRs (39% this year vs. 27% in 2016), followed by regulatory/insurance requirements (down to 38% from 58% in 2016) and loss of clinical autonomy (37% vs. 32% in 2016). Survey respondents reported working an average of 51.4 hours per week, of which 11.4 hours (22%) are spent on nonclinical (paperwork) duties.

Read the full post at hospitalleader.org.
 

Also on The Hospital Leader

• I don’t want someone like you caring for me by Gopi Astik, MD
• CMS added care transition codes a few years back. How’s that goin’? by Brad Flansbaum, DO, MPH, MHM
• Sleepless in the hospital no more: Lessons learned during the SIESTA Study by Vineet Arora, MD, MAPP, MHM
• Are you committing malpractice by not treating opioid use disorder in the hospital? by Chris Moriates, MD

Children whose mothers experienced any type of infection during pregnancy were nearly 80 times more likely to be diagnosed with autism, compared with those whose mothers did not have infections. Also today, for FPs, 2018 was a big year for generating hospital revenue, prenatal betamethasone is not linked to later adverse neurocognitive problems, and heart-harming toxins may hurt hookah smokers.

Amazon Alexa

Apple Podcasts

Google Podcasts

Spotify
 

Children whose mothers experienced any type of infection during pregnancy were nearly 80 times more likely to be diagnosed with autism, compared with those whose mothers did not have infections. Also today, for FPs, 2018 was a big year for generating hospital revenue, prenatal betamethasone is not linked to later adverse neurocognitive problems, and heart-harming toxins may hurt hookah smokers.

Amazon Alexa

Apple Podcasts

Google Podcasts

Spotify
 

Children whose mothers experienced any type of infection during pregnancy were nearly 80 times more likely to be diagnosed with autism, compared with those whose mothers did not have infections. Also today, for FPs, 2018 was a big year for generating hospital revenue, prenatal betamethasone is not linked to later adverse neurocognitive problems, and heart-harming toxins may hurt hookah smokers.

Amazon Alexa

Apple Podcasts

Google Podcasts

Spotify
 

Federal health care providers live under a microscope, so it seems only fair that we at Fed Pract honor that reality and open ourselves up to scrutiny as well.¹ We hope that by shedding light on our peer-review process and manuscript acceptance rate, we will not only highlight our accomplishments, but identify areas for improvement.

Free access to Fed Pract content has always been our priority. While many journals charge authors or readers, Fed Pract has been and will remain free for readers and authors.² Advertising enables the journal to support this free model of publishing, but we take care to ensure that advertisements do not influence content in any way. Our advertising policy can be found at www.mdedge.com/fedprac/page/advertising.

In January 2019, Fed Pract placed > 400 peer-reviewed articles published since January 2015 in the PubMed Central (PMC) database (ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc). The full text of these and all future Fed Pract peer-reviewed articles will be available at PMC (no registration required), and the citations also will be included in PubMed. We hope that this process will make it even easier for anyone to access our authors’ works.

In 2018 about 36,000 federal health care providers (HCPs) received hard copies of this journal. The print journal is free, but circulation is limited to HCPs who work at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), US Department of Defense (DoD), and the US Public Health Service (PHS). The mdedge.com/fedprac website, which includes every article published since 2003, had 1.4 million page views in 2018. After reading 3 online articles, readers in the US are asked to complete a simple registration form to help us better customize the reader experience. In some cases, international readers may be asked to pay for access to articles online; however, any VA, DoD, or PHS officer stationed overseas can contact the editorial staff ([email protected]) to ensure that they can access the articles for free.

In 2018 the journal received 164 manuscripts and published 94 articles written by 357 different federal HCPs. The 164 manuscript submissions represented a 45% growth over previous years. Not surprisingly, the increased rate of submissions began shortly after the May 2018 announcement that journal articles would be included in PMC. Most of those articles (83%) were submitted unsolicited.

Fed Pract has always prided itself on being an early promoter of interdisciplinary health care professional publications. Nearly half of its listed authors were physicians (48%), while pharmacists made up the next largest cohort (18%). There were smaller numbers of PhDs, nurses, social workers, and physical therapists. The majority were written by HCPs affiliated with the VA (95% of articles and 93% of authors), and no articles in 2018 were written by PHS officers. Physicians comprise about two-thirds of the audience, while pharmacists make up 17% and nurses 9%. PHS and DoD HCPs make up 19% of the Fed Pract audience, suggesting that the journal needs to do more work to encourage these HCPs to contribute articles to the journal.³

Articles published in 2018 covered a broad range of topics from “Anesthesia Care Practice Models in the VHA” and “Army Behavioral Health System” to “Vitreous Hemorrhage in the Setting of a Vascular Loop” and “A Workforce Assessment of VA Home-Based Primary Care Pharmacists.” Categorizing the articles is a challenge. Few health care topics fit neatly into a single topic or specialty. This is especially true in federal health care where much of the care is delivered by multidisciplinary patient-centered medical homes or patient aligned care teams. Nevertheless, a few broad outlines can be discerned. Articles were roughly split between primary care and hospital-based and/or specialty care topics; one-quarter of the articles were case studies or case series articles, and about 20% were editorials or opinion columns. Nineteen articles dealt explicitly with chronic conditions, and 10 articles focused on mental health care.

Peer reviewers are an essential part of the process. Reviewers are blinded to the identityof the authors, ensuring fairness and reducing potential conflicts of interest. We are extremely grateful to each and every reviewer for the time and energy they contribute to the journal. Peer reviewers do not get nearly enough recognition for their important work. In 2018 Fed Pract invited 1,205 reviewers for 164 manuscript submissions and 94 manuscript revisions. More than 200 different reviewers submitted 487 reviews with a median (SD) of 2 reviews (1.8) and a range of 1 to 10. The top 20 reviewers completed 134 reviews with a median (SD) of 6 reviews (1.2). The results stand in contrast to some journals that must offer many invitations per review and depend on a small number of reviewers.^1,4-6

The reviewers recommended to reject 14% and to revise 26% of the articles, which is a much lower rejection rate than many other journals (Table).⁴ 

These data suggest that Fed Pract and its peer-review process is on a sound foundation but needs to make improvements. Moving into 2019, the journal expects that an increasing number of submissions will require a higher rejection rate. Moreover, we will need to do a better job reaching out to underrepresented portions of our audience. To decrease the time to publication for accepted manuscripts, in 2019 we will publish more articles online ahead of the print publication as we strive to improve the experience for authors, reviewers, readers, and the entire Fed Pract audience.

None of this work can be done without our small and dedicated staff. I would like to thank Managing Editor Joyce Brody who sent out each and every one of those reviewer invitations, Deputy Editor Robert Fee, who manages the special issues, Web Editor Teraya Smith, who runs our entire digital operation, and of course, Editor in Chief Cynthia Geppert, who oversees it all. Finally, it is important that you let us know how we are doing and whether we are meeting your needs. Visit mdedge.com/fedprac to take the readership survey or reach out to me at [email protected].

Federal health care providers live under a microscope, so it seems only fair that we at Fed Pract honor that reality and open ourselves up to scrutiny as well.¹ We hope that by shedding light on our peer-review process and manuscript acceptance rate, we will not only highlight our accomplishments, but identify areas for improvement.

Free access to Fed Pract content has always been our priority. While many journals charge authors or readers, Fed Pract has been and will remain free for readers and authors.² Advertising enables the journal to support this free model of publishing, but we take care to ensure that advertisements do not influence content in any way. Our advertising policy can be found at www.mdedge.com/fedprac/page/advertising.

In January 2019, Fed Pract placed > 400 peer-reviewed articles published since January 2015 in the PubMed Central (PMC) database (ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc). The full text of these and all future Fed Pract peer-reviewed articles will be available at PMC (no registration required), and the citations also will be included in PubMed. We hope that this process will make it even easier for anyone to access our authors’ works.

In 2018 about 36,000 federal health care providers (HCPs) received hard copies of this journal. The print journal is free, but circulation is limited to HCPs who work at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), US Department of Defense (DoD), and the US Public Health Service (PHS). The mdedge.com/fedprac website, which includes every article published since 2003, had 1.4 million page views in 2018. After reading 3 online articles, readers in the US are asked to complete a simple registration form to help us better customize the reader experience. In some cases, international readers may be asked to pay for access to articles online; however, any VA, DoD, or PHS officer stationed overseas can contact the editorial staff ([email protected]) to ensure that they can access the articles for free.

In 2018 the journal received 164 manuscripts and published 94 articles written by 357 different federal HCPs. The 164 manuscript submissions represented a 45% growth over previous years. Not surprisingly, the increased rate of submissions began shortly after the May 2018 announcement that journal articles would be included in PMC. Most of those articles (83%) were submitted unsolicited.

Fed Pract has always prided itself on being an early promoter of interdisciplinary health care professional publications. Nearly half of its listed authors were physicians (48%), while pharmacists made up the next largest cohort (18%). There were smaller numbers of PhDs, nurses, social workers, and physical therapists. The majority were written by HCPs affiliated with the VA (95% of articles and 93% of authors), and no articles in 2018 were written by PHS officers. Physicians comprise about two-thirds of the audience, while pharmacists make up 17% and nurses 9%. PHS and DoD HCPs make up 19% of the Fed Pract audience, suggesting that the journal needs to do more work to encourage these HCPs to contribute articles to the journal.³

Articles published in 2018 covered a broad range of topics from “Anesthesia Care Practice Models in the VHA” and “Army Behavioral Health System” to “Vitreous Hemorrhage in the Setting of a Vascular Loop” and “A Workforce Assessment of VA Home-Based Primary Care Pharmacists.” Categorizing the articles is a challenge. Few health care topics fit neatly into a single topic or specialty. This is especially true in federal health care where much of the care is delivered by multidisciplinary patient-centered medical homes or patient aligned care teams. Nevertheless, a few broad outlines can be discerned. Articles were roughly split between primary care and hospital-based and/or specialty care topics; one-quarter of the articles were case studies or case series articles, and about 20% were editorials or opinion columns. Nineteen articles dealt explicitly with chronic conditions, and 10 articles focused on mental health care.

Peer reviewers are an essential part of the process. Reviewers are blinded to the identityof the authors, ensuring fairness and reducing potential conflicts of interest. We are extremely grateful to each and every reviewer for the time and energy they contribute to the journal. Peer reviewers do not get nearly enough recognition for their important work. In 2018 Fed Pract invited 1,205 reviewers for 164 manuscript submissions and 94 manuscript revisions. More than 200 different reviewers submitted 487 reviews with a median (SD) of 2 reviews (1.8) and a range of 1 to 10. The top 20 reviewers completed 134 reviews with a median (SD) of 6 reviews (1.2). The results stand in contrast to some journals that must offer many invitations per review and depend on a small number of reviewers.^1,4-6

The reviewers recommended to reject 14% and to revise 26% of the articles, which is a much lower rejection rate than many other journals (Table).⁴ 

These data suggest that Fed Pract and its peer-review process is on a sound foundation but needs to make improvements. Moving into 2019, the journal expects that an increasing number of submissions will require a higher rejection rate. Moreover, we will need to do a better job reaching out to underrepresented portions of our audience. To decrease the time to publication for accepted manuscripts, in 2019 we will publish more articles online ahead of the print publication as we strive to improve the experience for authors, reviewers, readers, and the entire Fed Pract audience.

None of this work can be done without our small and dedicated staff. I would like to thank Managing Editor Joyce Brody who sent out each and every one of those reviewer invitations, Deputy Editor Robert Fee, who manages the special issues, Web Editor Teraya Smith, who runs our entire digital operation, and of course, Editor in Chief Cynthia Geppert, who oversees it all. Finally, it is important that you let us know how we are doing and whether we are meeting your needs. Visit mdedge.com/fedprac to take the readership survey or reach out to me at [email protected].

Federal health care providers live under a microscope, so it seems only fair that we at Fed Pract honor that reality and open ourselves up to scrutiny as well.¹ We hope that by shedding light on our peer-review process and manuscript acceptance rate, we will not only highlight our accomplishments, but identify areas for improvement.

Free access to Fed Pract content has always been our priority. While many journals charge authors or readers, Fed Pract has been and will remain free for readers and authors.² Advertising enables the journal to support this free model of publishing, but we take care to ensure that advertisements do not influence content in any way. Our advertising policy can be found at www.mdedge.com/fedprac/page/advertising.

In January 2019, Fed Pract placed > 400 peer-reviewed articles published since January 2015 in the PubMed Central (PMC) database (ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc). The full text of these and all future Fed Pract peer-reviewed articles will be available at PMC (no registration required), and the citations also will be included in PubMed. We hope that this process will make it even easier for anyone to access our authors’ works.

In 2018 about 36,000 federal health care providers (HCPs) received hard copies of this journal. The print journal is free, but circulation is limited to HCPs who work at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), US Department of Defense (DoD), and the US Public Health Service (PHS). The mdedge.com/fedprac website, which includes every article published since 2003, had 1.4 million page views in 2018. After reading 3 online articles, readers in the US are asked to complete a simple registration form to help us better customize the reader experience. In some cases, international readers may be asked to pay for access to articles online; however, any VA, DoD, or PHS officer stationed overseas can contact the editorial staff ([email protected]) to ensure that they can access the articles for free.

In 2018 the journal received 164 manuscripts and published 94 articles written by 357 different federal HCPs. The 164 manuscript submissions represented a 45% growth over previous years. Not surprisingly, the increased rate of submissions began shortly after the May 2018 announcement that journal articles would be included in PMC. Most of those articles (83%) were submitted unsolicited.

Fed Pract has always prided itself on being an early promoter of interdisciplinary health care professional publications. Nearly half of its listed authors were physicians (48%), while pharmacists made up the next largest cohort (18%). There were smaller numbers of PhDs, nurses, social workers, and physical therapists. The majority were written by HCPs affiliated with the VA (95% of articles and 93% of authors), and no articles in 2018 were written by PHS officers. Physicians comprise about two-thirds of the audience, while pharmacists make up 17% and nurses 9%. PHS and DoD HCPs make up 19% of the Fed Pract audience, suggesting that the journal needs to do more work to encourage these HCPs to contribute articles to the journal.³

Articles published in 2018 covered a broad range of topics from “Anesthesia Care Practice Models in the VHA” and “Army Behavioral Health System” to “Vitreous Hemorrhage in the Setting of a Vascular Loop” and “A Workforce Assessment of VA Home-Based Primary Care Pharmacists.” Categorizing the articles is a challenge. Few health care topics fit neatly into a single topic or specialty. This is especially true in federal health care where much of the care is delivered by multidisciplinary patient-centered medical homes or patient aligned care teams. Nevertheless, a few broad outlines can be discerned. Articles were roughly split between primary care and hospital-based and/or specialty care topics; one-quarter of the articles were case studies or case series articles, and about 20% were editorials or opinion columns. Nineteen articles dealt explicitly with chronic conditions, and 10 articles focused on mental health care.

Peer reviewers are an essential part of the process. Reviewers are blinded to the identityof the authors, ensuring fairness and reducing potential conflicts of interest. We are extremely grateful to each and every reviewer for the time and energy they contribute to the journal. Peer reviewers do not get nearly enough recognition for their important work. In 2018 Fed Pract invited 1,205 reviewers for 164 manuscript submissions and 94 manuscript revisions. More than 200 different reviewers submitted 487 reviews with a median (SD) of 2 reviews (1.8) and a range of 1 to 10. The top 20 reviewers completed 134 reviews with a median (SD) of 6 reviews (1.2). The results stand in contrast to some journals that must offer many invitations per review and depend on a small number of reviewers.^1,4-6

The reviewers recommended to reject 14% and to revise 26% of the articles, which is a much lower rejection rate than many other journals (Table).⁴ 

These data suggest that Fed Pract and its peer-review process is on a sound foundation but needs to make improvements. Moving into 2019, the journal expects that an increasing number of submissions will require a higher rejection rate. Moreover, we will need to do a better job reaching out to underrepresented portions of our audience. To decrease the time to publication for accepted manuscripts, in 2019 we will publish more articles online ahead of the print publication as we strive to improve the experience for authors, reviewers, readers, and the entire Fed Pract audience.

None of this work can be done without our small and dedicated staff. I would like to thank Managing Editor Joyce Brody who sent out each and every one of those reviewer invitations, Deputy Editor Robert Fee, who manages the special issues, Web Editor Teraya Smith, who runs our entire digital operation, and of course, Editor in Chief Cynthia Geppert, who oversees it all. Finally, it is important that you let us know how we are doing and whether we are meeting your needs. Visit mdedge.com/fedprac to take the readership survey or reach out to me at [email protected].

Odds of sudden unexpected infant death (SUID) more than doubled with maternal prenatal smoking and increased linearly with each additional cigarette mothers smoked during pregnancy, but quitting smoking during pregnancy cut SUID risk, according to a new study in Pediatrics.

Jasmin Merdan/fotolia

“As prevalence of prone sleeping has declined, the relative contribution of prenatal maternal smoking to the risk of sudden infant death has increased,” Tatiana M. Anderson, PhD, of the Seattle Children’s Research Institute and her associates reported. When the researchers considered causality, they estimated that approximately 800 infants (22% of all SUID cases) per year in the United States could be attributed to maternal smoking during pregnancy.

The researchers analyzed 19,127 SUID cases among 20,685,463 births included in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Birth Cohort Linked Birth/Infant Death Data Set for 2007-2011. A SUID diagnosis included sudden infant death syndrome, infant death from ill-defined or unknown cause, and accidental suffocation or strangulation in bed for any infants under 1 year old.

When the authors calculated odds related to prenatal maternal smoking and SUID, they adjusted for infant sex and birth weight, gestational length of pregnancy, delivery method (vaginal or cesarean), total prenatal visits, live birth order, maternal marital status and education, and maternal and paternal age and race/ethnicity.

Any maternal smoking at all during pregnancy was associated with more than twice the odds of SUID (adjusted odds ratio, 2.44). Odds of SUID also doubled for smoking one cigarette daily during pregnancy versus smoking none. For each additional cigarette smoked daily during pregnancy, odds of SUID increased by 0.07 up until 20 cigarettes, when the risk evened out, which suggests “that smoking cessation efforts may have greater impact on decreasing SUID rates when directed toward those who smoke fewer than 1 pack per day versus the more traditionally targeted heavy ([more than] 20 cigarettes per day) smokers,” the authors wrote.

Odds of SUID dropped 12% when mothers cut down on smoking during pregnancy and dropped 23% when they quit altogether (aORs, 0.88 and 0.77, respectively). “However, there may be some selection bias because the group who reduced smoking started at a higher average number of cigarettes in the first trimester, whereas those who successfully quit smoked fewer cigarettes in the first trimester,” the authors noted.

Among the 11.6% of mothers who said in 2011 that they smoked in the 3 months leading up to pregnancy, only a quarter quit while pregnant, the authors wrote. Quitting after having smoked before pregnancy was linked to a 47% increased risk of SUID, although the researchers noted that second- and third-hand smoke may have played a role since mothers who smoke may begin smoking again post partum and/or often have a partner who smokes.

“This group may have also included women who stopped smoking as soon as they knew they were pregnant and thus reported that they were nonsmokers in the first trimester, but the fetus had been exposed to maternal smoking during the period before pregnancy was diagnosed,” the authors wrote. They also acknowledged the possibility of residual confounding, particularly from socioeconomic factors or alcohol consumption during pregnancy.

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health, Microsoft, and the Aaron Matthew Sudden Infant Death Syndrome Research Guild. One author has testified as a paid expert in a SUID case. No other authors reported conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Anderson TM et al. Pediatrics. 2019 March 11. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-3325.

Odds of sudden unexpected infant death (SUID) more than doubled with maternal prenatal smoking and increased linearly with each additional cigarette mothers smoked during pregnancy, but quitting smoking during pregnancy cut SUID risk, according to a new study in Pediatrics.

Jasmin Merdan/fotolia

“As prevalence of prone sleeping has declined, the relative contribution of prenatal maternal smoking to the risk of sudden infant death has increased,” Tatiana M. Anderson, PhD, of the Seattle Children’s Research Institute and her associates reported. When the researchers considered causality, they estimated that approximately 800 infants (22% of all SUID cases) per year in the United States could be attributed to maternal smoking during pregnancy.

The researchers analyzed 19,127 SUID cases among 20,685,463 births included in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Birth Cohort Linked Birth/Infant Death Data Set for 2007-2011. A SUID diagnosis included sudden infant death syndrome, infant death from ill-defined or unknown cause, and accidental suffocation or strangulation in bed for any infants under 1 year old.

When the authors calculated odds related to prenatal maternal smoking and SUID, they adjusted for infant sex and birth weight, gestational length of pregnancy, delivery method (vaginal or cesarean), total prenatal visits, live birth order, maternal marital status and education, and maternal and paternal age and race/ethnicity.

Any maternal smoking at all during pregnancy was associated with more than twice the odds of SUID (adjusted odds ratio, 2.44). Odds of SUID also doubled for smoking one cigarette daily during pregnancy versus smoking none. For each additional cigarette smoked daily during pregnancy, odds of SUID increased by 0.07 up until 20 cigarettes, when the risk evened out, which suggests “that smoking cessation efforts may have greater impact on decreasing SUID rates when directed toward those who smoke fewer than 1 pack per day versus the more traditionally targeted heavy ([more than] 20 cigarettes per day) smokers,” the authors wrote.

Odds of SUID dropped 12% when mothers cut down on smoking during pregnancy and dropped 23% when they quit altogether (aORs, 0.88 and 0.77, respectively). “However, there may be some selection bias because the group who reduced smoking started at a higher average number of cigarettes in the first trimester, whereas those who successfully quit smoked fewer cigarettes in the first trimester,” the authors noted.

Among the 11.6% of mothers who said in 2011 that they smoked in the 3 months leading up to pregnancy, only a quarter quit while pregnant, the authors wrote. Quitting after having smoked before pregnancy was linked to a 47% increased risk of SUID, although the researchers noted that second- and third-hand smoke may have played a role since mothers who smoke may begin smoking again post partum and/or often have a partner who smokes.

“This group may have also included women who stopped smoking as soon as they knew they were pregnant and thus reported that they were nonsmokers in the first trimester, but the fetus had been exposed to maternal smoking during the period before pregnancy was diagnosed,” the authors wrote. They also acknowledged the possibility of residual confounding, particularly from socioeconomic factors or alcohol consumption during pregnancy.

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health, Microsoft, and the Aaron Matthew Sudden Infant Death Syndrome Research Guild. One author has testified as a paid expert in a SUID case. No other authors reported conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Anderson TM et al. Pediatrics. 2019 March 11. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-3325.

Odds of sudden unexpected infant death (SUID) more than doubled with maternal prenatal smoking and increased linearly with each additional cigarette mothers smoked during pregnancy, but quitting smoking during pregnancy cut SUID risk, according to a new study in Pediatrics.

Jasmin Merdan/fotolia

“As prevalence of prone sleeping has declined, the relative contribution of prenatal maternal smoking to the risk of sudden infant death has increased,” Tatiana M. Anderson, PhD, of the Seattle Children’s Research Institute and her associates reported. When the researchers considered causality, they estimated that approximately 800 infants (22% of all SUID cases) per year in the United States could be attributed to maternal smoking during pregnancy.

The researchers analyzed 19,127 SUID cases among 20,685,463 births included in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Birth Cohort Linked Birth/Infant Death Data Set for 2007-2011. A SUID diagnosis included sudden infant death syndrome, infant death from ill-defined or unknown cause, and accidental suffocation or strangulation in bed for any infants under 1 year old.

When the authors calculated odds related to prenatal maternal smoking and SUID, they adjusted for infant sex and birth weight, gestational length of pregnancy, delivery method (vaginal or cesarean), total prenatal visits, live birth order, maternal marital status and education, and maternal and paternal age and race/ethnicity.

Any maternal smoking at all during pregnancy was associated with more than twice the odds of SUID (adjusted odds ratio, 2.44). Odds of SUID also doubled for smoking one cigarette daily during pregnancy versus smoking none. For each additional cigarette smoked daily during pregnancy, odds of SUID increased by 0.07 up until 20 cigarettes, when the risk evened out, which suggests “that smoking cessation efforts may have greater impact on decreasing SUID rates when directed toward those who smoke fewer than 1 pack per day versus the more traditionally targeted heavy ([more than] 20 cigarettes per day) smokers,” the authors wrote.

Odds of SUID dropped 12% when mothers cut down on smoking during pregnancy and dropped 23% when they quit altogether (aORs, 0.88 and 0.77, respectively). “However, there may be some selection bias because the group who reduced smoking started at a higher average number of cigarettes in the first trimester, whereas those who successfully quit smoked fewer cigarettes in the first trimester,” the authors noted.

Among the 11.6% of mothers who said in 2011 that they smoked in the 3 months leading up to pregnancy, only a quarter quit while pregnant, the authors wrote. Quitting after having smoked before pregnancy was linked to a 47% increased risk of SUID, although the researchers noted that second- and third-hand smoke may have played a role since mothers who smoke may begin smoking again post partum and/or often have a partner who smokes.

“This group may have also included women who stopped smoking as soon as they knew they were pregnant and thus reported that they were nonsmokers in the first trimester, but the fetus had been exposed to maternal smoking during the period before pregnancy was diagnosed,” the authors wrote. They also acknowledged the possibility of residual confounding, particularly from socioeconomic factors or alcohol consumption during pregnancy.

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health, Microsoft, and the Aaron Matthew Sudden Infant Death Syndrome Research Guild. One author has testified as a paid expert in a SUID case. No other authors reported conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Anderson TM et al. Pediatrics. 2019 March 11. doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-3325.

Necrotizing infection of the extremity is a rare but potentially lethal diagnosis with a mortality rate in the range of 17% to 35%.^1-4 The plastic surgery service at the Malcom Randall Veterans Affairs Medical Center (MRVAMC) treats all hand emergencies, including upper extremity infection, in the North Florida/South Georgia Veterans Heath System. There has been a well-coordinated emergency hand care system in place for several years that includes specialty templates on the electronic health record, pre-existing urgent clinic appointments, and single service surgical specialty care.⁵ This facilitates a fluid line of communication between primary care, emergency department (ED) providers, and surgical specialties. The objective of the study was to evaluate our identification, treatment, and outcome of these serious infections.

Methods

The MRVAMC Institutional Review Board approved a retrospective review of necrotizing infection of the upper extremity treated at the facility by the plastic surgery service. Surgical cases over a 9-year period (June 5, 2008-June 5, 2017) were identified by CPT (current procedural technology) codes for amputation and/or debridement of the upper extremity. The charts were reviewed for evidence of necrotizing infection by clinical description or pathology report. The patients’ age, sex, etiology, comorbidities from their problem list, vitals, and laboratory results were recorded upon arrival at the hospital. Time from presentation to surgery, treatment, and outcomes were recorded.

Results

Ten patients were treated for necrotizing infection of the upper extremity over a 9-year period; all were men with an average age of 64 years. Etiologies included nail biting, “bug bites,” crush injuries, burns, suspected IV drug use, and unknown. Nine of 10 patients had diabetes mellitus (DM). Most did not show evidence of hemodynamic instability on hospital arrival (Table). One patient was hypotensive with a mean arterial blood pressure < 65 mm Hg, 2 had heart rates > 100 beats/min, 1 patient had a temperature > 38° C, and 7 had elevated white blood cell (WBC) counts ranging from 11 to 24 k/cmm. Two undiagnosed patients with DM (patients 1 and 8) expressed no complaints of pain and presented with blood glucose > 450 mg/dL with hemoglobin A_1c levels > 12%.

Infectious disease and critical care services were involved in the treatment of several cases when requested. A computed tomography (CT) scan was used in 2 of the patients (patients 1 and 4) to assist in the diagnosis (Figure 1). 

Antibiotics were managed by critical care, hospitalist, or infectious disease services and adjusted once final cultures were returned (Table). 

Discussion

Necrotizing infection of the upper extremity is a rare pathology with a substantial risk of amputation and mortality that requires a high index of suspicion and expeditious referral to a hand surgeon. It is well accepted that the key to survival is prompt surgical debridement of all necrotic tissue, ideally within 24 hours of hospital arrival.^2-4,6 Death is usually secondary to sepsis.³ The classic presentation of pain out of proportion to exam, hypotension, erythema, skin necrosis, elevated WBC count, and fever may not be present and can delay diagnosis.^1-4,6

DM is the most common comorbidity, and reviews have found the disease occurs more often in males, both which are consistent with our study.^1-3 Diabetic infections have been found to be more likely to present as necrotizing infection than are nondiabetic infections and be at a higher risk for amputation.⁷ The patients with the wrist disarticulations and forearm amputation had DM. A minor trauma can be a portal for infection, which can be monomicrobial or polymicrobial.^1,4 Once the diagnosis is suspected, prompt resuscitation, surgical debridement, IV antibiotics, and early intensive care are lifesaving. Hyperbaric oxygen is not available at MRVAMC and was not pursued as a transfer request due to its controversial benefit.⁶

There were no perioperative 30-day mortalities over a 9-year period in patients identified as having necrotizing infection of the upper extremity. This is attributed to an aggressive and well-coordinated, multisystem approach involving emergency, surgical, anesthesia, intensive care, and infectious disease services.

The hand trauma triage system in place at MRVAMC was started in 2008 and presented at the 38th Annual VA Surgeons Meeting in New Haven, Connecticut. The process starts at the level of the ED, urgent care or primary care provider and facilitates rapid access to subspecialty care by reducing unnecessary phone calls and appointment wait times.

All hand emergencies are covered by the plastic surgery service rather than the traditional split coverage between orthopedics and plastic surgery. This provides consistency and continuity for the patients and staff. The electronic health record consult template gives specific instructions to contact the on-call plastic surgeon. The resident/fellow gets called if patient is in-house, and faculty is called if the patient is outside the main hospital. The requesting provider gets instructions on treatment and follow-up. Clinic profiles have appointments reserved for urgent consults during the first hour so that patients can be sent to pre-anesthesia clinic or hand therapy, depending on the diagnosis. This triage system increased our hand trauma volume by a multiple of 6 between 2008 and 2012 but cut the appointment wait time > 1 week by half, as a percentage of consults, and did not significantly increase after-hour use of the operating room. The number of faculty and trainees stayed the same.

We did find that speed to diagnosis for necrotizing infection is an area that can be improved on with a higher clinical suspicion. There is a learning curve to the diagnosis and treatment, which can be prolonged when the index cases do not present themselves often and the patients do not appear in distress. This argues for consistency in hand-specific trauma coverage. The patients were most often initially seen by the resident and examined by a faculty member within hours. There were 4 different plastic surgery faculty involved in these cases, and they all included resident participation before, during, and after surgery. Debridement consists of wide local excision to bleeding tissue. Author review of the operative notes found the numbers of trips to the operating room for debridement can be reduced as the surgeon becomes more confident in the diagnosis and management, resulting in less “whittling” and a more definitive debridement, resulting in a faster recovery.

The LRINEC (Laboratory Risk Indicator for Necrotizing Fasciitis) is a tool that helps to distinguish necrotizing infection from other forms of soft tissue infection by using a point system for laboratory values that include C-reactive protein (CRP), white blood count, hemoglobin, sodium, creatinine, and glucose values.⁸ We do not routinely request CRP results, but 1 of the 2 patients (patient 9) who had the full complement of laboratory tests would have met high-risk criteria. The diagnostic accuracy of this tool has been questioned⁹; however, the authors welcome any method that can rapidly and noninvasively assist in getting the patient proper attention.

The patients were not seen for long-term follow-up, but some did return to the main hospital or clinic for other pathology and were pleased to show off their grip strength after a 3-ray amputation (patient 1) and aesthetics after upper arm and forearm debridement and skin graft reconstruction (patient 4, Figure 4).

A single-ray amputation can be expected to result in a loss of grip and pinch strength, about 43.3% and 33.6%, respectively; however, given the alternative of further loss of life or limb, this was considered a reasonable trade-off.¹⁰ One wrist disarticulation and the forearm amputation were seen by amputee clinic for prosthetic fitting many months after the amputations once the wounds were healed and edema had subsided.

Conclusion

A well-coordinated multidisciplinary effort was the key to successful identification and treatment of this serious life- and limb-threatening infection at our institution. We did identify room for improvement in making an earlier diagnosis and performing a more aggressive first debridement.

Acknowledgments
This project is the result of work supported with resources and use of facilities at the Malcom Randall VA Medical Center in Gainesville, Florida.

Necrotizing infection of the extremity is a rare but potentially lethal diagnosis with a mortality rate in the range of 17% to 35%.^1-4 The plastic surgery service at the Malcom Randall Veterans Affairs Medical Center (MRVAMC) treats all hand emergencies, including upper extremity infection, in the North Florida/South Georgia Veterans Heath System. There has been a well-coordinated emergency hand care system in place for several years that includes specialty templates on the electronic health record, pre-existing urgent clinic appointments, and single service surgical specialty care.⁵ This facilitates a fluid line of communication between primary care, emergency department (ED) providers, and surgical specialties. The objective of the study was to evaluate our identification, treatment, and outcome of these serious infections.

Methods

The MRVAMC Institutional Review Board approved a retrospective review of necrotizing infection of the upper extremity treated at the facility by the plastic surgery service. Surgical cases over a 9-year period (June 5, 2008-June 5, 2017) were identified by CPT (current procedural technology) codes for amputation and/or debridement of the upper extremity. The charts were reviewed for evidence of necrotizing infection by clinical description or pathology report. The patients’ age, sex, etiology, comorbidities from their problem list, vitals, and laboratory results were recorded upon arrival at the hospital. Time from presentation to surgery, treatment, and outcomes were recorded.

Results

Ten patients were treated for necrotizing infection of the upper extremity over a 9-year period; all were men with an average age of 64 years. Etiologies included nail biting, “bug bites,” crush injuries, burns, suspected IV drug use, and unknown. Nine of 10 patients had diabetes mellitus (DM). Most did not show evidence of hemodynamic instability on hospital arrival (Table). One patient was hypotensive with a mean arterial blood pressure < 65 mm Hg, 2 had heart rates > 100 beats/min, 1 patient had a temperature > 38° C, and 7 had elevated white blood cell (WBC) counts ranging from 11 to 24 k/cmm. Two undiagnosed patients with DM (patients 1 and 8) expressed no complaints of pain and presented with blood glucose > 450 mg/dL with hemoglobin A_1c levels > 12%.

Infectious disease and critical care services were involved in the treatment of several cases when requested. A computed tomography (CT) scan was used in 2 of the patients (patients 1 and 4) to assist in the diagnosis (Figure 1). 

Antibiotics were managed by critical care, hospitalist, or infectious disease services and adjusted once final cultures were returned (Table). 

Discussion

Necrotizing infection of the upper extremity is a rare pathology with a substantial risk of amputation and mortality that requires a high index of suspicion and expeditious referral to a hand surgeon. It is well accepted that the key to survival is prompt surgical debridement of all necrotic tissue, ideally within 24 hours of hospital arrival.^2-4,6 Death is usually secondary to sepsis.³ The classic presentation of pain out of proportion to exam, hypotension, erythema, skin necrosis, elevated WBC count, and fever may not be present and can delay diagnosis.^1-4,6

DM is the most common comorbidity, and reviews have found the disease occurs more often in males, both which are consistent with our study.^1-3 Diabetic infections have been found to be more likely to present as necrotizing infection than are nondiabetic infections and be at a higher risk for amputation.⁷ The patients with the wrist disarticulations and forearm amputation had DM. A minor trauma can be a portal for infection, which can be monomicrobial or polymicrobial.^1,4 Once the diagnosis is suspected, prompt resuscitation, surgical debridement, IV antibiotics, and early intensive care are lifesaving. Hyperbaric oxygen is not available at MRVAMC and was not pursued as a transfer request due to its controversial benefit.⁶

There were no perioperative 30-day mortalities over a 9-year period in patients identified as having necrotizing infection of the upper extremity. This is attributed to an aggressive and well-coordinated, multisystem approach involving emergency, surgical, anesthesia, intensive care, and infectious disease services.

The hand trauma triage system in place at MRVAMC was started in 2008 and presented at the 38th Annual VA Surgeons Meeting in New Haven, Connecticut. The process starts at the level of the ED, urgent care or primary care provider and facilitates rapid access to subspecialty care by reducing unnecessary phone calls and appointment wait times.

All hand emergencies are covered by the plastic surgery service rather than the traditional split coverage between orthopedics and plastic surgery. This provides consistency and continuity for the patients and staff. The electronic health record consult template gives specific instructions to contact the on-call plastic surgeon. The resident/fellow gets called if patient is in-house, and faculty is called if the patient is outside the main hospital. The requesting provider gets instructions on treatment and follow-up. Clinic profiles have appointments reserved for urgent consults during the first hour so that patients can be sent to pre-anesthesia clinic or hand therapy, depending on the diagnosis. This triage system increased our hand trauma volume by a multiple of 6 between 2008 and 2012 but cut the appointment wait time > 1 week by half, as a percentage of consults, and did not significantly increase after-hour use of the operating room. The number of faculty and trainees stayed the same.

We did find that speed to diagnosis for necrotizing infection is an area that can be improved on with a higher clinical suspicion. There is a learning curve to the diagnosis and treatment, which can be prolonged when the index cases do not present themselves often and the patients do not appear in distress. This argues for consistency in hand-specific trauma coverage. The patients were most often initially seen by the resident and examined by a faculty member within hours. There were 4 different plastic surgery faculty involved in these cases, and they all included resident participation before, during, and after surgery. Debridement consists of wide local excision to bleeding tissue. Author review of the operative notes found the numbers of trips to the operating room for debridement can be reduced as the surgeon becomes more confident in the diagnosis and management, resulting in less “whittling” and a more definitive debridement, resulting in a faster recovery.

The LRINEC (Laboratory Risk Indicator for Necrotizing Fasciitis) is a tool that helps to distinguish necrotizing infection from other forms of soft tissue infection by using a point system for laboratory values that include C-reactive protein (CRP), white blood count, hemoglobin, sodium, creatinine, and glucose values.⁸ We do not routinely request CRP results, but 1 of the 2 patients (patient 9) who had the full complement of laboratory tests would have met high-risk criteria. The diagnostic accuracy of this tool has been questioned⁹; however, the authors welcome any method that can rapidly and noninvasively assist in getting the patient proper attention.

The patients were not seen for long-term follow-up, but some did return to the main hospital or clinic for other pathology and were pleased to show off their grip strength after a 3-ray amputation (patient 1) and aesthetics after upper arm and forearm debridement and skin graft reconstruction (patient 4, Figure 4).

A single-ray amputation can be expected to result in a loss of grip and pinch strength, about 43.3% and 33.6%, respectively; however, given the alternative of further loss of life or limb, this was considered a reasonable trade-off.¹⁰ One wrist disarticulation and the forearm amputation were seen by amputee clinic for prosthetic fitting many months after the amputations once the wounds were healed and edema had subsided.

Conclusion

A well-coordinated multidisciplinary effort was the key to successful identification and treatment of this serious life- and limb-threatening infection at our institution. We did identify room for improvement in making an earlier diagnosis and performing a more aggressive first debridement.

Acknowledgments
This project is the result of work supported with resources and use of facilities at the Malcom Randall VA Medical Center in Gainesville, Florida.

Necrotizing infection of the extremity is a rare but potentially lethal diagnosis with a mortality rate in the range of 17% to 35%.^1-4 The plastic surgery service at the Malcom Randall Veterans Affairs Medical Center (MRVAMC) treats all hand emergencies, including upper extremity infection, in the North Florida/South Georgia Veterans Heath System. There has been a well-coordinated emergency hand care system in place for several years that includes specialty templates on the electronic health record, pre-existing urgent clinic appointments, and single service surgical specialty care.⁵ This facilitates a fluid line of communication between primary care, emergency department (ED) providers, and surgical specialties. The objective of the study was to evaluate our identification, treatment, and outcome of these serious infections.

Methods

The MRVAMC Institutional Review Board approved a retrospective review of necrotizing infection of the upper extremity treated at the facility by the plastic surgery service. Surgical cases over a 9-year period (June 5, 2008-June 5, 2017) were identified by CPT (current procedural technology) codes for amputation and/or debridement of the upper extremity. The charts were reviewed for evidence of necrotizing infection by clinical description or pathology report. The patients’ age, sex, etiology, comorbidities from their problem list, vitals, and laboratory results were recorded upon arrival at the hospital. Time from presentation to surgery, treatment, and outcomes were recorded.

Results

Ten patients were treated for necrotizing infection of the upper extremity over a 9-year period; all were men with an average age of 64 years. Etiologies included nail biting, “bug bites,” crush injuries, burns, suspected IV drug use, and unknown. Nine of 10 patients had diabetes mellitus (DM). Most did not show evidence of hemodynamic instability on hospital arrival (Table). One patient was hypotensive with a mean arterial blood pressure < 65 mm Hg, 2 had heart rates > 100 beats/min, 1 patient had a temperature > 38° C, and 7 had elevated white blood cell (WBC) counts ranging from 11 to 24 k/cmm. Two undiagnosed patients with DM (patients 1 and 8) expressed no complaints of pain and presented with blood glucose > 450 mg/dL with hemoglobin A_1c levels > 12%.

Infectious disease and critical care services were involved in the treatment of several cases when requested. A computed tomography (CT) scan was used in 2 of the patients (patients 1 and 4) to assist in the diagnosis (Figure 1). 

Antibiotics were managed by critical care, hospitalist, or infectious disease services and adjusted once final cultures were returned (Table). 

Discussion

Necrotizing infection of the upper extremity is a rare pathology with a substantial risk of amputation and mortality that requires a high index of suspicion and expeditious referral to a hand surgeon. It is well accepted that the key to survival is prompt surgical debridement of all necrotic tissue, ideally within 24 hours of hospital arrival.^2-4,6 Death is usually secondary to sepsis.³ The classic presentation of pain out of proportion to exam, hypotension, erythema, skin necrosis, elevated WBC count, and fever may not be present and can delay diagnosis.^1-4,6

DM is the most common comorbidity, and reviews have found the disease occurs more often in males, both which are consistent with our study.^1-3 Diabetic infections have been found to be more likely to present as necrotizing infection than are nondiabetic infections and be at a higher risk for amputation.⁷ The patients with the wrist disarticulations and forearm amputation had DM. A minor trauma can be a portal for infection, which can be monomicrobial or polymicrobial.^1,4 Once the diagnosis is suspected, prompt resuscitation, surgical debridement, IV antibiotics, and early intensive care are lifesaving. Hyperbaric oxygen is not available at MRVAMC and was not pursued as a transfer request due to its controversial benefit.⁶

There were no perioperative 30-day mortalities over a 9-year period in patients identified as having necrotizing infection of the upper extremity. This is attributed to an aggressive and well-coordinated, multisystem approach involving emergency, surgical, anesthesia, intensive care, and infectious disease services.

The hand trauma triage system in place at MRVAMC was started in 2008 and presented at the 38th Annual VA Surgeons Meeting in New Haven, Connecticut. The process starts at the level of the ED, urgent care or primary care provider and facilitates rapid access to subspecialty care by reducing unnecessary phone calls and appointment wait times.

All hand emergencies are covered by the plastic surgery service rather than the traditional split coverage between orthopedics and plastic surgery. This provides consistency and continuity for the patients and staff. The electronic health record consult template gives specific instructions to contact the on-call plastic surgeon. The resident/fellow gets called if patient is in-house, and faculty is called if the patient is outside the main hospital. The requesting provider gets instructions on treatment and follow-up. Clinic profiles have appointments reserved for urgent consults during the first hour so that patients can be sent to pre-anesthesia clinic or hand therapy, depending on the diagnosis. This triage system increased our hand trauma volume by a multiple of 6 between 2008 and 2012 but cut the appointment wait time > 1 week by half, as a percentage of consults, and did not significantly increase after-hour use of the operating room. The number of faculty and trainees stayed the same.

We did find that speed to diagnosis for necrotizing infection is an area that can be improved on with a higher clinical suspicion. There is a learning curve to the diagnosis and treatment, which can be prolonged when the index cases do not present themselves often and the patients do not appear in distress. This argues for consistency in hand-specific trauma coverage. The patients were most often initially seen by the resident and examined by a faculty member within hours. There were 4 different plastic surgery faculty involved in these cases, and they all included resident participation before, during, and after surgery. Debridement consists of wide local excision to bleeding tissue. Author review of the operative notes found the numbers of trips to the operating room for debridement can be reduced as the surgeon becomes more confident in the diagnosis and management, resulting in less “whittling” and a more definitive debridement, resulting in a faster recovery.

The LRINEC (Laboratory Risk Indicator for Necrotizing Fasciitis) is a tool that helps to distinguish necrotizing infection from other forms of soft tissue infection by using a point system for laboratory values that include C-reactive protein (CRP), white blood count, hemoglobin, sodium, creatinine, and glucose values.⁸ We do not routinely request CRP results, but 1 of the 2 patients (patient 9) who had the full complement of laboratory tests would have met high-risk criteria. The diagnostic accuracy of this tool has been questioned⁹; however, the authors welcome any method that can rapidly and noninvasively assist in getting the patient proper attention.

The patients were not seen for long-term follow-up, but some did return to the main hospital or clinic for other pathology and were pleased to show off their grip strength after a 3-ray amputation (patient 1) and aesthetics after upper arm and forearm debridement and skin graft reconstruction (patient 4, Figure 4).

A single-ray amputation can be expected to result in a loss of grip and pinch strength, about 43.3% and 33.6%, respectively; however, given the alternative of further loss of life or limb, this was considered a reasonable trade-off.¹⁰ One wrist disarticulation and the forearm amputation were seen by amputee clinic for prosthetic fitting many months after the amputations once the wounds were healed and edema had subsided.

Conclusion

A well-coordinated multidisciplinary effort was the key to successful identification and treatment of this serious life- and limb-threatening infection at our institution. We did identify room for improvement in making an earlier diagnosis and performing a more aggressive first debridement.

Acknowledgments
This project is the result of work supported with resources and use of facilities at the Malcom Randall VA Medical Center in Gainesville, Florida.

Historically, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has excelled at improving veterans’ access to health care and enhancing foundational services, such as prosthetics and other veteran-centric services, and this continues to be the VHA’s top priority.¹ Travel distance and time are often barriers to accessing health care for many veterans.^2-11 For veterans with disabilities who must overcome additional physical, cognitive, and emotional obstacles to access vital rehabilitation services, these geographic obstacles are magnified. Further compounding the challenge is that rehabilitation therapies frequently require multiple encounters. Telerehabilitation is a promising solution for veterans in need of rehabilitation to regain optimal functioning. This alternative mode of service delivery can help veterans overcome geographic access barriers by delivering health care directly to veterans in their homes or nearby community-based outpatient clinics.^12,13

A growing body of evidence supports telerehabilitation. In a 2017 systematic review and meta-analysis, Cottrell and colleagues reviewed and analyzed data from 13 studies that met their inclusion criteria; specifically, their meta-analytic sample comprised adults aged ≥ 18 years presenting with any diagnosed primary musculoskeletal condition; treatment interventions via a real-time telerehabilitation medium, trials that had a comparison group with the same condition; provided clinical outcomes data, and included published randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials.¹⁴ Based on their aggregated results, they concluded that real-time telerehabilitation was effective in improving physical function (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.63; 95% CI, 0.92-2.33; I², 93%), and reducing pain (SMD, 0.66; 95% CI, −0.27- .60; I², 96%) in patients with any diagnosed primary musculoskeletal condition.¹⁴

Two other systematic reviews conducted by Pietrzak and colleagues and Agostini and colleagues also demonstrated the clinical effectiveness of telerehabilitation.^15,16 Clinical effectiveness was defined as changes in health, functional status, and satisfaction with the telerehabilitation services delivered. The studies examined in the review included those that provided online self-management and education in addition to exercise via teleconferencing in real time.

Pietrzak and colleagues found that Internet-based osteoarthritis self-management interventions significantly improved 4 of 6 health status measures reviewed (ie, pain, fatigue, activity limitation, health distress, disability, and self‐reported global health).¹⁵ User acceptance and satisfaction were high (≥ 70% satisfied) in all studies meeting the inclusion criteria.

Agostini and colleagues found that telerehabilitation was more effective than other modes of delivering rehabilitation to regain motor function in cardiac (SMD, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.04-0.43) and total knee arthroplasty (Timed Up and Go test: SMD, −5.17; 95% CI, −9.79- −0.55) patients.¹⁶ Some evidence from VHA and non-VHA studies also support the use of telerehabilitation to reduce health care costs,^17-19 improve treatment adherence,^12,20 and enhance patient physical, cognitive and mobility function, as well as patient satisfaction and health-related quality of life.^13,21-24

Since the first recorded use of telehealth in 1959, the application of technology to deliver health care, including rehabilitation services, has increased exponentially.¹⁴ In fiscal year (FY) 2017 alone, the VA provided > 2 million episodes of care for > 700,000 veterans using telehealth services.²⁵

Although the process for accessing telerehabilitation may vary throughout the VA, typically a few common factors make a veteran eligible for this mode of rehabilitation care delivery: Veterans must meet criteria for a specific program (eg, amputation, occupational therapy, and physical therapy) and receive VA care from a VA medical facility or clinic that offers telehealth services. Care providers must believe that the veteran would benefit from telerehabilitation (eg, limited mobility and long-distance travel to the facility) and that they would be able to receive an appropriate consult. The veteran must meet the following requirements: (1) willingness to consent to a visit via telehealth; (2) access to required equipment/e-mail; and (3) a caregiver to assist if they are unable to complete a visit independently.

In this article, we provide an overview of the growth of telerehabilitation in the VHA. Data are presented for specific telerehabilitation programs over time and by rurality.

Methods

The VHA Support Service Center works with VHA program offices and field users to provide field-focused business, clinical, and special topic reports. An online portal provides access to these customizable reports organized as data cubes, which represent data dimensions (ie, clinic type) and measures (ie, number of unique patients). For this study, we used the Connected Care, Telehealth, Call Centers Clinical Video Telehealth/Store and Forward Telehealth data cube clinical stop codes to identify the numbers of telerehabilitation veteran users and encounters across time. The following telerehabilitation clinic-stop codes were selected: 197 (polytrauma/traumatic brain injury [TBI]–individuals), 201 (Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation [PM&R] Service), 205 (physical therapy), 206 (occupational therapy), 211 (PM&R amputation clinic), 418 (amputation clinic), 214 (kinesiotherapy), and 240 (PM&R assistive technology clinic). Data for total unique patients served and the total number of encounters were extracted at the national level and by rurality from FY 2012 to FY 2017, providing the past 5 years of VHA telerehabilitation data.

It is important to note that in FY 2015, the VHA changed its definition of rurality to a rural-urban commuting areas (RUCA)-based system (www.ruralhealth.va.gov/rural-definition.asp). Prior to FY 2015, the VHA used the US Census Bureau (CB) urbanized area definitions. According to CB, an urbanized area contains a central city and surrounding area that totals > 50,000 in population. It also includes places outside of urbanized areas with populations > 2,500. Rural areas are defined as all other areas. VHA added a third category, highly rural, which is defined as areas that had < 7 people per square mile. In the RUCA system, each census tract defined by the CB is given a score. The VHA definitions are as follows:

• Urban (U)—census tracts with RUCA scores of 1.0 or 1.1. These tracts are determined by the CB as being in an urban core and having the majority of their workers commute within that same core (1.0). If 30% to 49% commute to an even larger urban core, then the code is 1.1;
• Rural (R)—all tracts not receiving scores in the urban or highly rural tiers; and
• Highly rural (H)—tracts with a RUCA score of 10.0. These are the most remote occupied land areas. Less than 10% of workers travel to CB-defined urbanized areas or urban clusters.

In addition, VHA recently added an “I” category to complement “U,” “R,” and “H.” The “I” value is assigned to veterans living on the US insular islands (ie, territories): Guam, American Samoa, Northern Marianas, and US Virgin Islands. For the analysis by rurality in this study, we excluded veterans living in the insular islands and those of unknown rurality (< 1.0% of patients and encounters). Further, because the numbers of highly rural veterans were relatively small (< 2% of patients and encounters), the rural and highly rural categories were combined and compared with urban-dwelling veterans.

Results

Overall, the workload for telerehabilitation nearly quadrupled over the 5-year period (Table 1 and Figure 1). 

Interesting trends were seen by clinic type. Some clinics increased substantially, whereas others showed only moderate increases, and in 1 case (PM&R Service), a decrease. For example, there is significant growth in the number of patients and encounters involving physical therapy through telerehabilitation. This telerehabilitation clinic increased its workload from 1,676 patients with 3,016 encounters in FY 2012 to 9,136 patients with 11,834 encounters in FY 2017, accounting for 62.6% of total growth in patients and 56.8% of total growth in encounters.

Other clinics showing substantial growth over time included occupational therapy and polytrauma/TBI-individual secondary evaluation. Kinesiotherapy telerehabilitation was almost nonexistent in the VHA during FY 2012, with only 23 patients having 23 encounters. By FY 2017, there were 563 patients with 624 kinesiotherapy telerehabilitation encounters, equating to staggering increases in 5 years: 2,348% for patients and 2,613% for encounters. Similarly, the Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Assistive Technology clinics had very low numbers in FY 2012 (patients, 2; encounters, 3) and increased over time; albeit, at a slow rate.

Trends by Rurality

Trends by rural location of patients and encounters must be interpreted with caution because of the changing rural definition between FY 2014 and FY 2015 (Tables 2 and 3; Figures 3 and 4). 

The increased total number of patients seen between FY 2012 and FY 2014 (old definition) was 225% for rural veterans vs 134% for urban veterans. Between FY 2015 and FY 2017 (new definition), the increase was lower for both groups (rural, 13.4%; urban, 7.3%), but rural veterans still increased at a higher rate than did urban dwellers.

Discussion

Our primary aim was to provide data on the growth of telerehabilitation in the VHA over the past 5 years. Our secondary aim was to examine growth in the use of telerehabilitation by rurality. Specifically, we provided an overview of telerehabilitation growth in terms of unique patients and overall encounters in the VHA by rurality from FY 2012 to FY 2014 and FY 2015 to FY 2017 using the following programs: Polytrauma/TBI, PM&R Service, physical therapy, occupational therapy, PM&R amputation clinic, amputation clinic, kinesiotherapy, and PM&R assistive technology clinic. Our findings demonstrated a noteworthy increase in telerehabilitation encounters and unique patients over time for these programs. These findings were consistent with the overall trend of continued growth and expansion of telehealth within the VHA.

Our findings reveal an upward trend in the total number of rural encounters and rural unique patients despite the change in the VA’s definition of rurality in FY 2015. To our knowledge, urban and rural use of telerehabilitation has not been examined previously. Under both definitions of rurality, encounters and unique patients show an important increase over time, and by year-end 2017, more than half of all patients and encounters were attributed to rural patients (53.7% and 53.9%, respectively). Indeed, the upward trend may have been more pronounced if the rural definition had not changed in FY 2015. Our early VHA stroke patients study on the difference between rural-urban patients and taxonomies showed that the RUCA definition was more likely to reduce the number of rural patients by 8.5% than the early definition used by the VHA.²⁶

It is notable that although the use of tele-delivery of rehabilitation has continually increased, the rate of this increase was steeper from FY 2012 to FY 2014 than FY 2015 to FY 2017. For the programs under consideration in this study, the total number of rural patients/encounters increased throughout the observed periods. However, urban patients and encounters increased through FY 2016 and experienced a slight decrease in FY 2017.

The appearance of a slower rate of increase may be due to a rapid initial rate of increase through early adopters and “crossing the diffusion chasm,” a well-documented process of slower diffusion between the time of invention to penetration that often characterizes the spread of successful telehealth innovations.²⁷ Integrating technology into care delivery innovation requires the integration of technical, clinical, and administrative processes and can take time to scale successfully.²⁸

With an emphasis on increasing access to rehabilitation services, the VHA can expect to see a continuing increase in both the number and the percentage of telerehabilitation rural patients and encounters. The VHA has several telerehabilitation initiatives underway through the VHA’s Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Telerehabilitation Enterprise Wide Initiative (TREWI) and Rural Veterans Telerehabilitation Initiative. These projects demonstrate the feasibility of this delivery approach and facilitate integration of this modality in clinical workflows. However, to sustain these efforts, facilities will need more infrastructure and personnel resources dedicated to the delivery of services.

In an ongoing evaluation of the TREWI, several factors seem to influence the uptake of the VHA Office of Rural Health TREWI programs. These factors are the presence or absence of a local site champion; the quality of hospital leadership support; the quality of past relationships between telerehabilitation sending sites and receiving sites; barriers to getting a telehealth service agreement in place; the availability of space; administrative know-how on setting up clinics appropriately; time involved to bring on staff; contracting issues; equipment availability and installation; cultural issues in embracing technologic innovation; training burden; hassle factors; and limited funds. Although early adopters may be able to negotiate and push through many of the barriers associated with the diffusion of telerehabilitation, the numerous barriers may slow its larger systemwide diffusion.

Telerehabilitation is a promising mode to deliver care to rural veterans who otherwise may not have access to this type of specialty care. Therefore, the identification of elements that foster telerehabilitation growth in future investigations can assist policy makers and key stakeholders in optimally leveraging program resources for maximal productivity. Future studies investigating the drivers of increases in telerehabilitation growth by rurality are warranted. Furthermore, more research is needed to examine telerehabilitation growth quality of care outcomes (eg, patient and provider satisfaction) to ensure that care is not only timely and accessible, but of high quality.

Conclusion

Disparities between rural and urban veterans compel a mode of expanding delivery of care. The VHA has embraced the use of telehealth modalities to extend its reach of rehabilitation services to veterans with disability and rehabilitation needs. Growth in telerehabilitation rural patient encounters increases access to rehabilitative care, reduces patient and caregiver travel burden, and helps ensure treatment adherence. Telerehabilitation utilization (unique patients and total encounters) is growing more rapidly for rural veterans than for their urban counterparts. Overall, telerehabilitation is filling a gap for rural veterans, as well as veterans in general with challenges in accessibility to health care. In order to make full use of the telerehabilitation services across its health care system, VA health care facilities may need to expand their effort in telerehabilitation dissemination and education among providers and veterans, particularly among providers who are less familiar with telerehabilitation services and among veterans who live in rural or highly rural areas and need special rehabilitation care.

Historically, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has excelled at improving veterans’ access to health care and enhancing foundational services, such as prosthetics and other veteran-centric services, and this continues to be the VHA’s top priority.¹ Travel distance and time are often barriers to accessing health care for many veterans.^2-11 For veterans with disabilities who must overcome additional physical, cognitive, and emotional obstacles to access vital rehabilitation services, these geographic obstacles are magnified. Further compounding the challenge is that rehabilitation therapies frequently require multiple encounters. Telerehabilitation is a promising solution for veterans in need of rehabilitation to regain optimal functioning. This alternative mode of service delivery can help veterans overcome geographic access barriers by delivering health care directly to veterans in their homes or nearby community-based outpatient clinics.^12,13

A growing body of evidence supports telerehabilitation. In a 2017 systematic review and meta-analysis, Cottrell and colleagues reviewed and analyzed data from 13 studies that met their inclusion criteria; specifically, their meta-analytic sample comprised adults aged ≥ 18 years presenting with any diagnosed primary musculoskeletal condition; treatment interventions via a real-time telerehabilitation medium, trials that had a comparison group with the same condition; provided clinical outcomes data, and included published randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials.¹⁴ Based on their aggregated results, they concluded that real-time telerehabilitation was effective in improving physical function (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.63; 95% CI, 0.92-2.33; I², 93%), and reducing pain (SMD, 0.66; 95% CI, −0.27- .60; I², 96%) in patients with any diagnosed primary musculoskeletal condition.¹⁴

Two other systematic reviews conducted by Pietrzak and colleagues and Agostini and colleagues also demonstrated the clinical effectiveness of telerehabilitation.^15,16 Clinical effectiveness was defined as changes in health, functional status, and satisfaction with the telerehabilitation services delivered. The studies examined in the review included those that provided online self-management and education in addition to exercise via teleconferencing in real time.

Pietrzak and colleagues found that Internet-based osteoarthritis self-management interventions significantly improved 4 of 6 health status measures reviewed (ie, pain, fatigue, activity limitation, health distress, disability, and self‐reported global health).¹⁵ User acceptance and satisfaction were high (≥ 70% satisfied) in all studies meeting the inclusion criteria.

Agostini and colleagues found that telerehabilitation was more effective than other modes of delivering rehabilitation to regain motor function in cardiac (SMD, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.04-0.43) and total knee arthroplasty (Timed Up and Go test: SMD, −5.17; 95% CI, −9.79- −0.55) patients.¹⁶ Some evidence from VHA and non-VHA studies also support the use of telerehabilitation to reduce health care costs,^17-19 improve treatment adherence,^12,20 and enhance patient physical, cognitive and mobility function, as well as patient satisfaction and health-related quality of life.^13,21-24

Since the first recorded use of telehealth in 1959, the application of technology to deliver health care, including rehabilitation services, has increased exponentially.¹⁴ In fiscal year (FY) 2017 alone, the VA provided > 2 million episodes of care for > 700,000 veterans using telehealth services.²⁵

Although the process for accessing telerehabilitation may vary throughout the VA, typically a few common factors make a veteran eligible for this mode of rehabilitation care delivery: Veterans must meet criteria for a specific program (eg, amputation, occupational therapy, and physical therapy) and receive VA care from a VA medical facility or clinic that offers telehealth services. Care providers must believe that the veteran would benefit from telerehabilitation (eg, limited mobility and long-distance travel to the facility) and that they would be able to receive an appropriate consult. The veteran must meet the following requirements: (1) willingness to consent to a visit via telehealth; (2) access to required equipment/e-mail; and (3) a caregiver to assist if they are unable to complete a visit independently.

In this article, we provide an overview of the growth of telerehabilitation in the VHA. Data are presented for specific telerehabilitation programs over time and by rurality.

Methods

The VHA Support Service Center works with VHA program offices and field users to provide field-focused business, clinical, and special topic reports. An online portal provides access to these customizable reports organized as data cubes, which represent data dimensions (ie, clinic type) and measures (ie, number of unique patients). For this study, we used the Connected Care, Telehealth, Call Centers Clinical Video Telehealth/Store and Forward Telehealth data cube clinical stop codes to identify the numbers of telerehabilitation veteran users and encounters across time. The following telerehabilitation clinic-stop codes were selected: 197 (polytrauma/traumatic brain injury [TBI]–individuals), 201 (Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation [PM&R] Service), 205 (physical therapy), 206 (occupational therapy), 211 (PM&R amputation clinic), 418 (amputation clinic), 214 (kinesiotherapy), and 240 (PM&R assistive technology clinic). Data for total unique patients served and the total number of encounters were extracted at the national level and by rurality from FY 2012 to FY 2017, providing the past 5 years of VHA telerehabilitation data.

It is important to note that in FY 2015, the VHA changed its definition of rurality to a rural-urban commuting areas (RUCA)-based system (www.ruralhealth.va.gov/rural-definition.asp). Prior to FY 2015, the VHA used the US Census Bureau (CB) urbanized area definitions. According to CB, an urbanized area contains a central city and surrounding area that totals > 50,000 in population. It also includes places outside of urbanized areas with populations > 2,500. Rural areas are defined as all other areas. VHA added a third category, highly rural, which is defined as areas that had < 7 people per square mile. In the RUCA system, each census tract defined by the CB is given a score. The VHA definitions are as follows:

• Urban (U)—census tracts with RUCA scores of 1.0 or 1.1. These tracts are determined by the CB as being in an urban core and having the majority of their workers commute within that same core (1.0). If 30% to 49% commute to an even larger urban core, then the code is 1.1;
• Rural (R)—all tracts not receiving scores in the urban or highly rural tiers; and
• Highly rural (H)—tracts with a RUCA score of 10.0. These are the most remote occupied land areas. Less than 10% of workers travel to CB-defined urbanized areas or urban clusters.

In addition, VHA recently added an “I” category to complement “U,” “R,” and “H.” The “I” value is assigned to veterans living on the US insular islands (ie, territories): Guam, American Samoa, Northern Marianas, and US Virgin Islands. For the analysis by rurality in this study, we excluded veterans living in the insular islands and those of unknown rurality (< 1.0% of patients and encounters). Further, because the numbers of highly rural veterans were relatively small (< 2% of patients and encounters), the rural and highly rural categories were combined and compared with urban-dwelling veterans.

Results

Overall, the workload for telerehabilitation nearly quadrupled over the 5-year period (Table 1 and Figure 1). 

Interesting trends were seen by clinic type. Some clinics increased substantially, whereas others showed only moderate increases, and in 1 case (PM&R Service), a decrease. For example, there is significant growth in the number of patients and encounters involving physical therapy through telerehabilitation. This telerehabilitation clinic increased its workload from 1,676 patients with 3,016 encounters in FY 2012 to 9,136 patients with 11,834 encounters in FY 2017, accounting for 62.6% of total growth in patients and 56.8% of total growth in encounters.

Other clinics showing substantial growth over time included occupational therapy and polytrauma/TBI-individual secondary evaluation. Kinesiotherapy telerehabilitation was almost nonexistent in the VHA during FY 2012, with only 23 patients having 23 encounters. By FY 2017, there were 563 patients with 624 kinesiotherapy telerehabilitation encounters, equating to staggering increases in 5 years: 2,348% for patients and 2,613% for encounters. Similarly, the Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Assistive Technology clinics had very low numbers in FY 2012 (patients, 2; encounters, 3) and increased over time; albeit, at a slow rate.

Trends by Rurality

Trends by rural location of patients and encounters must be interpreted with caution because of the changing rural definition between FY 2014 and FY 2015 (Tables 2 and 3; Figures 3 and 4). 

The increased total number of patients seen between FY 2012 and FY 2014 (old definition) was 225% for rural veterans vs 134% for urban veterans. Between FY 2015 and FY 2017 (new definition), the increase was lower for both groups (rural, 13.4%; urban, 7.3%), but rural veterans still increased at a higher rate than did urban dwellers.

Discussion

Our primary aim was to provide data on the growth of telerehabilitation in the VHA over the past 5 years. Our secondary aim was to examine growth in the use of telerehabilitation by rurality. Specifically, we provided an overview of telerehabilitation growth in terms of unique patients and overall encounters in the VHA by rurality from FY 2012 to FY 2014 and FY 2015 to FY 2017 using the following programs: Polytrauma/TBI, PM&R Service, physical therapy, occupational therapy, PM&R amputation clinic, amputation clinic, kinesiotherapy, and PM&R assistive technology clinic. Our findings demonstrated a noteworthy increase in telerehabilitation encounters and unique patients over time for these programs. These findings were consistent with the overall trend of continued growth and expansion of telehealth within the VHA.

Our findings reveal an upward trend in the total number of rural encounters and rural unique patients despite the change in the VA’s definition of rurality in FY 2015. To our knowledge, urban and rural use of telerehabilitation has not been examined previously. Under both definitions of rurality, encounters and unique patients show an important increase over time, and by year-end 2017, more than half of all patients and encounters were attributed to rural patients (53.7% and 53.9%, respectively). Indeed, the upward trend may have been more pronounced if the rural definition had not changed in FY 2015. Our early VHA stroke patients study on the difference between rural-urban patients and taxonomies showed that the RUCA definition was more likely to reduce the number of rural patients by 8.5% than the early definition used by the VHA.²⁶

It is notable that although the use of tele-delivery of rehabilitation has continually increased, the rate of this increase was steeper from FY 2012 to FY 2014 than FY 2015 to FY 2017. For the programs under consideration in this study, the total number of rural patients/encounters increased throughout the observed periods. However, urban patients and encounters increased through FY 2016 and experienced a slight decrease in FY 2017.

The appearance of a slower rate of increase may be due to a rapid initial rate of increase through early adopters and “crossing the diffusion chasm,” a well-documented process of slower diffusion between the time of invention to penetration that often characterizes the spread of successful telehealth innovations.²⁷ Integrating technology into care delivery innovation requires the integration of technical, clinical, and administrative processes and can take time to scale successfully.²⁸

With an emphasis on increasing access to rehabilitation services, the VHA can expect to see a continuing increase in both the number and the percentage of telerehabilitation rural patients and encounters. The VHA has several telerehabilitation initiatives underway through the VHA’s Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Telerehabilitation Enterprise Wide Initiative (TREWI) and Rural Veterans Telerehabilitation Initiative. These projects demonstrate the feasibility of this delivery approach and facilitate integration of this modality in clinical workflows. However, to sustain these efforts, facilities will need more infrastructure and personnel resources dedicated to the delivery of services.

In an ongoing evaluation of the TREWI, several factors seem to influence the uptake of the VHA Office of Rural Health TREWI programs. These factors are the presence or absence of a local site champion; the quality of hospital leadership support; the quality of past relationships between telerehabilitation sending sites and receiving sites; barriers to getting a telehealth service agreement in place; the availability of space; administrative know-how on setting up clinics appropriately; time involved to bring on staff; contracting issues; equipment availability and installation; cultural issues in embracing technologic innovation; training burden; hassle factors; and limited funds. Although early adopters may be able to negotiate and push through many of the barriers associated with the diffusion of telerehabilitation, the numerous barriers may slow its larger systemwide diffusion.

Telerehabilitation is a promising mode to deliver care to rural veterans who otherwise may not have access to this type of specialty care. Therefore, the identification of elements that foster telerehabilitation growth in future investigations can assist policy makers and key stakeholders in optimally leveraging program resources for maximal productivity. Future studies investigating the drivers of increases in telerehabilitation growth by rurality are warranted. Furthermore, more research is needed to examine telerehabilitation growth quality of care outcomes (eg, patient and provider satisfaction) to ensure that care is not only timely and accessible, but of high quality.

Conclusion

Disparities between rural and urban veterans compel a mode of expanding delivery of care. The VHA has embraced the use of telehealth modalities to extend its reach of rehabilitation services to veterans with disability and rehabilitation needs. Growth in telerehabilitation rural patient encounters increases access to rehabilitative care, reduces patient and caregiver travel burden, and helps ensure treatment adherence. Telerehabilitation utilization (unique patients and total encounters) is growing more rapidly for rural veterans than for their urban counterparts. Overall, telerehabilitation is filling a gap for rural veterans, as well as veterans in general with challenges in accessibility to health care. In order to make full use of the telerehabilitation services across its health care system, VA health care facilities may need to expand their effort in telerehabilitation dissemination and education among providers and veterans, particularly among providers who are less familiar with telerehabilitation services and among veterans who live in rural or highly rural areas and need special rehabilitation care.

Historically, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has excelled at improving veterans’ access to health care and enhancing foundational services, such as prosthetics and other veteran-centric services, and this continues to be the VHA’s top priority.¹ Travel distance and time are often barriers to accessing health care for many veterans.^2-11 For veterans with disabilities who must overcome additional physical, cognitive, and emotional obstacles to access vital rehabilitation services, these geographic obstacles are magnified. Further compounding the challenge is that rehabilitation therapies frequently require multiple encounters. Telerehabilitation is a promising solution for veterans in need of rehabilitation to regain optimal functioning. This alternative mode of service delivery can help veterans overcome geographic access barriers by delivering health care directly to veterans in their homes or nearby community-based outpatient clinics.^12,13

A growing body of evidence supports telerehabilitation. In a 2017 systematic review and meta-analysis, Cottrell and colleagues reviewed and analyzed data from 13 studies that met their inclusion criteria; specifically, their meta-analytic sample comprised adults aged ≥ 18 years presenting with any diagnosed primary musculoskeletal condition; treatment interventions via a real-time telerehabilitation medium, trials that had a comparison group with the same condition; provided clinical outcomes data, and included published randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials.¹⁴ Based on their aggregated results, they concluded that real-time telerehabilitation was effective in improving physical function (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.63; 95% CI, 0.92-2.33; I², 93%), and reducing pain (SMD, 0.66; 95% CI, −0.27- .60; I², 96%) in patients with any diagnosed primary musculoskeletal condition.¹⁴

Two other systematic reviews conducted by Pietrzak and colleagues and Agostini and colleagues also demonstrated the clinical effectiveness of telerehabilitation.^15,16 Clinical effectiveness was defined as changes in health, functional status, and satisfaction with the telerehabilitation services delivered. The studies examined in the review included those that provided online self-management and education in addition to exercise via teleconferencing in real time.

Pietrzak and colleagues found that Internet-based osteoarthritis self-management interventions significantly improved 4 of 6 health status measures reviewed (ie, pain, fatigue, activity limitation, health distress, disability, and self‐reported global health).¹⁵ User acceptance and satisfaction were high (≥ 70% satisfied) in all studies meeting the inclusion criteria.

Agostini and colleagues found that telerehabilitation was more effective than other modes of delivering rehabilitation to regain motor function in cardiac (SMD, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.04-0.43) and total knee arthroplasty (Timed Up and Go test: SMD, −5.17; 95% CI, −9.79- −0.55) patients.¹⁶ Some evidence from VHA and non-VHA studies also support the use of telerehabilitation to reduce health care costs,^17-19 improve treatment adherence,^12,20 and enhance patient physical, cognitive and mobility function, as well as patient satisfaction and health-related quality of life.^13,21-24

Since the first recorded use of telehealth in 1959, the application of technology to deliver health care, including rehabilitation services, has increased exponentially.¹⁴ In fiscal year (FY) 2017 alone, the VA provided > 2 million episodes of care for > 700,000 veterans using telehealth services.²⁵

Although the process for accessing telerehabilitation may vary throughout the VA, typically a few common factors make a veteran eligible for this mode of rehabilitation care delivery: Veterans must meet criteria for a specific program (eg, amputation, occupational therapy, and physical therapy) and receive VA care from a VA medical facility or clinic that offers telehealth services. Care providers must believe that the veteran would benefit from telerehabilitation (eg, limited mobility and long-distance travel to the facility) and that they would be able to receive an appropriate consult. The veteran must meet the following requirements: (1) willingness to consent to a visit via telehealth; (2) access to required equipment/e-mail; and (3) a caregiver to assist if they are unable to complete a visit independently.

In this article, we provide an overview of the growth of telerehabilitation in the VHA. Data are presented for specific telerehabilitation programs over time and by rurality.

Methods

The VHA Support Service Center works with VHA program offices and field users to provide field-focused business, clinical, and special topic reports. An online portal provides access to these customizable reports organized as data cubes, which represent data dimensions (ie, clinic type) and measures (ie, number of unique patients). For this study, we used the Connected Care, Telehealth, Call Centers Clinical Video Telehealth/Store and Forward Telehealth data cube clinical stop codes to identify the numbers of telerehabilitation veteran users and encounters across time. The following telerehabilitation clinic-stop codes were selected: 197 (polytrauma/traumatic brain injury [TBI]–individuals), 201 (Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation [PM&R] Service), 205 (physical therapy), 206 (occupational therapy), 211 (PM&R amputation clinic), 418 (amputation clinic), 214 (kinesiotherapy), and 240 (PM&R assistive technology clinic). Data for total unique patients served and the total number of encounters were extracted at the national level and by rurality from FY 2012 to FY 2017, providing the past 5 years of VHA telerehabilitation data.

It is important to note that in FY 2015, the VHA changed its definition of rurality to a rural-urban commuting areas (RUCA)-based system (www.ruralhealth.va.gov/rural-definition.asp). Prior to FY 2015, the VHA used the US Census Bureau (CB) urbanized area definitions. According to CB, an urbanized area contains a central city and surrounding area that totals > 50,000 in population. It also includes places outside of urbanized areas with populations > 2,500. Rural areas are defined as all other areas. VHA added a third category, highly rural, which is defined as areas that had < 7 people per square mile. In the RUCA system, each census tract defined by the CB is given a score. The VHA definitions are as follows:

• Urban (U)—census tracts with RUCA scores of 1.0 or 1.1. These tracts are determined by the CB as being in an urban core and having the majority of their workers commute within that same core (1.0). If 30% to 49% commute to an even larger urban core, then the code is 1.1;
• Rural (R)—all tracts not receiving scores in the urban or highly rural tiers; and
• Highly rural (H)—tracts with a RUCA score of 10.0. These are the most remote occupied land areas. Less than 10% of workers travel to CB-defined urbanized areas or urban clusters.

In addition, VHA recently added an “I” category to complement “U,” “R,” and “H.” The “I” value is assigned to veterans living on the US insular islands (ie, territories): Guam, American Samoa, Northern Marianas, and US Virgin Islands. For the analysis by rurality in this study, we excluded veterans living in the insular islands and those of unknown rurality (< 1.0% of patients and encounters). Further, because the numbers of highly rural veterans were relatively small (< 2% of patients and encounters), the rural and highly rural categories were combined and compared with urban-dwelling veterans.

Results

Overall, the workload for telerehabilitation nearly quadrupled over the 5-year period (Table 1 and Figure 1). 

Interesting trends were seen by clinic type. Some clinics increased substantially, whereas others showed only moderate increases, and in 1 case (PM&R Service), a decrease. For example, there is significant growth in the number of patients and encounters involving physical therapy through telerehabilitation. This telerehabilitation clinic increased its workload from 1,676 patients with 3,016 encounters in FY 2012 to 9,136 patients with 11,834 encounters in FY 2017, accounting for 62.6% of total growth in patients and 56.8% of total growth in encounters.

Other clinics showing substantial growth over time included occupational therapy and polytrauma/TBI-individual secondary evaluation. Kinesiotherapy telerehabilitation was almost nonexistent in the VHA during FY 2012, with only 23 patients having 23 encounters. By FY 2017, there were 563 patients with 624 kinesiotherapy telerehabilitation encounters, equating to staggering increases in 5 years: 2,348% for patients and 2,613% for encounters. Similarly, the Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Assistive Technology clinics had very low numbers in FY 2012 (patients, 2; encounters, 3) and increased over time; albeit, at a slow rate.

Trends by Rurality

Trends by rural location of patients and encounters must be interpreted with caution because of the changing rural definition between FY 2014 and FY 2015 (Tables 2 and 3; Figures 3 and 4). 

The increased total number of patients seen between FY 2012 and FY 2014 (old definition) was 225% for rural veterans vs 134% for urban veterans. Between FY 2015 and FY 2017 (new definition), the increase was lower for both groups (rural, 13.4%; urban, 7.3%), but rural veterans still increased at a higher rate than did urban dwellers.

Discussion

Our primary aim was to provide data on the growth of telerehabilitation in the VHA over the past 5 years. Our secondary aim was to examine growth in the use of telerehabilitation by rurality. Specifically, we provided an overview of telerehabilitation growth in terms of unique patients and overall encounters in the VHA by rurality from FY 2012 to FY 2014 and FY 2015 to FY 2017 using the following programs: Polytrauma/TBI, PM&R Service, physical therapy, occupational therapy, PM&R amputation clinic, amputation clinic, kinesiotherapy, and PM&R assistive technology clinic. Our findings demonstrated a noteworthy increase in telerehabilitation encounters and unique patients over time for these programs. These findings were consistent with the overall trend of continued growth and expansion of telehealth within the VHA.

Our findings reveal an upward trend in the total number of rural encounters and rural unique patients despite the change in the VA’s definition of rurality in FY 2015. To our knowledge, urban and rural use of telerehabilitation has not been examined previously. Under both definitions of rurality, encounters and unique patients show an important increase over time, and by year-end 2017, more than half of all patients and encounters were attributed to rural patients (53.7% and 53.9%, respectively). Indeed, the upward trend may have been more pronounced if the rural definition had not changed in FY 2015. Our early VHA stroke patients study on the difference between rural-urban patients and taxonomies showed that the RUCA definition was more likely to reduce the number of rural patients by 8.5% than the early definition used by the VHA.²⁶

It is notable that although the use of tele-delivery of rehabilitation has continually increased, the rate of this increase was steeper from FY 2012 to FY 2014 than FY 2015 to FY 2017. For the programs under consideration in this study, the total number of rural patients/encounters increased throughout the observed periods. However, urban patients and encounters increased through FY 2016 and experienced a slight decrease in FY 2017.

The appearance of a slower rate of increase may be due to a rapid initial rate of increase through early adopters and “crossing the diffusion chasm,” a well-documented process of slower diffusion between the time of invention to penetration that often characterizes the spread of successful telehealth innovations.²⁷ Integrating technology into care delivery innovation requires the integration of technical, clinical, and administrative processes and can take time to scale successfully.²⁸

With an emphasis on increasing access to rehabilitation services, the VHA can expect to see a continuing increase in both the number and the percentage of telerehabilitation rural patients and encounters. The VHA has several telerehabilitation initiatives underway through the VHA’s Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Telerehabilitation Enterprise Wide Initiative (TREWI) and Rural Veterans Telerehabilitation Initiative. These projects demonstrate the feasibility of this delivery approach and facilitate integration of this modality in clinical workflows. However, to sustain these efforts, facilities will need more infrastructure and personnel resources dedicated to the delivery of services.

In an ongoing evaluation of the TREWI, several factors seem to influence the uptake of the VHA Office of Rural Health TREWI programs. These factors are the presence or absence of a local site champion; the quality of hospital leadership support; the quality of past relationships between telerehabilitation sending sites and receiving sites; barriers to getting a telehealth service agreement in place; the availability of space; administrative know-how on setting up clinics appropriately; time involved to bring on staff; contracting issues; equipment availability and installation; cultural issues in embracing technologic innovation; training burden; hassle factors; and limited funds. Although early adopters may be able to negotiate and push through many of the barriers associated with the diffusion of telerehabilitation, the numerous barriers may slow its larger systemwide diffusion.

Telerehabilitation is a promising mode to deliver care to rural veterans who otherwise may not have access to this type of specialty care. Therefore, the identification of elements that foster telerehabilitation growth in future investigations can assist policy makers and key stakeholders in optimally leveraging program resources for maximal productivity. Future studies investigating the drivers of increases in telerehabilitation growth by rurality are warranted. Furthermore, more research is needed to examine telerehabilitation growth quality of care outcomes (eg, patient and provider satisfaction) to ensure that care is not only timely and accessible, but of high quality.

Conclusion

Disparities between rural and urban veterans compel a mode of expanding delivery of care. The VHA has embraced the use of telehealth modalities to extend its reach of rehabilitation services to veterans with disability and rehabilitation needs. Growth in telerehabilitation rural patient encounters increases access to rehabilitative care, reduces patient and caregiver travel burden, and helps ensure treatment adherence. Telerehabilitation utilization (unique patients and total encounters) is growing more rapidly for rural veterans than for their urban counterparts. Overall, telerehabilitation is filling a gap for rural veterans, as well as veterans in general with challenges in accessibility to health care. In order to make full use of the telerehabilitation services across its health care system, VA health care facilities may need to expand their effort in telerehabilitation dissemination and education among providers and veterans, particularly among providers who are less familiar with telerehabilitation services and among veterans who live in rural or highly rural areas and need special rehabilitation care.

One-time, universal hepatitis C testing is cost effective. Poor asthma control during pregnancy trims live birth rates. Fluorouracil beats other actinic keratosis treatments in a head-to-head trial. And vitamin C for sepsis? Experts take sides in a sharp debate.
Amazon Alexa
Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
Spotify

One-time, universal hepatitis C testing is cost effective. Poor asthma control during pregnancy trims live birth rates. Fluorouracil beats other actinic keratosis treatments in a head-to-head trial. And vitamin C for sepsis? Experts take sides in a sharp debate.
Amazon Alexa
Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
Spotify

One-time, universal hepatitis C testing is cost effective. Poor asthma control during pregnancy trims live birth rates. Fluorouracil beats other actinic keratosis treatments in a head-to-head trial. And vitamin C for sepsis? Experts take sides in a sharp debate.
Amazon Alexa
Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
Spotify