QI Initiatives

Dr. Wachter

GRAPEVINE, Texas—The most successful companies tend to have superior branding. Starbucks owns coffee. Disney owns family fun. And hospitalists own patient-safety and quality-improvement (QI) initiatives within their hospitals.

“We were pretty confident that if we embraced this, we would have a clear running field to ourselves,” says Robert Wachter, MD, MHM, professor, chief of the Division of Hospital Medicine, and chief of the Medical Service at the University of California at San Francisco Medical Center, former SHM president, and author of the Wachter’s World blog. “No other physician field would do the same thing, and by owning the patient-safety field, we would distinguish ourselves.”

Now comes the really hard part, though.

Three keynote speakers at HM11—Dr. Wachter, AMA President Cecil Wilson, MD, and Robert Kocher, MD, a healthcare policy advisor to President Obama—pointed to hospitalists as the physician cohort that can help shepherd the conceptual reform passed last year by Congress into daily practice in America’s hospitals. And all three also point to HM’s role at the vanguard of patient safety as a primary reason why.

Hurdles will arise, Dr. Wilson says. A solo practitioner most of his career, he says hospitalists can play a key role in the coming years as more patients receive insurance, but looming doctor shortages could stymie the cause. While many caution that the flood of newly insured patients will overburden primary-care physicians (PCPs), the expected shortage of physicians will plague HM as well.

“Hospitalists are primary-care physicians; the vast majority of them are general internists,” Dr. Wilson says. “… So when we say that the number of people who are going into primary care, particularly general internal medicine, is reducing, that reduces not only the pool of physicians in the community, but also the hospitalist pool. We’re in that boat together.”

Dr. Kocher, director of the McKinsey Center for U.S. Health System Reform in Washington, D.C., says hospitalists are in the best position to push for on-the-ground reform as they are the doctors who bridge all hospital departments, floors, and wards. He sees four broad areas where HM can take a particularly leading role:

I’m positive, as long as hospitalists are confident—and I think they should be—that they can deliver, more consistently, better care than those who aren’t hospitalists practicing in hospitals … and they’re going to do better economically.—Bob Kocher, MD, director, McKinsey Center for U.S. Health System Reform, Washington, D.C.

• Increasing labor productivity. HM’s role as a link between specialties from cardiology to the pharmacy makes HM a natural conduit to push institutional values from a unique vantage point.
• Driving decision-making. Whether it’s recommending less costly drugs with similar outcomes, questioning whether expensive test batteries are truly necessary or being done for fear of missing something, or pausing to ask whether a “90-year-old hip replacement patient should receive orthopedic implants that will last far longer than their grandkids will be alive,” hospitalists can use their data to be a common-sense lynchpin of daily operations.
• Using technology to lower delivery costs. Many insurance companies are willing to enter into risk-based contracts with hospitals, but some hospital executives worry whether they will be able to perform well enough to justify the risk. “Hospitalists can help say, ‘We can do this. We can hit the thresholds.’ ”
• Shifting compensation models from “selling work RVUs to selling years of health.”

“The biggest thing [hospitalists] should begin doing,” Dr. Kocher adds, “is stop thinking about units of work, or RVUs, and start thinking about how much better patients can be by virtue of the care they’re delivering, how many readmissions are they avoiding, how many core measures/outcomes are they hitting, how much better is the patient experience, and how much smoother is the handoff.”

The push to improve quality and show better outcomes, of course, is intrinsically tied to payment reform. Bundled payments that reimburse a set fee for a case from pre-admission to a preset post-discharge deadline worry some hospitalists, who fear how the payments will be divvied up and who will be in charge of said payment decisions. Dr. Kocher says that even when the initial rules are set, the system is likely to evolve.

However, the hospitalist’s role as a driver of QI positions the field well, all three speakers noted. By quarterbacking patient handoffs and continuing to be seen by hospital executives as quality and safety leaders, HM groups can make the argument that they are worth the financial support they ask for in negotiations. Dr. Wachter adds that while quality research has become a staple of academics and residents, hospitalists should look to now tie value to the equation, effectively linking better patient outcomes to HM’s bottom line.

“There’s no question that physicians that can care for patients more efficiently, in a higher-quality way, in hospitals at lower costs, are going to do better no matter how the system evolves,” Dr. Kocher says. “I’m positive, as long as hospitalists are confident—and I think they should be—that they can deliver, more consistently, better care than those who aren’t hospitalists practicing in hospitals … and they’re going to do better economically.”

Dr. Wachter

GRAPEVINE, Texas—The most successful companies tend to have superior branding. Starbucks owns coffee. Disney owns family fun. And hospitalists own patient-safety and quality-improvement (QI) initiatives within their hospitals.

“We were pretty confident that if we embraced this, we would have a clear running field to ourselves,” says Robert Wachter, MD, MHM, professor, chief of the Division of Hospital Medicine, and chief of the Medical Service at the University of California at San Francisco Medical Center, former SHM president, and author of the Wachter’s World blog. “No other physician field would do the same thing, and by owning the patient-safety field, we would distinguish ourselves.”

Now comes the really hard part, though.

Three keynote speakers at HM11—Dr. Wachter, AMA President Cecil Wilson, MD, and Robert Kocher, MD, a healthcare policy advisor to President Obama—pointed to hospitalists as the physician cohort that can help shepherd the conceptual reform passed last year by Congress into daily practice in America’s hospitals. And all three also point to HM’s role at the vanguard of patient safety as a primary reason why.

Hurdles will arise, Dr. Wilson says. A solo practitioner most of his career, he says hospitalists can play a key role in the coming years as more patients receive insurance, but looming doctor shortages could stymie the cause. While many caution that the flood of newly insured patients will overburden primary-care physicians (PCPs), the expected shortage of physicians will plague HM as well.

“Hospitalists are primary-care physicians; the vast majority of them are general internists,” Dr. Wilson says. “… So when we say that the number of people who are going into primary care, particularly general internal medicine, is reducing, that reduces not only the pool of physicians in the community, but also the hospitalist pool. We’re in that boat together.”

Dr. Kocher, director of the McKinsey Center for U.S. Health System Reform in Washington, D.C., says hospitalists are in the best position to push for on-the-ground reform as they are the doctors who bridge all hospital departments, floors, and wards. He sees four broad areas where HM can take a particularly leading role:

I’m positive, as long as hospitalists are confident—and I think they should be—that they can deliver, more consistently, better care than those who aren’t hospitalists practicing in hospitals … and they’re going to do better economically.—Bob Kocher, MD, director, McKinsey Center for U.S. Health System Reform, Washington, D.C.

• Increasing labor productivity. HM’s role as a link between specialties from cardiology to the pharmacy makes HM a natural conduit to push institutional values from a unique vantage point.
• Driving decision-making. Whether it’s recommending less costly drugs with similar outcomes, questioning whether expensive test batteries are truly necessary or being done for fear of missing something, or pausing to ask whether a “90-year-old hip replacement patient should receive orthopedic implants that will last far longer than their grandkids will be alive,” hospitalists can use their data to be a common-sense lynchpin of daily operations.
• Using technology to lower delivery costs. Many insurance companies are willing to enter into risk-based contracts with hospitals, but some hospital executives worry whether they will be able to perform well enough to justify the risk. “Hospitalists can help say, ‘We can do this. We can hit the thresholds.’ ”
• Shifting compensation models from “selling work RVUs to selling years of health.”

“The biggest thing [hospitalists] should begin doing,” Dr. Kocher adds, “is stop thinking about units of work, or RVUs, and start thinking about how much better patients can be by virtue of the care they’re delivering, how many readmissions are they avoiding, how many core measures/outcomes are they hitting, how much better is the patient experience, and how much smoother is the handoff.”

The push to improve quality and show better outcomes, of course, is intrinsically tied to payment reform. Bundled payments that reimburse a set fee for a case from pre-admission to a preset post-discharge deadline worry some hospitalists, who fear how the payments will be divvied up and who will be in charge of said payment decisions. Dr. Kocher says that even when the initial rules are set, the system is likely to evolve.

However, the hospitalist’s role as a driver of QI positions the field well, all three speakers noted. By quarterbacking patient handoffs and continuing to be seen by hospital executives as quality and safety leaders, HM groups can make the argument that they are worth the financial support they ask for in negotiations. Dr. Wachter adds that while quality research has become a staple of academics and residents, hospitalists should look to now tie value to the equation, effectively linking better patient outcomes to HM’s bottom line.

“There’s no question that physicians that can care for patients more efficiently, in a higher-quality way, in hospitals at lower costs, are going to do better no matter how the system evolves,” Dr. Kocher says. “I’m positive, as long as hospitalists are confident—and I think they should be—that they can deliver, more consistently, better care than those who aren’t hospitalists practicing in hospitals … and they’re going to do better economically.”

Dr. Wachter

GRAPEVINE, Texas—The most successful companies tend to have superior branding. Starbucks owns coffee. Disney owns family fun. And hospitalists own patient-safety and quality-improvement (QI) initiatives within their hospitals.

“We were pretty confident that if we embraced this, we would have a clear running field to ourselves,” says Robert Wachter, MD, MHM, professor, chief of the Division of Hospital Medicine, and chief of the Medical Service at the University of California at San Francisco Medical Center, former SHM president, and author of the Wachter’s World blog. “No other physician field would do the same thing, and by owning the patient-safety field, we would distinguish ourselves.”

Now comes the really hard part, though.

Three keynote speakers at HM11—Dr. Wachter, AMA President Cecil Wilson, MD, and Robert Kocher, MD, a healthcare policy advisor to President Obama—pointed to hospitalists as the physician cohort that can help shepherd the conceptual reform passed last year by Congress into daily practice in America’s hospitals. And all three also point to HM’s role at the vanguard of patient safety as a primary reason why.

Hurdles will arise, Dr. Wilson says. A solo practitioner most of his career, he says hospitalists can play a key role in the coming years as more patients receive insurance, but looming doctor shortages could stymie the cause. While many caution that the flood of newly insured patients will overburden primary-care physicians (PCPs), the expected shortage of physicians will plague HM as well.

“Hospitalists are primary-care physicians; the vast majority of them are general internists,” Dr. Wilson says. “… So when we say that the number of people who are going into primary care, particularly general internal medicine, is reducing, that reduces not only the pool of physicians in the community, but also the hospitalist pool. We’re in that boat together.”

Dr. Kocher, director of the McKinsey Center for U.S. Health System Reform in Washington, D.C., says hospitalists are in the best position to push for on-the-ground reform as they are the doctors who bridge all hospital departments, floors, and wards. He sees four broad areas where HM can take a particularly leading role:

I’m positive, as long as hospitalists are confident—and I think they should be—that they can deliver, more consistently, better care than those who aren’t hospitalists practicing in hospitals … and they’re going to do better economically.—Bob Kocher, MD, director, McKinsey Center for U.S. Health System Reform, Washington, D.C.

• Increasing labor productivity. HM’s role as a link between specialties from cardiology to the pharmacy makes HM a natural conduit to push institutional values from a unique vantage point.
• Driving decision-making. Whether it’s recommending less costly drugs with similar outcomes, questioning whether expensive test batteries are truly necessary or being done for fear of missing something, or pausing to ask whether a “90-year-old hip replacement patient should receive orthopedic implants that will last far longer than their grandkids will be alive,” hospitalists can use their data to be a common-sense lynchpin of daily operations.
• Using technology to lower delivery costs. Many insurance companies are willing to enter into risk-based contracts with hospitals, but some hospital executives worry whether they will be able to perform well enough to justify the risk. “Hospitalists can help say, ‘We can do this. We can hit the thresholds.’ ”
• Shifting compensation models from “selling work RVUs to selling years of health.”

“The biggest thing [hospitalists] should begin doing,” Dr. Kocher adds, “is stop thinking about units of work, or RVUs, and start thinking about how much better patients can be by virtue of the care they’re delivering, how many readmissions are they avoiding, how many core measures/outcomes are they hitting, how much better is the patient experience, and how much smoother is the handoff.”

The push to improve quality and show better outcomes, of course, is intrinsically tied to payment reform. Bundled payments that reimburse a set fee for a case from pre-admission to a preset post-discharge deadline worry some hospitalists, who fear how the payments will be divvied up and who will be in charge of said payment decisions. Dr. Kocher says that even when the initial rules are set, the system is likely to evolve.

However, the hospitalist’s role as a driver of QI positions the field well, all three speakers noted. By quarterbacking patient handoffs and continuing to be seen by hospital executives as quality and safety leaders, HM groups can make the argument that they are worth the financial support they ask for in negotiations. Dr. Wachter adds that while quality research has become a staple of academics and residents, hospitalists should look to now tie value to the equation, effectively linking better patient outcomes to HM’s bottom line.

“There’s no question that physicians that can care for patients more efficiently, in a higher-quality way, in hospitals at lower costs, are going to do better no matter how the system evolves,” Dr. Kocher says. “I’m positive, as long as hospitalists are confident—and I think they should be—that they can deliver, more consistently, better care than those who aren’t hospitalists practicing in hospitals … and they’re going to do better economically.”

click for large version

click for large version

There may be ways to serve up the discharged medication list in a patient-friendly way using some IT or an image library of medications. ... I do not foresee a medication reconciliation IT application, unfortunately.—Jeffrey Schnipper, MD, MPH, FHM, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston

Boston hospitalist Jeffrey Schnipper, MD, MPH, FHM, is no stranger to quality initiatives aimed at medication reconciliation (MR). His research at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital revealed a potential reduction of serious medical errors per patient to 0.3 from 1.4 in the past four years.

“I think those are achievable results,” he says. “This is all about doing those things better than we were always doing before.”

Now Dr. Schnipper will work to bring similar results to hospitals across America as principal investigator for SHM’s three-year, multicenter, MR quality-improvement study. The study, funded by a $1.5 million grant from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), will develop a database to research the best practices in MR and provide a mentored implementation model for other hospitals to use.

The project also will include a package of materials and tools adaptable for any hospital, as well as an implementation guide with the mentored implementation model. “It really should be everything a site needs to improve its MR process,” says Dr. Schnipper, director of clinical research at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital Hospitalist Service and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School.

According to The Institute for Safe Medication Practices, MR is the process of comparing a patient’s medication orders with their previously prescribed medication regimen and communicating any necessary changes to patients and their next providers of care. More than 1.3 million medication errors occur annually in the U.S.; MR has been shown to eliminate as many as half of those errors and 20% of adverse medical events.

JoAnne Resnic, MBA, BSN, RN, senior project manager at SHM, says SHM will use the grant to fund research investigators, SHM’s project staff, and the development of a database for each of the study’s six sites to house their data collection and provide site-specific progress reports throughout the course of the study. SHM is working with consultants and physician co-investigators, a steering committee of nationally recognized thought leaders in medication reconciliation, a research pharmacist, and others to “help us take a pretty deep dive into the process and, hopefully, explain why some interventions work in some places and why they may not in others,” Resnic says.

According to Dr. Schnipper, SHM will conduct an interrupted time series at the sites, collecting baseline data for six months at each, then for 21 months after interventions begin. The study specifically will address 13 facets of medication reconciliation, scoring the facets based on their effectiveness (see Table 1, p. 6).

Each facet will be re-evaluated when different parts of the intervention are turned on, which should reveal “the most active ingredients that correspond to improved outcomes,” he says.

Dr. Schnipper emphasizes that there are two integral facets for improving MR: patient education and access to preadmission medication sources. Technology could be an answer to advancing these components, but it is not the sole link. “There may be ways to serve up the discharged medication list in a patient-friendly way using some IT or an image library of medications to help patients,” he says. “I do not foresee a medication reconciliation IT application, unfortunately.”

AHRQ selected SHM for the grant after a “peer review process [that] evaluates the merit of the applications against very rigorous criteria,” an AHRQ representative says. SHM was chosen “based upon its leadership and previous experience in medication reconciliation.” TH

Kevin Stevens is a staff writer based in New Jersey.

click for large version

click for large version

There may be ways to serve up the discharged medication list in a patient-friendly way using some IT or an image library of medications. ... I do not foresee a medication reconciliation IT application, unfortunately.—Jeffrey Schnipper, MD, MPH, FHM, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston

Boston hospitalist Jeffrey Schnipper, MD, MPH, FHM, is no stranger to quality initiatives aimed at medication reconciliation (MR). His research at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital revealed a potential reduction of serious medical errors per patient to 0.3 from 1.4 in the past four years.

“I think those are achievable results,” he says. “This is all about doing those things better than we were always doing before.”

Now Dr. Schnipper will work to bring similar results to hospitals across America as principal investigator for SHM’s three-year, multicenter, MR quality-improvement study. The study, funded by a $1.5 million grant from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), will develop a database to research the best practices in MR and provide a mentored implementation model for other hospitals to use.

The project also will include a package of materials and tools adaptable for any hospital, as well as an implementation guide with the mentored implementation model. “It really should be everything a site needs to improve its MR process,” says Dr. Schnipper, director of clinical research at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital Hospitalist Service and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School.

According to The Institute for Safe Medication Practices, MR is the process of comparing a patient’s medication orders with their previously prescribed medication regimen and communicating any necessary changes to patients and their next providers of care. More than 1.3 million medication errors occur annually in the U.S.; MR has been shown to eliminate as many as half of those errors and 20% of adverse medical events.

JoAnne Resnic, MBA, BSN, RN, senior project manager at SHM, says SHM will use the grant to fund research investigators, SHM’s project staff, and the development of a database for each of the study’s six sites to house their data collection and provide site-specific progress reports throughout the course of the study. SHM is working with consultants and physician co-investigators, a steering committee of nationally recognized thought leaders in medication reconciliation, a research pharmacist, and others to “help us take a pretty deep dive into the process and, hopefully, explain why some interventions work in some places and why they may not in others,” Resnic says.

According to Dr. Schnipper, SHM will conduct an interrupted time series at the sites, collecting baseline data for six months at each, then for 21 months after interventions begin. The study specifically will address 13 facets of medication reconciliation, scoring the facets based on their effectiveness (see Table 1, p. 6).

Each facet will be re-evaluated when different parts of the intervention are turned on, which should reveal “the most active ingredients that correspond to improved outcomes,” he says.

Dr. Schnipper emphasizes that there are two integral facets for improving MR: patient education and access to preadmission medication sources. Technology could be an answer to advancing these components, but it is not the sole link. “There may be ways to serve up the discharged medication list in a patient-friendly way using some IT or an image library of medications to help patients,” he says. “I do not foresee a medication reconciliation IT application, unfortunately.”

AHRQ selected SHM for the grant after a “peer review process [that] evaluates the merit of the applications against very rigorous criteria,” an AHRQ representative says. SHM was chosen “based upon its leadership and previous experience in medication reconciliation.” TH

Kevin Stevens is a staff writer based in New Jersey.

click for large version

click for large version

There may be ways to serve up the discharged medication list in a patient-friendly way using some IT or an image library of medications. ... I do not foresee a medication reconciliation IT application, unfortunately.—Jeffrey Schnipper, MD, MPH, FHM, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston

Boston hospitalist Jeffrey Schnipper, MD, MPH, FHM, is no stranger to quality initiatives aimed at medication reconciliation (MR). His research at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital revealed a potential reduction of serious medical errors per patient to 0.3 from 1.4 in the past four years.

“I think those are achievable results,” he says. “This is all about doing those things better than we were always doing before.”

Now Dr. Schnipper will work to bring similar results to hospitals across America as principal investigator for SHM’s three-year, multicenter, MR quality-improvement study. The study, funded by a $1.5 million grant from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), will develop a database to research the best practices in MR and provide a mentored implementation model for other hospitals to use.

The project also will include a package of materials and tools adaptable for any hospital, as well as an implementation guide with the mentored implementation model. “It really should be everything a site needs to improve its MR process,” says Dr. Schnipper, director of clinical research at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital Hospitalist Service and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School.

According to The Institute for Safe Medication Practices, MR is the process of comparing a patient’s medication orders with their previously prescribed medication regimen and communicating any necessary changes to patients and their next providers of care. More than 1.3 million medication errors occur annually in the U.S.; MR has been shown to eliminate as many as half of those errors and 20% of adverse medical events.

JoAnne Resnic, MBA, BSN, RN, senior project manager at SHM, says SHM will use the grant to fund research investigators, SHM’s project staff, and the development of a database for each of the study’s six sites to house their data collection and provide site-specific progress reports throughout the course of the study. SHM is working with consultants and physician co-investigators, a steering committee of nationally recognized thought leaders in medication reconciliation, a research pharmacist, and others to “help us take a pretty deep dive into the process and, hopefully, explain why some interventions work in some places and why they may not in others,” Resnic says.

According to Dr. Schnipper, SHM will conduct an interrupted time series at the sites, collecting baseline data for six months at each, then for 21 months after interventions begin. The study specifically will address 13 facets of medication reconciliation, scoring the facets based on their effectiveness (see Table 1, p. 6).

Each facet will be re-evaluated when different parts of the intervention are turned on, which should reveal “the most active ingredients that correspond to improved outcomes,” he says.

Dr. Schnipper emphasizes that there are two integral facets for improving MR: patient education and access to preadmission medication sources. Technology could be an answer to advancing these components, but it is not the sole link. “There may be ways to serve up the discharged medication list in a patient-friendly way using some IT or an image library of medications to help patients,” he says. “I do not foresee a medication reconciliation IT application, unfortunately.”

AHRQ selected SHM for the grant after a “peer review process [that] evaluates the merit of the applications against very rigorous criteria,” an AHRQ representative says. SHM was chosen “based upon its leadership and previous experience in medication reconciliation.” TH

Kevin Stevens is a staff writer based in New Jersey.

Dr. Watcher

When Robert Wachter, MD, MHM, delivers his keynote address to unofficially close HM11, he’ll toast the field he helped define. His remarks will coincide with the 15th anniversary of the article he and Lee Goldman, MD, coauthored in The New England Journal of Medicine that coined the term “hospitalist” and fostered an understanding that the HM movement was a true phenomenon.

The milestone presents the perfect opportunity to examine the specialty’s meteoric growth and celebrate the successes of its pioneers, says Dr. Wachter, a professor, chief of the Division of Hospital Medicine, and chief of the medical service at the University of California at San Francisco Medical Center. He also considers it an ideal time to examine the unforeseen developments of the past decade and a half, believing a critical analysis of a few key case studies can help lay the groundwork for an even brighter future.

“At 15, you’re in mid- to late adolescence,” Dr. Wachter says. “We can no longer say we’re this new kid on the block and, ‘Gee, whiz, isn’t this neat?’

“This is a good chance to reflect on things that went as we expected,” he adds. “It’s an even better chance to take a second look at things that were surprising but provide valuable lessons as we think about what the next 15 years are going to be like.”

Question: Fifteen years ago, did you envision HM would grow so quickly?

Answer: I had a sense this was a trend that was starting to emerge and could fill an important niche. At the same time, when Sergey (Brin) and Larry (Page) founded Google, I doubt they believed it would become a $200 billion company. In the beginning, I couldn’t have predicted what this would become.

Q: What surprised you most in the past 15 years?

A: I didn’t fully appreciate how quickly the push toward value would become a dominant theme. Once we discovered quality was important and there was a set of skills we needed to learn to improve it, we tackled it aggressively. It has been harder to tackle the cost part of the equation.

This goes beyond making sure patients don’t stay in the hospital longer than they need to. It means looking hard at the cost of care and the way we spend money, such as our patterns of ordering X-rays, consultants, and lab tests. I’m going to focus a fair amount on that.

Q: Why do you want to emphasize that point?

A: The cost of healthcare is going to bankrupt the country unless we get a handle on it. Our field needs to lead the way to show how a good, ethical physician not only focuses on improving quality of care, but also focuses on ridding the system of waste and of care that adds no real value to our patients. We’ve been a little sluggish in that area.

Q: What other surprises do you intend to discuss?

A: I didn’t anticipate the emergence of two different versions of the hospitalist field. One is the role of comanagement. The other is what I call the hyphenated hospitalist—these OB hospitalists and surgery hospitalists. This concept we came up with for general patients has been embraced by a variety of specialties. How do those people fit into our society and our field? Are they really part of us or are they fundamentally different? I think we need to think carefully about it.

Q: Why are the unexpected developments so important to consider?

A: Leaders in the field need to get really good at reading tea leaves. One of the ways you do that is to figure out, when you didn’t read them correctly the first time, why didn’t you? Could you have read them better if you were more clever or more thoughtful?

Q: What is the biggest challenge facing HM?

A: When we have been given new tasks and new opportunities, our members have stepped up to the plate and done what they’ve been asked to do as well, if not better, than expected. I’m a little fearful of the flip side. How we will meet the demand for our services? How do we ensure the job stays attractive and we don’t burn out? We have to demonstrate our value, but we have to make sure the jobs are truly sustainable and that we don’t shoot ourselves in the foot.

Q:What do you see as the solution?

A: I don’t think we’ll be able to meet all of the demand. There will be hospitals that can only partly staff the needs they have with hospitalists. I don’t want them to go too far down the quality curve. We need to be sure people entering the field are good and have the skills they need.

I think we’ll begin to ask important questions like, “Do I really need a hospitalist for this, or can I leverage fewer hospitalists with other nonphysician providers?” Or, “Can some of the work our hospitalists are doing be done as well and more cheaply by computers?” It opens a pathway to think more creatively about people and tasks and technologies.

Q: Despite the challenges associated with growth pressure, is HM better positioned for the future because of it?

A: Definitely. We will see a further extension of our reach into other areas of the hospital and healthcare system. We will continue to see our people begin as leaders in our world of hospital medicine but rapidly graduate to become hospital CEOs, chairs of departments of medicine, and major leaders in healthcare. There is a recognition that there’s no better training ground to be a leader in healthcare than to be a leader in our field. So I can’t help but be optimistic that our place in the world of healthcare is extraordinarily secure. HM11

Mark Leiser is a freelance writer based in New Jersey.

Dr. Watcher

When Robert Wachter, MD, MHM, delivers his keynote address to unofficially close HM11, he’ll toast the field he helped define. His remarks will coincide with the 15th anniversary of the article he and Lee Goldman, MD, coauthored in The New England Journal of Medicine that coined the term “hospitalist” and fostered an understanding that the HM movement was a true phenomenon.

The milestone presents the perfect opportunity to examine the specialty’s meteoric growth and celebrate the successes of its pioneers, says Dr. Wachter, a professor, chief of the Division of Hospital Medicine, and chief of the medical service at the University of California at San Francisco Medical Center. He also considers it an ideal time to examine the unforeseen developments of the past decade and a half, believing a critical analysis of a few key case studies can help lay the groundwork for an even brighter future.

“At 15, you’re in mid- to late adolescence,” Dr. Wachter says. “We can no longer say we’re this new kid on the block and, ‘Gee, whiz, isn’t this neat?’

“This is a good chance to reflect on things that went as we expected,” he adds. “It’s an even better chance to take a second look at things that were surprising but provide valuable lessons as we think about what the next 15 years are going to be like.”

Question: Fifteen years ago, did you envision HM would grow so quickly?

Answer: I had a sense this was a trend that was starting to emerge and could fill an important niche. At the same time, when Sergey (Brin) and Larry (Page) founded Google, I doubt they believed it would become a $200 billion company. In the beginning, I couldn’t have predicted what this would become.

Q: What surprised you most in the past 15 years?

A: I didn’t fully appreciate how quickly the push toward value would become a dominant theme. Once we discovered quality was important and there was a set of skills we needed to learn to improve it, we tackled it aggressively. It has been harder to tackle the cost part of the equation.

This goes beyond making sure patients don’t stay in the hospital longer than they need to. It means looking hard at the cost of care and the way we spend money, such as our patterns of ordering X-rays, consultants, and lab tests. I’m going to focus a fair amount on that.

Q: Why do you want to emphasize that point?

A: The cost of healthcare is going to bankrupt the country unless we get a handle on it. Our field needs to lead the way to show how a good, ethical physician not only focuses on improving quality of care, but also focuses on ridding the system of waste and of care that adds no real value to our patients. We’ve been a little sluggish in that area.

Q: What other surprises do you intend to discuss?

A: I didn’t anticipate the emergence of two different versions of the hospitalist field. One is the role of comanagement. The other is what I call the hyphenated hospitalist—these OB hospitalists and surgery hospitalists. This concept we came up with for general patients has been embraced by a variety of specialties. How do those people fit into our society and our field? Are they really part of us or are they fundamentally different? I think we need to think carefully about it.

Q: Why are the unexpected developments so important to consider?

A: Leaders in the field need to get really good at reading tea leaves. One of the ways you do that is to figure out, when you didn’t read them correctly the first time, why didn’t you? Could you have read them better if you were more clever or more thoughtful?

Q: What is the biggest challenge facing HM?

A: When we have been given new tasks and new opportunities, our members have stepped up to the plate and done what they’ve been asked to do as well, if not better, than expected. I’m a little fearful of the flip side. How we will meet the demand for our services? How do we ensure the job stays attractive and we don’t burn out? We have to demonstrate our value, but we have to make sure the jobs are truly sustainable and that we don’t shoot ourselves in the foot.

Q:What do you see as the solution?

A: I don’t think we’ll be able to meet all of the demand. There will be hospitals that can only partly staff the needs they have with hospitalists. I don’t want them to go too far down the quality curve. We need to be sure people entering the field are good and have the skills they need.

I think we’ll begin to ask important questions like, “Do I really need a hospitalist for this, or can I leverage fewer hospitalists with other nonphysician providers?” Or, “Can some of the work our hospitalists are doing be done as well and more cheaply by computers?” It opens a pathway to think more creatively about people and tasks and technologies.

Q: Despite the challenges associated with growth pressure, is HM better positioned for the future because of it?

A: Definitely. We will see a further extension of our reach into other areas of the hospital and healthcare system. We will continue to see our people begin as leaders in our world of hospital medicine but rapidly graduate to become hospital CEOs, chairs of departments of medicine, and major leaders in healthcare. There is a recognition that there’s no better training ground to be a leader in healthcare than to be a leader in our field. So I can’t help but be optimistic that our place in the world of healthcare is extraordinarily secure. HM11

Mark Leiser is a freelance writer based in New Jersey.

Dr. Watcher

When Robert Wachter, MD, MHM, delivers his keynote address to unofficially close HM11, he’ll toast the field he helped define. His remarks will coincide with the 15th anniversary of the article he and Lee Goldman, MD, coauthored in The New England Journal of Medicine that coined the term “hospitalist” and fostered an understanding that the HM movement was a true phenomenon.

The milestone presents the perfect opportunity to examine the specialty’s meteoric growth and celebrate the successes of its pioneers, says Dr. Wachter, a professor, chief of the Division of Hospital Medicine, and chief of the medical service at the University of California at San Francisco Medical Center. He also considers it an ideal time to examine the unforeseen developments of the past decade and a half, believing a critical analysis of a few key case studies can help lay the groundwork for an even brighter future.

“At 15, you’re in mid- to late adolescence,” Dr. Wachter says. “We can no longer say we’re this new kid on the block and, ‘Gee, whiz, isn’t this neat?’

“This is a good chance to reflect on things that went as we expected,” he adds. “It’s an even better chance to take a second look at things that were surprising but provide valuable lessons as we think about what the next 15 years are going to be like.”

Question: Fifteen years ago, did you envision HM would grow so quickly?

Answer: I had a sense this was a trend that was starting to emerge and could fill an important niche. At the same time, when Sergey (Brin) and Larry (Page) founded Google, I doubt they believed it would become a $200 billion company. In the beginning, I couldn’t have predicted what this would become.

Q: What surprised you most in the past 15 years?

A: I didn’t fully appreciate how quickly the push toward value would become a dominant theme. Once we discovered quality was important and there was a set of skills we needed to learn to improve it, we tackled it aggressively. It has been harder to tackle the cost part of the equation.

This goes beyond making sure patients don’t stay in the hospital longer than they need to. It means looking hard at the cost of care and the way we spend money, such as our patterns of ordering X-rays, consultants, and lab tests. I’m going to focus a fair amount on that.

Q: Why do you want to emphasize that point?

A: The cost of healthcare is going to bankrupt the country unless we get a handle on it. Our field needs to lead the way to show how a good, ethical physician not only focuses on improving quality of care, but also focuses on ridding the system of waste and of care that adds no real value to our patients. We’ve been a little sluggish in that area.

Q: What other surprises do you intend to discuss?

A: I didn’t anticipate the emergence of two different versions of the hospitalist field. One is the role of comanagement. The other is what I call the hyphenated hospitalist—these OB hospitalists and surgery hospitalists. This concept we came up with for general patients has been embraced by a variety of specialties. How do those people fit into our society and our field? Are they really part of us or are they fundamentally different? I think we need to think carefully about it.

Q: Why are the unexpected developments so important to consider?

A: Leaders in the field need to get really good at reading tea leaves. One of the ways you do that is to figure out, when you didn’t read them correctly the first time, why didn’t you? Could you have read them better if you were more clever or more thoughtful?

Q: What is the biggest challenge facing HM?

A: When we have been given new tasks and new opportunities, our members have stepped up to the plate and done what they’ve been asked to do as well, if not better, than expected. I’m a little fearful of the flip side. How we will meet the demand for our services? How do we ensure the job stays attractive and we don’t burn out? We have to demonstrate our value, but we have to make sure the jobs are truly sustainable and that we don’t shoot ourselves in the foot.

Q:What do you see as the solution?

A: I don’t think we’ll be able to meet all of the demand. There will be hospitals that can only partly staff the needs they have with hospitalists. I don’t want them to go too far down the quality curve. We need to be sure people entering the field are good and have the skills they need.

I think we’ll begin to ask important questions like, “Do I really need a hospitalist for this, or can I leverage fewer hospitalists with other nonphysician providers?” Or, “Can some of the work our hospitalists are doing be done as well and more cheaply by computers?” It opens a pathway to think more creatively about people and tasks and technologies.

Q: Despite the challenges associated with growth pressure, is HM better positioned for the future because of it?

A: Definitely. We will see a further extension of our reach into other areas of the hospital and healthcare system. We will continue to see our people begin as leaders in our world of hospital medicine but rapidly graduate to become hospital CEOs, chairs of departments of medicine, and major leaders in healthcare. There is a recognition that there’s no better training ground to be a leader in healthcare than to be a leader in our field. So I can’t help but be optimistic that our place in the world of healthcare is extraordinarily secure. HM11

Mark Leiser is a freelance writer based in New Jersey.

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) recently released the annual National Healthcare Quality & Disparities Reports. The reports provide in-depth quality information on the overall population and divide this information along such subgroups as race, ethnicity, and education level. The report is more than 200 pages long, but it can be summarized in one sentence: If you are poor, the quality of your healthcare is likely to be poor.

Despite significant quality improvement (QI) in a number of areas, disparities among poor Americans persist. For example, the percentage of heart-attack patients who underwent procedures to unblock heart arteries within 90 minutes improved to 81% in 2008 from 42% in 2005. This is very positive news, but unfortunately, these and many other gains in quality only apply to higher-income populations.

A new section of the report focused on care coordination and transitions of care contains some statistics of particular interest to hospitalists. One statistic shows that the percentage of hospitalized adult patients with heart failure who were given complete written discharge instructions improved to 82.0% in 2008, up from 57.5% in 2005.

It is important to note that this number remains more or less constant across all racial/ethnic divisions. Could part of this improvement be attributed to the growth and success of the hospitalist movement?

Hospitalists know that despite the numbers, a successful transition does not simply include discharge instructions; it is the combination of those instructions, along with coordination with primary care, that prevents avoidable readmissions.

Unfortunately, 15% to 20% of low-income patients have no regular primary-care physician (PCP). If a condition begins to deteriorate, this group often has little choice but to return to the hospital.

In the absence of a PCP, it is the hospitalist who can provide patients with the tools they need to stay healthy after leaving the hospital.

Such assistance can range from ensuring that patients truly understand their discharge instructions to being a resource for future questions. Hospitalists are ahead of the game when it comes to quality and reducing disparities; it is just a matter of the other facets of healthcare catching up.

The National Healthcare Quality & Disparities reports are available at www.ahrq.gov/qual/qrdr10.htm. TH

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) recently released the annual National Healthcare Quality & Disparities Reports. The reports provide in-depth quality information on the overall population and divide this information along such subgroups as race, ethnicity, and education level. The report is more than 200 pages long, but it can be summarized in one sentence: If you are poor, the quality of your healthcare is likely to be poor.

Despite significant quality improvement (QI) in a number of areas, disparities among poor Americans persist. For example, the percentage of heart-attack patients who underwent procedures to unblock heart arteries within 90 minutes improved to 81% in 2008 from 42% in 2005. This is very positive news, but unfortunately, these and many other gains in quality only apply to higher-income populations.

A new section of the report focused on care coordination and transitions of care contains some statistics of particular interest to hospitalists. One statistic shows that the percentage of hospitalized adult patients with heart failure who were given complete written discharge instructions improved to 82.0% in 2008, up from 57.5% in 2005.

It is important to note that this number remains more or less constant across all racial/ethnic divisions. Could part of this improvement be attributed to the growth and success of the hospitalist movement?

Hospitalists know that despite the numbers, a successful transition does not simply include discharge instructions; it is the combination of those instructions, along with coordination with primary care, that prevents avoidable readmissions.

Unfortunately, 15% to 20% of low-income patients have no regular primary-care physician (PCP). If a condition begins to deteriorate, this group often has little choice but to return to the hospital.

In the absence of a PCP, it is the hospitalist who can provide patients with the tools they need to stay healthy after leaving the hospital.

Such assistance can range from ensuring that patients truly understand their discharge instructions to being a resource for future questions. Hospitalists are ahead of the game when it comes to quality and reducing disparities; it is just a matter of the other facets of healthcare catching up.

The National Healthcare Quality & Disparities reports are available at www.ahrq.gov/qual/qrdr10.htm. TH

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) recently released the annual National Healthcare Quality & Disparities Reports. The reports provide in-depth quality information on the overall population and divide this information along such subgroups as race, ethnicity, and education level. The report is more than 200 pages long, but it can be summarized in one sentence: If you are poor, the quality of your healthcare is likely to be poor.

Despite significant quality improvement (QI) in a number of areas, disparities among poor Americans persist. For example, the percentage of heart-attack patients who underwent procedures to unblock heart arteries within 90 minutes improved to 81% in 2008 from 42% in 2005. This is very positive news, but unfortunately, these and many other gains in quality only apply to higher-income populations.

A new section of the report focused on care coordination and transitions of care contains some statistics of particular interest to hospitalists. One statistic shows that the percentage of hospitalized adult patients with heart failure who were given complete written discharge instructions improved to 82.0% in 2008, up from 57.5% in 2005.

It is important to note that this number remains more or less constant across all racial/ethnic divisions. Could part of this improvement be attributed to the growth and success of the hospitalist movement?

Hospitalists know that despite the numbers, a successful transition does not simply include discharge instructions; it is the combination of those instructions, along with coordination with primary care, that prevents avoidable readmissions.

Unfortunately, 15% to 20% of low-income patients have no regular primary-care physician (PCP). If a condition begins to deteriorate, this group often has little choice but to return to the hospital.

In the absence of a PCP, it is the hospitalist who can provide patients with the tools they need to stay healthy after leaving the hospital.

Such assistance can range from ensuring that patients truly understand their discharge instructions to being a resource for future questions. Hospitalists are ahead of the game when it comes to quality and reducing disparities; it is just a matter of the other facets of healthcare catching up.

The National Healthcare Quality & Disparities reports are available at www.ahrq.gov/qual/qrdr10.htm. TH

On Feb. 16, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) listed SHM as a patient safety organization (PSO). A PSO serves as an independent, external, expert organization that can collect, analyze, and aggregate information in order to develop insights into the underlying causes of patient-safety events. PSOs are designed to help clinicians, hospitals, and healthcare organizations improve patient safety and the quality of healthcare delivery.

PSO status allows SHM’s current quality-improvement (QI) activities to be conducted in a secure environment that is protected from legal discovery. AHRQ currently lists 78 PSOs, including the Society for Vascular Surgery PSO, the Emergency Medicine Patient Safety Foundation, and the Biomedical Research and Education Foundation. A full list is available at www.pso.ahrq.gov/listing/psolist.htm.

To achieve PSO status, SHM worked closely with AHRQ to meet specific guidelines and requirements. One of the requirements is that the mission and primary activity of a PSO must be to conduct activities that are designed to improve patient safety and the quality of healthcare delivery.

To comply, SHM formed a separate component within the Quality Initiatives Department strictly to pursue patient safety and quality activities.

The SHM PSO will be unique. While PSOs are required to collect patient-safety data and provide some form of feedback to contracted sites, few have their own QI initiatives, and even fewer are established by a national physician’s professional society.

These differences will help the SHM PSO stand out from the crowd and will present opportunities within the healthcare reform framework. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires significant QI among the nation’s hospitals.

Specifically pertaining to PSOs, Section 399KK, a rarely mentioned section of the ACA, requires the Health and Human Services to establish a program for hospitals with high readmission rates to improve their rates through the use of PSOs. The details of this program remain unclear, but based upon the little bit of information currently available, there could be positive overlap between SHM’s Project BOOST (Better Outcomes for Older Adults through Safe Transitions) and the provision.

AHRQ’s recognition of the SHM PSO exemplifies SHM’s commitment to improving the quality of healthcare delivery. It also provides additional value to sites that implement SHM’s QI initiatives and will hopefully open new doors to SHM’s members. TH

On Feb. 16, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) listed SHM as a patient safety organization (PSO). A PSO serves as an independent, external, expert organization that can collect, analyze, and aggregate information in order to develop insights into the underlying causes of patient-safety events. PSOs are designed to help clinicians, hospitals, and healthcare organizations improve patient safety and the quality of healthcare delivery.

PSO status allows SHM’s current quality-improvement (QI) activities to be conducted in a secure environment that is protected from legal discovery. AHRQ currently lists 78 PSOs, including the Society for Vascular Surgery PSO, the Emergency Medicine Patient Safety Foundation, and the Biomedical Research and Education Foundation. A full list is available at www.pso.ahrq.gov/listing/psolist.htm.

To achieve PSO status, SHM worked closely with AHRQ to meet specific guidelines and requirements. One of the requirements is that the mission and primary activity of a PSO must be to conduct activities that are designed to improve patient safety and the quality of healthcare delivery.

To comply, SHM formed a separate component within the Quality Initiatives Department strictly to pursue patient safety and quality activities.

The SHM PSO will be unique. While PSOs are required to collect patient-safety data and provide some form of feedback to contracted sites, few have their own QI initiatives, and even fewer are established by a national physician’s professional society.

These differences will help the SHM PSO stand out from the crowd and will present opportunities within the healthcare reform framework. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires significant QI among the nation’s hospitals.

Specifically pertaining to PSOs, Section 399KK, a rarely mentioned section of the ACA, requires the Health and Human Services to establish a program for hospitals with high readmission rates to improve their rates through the use of PSOs. The details of this program remain unclear, but based upon the little bit of information currently available, there could be positive overlap between SHM’s Project BOOST (Better Outcomes for Older Adults through Safe Transitions) and the provision.

AHRQ’s recognition of the SHM PSO exemplifies SHM’s commitment to improving the quality of healthcare delivery. It also provides additional value to sites that implement SHM’s QI initiatives and will hopefully open new doors to SHM’s members. TH

On Feb. 16, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) listed SHM as a patient safety organization (PSO). A PSO serves as an independent, external, expert organization that can collect, analyze, and aggregate information in order to develop insights into the underlying causes of patient-safety events. PSOs are designed to help clinicians, hospitals, and healthcare organizations improve patient safety and the quality of healthcare delivery.

PSO status allows SHM’s current quality-improvement (QI) activities to be conducted in a secure environment that is protected from legal discovery. AHRQ currently lists 78 PSOs, including the Society for Vascular Surgery PSO, the Emergency Medicine Patient Safety Foundation, and the Biomedical Research and Education Foundation. A full list is available at www.pso.ahrq.gov/listing/psolist.htm.

To achieve PSO status, SHM worked closely with AHRQ to meet specific guidelines and requirements. One of the requirements is that the mission and primary activity of a PSO must be to conduct activities that are designed to improve patient safety and the quality of healthcare delivery.

To comply, SHM formed a separate component within the Quality Initiatives Department strictly to pursue patient safety and quality activities.

The SHM PSO will be unique. While PSOs are required to collect patient-safety data and provide some form of feedback to contracted sites, few have their own QI initiatives, and even fewer are established by a national physician’s professional society.

These differences will help the SHM PSO stand out from the crowd and will present opportunities within the healthcare reform framework. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires significant QI among the nation’s hospitals.

Specifically pertaining to PSOs, Section 399KK, a rarely mentioned section of the ACA, requires the Health and Human Services to establish a program for hospitals with high readmission rates to improve their rates through the use of PSOs. The details of this program remain unclear, but based upon the little bit of information currently available, there could be positive overlap between SHM’s Project BOOST (Better Outcomes for Older Adults through Safe Transitions) and the provision.

AHRQ’s recognition of the SHM PSO exemplifies SHM’s commitment to improving the quality of healthcare delivery. It also provides additional value to sites that implement SHM’s QI initiatives and will hopefully open new doors to SHM’s members. TH

I recently visited my parents in my ancestral home of Wisconsin. As parents of a certain age, they inexplicably are genetically predisposed to owning a minivan. Another quirk of their DNA is that they must own a new minivan. No sooner has the last wisp of new-car smell osmosed from the burled walnut interior than they are trading up to the newest, tricked-out minivan. Perhaps more puzzling is the manner of pride they display in their minivan.

Now, my dad, as if not readily apparent, is not cool. And to see him folded into the driver’s seat, his furry-ear-to-furry-ear grin signaling a self-satisfaction customarily reserved for his grandchildren, painstakingly recounting glory-day stories and 4:30 p.m. dinner buffets, further solidifies his place in the Annals of Uncool.

When I’m home, they tend to employ my chauffeur services (most likely in retribution for my peri-pubescent years), and on the first day back home, I stopped their newest ride near the back door of the house, foot idling on the brake while this exchange occurred: “That’s a fascinating story about how much more challenging the world was when you were my age, Dad. You are a true American hero. Would you like to get out here or in the garage?”

“Here,” he replied.

“OK, then get out,” I countered.

“I can’t,” he responded knowingly.

“Why not?” I queried, the patience seeping from my voice.

“Because the door’s not open,” he answered, seemingly mocking me.

“Then open it,” I replied, silently recounting the evidence for his institutionalization.

“I can’t,” he responded.

“Why not?” I replied again, this time calculating the likelihood that I was adopted.

“Because it’s locked,” came his retort.

“Then unlock it,” I answered, reconfirming my decision to move away for college.

“I can’t,” he replied, ostensibly encouraging parenticide.

“Why not?” I queried, strongly contemplating parenticide.

“Because you haven’t put the car in park,” he responded triumphantly.

A System So Safe

As a safety feature, the minivan needed to be in park before you could open the door to exit. I’ve never heard of anyone actually falling out of a moving car, but recollecting high school, I can fathom the right mix, type, and number of teenagers where possibility would meet inevitability. But, apparently, enough people are falling out of moving vehicles that car engineers have built a system that is so safe, this can’t happen. So no matter how hard someone tries, it just isn’t possible to fall out of a moving car (believe me, toward the end of a week of my father’s car stories, my mind had worked every possible angle).

Likewise, newer vehicles employ occupant-sensitive sensors that detect the weight, size, and position of the passenger to determine if the airbag should deploy. Rather than depending on the driver to turn the passenger-side airbag on or off, the car does it for you: heavy enough to trigger the sensor, and the airbag will deploy; too light, and the car assumes you are a child and doesn’t deploy. It’s a system that is so safe because it doesn’t depend on the operator to get it right.

Ditto motion sensors that detect objects behind the car while reversing (avoiding accidental back-overs), antilock brakes (to maintain control during panicked braking), traction control (improves stability during acceleration), electronic stability control (foils spinouts), tire-pressure-monitoring systems (avoids blowouts), daytime running lights (ensures others see you), rollover airbags (they stay inflated to keep you in the car), lane-departure warning (alerts you if you stray from your lane), and doors that automatically lock after the car starts (again, falling out of cars).

For all the negative press of late, car manufacturers understand safety.

A System Not So Safe

Contrast this to healthcare, in which 10% of patients will suffer a serious, preventable, adverse event during their hospital stay.¹ Read that sentence again. That’s 10%; that’s preventable; that’s a number that has largely remained unchanged in the past decade. If 1 in 10 drivers suffered a serious adverse preventable auto accident, Congress would do nothing but hold automotive safety hearings.

In medicine, we still largely employ unsafe systems in which even the best doctors can, and do, hurt patients. Sure, we have made strides in this arena (oxygen tubing that only works if hooked up properly, smart pumps that avert IV dosing errors, CO₂ monitors to detect proper endotracheal tube placement), but remarkably, in this era of patient safety, we still utilize systems that largely depend on the heroism of the individual.

As physicians, we are famously autonomous and value our professional independence, even to the degree that it might harm patients. We generally eschew standardization, believing that each patient is inherently different. In fact, the thrill of the improvisational theater that follows every patient’s chief compliant is one of the great satisfiers in medicine. We love that feeling that comes from sleuthing each case, deftly enacting a plan of action to shepherd the patient to health.

To suggest following protocols, guidelines, and checklists is derisively dismissed as “cookbook medicine.” To work in teams in which certain tasks are delegated to others is seen as weakness—we don’t need a system that utilizes a pharmacist; rather, we should know the doses of all medicines, their interactions, and the effect of renal and liver impairment on their clearance. To suggest otherwise is an insult to our Oslerian roots. To examine our errors, our system breakdowns, our patient harms is anathema to our practice, an admission of failure.

The result is that most of us continue to toil in systems that have become exponentially unsafe as healthcare has become more complex. Today, we still have a system that will more or less allow us to kill a patient by doing nothing more than forgetting the letter “g.” I can go to my hospital today and intend to write “4 grams of magnesium sulfate (MgSO4)” and inadvertently forget the “g” in “Mg.” This could result in an order for a lethal dose of morphine sulfate (MSO4). It’s that easy to hurt a patient. Now, you might say that would never happen, because the pharmacy would catch it. And this is likely. But is it guaranteed? Can you 100% ensure it wouldn’t happen? Consider that nearly 20% of medication doses administered in a hospital are done so incorrectly.² Nearly 1 in 5. This is the type of system we are employing to stop this lethal overdose. Is this system, which depends on another human to prevent an error, foolproof, or just a snare waiting to prove you the fool?

This represents our opportunity. As hospitalists, the hospital is our tapestry, our system of care, our responsibility. Few others are as well-positioned to ensure that the systems that envelop our patients are highly functional, reliable, and safe. This will take work—work that will feel burdensome, underappreciated, undercompensated. And, fully recognizing that none of us went into medicine to become systems engineers, this will be hard.

However, if not us, who? Who will ensure that our fathers, our mothers, our children will be as safe in the hospital as they are on the drive to the hospital? TH

Dr. Glasheen is associate professor of medicine at the University of Colorado Denver, where he serves as director of the Hospital Medicine Program and the Hospitalist Training Program, and as associate program director of the Internal Medicine Residency Program.

References

1. Global health leaders join the World Health Organization to announce accelerated efforts to improve patient safety. World Health Organization website. Available at: www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2004/pr74/en/. Accessed Feb. 14, 2011.
2. Barker KN, Flynn EA, Pepper GA, Bates DW, Mikeal RL. Medication errors observed in 36 health care facilities. Arch Intern Med. 2002;162(16):1897-1903.

I recently visited my parents in my ancestral home of Wisconsin. As parents of a certain age, they inexplicably are genetically predisposed to owning a minivan. Another quirk of their DNA is that they must own a new minivan. No sooner has the last wisp of new-car smell osmosed from the burled walnut interior than they are trading up to the newest, tricked-out minivan. Perhaps more puzzling is the manner of pride they display in their minivan.

Now, my dad, as if not readily apparent, is not cool. And to see him folded into the driver’s seat, his furry-ear-to-furry-ear grin signaling a self-satisfaction customarily reserved for his grandchildren, painstakingly recounting glory-day stories and 4:30 p.m. dinner buffets, further solidifies his place in the Annals of Uncool.

When I’m home, they tend to employ my chauffeur services (most likely in retribution for my peri-pubescent years), and on the first day back home, I stopped their newest ride near the back door of the house, foot idling on the brake while this exchange occurred: “That’s a fascinating story about how much more challenging the world was when you were my age, Dad. You are a true American hero. Would you like to get out here or in the garage?”

“Here,” he replied.

“OK, then get out,” I countered.

“I can’t,” he responded knowingly.

“Why not?” I queried, the patience seeping from my voice.

“Because the door’s not open,” he answered, seemingly mocking me.

“Then open it,” I replied, silently recounting the evidence for his institutionalization.

“I can’t,” he responded.

“Why not?” I replied again, this time calculating the likelihood that I was adopted.

“Because it’s locked,” came his retort.

“Then unlock it,” I answered, reconfirming my decision to move away for college.

“I can’t,” he replied, ostensibly encouraging parenticide.

“Why not?” I queried, strongly contemplating parenticide.

“Because you haven’t put the car in park,” he responded triumphantly.

A System So Safe

As a safety feature, the minivan needed to be in park before you could open the door to exit. I’ve never heard of anyone actually falling out of a moving car, but recollecting high school, I can fathom the right mix, type, and number of teenagers where possibility would meet inevitability. But, apparently, enough people are falling out of moving vehicles that car engineers have built a system that is so safe, this can’t happen. So no matter how hard someone tries, it just isn’t possible to fall out of a moving car (believe me, toward the end of a week of my father’s car stories, my mind had worked every possible angle).

Likewise, newer vehicles employ occupant-sensitive sensors that detect the weight, size, and position of the passenger to determine if the airbag should deploy. Rather than depending on the driver to turn the passenger-side airbag on or off, the car does it for you: heavy enough to trigger the sensor, and the airbag will deploy; too light, and the car assumes you are a child and doesn’t deploy. It’s a system that is so safe because it doesn’t depend on the operator to get it right.

Ditto motion sensors that detect objects behind the car while reversing (avoiding accidental back-overs), antilock brakes (to maintain control during panicked braking), traction control (improves stability during acceleration), electronic stability control (foils spinouts), tire-pressure-monitoring systems (avoids blowouts), daytime running lights (ensures others see you), rollover airbags (they stay inflated to keep you in the car), lane-departure warning (alerts you if you stray from your lane), and doors that automatically lock after the car starts (again, falling out of cars).

For all the negative press of late, car manufacturers understand safety.

A System Not So Safe

Contrast this to healthcare, in which 10% of patients will suffer a serious, preventable, adverse event during their hospital stay.¹ Read that sentence again. That’s 10%; that’s preventable; that’s a number that has largely remained unchanged in the past decade. If 1 in 10 drivers suffered a serious adverse preventable auto accident, Congress would do nothing but hold automotive safety hearings.

In medicine, we still largely employ unsafe systems in which even the best doctors can, and do, hurt patients. Sure, we have made strides in this arena (oxygen tubing that only works if hooked up properly, smart pumps that avert IV dosing errors, CO₂ monitors to detect proper endotracheal tube placement), but remarkably, in this era of patient safety, we still utilize systems that largely depend on the heroism of the individual.

As physicians, we are famously autonomous and value our professional independence, even to the degree that it might harm patients. We generally eschew standardization, believing that each patient is inherently different. In fact, the thrill of the improvisational theater that follows every patient’s chief compliant is one of the great satisfiers in medicine. We love that feeling that comes from sleuthing each case, deftly enacting a plan of action to shepherd the patient to health.

To suggest following protocols, guidelines, and checklists is derisively dismissed as “cookbook medicine.” To work in teams in which certain tasks are delegated to others is seen as weakness—we don’t need a system that utilizes a pharmacist; rather, we should know the doses of all medicines, their interactions, and the effect of renal and liver impairment on their clearance. To suggest otherwise is an insult to our Oslerian roots. To examine our errors, our system breakdowns, our patient harms is anathema to our practice, an admission of failure.

The result is that most of us continue to toil in systems that have become exponentially unsafe as healthcare has become more complex. Today, we still have a system that will more or less allow us to kill a patient by doing nothing more than forgetting the letter “g.” I can go to my hospital today and intend to write “4 grams of magnesium sulfate (MgSO4)” and inadvertently forget the “g” in “Mg.” This could result in an order for a lethal dose of morphine sulfate (MSO4). It’s that easy to hurt a patient. Now, you might say that would never happen, because the pharmacy would catch it. And this is likely. But is it guaranteed? Can you 100% ensure it wouldn’t happen? Consider that nearly 20% of medication doses administered in a hospital are done so incorrectly.² Nearly 1 in 5. This is the type of system we are employing to stop this lethal overdose. Is this system, which depends on another human to prevent an error, foolproof, or just a snare waiting to prove you the fool?

This represents our opportunity. As hospitalists, the hospital is our tapestry, our system of care, our responsibility. Few others are as well-positioned to ensure that the systems that envelop our patients are highly functional, reliable, and safe. This will take work—work that will feel burdensome, underappreciated, undercompensated. And, fully recognizing that none of us went into medicine to become systems engineers, this will be hard.

However, if not us, who? Who will ensure that our fathers, our mothers, our children will be as safe in the hospital as they are on the drive to the hospital? TH

Dr. Glasheen is associate professor of medicine at the University of Colorado Denver, where he serves as director of the Hospital Medicine Program and the Hospitalist Training Program, and as associate program director of the Internal Medicine Residency Program.

References

1. Global health leaders join the World Health Organization to announce accelerated efforts to improve patient safety. World Health Organization website. Available at: www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2004/pr74/en/. Accessed Feb. 14, 2011.
2. Barker KN, Flynn EA, Pepper GA, Bates DW, Mikeal RL. Medication errors observed in 36 health care facilities. Arch Intern Med. 2002;162(16):1897-1903.

I recently visited my parents in my ancestral home of Wisconsin. As parents of a certain age, they inexplicably are genetically predisposed to owning a minivan. Another quirk of their DNA is that they must own a new minivan. No sooner has the last wisp of new-car smell osmosed from the burled walnut interior than they are trading up to the newest, tricked-out minivan. Perhaps more puzzling is the manner of pride they display in their minivan.

Now, my dad, as if not readily apparent, is not cool. And to see him folded into the driver’s seat, his furry-ear-to-furry-ear grin signaling a self-satisfaction customarily reserved for his grandchildren, painstakingly recounting glory-day stories and 4:30 p.m. dinner buffets, further solidifies his place in the Annals of Uncool.

When I’m home, they tend to employ my chauffeur services (most likely in retribution for my peri-pubescent years), and on the first day back home, I stopped their newest ride near the back door of the house, foot idling on the brake while this exchange occurred: “That’s a fascinating story about how much more challenging the world was when you were my age, Dad. You are a true American hero. Would you like to get out here or in the garage?”

“Here,” he replied.

“OK, then get out,” I countered.

“I can’t,” he responded knowingly.

“Why not?” I queried, the patience seeping from my voice.

“Because the door’s not open,” he answered, seemingly mocking me.

“Then open it,” I replied, silently recounting the evidence for his institutionalization.

“I can’t,” he responded.

“Why not?” I replied again, this time calculating the likelihood that I was adopted.

“Because it’s locked,” came his retort.

“Then unlock it,” I answered, reconfirming my decision to move away for college.

“I can’t,” he replied, ostensibly encouraging parenticide.

“Why not?” I queried, strongly contemplating parenticide.

“Because you haven’t put the car in park,” he responded triumphantly.

A System So Safe

As a safety feature, the minivan needed to be in park before you could open the door to exit. I’ve never heard of anyone actually falling out of a moving car, but recollecting high school, I can fathom the right mix, type, and number of teenagers where possibility would meet inevitability. But, apparently, enough people are falling out of moving vehicles that car engineers have built a system that is so safe, this can’t happen. So no matter how hard someone tries, it just isn’t possible to fall out of a moving car (believe me, toward the end of a week of my father’s car stories, my mind had worked every possible angle).

Likewise, newer vehicles employ occupant-sensitive sensors that detect the weight, size, and position of the passenger to determine if the airbag should deploy. Rather than depending on the driver to turn the passenger-side airbag on or off, the car does it for you: heavy enough to trigger the sensor, and the airbag will deploy; too light, and the car assumes you are a child and doesn’t deploy. It’s a system that is so safe because it doesn’t depend on the operator to get it right.

Ditto motion sensors that detect objects behind the car while reversing (avoiding accidental back-overs), antilock brakes (to maintain control during panicked braking), traction control (improves stability during acceleration), electronic stability control (foils spinouts), tire-pressure-monitoring systems (avoids blowouts), daytime running lights (ensures others see you), rollover airbags (they stay inflated to keep you in the car), lane-departure warning (alerts you if you stray from your lane), and doors that automatically lock after the car starts (again, falling out of cars).

For all the negative press of late, car manufacturers understand safety.

A System Not So Safe

Contrast this to healthcare, in which 10% of patients will suffer a serious, preventable, adverse event during their hospital stay.¹ Read that sentence again. That’s 10%; that’s preventable; that’s a number that has largely remained unchanged in the past decade. If 1 in 10 drivers suffered a serious adverse preventable auto accident, Congress would do nothing but hold automotive safety hearings.

In medicine, we still largely employ unsafe systems in which even the best doctors can, and do, hurt patients. Sure, we have made strides in this arena (oxygen tubing that only works if hooked up properly, smart pumps that avert IV dosing errors, CO₂ monitors to detect proper endotracheal tube placement), but remarkably, in this era of patient safety, we still utilize systems that largely depend on the heroism of the individual.

As physicians, we are famously autonomous and value our professional independence, even to the degree that it might harm patients. We generally eschew standardization, believing that each patient is inherently different. In fact, the thrill of the improvisational theater that follows every patient’s chief compliant is one of the great satisfiers in medicine. We love that feeling that comes from sleuthing each case, deftly enacting a plan of action to shepherd the patient to health.

To suggest following protocols, guidelines, and checklists is derisively dismissed as “cookbook medicine.” To work in teams in which certain tasks are delegated to others is seen as weakness—we don’t need a system that utilizes a pharmacist; rather, we should know the doses of all medicines, their interactions, and the effect of renal and liver impairment on their clearance. To suggest otherwise is an insult to our Oslerian roots. To examine our errors, our system breakdowns, our patient harms is anathema to our practice, an admission of failure.

The result is that most of us continue to toil in systems that have become exponentially unsafe as healthcare has become more complex. Today, we still have a system that will more or less allow us to kill a patient by doing nothing more than forgetting the letter “g.” I can go to my hospital today and intend to write “4 grams of magnesium sulfate (MgSO4)” and inadvertently forget the “g” in “Mg.” This could result in an order for a lethal dose of morphine sulfate (MSO4). It’s that easy to hurt a patient. Now, you might say that would never happen, because the pharmacy would catch it. And this is likely. But is it guaranteed? Can you 100% ensure it wouldn’t happen? Consider that nearly 20% of medication doses administered in a hospital are done so incorrectly.² Nearly 1 in 5. This is the type of system we are employing to stop this lethal overdose. Is this system, which depends on another human to prevent an error, foolproof, or just a snare waiting to prove you the fool?

This represents our opportunity. As hospitalists, the hospital is our tapestry, our system of care, our responsibility. Few others are as well-positioned to ensure that the systems that envelop our patients are highly functional, reliable, and safe. This will take work—work that will feel burdensome, underappreciated, undercompensated. And, fully recognizing that none of us went into medicine to become systems engineers, this will be hard.

However, if not us, who? Who will ensure that our fathers, our mothers, our children will be as safe in the hospital as they are on the drive to the hospital? TH

Dr. Glasheen is associate professor of medicine at the University of Colorado Denver, where he serves as director of the Hospital Medicine Program and the Hospitalist Training Program, and as associate program director of the Internal Medicine Residency Program.

References

1. Global health leaders join the World Health Organization to announce accelerated efforts to improve patient safety. World Health Organization website. Available at: www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2004/pr74/en/. Accessed Feb. 14, 2011.
2. Barker KN, Flynn EA, Pepper GA, Bates DW, Mikeal RL. Medication errors observed in 36 health care facilities. Arch Intern Med. 2002;162(16):1897-1903.

From the outset, HM has been about efficiency. And there was nothing wrong with that, for value is quality divided by cost. But in our story, we found that mere efficiency was not enough: The lowering of the denominator (cost) had to be met with an escalation of the numerator (quality) to ensure value.

And see us as being born in the right place at the right time. For with the national focus turning to the need for quality and patient safety, hospital medicine was in the right place and the right time to heed the call to action: appropriately stepping up to enact efforts to make the slope of the line (on a chart of quality vs. cost) “STEEEPER” … finding systems innovations to make care Safe, Timely, Efficient, Effective, Equitable, and Patient-centered.

Of course, the story continued with the Affordable Care Act and healthcare reform, greatly accelerating our evolution as change agents. And now we find ourselves fully invested in a “change the system” mentality, perfectly positioned to meaningfully change healthcare for millions of people. But threats loom—specifically, the “R” in the STEEEPER mnemonic: the risks to quality in the face of healthcare reform.

So in the next chapter of our story, I present to you our challenge: how to overcome the threats to quality in the context of healthcare reform. The first three are presented here; in subsequent articles, I will address the remainder. Overcoming all threats will hinge on mastering the four truisms of cultural change:

1. Systems drive function;
2. Every system is perfectly designed to produce the outcomes that it does;
3. This is not an issue of people needing to try harder; and
4. The “no blame” culture begins with a paradigm shift from the “person at fault” to the “system at fault.”

Threat 1: Failure to Fund Quality

SHM elected to merge its annual State of Hospital Medicine survey with the MGMA. Though not without risk, this has resulted in the anticipated benefits. The MGMA collaboration brings greater leverage in working with the C-suite, which is pre-programmed to react to MGMA surveys. From the most recent MGMA survey comes good news: The financial compensation for hospitalists has increased. A sobering insight, however, is that this increase in compensation has been met with a corresponding increase in work intensity—RVUs. Further, the link between RVUs and compensation appears to be tightening, quantifying what has long been of concern: The time devoted to the nonclinical “value added” duties of the hospitalist is shrinking.

The threat to the culture of quality is captured in the single question: How many RVUs is a quality-improvement (QI) project worth? I’m not sure we have that answer. But without an answer, it is difficult to believe that meaningful QI can be expected without time to do so. And again, as the gap between compensation and RVUs narrows, one is left wondering if there will soon be a day where there is no value-added time remaining to perform QI at all.

Fortunately, the Affordable Care Act might provide some movement in the right direction via value-based purchasing. Linking quality outcomes to financial reimbursement is a big step forward in the hospitalist’s quest to leverage the C-suite in trading RVUs for devoted QI time. Although we still are left asking the question of how many RVUs a QI project is worth, value-based purchasing at least sets the stage for the conversation. But in the interim, it is still upon hospitalists to design these QI projects, and to learn the skills necessary to see the design to its fruition.

Threat 2: Quality Stops at Core Measures

It is hard to argue that fulfilling “core measures” is a bad thing. Nonetheless, the core measures were not meant to be quality; instead, they were meant as surrogate measures of quality. The presumption of the core-measures initiative is that the system would exist without direct attention to the core measures, operating as it ordinarily would with generic attention to meeting all standards of quality for all diseases. And at some point in time, the core measures would be assessed to give an overall assessment of the system’s quality.

What has evolved, however, is a concerted attention to meeting the core measures, with little regard to the overall culture of quality.

Let’s say you were tasked with improving the public school system in your state. As a measure of the improvement, you choose five of the 1,000 schools as “core measure” schools. The state board of education is told that the performance of these five sample schools will be assessed at the end of the year, and financial support for the system as a whole will hinge on their performance. The intended result is that attention would be paid to improving the performance of every school in the system, and this improvement would be reflected in the performance of the five sample schools. The board of education could take the route of improving all schools, but the more pragmatic route would be to funnel all resources into these five schools, to the detriment of resources for the other 995 schools. The performance of the core measure schools would dramatically improve, and funding would be secured. But ask yourself: Did the performance of the school system as a whole actually improve?

Such is the risk of the core measures in healthcare. The original intent of the core measures was to instill a culture of QI for all points of care. And this has been a valuable contribution to changing the consciousness of the healthcare system. The presumption was that the core measures would be “seeds,” and that by emphasizing these select measures, the QI culture eventually would spread to all aspects of patient care. But this plan hinged on the presumption that that there is an unlimited amount of mental energy and resources to be devoted to all tasks within healthcare. The reality is that there is a fixed amount of intellectual energy and resources to be devoted to the various aspects of healthcare. One wonders if the overemphasis on meeting the core measures might actually have taken the wind out of the sails for QI in other non-core-measure patient care.

The implications are twofold. By definition, a core measure has to be applicable to all healthcare systems, and with a fixed amount of mental energy and resources, there is a real risk that what portion is reserved for QI finds its way only to the core indicators, especially if they are overemphasized in the system. The second implication is captured in our experience with time to antibiotics. With meeting the core indicator as the priority, many systems instituted the “work-around”: Give antibiotics to every patient presenting to the ED, and you will be sure to have met the four-hour window in the core indicator. The result was an exponential increase in inappropriate antibiotic administration and radiographic tests, all because meeting the indicator became more important than the overall goal.

As stewards of the hospital system, it is upon us to ensure that the original intent of core measures remains secure: The core measures seed a culture of quality, but do not become ends in and of themselves. QI apart from the core measures must remain an equal priority, and it is the hospitalist who will be central in ensuring this comes to fruition.

Threat 3: Misplaced Incentives

There is an interesting anecdote in Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner’s book Freakonomics.¹ The story begins with a daycare center struggling with a problem: Some parents are showing up late to pick up their children at the end of the day, and this is costing the center in the way of overtime charges for the staff. To solve the problem, the center elects to institute a financial disincentive: Those showing up late to pick up their children will pay a modest financial penalty.

Fast-forward to months after the policy was put in place. The result? An exponential increase in the number of parents showing up late to pick up their children.

How do you explain worsening performance in spite of a financial disincentive? The answer resides in understanding human behavior. According to the authors, there are three primary motivations in life: financial, social, and moral. As ugly as it sounds, the decisions people make in life are driven by one of these three motivations. There is nothing wrong with providing incentives for behavior; incentives work.

But the danger arises when incentives are mismatched to behaviors. For example, if a financial outcome is the goal, then financial incentives make sense. If a social outcome (people should play better as a team) is the goal, the social incentives make sense (public recognition). But when the incentives get misaligned with their respective goals, trouble results.

What went wrong with the daycare’s plan is simple—most of the parents were motivated to pick up their children on time out of moral (“I gave my word”) or social (“I don’t want to be talked about by other parents”) incentives. But once a financial incentive was offered, the daycare center had essentially given the parents a way out in absolving their social and moral obligations. The parents had essentially cost-adjusted their behavior.

If you think this couldn’t happen to the healthcare system, let me ask you this. As a hospitalist, I see all of my patients early in the morning, because I see it as part of my obligation to the hospital team to discharge patients by 11 a.m. (social motivation).

But what if the CEO released this directive: “You will see all of your patients early in the morning, or you will take a $1,000 a year pay cut.” Is it possible that I might cost-adjust the $1,000 in exchange for sleeping in a little later and not having to deal with the morning traffic? I don’t know.

When it comes to financial incentives, there is a valley in the U-shaped curve. When the financial incentive is trivial, it is disregarded and the social/moral motivations of behavior persist (the kids are picked up on time; I persist in seeing patients early in the morning). When the financial incentive is huge, the financial incentive trumps all social/moral motivations, ensuring compliance with the goal behavior (every kid is picked up on time to avoid a penalty; I see all patients early in the day to avoid a larger penalty).

But in between is the risk zone: When the person feels they are paying an appropriate penance for not complying with the goal behavior, the financial disincentive absolves any social/moral guilt.

Healthcare reform is about incentives—and there is nothing wrong with that. But as the stewards of the inpatient healthcare system, it is upon us as hospitalists to ensure that the incentives remain matched to their intended goals, and that the untoward consequences of the incentives do not adversely affect the quality and safety of a patient’s care.

It is safe to say that the Affordable Care Act of 2010 moves us closer to a true environment of quality and patient safety. But it is equally safe to say that meaningful change will require more than what the law can provide. As stewards of the inpatient system, we have a responsibility to ensure that the healthcare system, particularly in how it responds to incentives, evolves to remain patient-centered, effective, and safe.

The next chapter in our story—the hospitalists’ story—will be one of accountability and responsibility. While there are things the government can do, the majority of what needs to be done will come directly from us. TH

Dr. Wiese is president of SHM.

Reference

1. Levitt SD, Dubner SJ. Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything. New York City: William Morrow; 2005.

From the outset, HM has been about efficiency. And there was nothing wrong with that, for value is quality divided by cost. But in our story, we found that mere efficiency was not enough: The lowering of the denominator (cost) had to be met with an escalation of the numerator (quality) to ensure value.

And see us as being born in the right place at the right time. For with the national focus turning to the need for quality and patient safety, hospital medicine was in the right place and the right time to heed the call to action: appropriately stepping up to enact efforts to make the slope of the line (on a chart of quality vs. cost) “STEEEPER” … finding systems innovations to make care Safe, Timely, Efficient, Effective, Equitable, and Patient-centered.

Of course, the story continued with the Affordable Care Act and healthcare reform, greatly accelerating our evolution as change agents. And now we find ourselves fully invested in a “change the system” mentality, perfectly positioned to meaningfully change healthcare for millions of people. But threats loom—specifically, the “R” in the STEEEPER mnemonic: the risks to quality in the face of healthcare reform.

So in the next chapter of our story, I present to you our challenge: how to overcome the threats to quality in the context of healthcare reform. The first three are presented here; in subsequent articles, I will address the remainder. Overcoming all threats will hinge on mastering the four truisms of cultural change:

1. Systems drive function;
2. Every system is perfectly designed to produce the outcomes that it does;
3. This is not an issue of people needing to try harder; and
4. The “no blame” culture begins with a paradigm shift from the “person at fault” to the “system at fault.”

Threat 1: Failure to Fund Quality

SHM elected to merge its annual State of Hospital Medicine survey with the MGMA. Though not without risk, this has resulted in the anticipated benefits. The MGMA collaboration brings greater leverage in working with the C-suite, which is pre-programmed to react to MGMA surveys. From the most recent MGMA survey comes good news: The financial compensation for hospitalists has increased. A sobering insight, however, is that this increase in compensation has been met with a corresponding increase in work intensity—RVUs. Further, the link between RVUs and compensation appears to be tightening, quantifying what has long been of concern: The time devoted to the nonclinical “value added” duties of the hospitalist is shrinking.

The threat to the culture of quality is captured in the single question: How many RVUs is a quality-improvement (QI) project worth? I’m not sure we have that answer. But without an answer, it is difficult to believe that meaningful QI can be expected without time to do so. And again, as the gap between compensation and RVUs narrows, one is left wondering if there will soon be a day where there is no value-added time remaining to perform QI at all.

Fortunately, the Affordable Care Act might provide some movement in the right direction via value-based purchasing. Linking quality outcomes to financial reimbursement is a big step forward in the hospitalist’s quest to leverage the C-suite in trading RVUs for devoted QI time. Although we still are left asking the question of how many RVUs a QI project is worth, value-based purchasing at least sets the stage for the conversation. But in the interim, it is still upon hospitalists to design these QI projects, and to learn the skills necessary to see the design to its fruition.

Threat 2: Quality Stops at Core Measures

It is hard to argue that fulfilling “core measures” is a bad thing. Nonetheless, the core measures were not meant to be quality; instead, they were meant as surrogate measures of quality. The presumption of the core-measures initiative is that the system would exist without direct attention to the core measures, operating as it ordinarily would with generic attention to meeting all standards of quality for all diseases. And at some point in time, the core measures would be assessed to give an overall assessment of the system’s quality.

What has evolved, however, is a concerted attention to meeting the core measures, with little regard to the overall culture of quality.

Let’s say you were tasked with improving the public school system in your state. As a measure of the improvement, you choose five of the 1,000 schools as “core measure” schools. The state board of education is told that the performance of these five sample schools will be assessed at the end of the year, and financial support for the system as a whole will hinge on their performance. The intended result is that attention would be paid to improving the performance of every school in the system, and this improvement would be reflected in the performance of the five sample schools. The board of education could take the route of improving all schools, but the more pragmatic route would be to funnel all resources into these five schools, to the detriment of resources for the other 995 schools. The performance of the core measure schools would dramatically improve, and funding would be secured. But ask yourself: Did the performance of the school system as a whole actually improve?

Such is the risk of the core measures in healthcare. The original intent of the core measures was to instill a culture of QI for all points of care. And this has been a valuable contribution to changing the consciousness of the healthcare system. The presumption was that the core measures would be “seeds,” and that by emphasizing these select measures, the QI culture eventually would spread to all aspects of patient care. But this plan hinged on the presumption that that there is an unlimited amount of mental energy and resources to be devoted to all tasks within healthcare. The reality is that there is a fixed amount of intellectual energy and resources to be devoted to the various aspects of healthcare. One wonders if the overemphasis on meeting the core measures might actually have taken the wind out of the sails for QI in other non-core-measure patient care.

The implications are twofold. By definition, a core measure has to be applicable to all healthcare systems, and with a fixed amount of mental energy and resources, there is a real risk that what portion is reserved for QI finds its way only to the core indicators, especially if they are overemphasized in the system. The second implication is captured in our experience with time to antibiotics. With meeting the core indicator as the priority, many systems instituted the “work-around”: Give antibiotics to every patient presenting to the ED, and you will be sure to have met the four-hour window in the core indicator. The result was an exponential increase in inappropriate antibiotic administration and radiographic tests, all because meeting the indicator became more important than the overall goal.

As stewards of the hospital system, it is upon us to ensure that the original intent of core measures remains secure: The core measures seed a culture of quality, but do not become ends in and of themselves. QI apart from the core measures must remain an equal priority, and it is the hospitalist who will be central in ensuring this comes to fruition.

Threat 3: Misplaced Incentives

There is an interesting anecdote in Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner’s book Freakonomics.¹ The story begins with a daycare center struggling with a problem: Some parents are showing up late to pick up their children at the end of the day, and this is costing the center in the way of overtime charges for the staff. To solve the problem, the center elects to institute a financial disincentive: Those showing up late to pick up their children will pay a modest financial penalty.

Fast-forward to months after the policy was put in place. The result? An exponential increase in the number of parents showing up late to pick up their children.

How do you explain worsening performance in spite of a financial disincentive? The answer resides in understanding human behavior. According to the authors, there are three primary motivations in life: financial, social, and moral. As ugly as it sounds, the decisions people make in life are driven by one of these three motivations. There is nothing wrong with providing incentives for behavior; incentives work.

But the danger arises when incentives are mismatched to behaviors. For example, if a financial outcome is the goal, then financial incentives make sense. If a social outcome (people should play better as a team) is the goal, the social incentives make sense (public recognition). But when the incentives get misaligned with their respective goals, trouble results.

What went wrong with the daycare’s plan is simple—most of the parents were motivated to pick up their children on time out of moral (“I gave my word”) or social (“I don’t want to be talked about by other parents”) incentives. But once a financial incentive was offered, the daycare center had essentially given the parents a way out in absolving their social and moral obligations. The parents had essentially cost-adjusted their behavior.

If you think this couldn’t happen to the healthcare system, let me ask you this. As a hospitalist, I see all of my patients early in the morning, because I see it as part of my obligation to the hospital team to discharge patients by 11 a.m. (social motivation).

But what if the CEO released this directive: “You will see all of your patients early in the morning, or you will take a $1,000 a year pay cut.” Is it possible that I might cost-adjust the $1,000 in exchange for sleeping in a little later and not having to deal with the morning traffic? I don’t know.

When it comes to financial incentives, there is a valley in the U-shaped curve. When the financial incentive is trivial, it is disregarded and the social/moral motivations of behavior persist (the kids are picked up on time; I persist in seeing patients early in the morning). When the financial incentive is huge, the financial incentive trumps all social/moral motivations, ensuring compliance with the goal behavior (every kid is picked up on time to avoid a penalty; I see all patients early in the day to avoid a larger penalty).

But in between is the risk zone: When the person feels they are paying an appropriate penance for not complying with the goal behavior, the financial disincentive absolves any social/moral guilt.

Healthcare reform is about incentives—and there is nothing wrong with that. But as the stewards of the inpatient healthcare system, it is upon us as hospitalists to ensure that the incentives remain matched to their intended goals, and that the untoward consequences of the incentives do not adversely affect the quality and safety of a patient’s care.

It is safe to say that the Affordable Care Act of 2010 moves us closer to a true environment of quality and patient safety. But it is equally safe to say that meaningful change will require more than what the law can provide. As stewards of the inpatient system, we have a responsibility to ensure that the healthcare system, particularly in how it responds to incentives, evolves to remain patient-centered, effective, and safe.

The next chapter in our story—the hospitalists’ story—will be one of accountability and responsibility. While there are things the government can do, the majority of what needs to be done will come directly from us. TH

Dr. Wiese is president of SHM.

Reference

1. Levitt SD, Dubner SJ. Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything. New York City: William Morrow; 2005.

From the outset, HM has been about efficiency. And there was nothing wrong with that, for value is quality divided by cost. But in our story, we found that mere efficiency was not enough: The lowering of the denominator (cost) had to be met with an escalation of the numerator (quality) to ensure value.

And see us as being born in the right place at the right time. For with the national focus turning to the need for quality and patient safety, hospital medicine was in the right place and the right time to heed the call to action: appropriately stepping up to enact efforts to make the slope of the line (on a chart of quality vs. cost) “STEEEPER” … finding systems innovations to make care Safe, Timely, Efficient, Effective, Equitable, and Patient-centered.

Of course, the story continued with the Affordable Care Act and healthcare reform, greatly accelerating our evolution as change agents. And now we find ourselves fully invested in a “change the system” mentality, perfectly positioned to meaningfully change healthcare for millions of people. But threats loom—specifically, the “R” in the STEEEPER mnemonic: the risks to quality in the face of healthcare reform.

So in the next chapter of our story, I present to you our challenge: how to overcome the threats to quality in the context of healthcare reform. The first three are presented here; in subsequent articles, I will address the remainder. Overcoming all threats will hinge on mastering the four truisms of cultural change:

1. Systems drive function;
2. Every system is perfectly designed to produce the outcomes that it does;
3. This is not an issue of people needing to try harder; and
4. The “no blame” culture begins with a paradigm shift from the “person at fault” to the “system at fault.”

Threat 1: Failure to Fund Quality

SHM elected to merge its annual State of Hospital Medicine survey with the MGMA. Though not without risk, this has resulted in the anticipated benefits. The MGMA collaboration brings greater leverage in working with the C-suite, which is pre-programmed to react to MGMA surveys. From the most recent MGMA survey comes good news: The financial compensation for hospitalists has increased. A sobering insight, however, is that this increase in compensation has been met with a corresponding increase in work intensity—RVUs. Further, the link between RVUs and compensation appears to be tightening, quantifying what has long been of concern: The time devoted to the nonclinical “value added” duties of the hospitalist is shrinking.

The threat to the culture of quality is captured in the single question: How many RVUs is a quality-improvement (QI) project worth? I’m not sure we have that answer. But without an answer, it is difficult to believe that meaningful QI can be expected without time to do so. And again, as the gap between compensation and RVUs narrows, one is left wondering if there will soon be a day where there is no value-added time remaining to perform QI at all.

Fortunately, the Affordable Care Act might provide some movement in the right direction via value-based purchasing. Linking quality outcomes to financial reimbursement is a big step forward in the hospitalist’s quest to leverage the C-suite in trading RVUs for devoted QI time. Although we still are left asking the question of how many RVUs a QI project is worth, value-based purchasing at least sets the stage for the conversation. But in the interim, it is still upon hospitalists to design these QI projects, and to learn the skills necessary to see the design to its fruition.

Threat 2: Quality Stops at Core Measures

It is hard to argue that fulfilling “core measures” is a bad thing. Nonetheless, the core measures were not meant to be quality; instead, they were meant as surrogate measures of quality. The presumption of the core-measures initiative is that the system would exist without direct attention to the core measures, operating as it ordinarily would with generic attention to meeting all standards of quality for all diseases. And at some point in time, the core measures would be assessed to give an overall assessment of the system’s quality.

What has evolved, however, is a concerted attention to meeting the core measures, with little regard to the overall culture of quality.

Let’s say you were tasked with improving the public school system in your state. As a measure of the improvement, you choose five of the 1,000 schools as “core measure” schools. The state board of education is told that the performance of these five sample schools will be assessed at the end of the year, and financial support for the system as a whole will hinge on their performance. The intended result is that attention would be paid to improving the performance of every school in the system, and this improvement would be reflected in the performance of the five sample schools. The board of education could take the route of improving all schools, but the more pragmatic route would be to funnel all resources into these five schools, to the detriment of resources for the other 995 schools. The performance of the core measure schools would dramatically improve, and funding would be secured. But ask yourself: Did the performance of the school system as a whole actually improve?

Such is the risk of the core measures in healthcare. The original intent of the core measures was to instill a culture of QI for all points of care. And this has been a valuable contribution to changing the consciousness of the healthcare system. The presumption was that the core measures would be “seeds,” and that by emphasizing these select measures, the QI culture eventually would spread to all aspects of patient care. But this plan hinged on the presumption that that there is an unlimited amount of mental energy and resources to be devoted to all tasks within healthcare. The reality is that there is a fixed amount of intellectual energy and resources to be devoted to the various aspects of healthcare. One wonders if the overemphasis on meeting the core measures might actually have taken the wind out of the sails for QI in other non-core-measure patient care.

The implications are twofold. By definition, a core measure has to be applicable to all healthcare systems, and with a fixed amount of mental energy and resources, there is a real risk that what portion is reserved for QI finds its way only to the core indicators, especially if they are overemphasized in the system. The second implication is captured in our experience with time to antibiotics. With meeting the core indicator as the priority, many systems instituted the “work-around”: Give antibiotics to every patient presenting to the ED, and you will be sure to have met the four-hour window in the core indicator. The result was an exponential increase in inappropriate antibiotic administration and radiographic tests, all because meeting the indicator became more important than the overall goal.

As stewards of the hospital system, it is upon us to ensure that the original intent of core measures remains secure: The core measures seed a culture of quality, but do not become ends in and of themselves. QI apart from the core measures must remain an equal priority, and it is the hospitalist who will be central in ensuring this comes to fruition.

Threat 3: Misplaced Incentives

There is an interesting anecdote in Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner’s book Freakonomics.¹ The story begins with a daycare center struggling with a problem: Some parents are showing up late to pick up their children at the end of the day, and this is costing the center in the way of overtime charges for the staff. To solve the problem, the center elects to institute a financial disincentive: Those showing up late to pick up their children will pay a modest financial penalty.

Fast-forward to months after the policy was put in place. The result? An exponential increase in the number of parents showing up late to pick up their children.

How do you explain worsening performance in spite of a financial disincentive? The answer resides in understanding human behavior. According to the authors, there are three primary motivations in life: financial, social, and moral. As ugly as it sounds, the decisions people make in life are driven by one of these three motivations. There is nothing wrong with providing incentives for behavior; incentives work.

But the danger arises when incentives are mismatched to behaviors. For example, if a financial outcome is the goal, then financial incentives make sense. If a social outcome (people should play better as a team) is the goal, the social incentives make sense (public recognition). But when the incentives get misaligned with their respective goals, trouble results.

What went wrong with the daycare’s plan is simple—most of the parents were motivated to pick up their children on time out of moral (“I gave my word”) or social (“I don’t want to be talked about by other parents”) incentives. But once a financial incentive was offered, the daycare center had essentially given the parents a way out in absolving their social and moral obligations. The parents had essentially cost-adjusted their behavior.

If you think this couldn’t happen to the healthcare system, let me ask you this. As a hospitalist, I see all of my patients early in the morning, because I see it as part of my obligation to the hospital team to discharge patients by 11 a.m. (social motivation).

But what if the CEO released this directive: “You will see all of your patients early in the morning, or you will take a $1,000 a year pay cut.” Is it possible that I might cost-adjust the $1,000 in exchange for sleeping in a little later and not having to deal with the morning traffic? I don’t know.

When it comes to financial incentives, there is a valley in the U-shaped curve. When the financial incentive is trivial, it is disregarded and the social/moral motivations of behavior persist (the kids are picked up on time; I persist in seeing patients early in the morning). When the financial incentive is huge, the financial incentive trumps all social/moral motivations, ensuring compliance with the goal behavior (every kid is picked up on time to avoid a penalty; I see all patients early in the day to avoid a larger penalty).

But in between is the risk zone: When the person feels they are paying an appropriate penance for not complying with the goal behavior, the financial disincentive absolves any social/moral guilt.

Healthcare reform is about incentives—and there is nothing wrong with that. But as the stewards of the inpatient healthcare system, it is upon us as hospitalists to ensure that the incentives remain matched to their intended goals, and that the untoward consequences of the incentives do not adversely affect the quality and safety of a patient’s care.

It is safe to say that the Affordable Care Act of 2010 moves us closer to a true environment of quality and patient safety. But it is equally safe to say that meaningful change will require more than what the law can provide. As stewards of the inpatient system, we have a responsibility to ensure that the healthcare system, particularly in how it responds to incentives, evolves to remain patient-centered, effective, and safe.

The next chapter in our story—the hospitalists’ story—will be one of accountability and responsibility. While there are things the government can do, the majority of what needs to be done will come directly from us. TH

Dr. Wiese is president of SHM.

Reference

1. Levitt SD, Dubner SJ. Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything. New York City: William Morrow; 2005.

Several months ago, my toilet broke. You should also know that I’m not particularly handy. So when I first realized that the toilet bowl seemed to fill constantly, I got a little stressed out.

How much was it going cost to call in a plumber on the weekend?

What kind of a water bill was I going to have?

Was this a serious problem?

I took a quick peek in the tank, but that just made me more confused. I was paralyzed by a lack of know-how.

Normally, I would have just Googled a local plumber. But that day, I decided to do something different. Maybe it was because it was the fantasy football offseason. Maybe it was because my wife had started to ask my father-in-law to change light bulbs around the house. Or, maybe, I wanted to learn to actually fix the problem. A few hours later, after an Internet lesson in toilet physiology, a $4.12 trip to Home Depot, and a wet pair of hands, I had replaced my first toilet flapper.

This wasn’t the rebuilding of a car engine, but it was a clear DIY step toward self-improvement. Easily the most memorable moment here was my sense of accomplishment.

I felt empowered.

One Part Science, One Part Art

It’s taken me a while to realize this, but I’ve begun to take advantage of improvement opportunities at work as well. No, I haven’t been moonlighting as a plumber for my hospital. I’ve just been fortunate to be part of a trifecta of rewarding quality-improvement (QI) projects over the past year. Before I’d gotten my hands dirty with these, my understanding of QI was fairly naive. I’d heard about Plan-Do-Study-Act many times. I had listened to a talk at a national conference. And I had kept up with the general medical literature on the subject.

But none of those activities had truly prepared me for experience of actually doing the work on my own.

By taking on a project, an ambitious attempt to reduce continuous pulse oximetry use, I experienced a crash course in both the science and the art of process improvement. I was forced to overcome my “I don’t know how” inertia. And with expert guidance in the form of a clinical safety and effectiveness class, I learned the importance of run charts (science) and a well-crafted multidisciplinary team (art) in changing established but inefficient behavior.

Our rates of continuous pulse oximetry usage dropped by 50%, and cost savings were $12,000 per year on one unit. These results made my prior attempts at change—years of complaining about ingrained nursing culture—look infantile. (OK, maybe it was ineffective, but who hasn’t complained about the overuse of continuous monitoring?)

I haven’t met a pediatric hospitalist who wouldn’t understand the symbolic importance of this success. But I know of many hospitalists who have not yet participated in meaningful QI project. Imagine calling a plumber who grasped the flush and fill mechanism of a toilet but had never touched real porcelain. Here’s an even better analogy: What if doctors could get licensed without having touched real patients?

If pediatric hospitalists are to transform the care delivery of hospitalized children, and quality learning only comes through hands-on training, then we need some more hands in the pot.

Discharge Improvement

On the heels of my first project, I was fortunate enough to augment my education through another effort—this time with a cohort of fellow pediatric hospitalists. This was a national collaborative to improve discharge handoffs, and I will admit that, at the outset, I was as puzzled as the first time I pulled the lid off the tank of the toilet. There were just too many permutations on PCP communication at the participating institutions, and some felt our aim of timely discharge handoffs was unattainable.

What carried me through, however, was the collective and infectious DIY—no, QIY (Quality Improve-it-Yourself) attitude of the group. We were all learning, and regular participation in the collaborative essentially guaranteed improvement. We achieved our aim of 90% communication with PCPs within two days of discharge. The secret was simple: The more you do, the more you learn.

Pediatric hospitalists can transform care delivery through a focus on safe and quality care, but the tools to accomplish this must come through post-residency, on-the-job learning. This QI know-how must efficiently spread among our ranks through practical and project-based educational efforts. It’s “see one, do one, teach one,” but we’re not talking about lumbar punctures anymore.

This is a journey in which we all take on the responsibility of rolling up our sleeves and simply learn by doing. And here is where the third leg of my as-yet-unfinished QI course unfolds.

Through my involvement with the Value in Inpatient Pediatrics (VIP) Network, I’ve gained a newfound vision for what the future might hold. VIP has evolved from a benchmarking project focused on bronchiolitis to an improvement network that will incorporate projects similar to the discharge handoff collaborative above.

In the process, a model for how to rapidly spread QI learning has emerged. The capacity lies in the network’s rapidly growing connectivity. The power comes from the individuals: motivated, card-carrying pediatric hospitalists from a wide array of sites. Collaborative learning harbors the potential to exponentially increase the pace at which we improve.

The future of our quality care is bright. I see an open network of improvement doers and learners. I see collaboration on quality and safety initiatives in all manner of hospitals and communities. I see that this will all be built upon a foundation of hard work and a QIY attitude.

You, too, will play a role.

Just don’t be afraid to get your hands a little dirty. TH

Dr. Shen is medical director of hospital medicine at Dell Children’s Medical Center in Austin, Texas. He is pediatric editor of The Hospitalist.

Several months ago, my toilet broke. You should also know that I’m not particularly handy. So when I first realized that the toilet bowl seemed to fill constantly, I got a little stressed out.

How much was it going cost to call in a plumber on the weekend?

What kind of a water bill was I going to have?

Was this a serious problem?

I took a quick peek in the tank, but that just made me more confused. I was paralyzed by a lack of know-how.

Normally, I would have just Googled a local plumber. But that day, I decided to do something different. Maybe it was because it was the fantasy football offseason. Maybe it was because my wife had started to ask my father-in-law to change light bulbs around the house. Or, maybe, I wanted to learn to actually fix the problem. A few hours later, after an Internet lesson in toilet physiology, a $4.12 trip to Home Depot, and a wet pair of hands, I had replaced my first toilet flapper.

This wasn’t the rebuilding of a car engine, but it was a clear DIY step toward self-improvement. Easily the most memorable moment here was my sense of accomplishment.

I felt empowered.

One Part Science, One Part Art

It’s taken me a while to realize this, but I’ve begun to take advantage of improvement opportunities at work as well. No, I haven’t been moonlighting as a plumber for my hospital. I’ve just been fortunate to be part of a trifecta of rewarding quality-improvement (QI) projects over the past year. Before I’d gotten my hands dirty with these, my understanding of QI was fairly naive. I’d heard about Plan-Do-Study-Act many times. I had listened to a talk at a national conference. And I had kept up with the general medical literature on the subject.

But none of those activities had truly prepared me for experience of actually doing the work on my own.

By taking on a project, an ambitious attempt to reduce continuous pulse oximetry use, I experienced a crash course in both the science and the art of process improvement. I was forced to overcome my “I don’t know how” inertia. And with expert guidance in the form of a clinical safety and effectiveness class, I learned the importance of run charts (science) and a well-crafted multidisciplinary team (art) in changing established but inefficient behavior.

Our rates of continuous pulse oximetry usage dropped by 50%, and cost savings were $12,000 per year on one unit. These results made my prior attempts at change—years of complaining about ingrained nursing culture—look infantile. (OK, maybe it was ineffective, but who hasn’t complained about the overuse of continuous monitoring?)

I haven’t met a pediatric hospitalist who wouldn’t understand the symbolic importance of this success. But I know of many hospitalists who have not yet participated in meaningful QI project. Imagine calling a plumber who grasped the flush and fill mechanism of a toilet but had never touched real porcelain. Here’s an even better analogy: What if doctors could get licensed without having touched real patients?

If pediatric hospitalists are to transform the care delivery of hospitalized children, and quality learning only comes through hands-on training, then we need some more hands in the pot.

Discharge Improvement

On the heels of my first project, I was fortunate enough to augment my education through another effort—this time with a cohort of fellow pediatric hospitalists. This was a national collaborative to improve discharge handoffs, and I will admit that, at the outset, I was as puzzled as the first time I pulled the lid off the tank of the toilet. There were just too many permutations on PCP communication at the participating institutions, and some felt our aim of timely discharge handoffs was unattainable.

What carried me through, however, was the collective and infectious DIY—no, QIY (Quality Improve-it-Yourself) attitude of the group. We were all learning, and regular participation in the collaborative essentially guaranteed improvement. We achieved our aim of 90% communication with PCPs within two days of discharge. The secret was simple: The more you do, the more you learn.

Pediatric hospitalists can transform care delivery through a focus on safe and quality care, but the tools to accomplish this must come through post-residency, on-the-job learning. This QI know-how must efficiently spread among our ranks through practical and project-based educational efforts. It’s “see one, do one, teach one,” but we’re not talking about lumbar punctures anymore.

This is a journey in which we all take on the responsibility of rolling up our sleeves and simply learn by doing. And here is where the third leg of my as-yet-unfinished QI course unfolds.

Through my involvement with the Value in Inpatient Pediatrics (VIP) Network, I’ve gained a newfound vision for what the future might hold. VIP has evolved from a benchmarking project focused on bronchiolitis to an improvement network that will incorporate projects similar to the discharge handoff collaborative above.

In the process, a model for how to rapidly spread QI learning has emerged. The capacity lies in the network’s rapidly growing connectivity. The power comes from the individuals: motivated, card-carrying pediatric hospitalists from a wide array of sites. Collaborative learning harbors the potential to exponentially increase the pace at which we improve.

The future of our quality care is bright. I see an open network of improvement doers and learners. I see collaboration on quality and safety initiatives in all manner of hospitals and communities. I see that this will all be built upon a foundation of hard work and a QIY attitude.

You, too, will play a role.

Just don’t be afraid to get your hands a little dirty. TH

Dr. Shen is medical director of hospital medicine at Dell Children’s Medical Center in Austin, Texas. He is pediatric editor of The Hospitalist.

Several months ago, my toilet broke. You should also know that I’m not particularly handy. So when I first realized that the toilet bowl seemed to fill constantly, I got a little stressed out.

How much was it going cost to call in a plumber on the weekend?

What kind of a water bill was I going to have?

Was this a serious problem?

I took a quick peek in the tank, but that just made me more confused. I was paralyzed by a lack of know-how.

Normally, I would have just Googled a local plumber. But that day, I decided to do something different. Maybe it was because it was the fantasy football offseason. Maybe it was because my wife had started to ask my father-in-law to change light bulbs around the house. Or, maybe, I wanted to learn to actually fix the problem. A few hours later, after an Internet lesson in toilet physiology, a $4.12 trip to Home Depot, and a wet pair of hands, I had replaced my first toilet flapper.

This wasn’t the rebuilding of a car engine, but it was a clear DIY step toward self-improvement. Easily the most memorable moment here was my sense of accomplishment.

I felt empowered.

One Part Science, One Part Art

It’s taken me a while to realize this, but I’ve begun to take advantage of improvement opportunities at work as well. No, I haven’t been moonlighting as a plumber for my hospital. I’ve just been fortunate to be part of a trifecta of rewarding quality-improvement (QI) projects over the past year. Before I’d gotten my hands dirty with these, my understanding of QI was fairly naive. I’d heard about Plan-Do-Study-Act many times. I had listened to a talk at a national conference. And I had kept up with the general medical literature on the subject.

But none of those activities had truly prepared me for experience of actually doing the work on my own.

By taking on a project, an ambitious attempt to reduce continuous pulse oximetry use, I experienced a crash course in both the science and the art of process improvement. I was forced to overcome my “I don’t know how” inertia. And with expert guidance in the form of a clinical safety and effectiveness class, I learned the importance of run charts (science) and a well-crafted multidisciplinary team (art) in changing established but inefficient behavior.

Our rates of continuous pulse oximetry usage dropped by 50%, and cost savings were $12,000 per year on one unit. These results made my prior attempts at change—years of complaining about ingrained nursing culture—look infantile. (OK, maybe it was ineffective, but who hasn’t complained about the overuse of continuous monitoring?)

I haven’t met a pediatric hospitalist who wouldn’t understand the symbolic importance of this success. But I know of many hospitalists who have not yet participated in meaningful QI project. Imagine calling a plumber who grasped the flush and fill mechanism of a toilet but had never touched real porcelain. Here’s an even better analogy: What if doctors could get licensed without having touched real patients?

If pediatric hospitalists are to transform the care delivery of hospitalized children, and quality learning only comes through hands-on training, then we need some more hands in the pot.

Discharge Improvement

On the heels of my first project, I was fortunate enough to augment my education through another effort—this time with a cohort of fellow pediatric hospitalists. This was a national collaborative to improve discharge handoffs, and I will admit that, at the outset, I was as puzzled as the first time I pulled the lid off the tank of the toilet. There were just too many permutations on PCP communication at the participating institutions, and some felt our aim of timely discharge handoffs was unattainable.

What carried me through, however, was the collective and infectious DIY—no, QIY (Quality Improve-it-Yourself) attitude of the group. We were all learning, and regular participation in the collaborative essentially guaranteed improvement. We achieved our aim of 90% communication with PCPs within two days of discharge. The secret was simple: The more you do, the more you learn.

Pediatric hospitalists can transform care delivery through a focus on safe and quality care, but the tools to accomplish this must come through post-residency, on-the-job learning. This QI know-how must efficiently spread among our ranks through practical and project-based educational efforts. It’s “see one, do one, teach one,” but we’re not talking about lumbar punctures anymore.

This is a journey in which we all take on the responsibility of rolling up our sleeves and simply learn by doing. And here is where the third leg of my as-yet-unfinished QI course unfolds.

Through my involvement with the Value in Inpatient Pediatrics (VIP) Network, I’ve gained a newfound vision for what the future might hold. VIP has evolved from a benchmarking project focused on bronchiolitis to an improvement network that will incorporate projects similar to the discharge handoff collaborative above.

In the process, a model for how to rapidly spread QI learning has emerged. The capacity lies in the network’s rapidly growing connectivity. The power comes from the individuals: motivated, card-carrying pediatric hospitalists from a wide array of sites. Collaborative learning harbors the potential to exponentially increase the pace at which we improve.

The future of our quality care is bright. I see an open network of improvement doers and learners. I see collaboration on quality and safety initiatives in all manner of hospitals and communities. I see that this will all be built upon a foundation of hard work and a QIY attitude.

You, too, will play a role.

Just don’t be afraid to get your hands a little dirty. TH

Dr. Shen is medical director of hospital medicine at Dell Children’s Medical Center in Austin, Texas. He is pediatric editor of The Hospitalist.

If every system is perfectly designed to get the results it gets …

And if 15 million patients are harmed every year from medical care …

And if as many as 98,000 people die every year due to medical errors in hospitals …

Then what does that say about the system we have designed?

A System Designed to Competently Hurt Many

By now you’ve no doubt heard, read, and possibly even uttered the above facts and figures yourself. I think we all have our opinions about the veracity of these numbers, but I don’t think any of us would argue with the sentiment. The U.S. healthcare system comprises the most competent, compassionate, well-meaning, and caring professionals on this planet—who harm, maim, and kill countless people every year.

What a discomforting paradox.

Equity: The Overlooked Quality Domain

Many years back, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) published a list of six “domains” of healthcare quality. You’ve no doubt stumbled across the IOM’s Safe … Timely … Effective … Efficient … Equitable … Patient-Centered mnemonic recipe—STEEEP—for high-quality care.¹ In fact, it’s hard to read a journal, attend a medical presentation, or open a local newspaper without finding reference to these domains. It’s all the rage to talk about wrong-site surgery (safe), access to care (timely), comparative-effectiveness research (effective), lean concepts (efficient), and individualized medicine (patient-centered). However, the sixth domain often seems to get the Jan Brady treatment—minimized, marginalized, and oft-forgotten.

The IOM defines equitable care as that which “does not vary in quality because of personal characteristics such as gender, ethnicity, geographic location, and socioeconomic status.”1 To be sure, there is some hum at the national level about issues of equity, especially around healthcare coverage for all. And this is important. However, what appears lost in the rant surrounding the inherent inequities in our tiered health insurance system is that we have blantant inequalities baked into the everyday machinery of our hospitals. And they affect all, regardless of skin color, gender, or insurance status.

Think for a moment about your hospital. Are the type, level, and access to care equal at all times? Does the level of care change when the streetlights come on? How about on weekends and holidays? Do your operating rooms run on Saturdays and Sundays? Can patients get chemotherapy on the weekends? Does your hospital alter its nursing staff ratios after hours? Can you get an ultrasound at midnight? How about a urology or neurosurgery consult at 2 a.m.? How about getting interventional radiology to place an IVC filter on a holiday?

Now scratch a bit closer to home. Does your hospitalist group downstaff on weekends and holidays, even though the volumes probably warrant more coverage? Are your night providers part of your group, or are they moonlighters? Do your after-hours providers cross-cover and admit a reasonable number of patients, or are they frequently overwhelmed? Do they cover patients or admit for services that they don’t typically care for during the day (e.g. ICU, neurosurgical, subspecialty cardiology or oncology patients)? For the intensely ill patients admitted to U.S. hospitals today, should the type and availability of care differ when it’s delivered at 3 p.m. or 3 a.m., Sunday or Monday?

Disregarding the macro-inequities in our societal approach to healthcare, can we even ensure equitable care within our own hospital walls 24 hours a day, seven days a week?

The Answer: An Unfortunate “No”

For the record, I hate working nights, abhor working weekends, and resent working holidays. But the thing I’d hate even more than working nights, weekends, and holidays would be being a patient admitted during a night, weekend, or holiday. To understand why, I have to look no further than my hospital parking lot. During bankers’ hours, I can barely find a parking spot on the top floor of our multilevel parking structure.

Fast-forward to Saturday, and I have my pick of empty football fields’ worth of spots on all floors. Ditto Sundays, nights, and holidays.

Why is it that nationally, a collectively near-trillion-dollar hospital enterprise finds it acceptable to effectively shutter itself for a quarter to a third of the week? Especially when doing so seems to counter their primary mission of providing safe, timely, effective, efficient, equitable, and patient-centered care.

The Weekend Effect

There are, of course, economic and operational reasons to downshift during off hours—some hospitals don’t have the elective procedures to run operating rooms seven days a week, and very few patients want to have their elective colonoscopy at 11 p.m. or their chemotherapy during Thanksgiving dinner. However, in most cases, the reasons for doing so center on hospital staff and physician satisfaction. Most us of just don’t like working off hours. As a result, studies have shown significantly less access to such high-level care as coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention on weekends.^2,3

And the effects of this “weekend effect” can be devastating.

A recent paper in the New England Journal of Medicine reported that for every 1,000 patients admitted with a myocardial infarction on a weekend, nine more would die than a comparable group admitted during the week.⁴ Their offense? Having the misfortune to get ill on a Saturday morning. The authors concluded that this higher mortality was secondary to a lower rate of invasive cardiac procedures, presumably because they were less available. And the weekend effect isn’t just limited to coronary care. Poorer outcomes, including higher mortality rates, have been reported for weekend admissions to the neonatal ICU and adult ICU, as well as admission for epiglottitis, ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms, and pulmonary embolism.^5,6,7

So let’s connect the dots: A system designed with inequal access to lifesaving therapies and appropriate staffing results in worse outcomes, more harm, more deaths.

To be clear, 98,000 people don’t die every year because of my disdain for working nights and weekends. This is a much deeper problem that hinges on many unsatisfactory systems working unsatisfactorily in tandem (e.g. see the other five IOM domains of quality care). Furthermore, I don’t mean to suggest that hospitalists necessarily have a lot of say in cardiac catheterization schedules. Yet we do control our own systems of care—how many patients we admit and cover during a shift, how strongly we advocate for timely testing and consultation, how we staff weekends and cover patients at night.

And, more and more, we are in a position to enhance the care delivery systems of the hospital and its providers that surround us. With that comes a responsibility to ensure that these systems are highly functioning and equitable, regardless of the time of day, day of the week.

If we are going to fundamentally enhance the quality of care, then we have to design safer systems of care. It will take time and resources to alter many of our bruised systems of care, but we can begin by at least ensuring equity in how we deliver care at our own institutions. That is, unless we are comfortable with a system perfectly designed to harm. TH

Dr. Glasheen is associate professor of medicine at the University of Colorado Denver, where he serves as director of the Hospital Medicine Program and the Hospitalist Training Program, and as associate program director of the Internal Medicine Residency Program.

References

1. Institute of Medicine (IOM). Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press; 2001.
2. Bell CM, Redelmeier DA. Waiting for urgent procedures on the weekend among emergently hospitalized patients. Am J Med. 2004:117(3):175-181.
3. Magid DJ, Wang Y, Herrin J, et al. Relationship between time of day, day of week, timeliness of reperfusion, and in-hospital mortality for patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. JAMA. 2005;294(7):803-812.
4. Kostis WJ, Demissie K, Marcella SW, Shao YH, Wilson AC, Moreyra AE. Weekend versus weekday admission and mortality from myocardial infarction. N Eng J Med. 2007;356 (11):1099-1109.
5. Hendry RA. The weekend—a dangerous time to be born? Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1981;88(12):1200-1203.
6. Barnett MJ, Kaboli PJ, Sirio CA, Rosenthal GE. Day of the week of intensive care admission and patient outcomes: a multisite regional evaluation. Med Care. 2002;40(6):530-539.
7. Bell CM, Redelmeier DA. Mortality among patients admitted to hospitals on weekends as compared with weekdays. N Eng J Med. 2001;345(9):663-668.

If every system is perfectly designed to get the results it gets …

And if 15 million patients are harmed every year from medical care …

And if as many as 98,000 people die every year due to medical errors in hospitals …

Then what does that say about the system we have designed?

A System Designed to Competently Hurt Many

By now you’ve no doubt heard, read, and possibly even uttered the above facts and figures yourself. I think we all have our opinions about the veracity of these numbers, but I don’t think any of us would argue with the sentiment. The U.S. healthcare system comprises the most competent, compassionate, well-meaning, and caring professionals on this planet—who harm, maim, and kill countless people every year.

What a discomforting paradox.

Equity: The Overlooked Quality Domain

Many years back, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) published a list of six “domains” of healthcare quality. You’ve no doubt stumbled across the IOM’s Safe … Timely … Effective … Efficient … Equitable … Patient-Centered mnemonic recipe—STEEEP—for high-quality care.¹ In fact, it’s hard to read a journal, attend a medical presentation, or open a local newspaper without finding reference to these domains. It’s all the rage to talk about wrong-site surgery (safe), access to care (timely), comparative-effectiveness research (effective), lean concepts (efficient), and individualized medicine (patient-centered). However, the sixth domain often seems to get the Jan Brady treatment—minimized, marginalized, and oft-forgotten.

The IOM defines equitable care as that which “does not vary in quality because of personal characteristics such as gender, ethnicity, geographic location, and socioeconomic status.”1 To be sure, there is some hum at the national level about issues of equity, especially around healthcare coverage for all. And this is important. However, what appears lost in the rant surrounding the inherent inequities in our tiered health insurance system is that we have blantant inequalities baked into the everyday machinery of our hospitals. And they affect all, regardless of skin color, gender, or insurance status.

Think for a moment about your hospital. Are the type, level, and access to care equal at all times? Does the level of care change when the streetlights come on? How about on weekends and holidays? Do your operating rooms run on Saturdays and Sundays? Can patients get chemotherapy on the weekends? Does your hospital alter its nursing staff ratios after hours? Can you get an ultrasound at midnight? How about a urology or neurosurgery consult at 2 a.m.? How about getting interventional radiology to place an IVC filter on a holiday?

Now scratch a bit closer to home. Does your hospitalist group downstaff on weekends and holidays, even though the volumes probably warrant more coverage? Are your night providers part of your group, or are they moonlighters? Do your after-hours providers cross-cover and admit a reasonable number of patients, or are they frequently overwhelmed? Do they cover patients or admit for services that they don’t typically care for during the day (e.g. ICU, neurosurgical, subspecialty cardiology or oncology patients)? For the intensely ill patients admitted to U.S. hospitals today, should the type and availability of care differ when it’s delivered at 3 p.m. or 3 a.m., Sunday or Monday?

Disregarding the macro-inequities in our societal approach to healthcare, can we even ensure equitable care within our own hospital walls 24 hours a day, seven days a week?

The Answer: An Unfortunate “No”

For the record, I hate working nights, abhor working weekends, and resent working holidays. But the thing I’d hate even more than working nights, weekends, and holidays would be being a patient admitted during a night, weekend, or holiday. To understand why, I have to look no further than my hospital parking lot. During bankers’ hours, I can barely find a parking spot on the top floor of our multilevel parking structure.

Fast-forward to Saturday, and I have my pick of empty football fields’ worth of spots on all floors. Ditto Sundays, nights, and holidays.

Why is it that nationally, a collectively near-trillion-dollar hospital enterprise finds it acceptable to effectively shutter itself for a quarter to a third of the week? Especially when doing so seems to counter their primary mission of providing safe, timely, effective, efficient, equitable, and patient-centered care.

The Weekend Effect

There are, of course, economic and operational reasons to downshift during off hours—some hospitals don’t have the elective procedures to run operating rooms seven days a week, and very few patients want to have their elective colonoscopy at 11 p.m. or their chemotherapy during Thanksgiving dinner. However, in most cases, the reasons for doing so center on hospital staff and physician satisfaction. Most us of just don’t like working off hours. As a result, studies have shown significantly less access to such high-level care as coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention on weekends.^2,3

And the effects of this “weekend effect” can be devastating.

A recent paper in the New England Journal of Medicine reported that for every 1,000 patients admitted with a myocardial infarction on a weekend, nine more would die than a comparable group admitted during the week.⁴ Their offense? Having the misfortune to get ill on a Saturday morning. The authors concluded that this higher mortality was secondary to a lower rate of invasive cardiac procedures, presumably because they were less available. And the weekend effect isn’t just limited to coronary care. Poorer outcomes, including higher mortality rates, have been reported for weekend admissions to the neonatal ICU and adult ICU, as well as admission for epiglottitis, ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms, and pulmonary embolism.^5,6,7

So let’s connect the dots: A system designed with inequal access to lifesaving therapies and appropriate staffing results in worse outcomes, more harm, more deaths.

To be clear, 98,000 people don’t die every year because of my disdain for working nights and weekends. This is a much deeper problem that hinges on many unsatisfactory systems working unsatisfactorily in tandem (e.g. see the other five IOM domains of quality care). Furthermore, I don’t mean to suggest that hospitalists necessarily have a lot of say in cardiac catheterization schedules. Yet we do control our own systems of care—how many patients we admit and cover during a shift, how strongly we advocate for timely testing and consultation, how we staff weekends and cover patients at night.

And, more and more, we are in a position to enhance the care delivery systems of the hospital and its providers that surround us. With that comes a responsibility to ensure that these systems are highly functioning and equitable, regardless of the time of day, day of the week.

If we are going to fundamentally enhance the quality of care, then we have to design safer systems of care. It will take time and resources to alter many of our bruised systems of care, but we can begin by at least ensuring equity in how we deliver care at our own institutions. That is, unless we are comfortable with a system perfectly designed to harm. TH

Dr. Glasheen is associate professor of medicine at the University of Colorado Denver, where he serves as director of the Hospital Medicine Program and the Hospitalist Training Program, and as associate program director of the Internal Medicine Residency Program.

References

1. Institute of Medicine (IOM). Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press; 2001.
2. Bell CM, Redelmeier DA. Waiting for urgent procedures on the weekend among emergently hospitalized patients. Am J Med. 2004:117(3):175-181.
3. Magid DJ, Wang Y, Herrin J, et al. Relationship between time of day, day of week, timeliness of reperfusion, and in-hospital mortality for patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. JAMA. 2005;294(7):803-812.
4. Kostis WJ, Demissie K, Marcella SW, Shao YH, Wilson AC, Moreyra AE. Weekend versus weekday admission and mortality from myocardial infarction. N Eng J Med. 2007;356 (11):1099-1109.
5. Hendry RA. The weekend—a dangerous time to be born? Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1981;88(12):1200-1203.
6. Barnett MJ, Kaboli PJ, Sirio CA, Rosenthal GE. Day of the week of intensive care admission and patient outcomes: a multisite regional evaluation. Med Care. 2002;40(6):530-539.
7. Bell CM, Redelmeier DA. Mortality among patients admitted to hospitals on weekends as compared with weekdays. N Eng J Med. 2001;345(9):663-668.

If every system is perfectly designed to get the results it gets …

And if 15 million patients are harmed every year from medical care …

And if as many as 98,000 people die every year due to medical errors in hospitals …

Then what does that say about the system we have designed?

A System Designed to Competently Hurt Many

By now you’ve no doubt heard, read, and possibly even uttered the above facts and figures yourself. I think we all have our opinions about the veracity of these numbers, but I don’t think any of us would argue with the sentiment. The U.S. healthcare system comprises the most competent, compassionate, well-meaning, and caring professionals on this planet—who harm, maim, and kill countless people every year.

What a discomforting paradox.

Equity: The Overlooked Quality Domain

Many years back, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) published a list of six “domains” of healthcare quality. You’ve no doubt stumbled across the IOM’s Safe … Timely … Effective … Efficient … Equitable … Patient-Centered mnemonic recipe—STEEEP—for high-quality care.¹ In fact, it’s hard to read a journal, attend a medical presentation, or open a local newspaper without finding reference to these domains. It’s all the rage to talk about wrong-site surgery (safe), access to care (timely), comparative-effectiveness research (effective), lean concepts (efficient), and individualized medicine (patient-centered). However, the sixth domain often seems to get the Jan Brady treatment—minimized, marginalized, and oft-forgotten.

The IOM defines equitable care as that which “does not vary in quality because of personal characteristics such as gender, ethnicity, geographic location, and socioeconomic status.”1 To be sure, there is some hum at the national level about issues of equity, especially around healthcare coverage for all. And this is important. However, what appears lost in the rant surrounding the inherent inequities in our tiered health insurance system is that we have blantant inequalities baked into the everyday machinery of our hospitals. And they affect all, regardless of skin color, gender, or insurance status.

Think for a moment about your hospital. Are the type, level, and access to care equal at all times? Does the level of care change when the streetlights come on? How about on weekends and holidays? Do your operating rooms run on Saturdays and Sundays? Can patients get chemotherapy on the weekends? Does your hospital alter its nursing staff ratios after hours? Can you get an ultrasound at midnight? How about a urology or neurosurgery consult at 2 a.m.? How about getting interventional radiology to place an IVC filter on a holiday?

Now scratch a bit closer to home. Does your hospitalist group downstaff on weekends and holidays, even though the volumes probably warrant more coverage? Are your night providers part of your group, or are they moonlighters? Do your after-hours providers cross-cover and admit a reasonable number of patients, or are they frequently overwhelmed? Do they cover patients or admit for services that they don’t typically care for during the day (e.g. ICU, neurosurgical, subspecialty cardiology or oncology patients)? For the intensely ill patients admitted to U.S. hospitals today, should the type and availability of care differ when it’s delivered at 3 p.m. or 3 a.m., Sunday or Monday?

Disregarding the macro-inequities in our societal approach to healthcare, can we even ensure equitable care within our own hospital walls 24 hours a day, seven days a week?

The Answer: An Unfortunate “No”

For the record, I hate working nights, abhor working weekends, and resent working holidays. But the thing I’d hate even more than working nights, weekends, and holidays would be being a patient admitted during a night, weekend, or holiday. To understand why, I have to look no further than my hospital parking lot. During bankers’ hours, I can barely find a parking spot on the top floor of our multilevel parking structure.

Fast-forward to Saturday, and I have my pick of empty football fields’ worth of spots on all floors. Ditto Sundays, nights, and holidays.

Why is it that nationally, a collectively near-trillion-dollar hospital enterprise finds it acceptable to effectively shutter itself for a quarter to a third of the week? Especially when doing so seems to counter their primary mission of providing safe, timely, effective, efficient, equitable, and patient-centered care.

The Weekend Effect

There are, of course, economic and operational reasons to downshift during off hours—some hospitals don’t have the elective procedures to run operating rooms seven days a week, and very few patients want to have their elective colonoscopy at 11 p.m. or their chemotherapy during Thanksgiving dinner. However, in most cases, the reasons for doing so center on hospital staff and physician satisfaction. Most us of just don’t like working off hours. As a result, studies have shown significantly less access to such high-level care as coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention on weekends.^2,3

And the effects of this “weekend effect” can be devastating.

A recent paper in the New England Journal of Medicine reported that for every 1,000 patients admitted with a myocardial infarction on a weekend, nine more would die than a comparable group admitted during the week.⁴ Their offense? Having the misfortune to get ill on a Saturday morning. The authors concluded that this higher mortality was secondary to a lower rate of invasive cardiac procedures, presumably because they were less available. And the weekend effect isn’t just limited to coronary care. Poorer outcomes, including higher mortality rates, have been reported for weekend admissions to the neonatal ICU and adult ICU, as well as admission for epiglottitis, ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms, and pulmonary embolism.^5,6,7

So let’s connect the dots: A system designed with inequal access to lifesaving therapies and appropriate staffing results in worse outcomes, more harm, more deaths.

To be clear, 98,000 people don’t die every year because of my disdain for working nights and weekends. This is a much deeper problem that hinges on many unsatisfactory systems working unsatisfactorily in tandem (e.g. see the other five IOM domains of quality care). Furthermore, I don’t mean to suggest that hospitalists necessarily have a lot of say in cardiac catheterization schedules. Yet we do control our own systems of care—how many patients we admit and cover during a shift, how strongly we advocate for timely testing and consultation, how we staff weekends and cover patients at night.

And, more and more, we are in a position to enhance the care delivery systems of the hospital and its providers that surround us. With that comes a responsibility to ensure that these systems are highly functioning and equitable, regardless of the time of day, day of the week.

If we are going to fundamentally enhance the quality of care, then we have to design safer systems of care. It will take time and resources to alter many of our bruised systems of care, but we can begin by at least ensuring equity in how we deliver care at our own institutions. That is, unless we are comfortable with a system perfectly designed to harm. TH

Dr. Glasheen is associate professor of medicine at the University of Colorado Denver, where he serves as director of the Hospital Medicine Program and the Hospitalist Training Program, and as associate program director of the Internal Medicine Residency Program.

References

1. Institute of Medicine (IOM). Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press; 2001.
2. Bell CM, Redelmeier DA. Waiting for urgent procedures on the weekend among emergently hospitalized patients. Am J Med. 2004:117(3):175-181.
3. Magid DJ, Wang Y, Herrin J, et al. Relationship between time of day, day of week, timeliness of reperfusion, and in-hospital mortality for patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. JAMA. 2005;294(7):803-812.
4. Kostis WJ, Demissie K, Marcella SW, Shao YH, Wilson AC, Moreyra AE. Weekend versus weekday admission and mortality from myocardial infarction. N Eng J Med. 2007;356 (11):1099-1109.
5. Hendry RA. The weekend—a dangerous time to be born? Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1981;88(12):1200-1203.
6. Barnett MJ, Kaboli PJ, Sirio CA, Rosenthal GE. Day of the week of intensive care admission and patient outcomes: a multisite regional evaluation. Med Care. 2002;40(6):530-539.
7. Bell CM, Redelmeier DA. Mortality among patients admitted to hospitals on weekends as compared with weekdays. N Eng J Med. 2001;345(9):663-668.

In the past three years, SHM has brought in-depth quality-improvement (QI) programs to nearly every state in the country.

Between its three major mentored implementation projects—Project BOOST (Better Outcomes for Older Adults through Safe Transitions), Glycemic Control Mentored Implemen-tation, and the Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) Collaborative—SHM has worked with more than 100 hospitals across the country and in Canada. SHM is expanding these three programs to additional hospitals and actively developing other QI initiatives.

“SHM’s quality-improvement programs focus on real change, and they have made a substantial impact,” says Joe Miller, SHM’s senior vice president and chief solutions officer. “Hospitalists using SHM’s quality-improvement methods have impacted the care of tens of thousands of hospitalized patients.”

SHM’s programs all use a mix of in-depth mentoring led by national experts and specially designed resource toolkits that enable hospitalists to lead major initiatives within their hospitals. The programs also facilitate “peer learning,” allowing hospitalists to learn from one another.

Project BOOST, which is designed to reduce unplanned readmissions to the hospital, has received national attention. In early 2010, SHM teamed with Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Michigan and the University of Michigan to bring the program to more than a dozen hospitals in that state. SHM also announced a new collaboration with the California HealthCare Foundation to implement Project BOOST in more than 20 hospitals in California.

“Healthcare reform is creating a new focus on quality improvement,” Miller says. “SHM is bringing a multidisciplinary approach to transforming inpatient care to hospitals across the country.” TH

Chapter Updates

Milwaukee/SE Wisconsin

The Milwaukee/SE Wisconsin chapter held a meeting June 10 at Bacchus Restaurant in Milwaukee, at which congratulations were doled out to chapter member Eric Siegal, MD, SFHM, on his election to SHM’s board of directors. As chair of SHM’s Public Policy Committee, Dr. Siegal advocates for such issues as the Physician Quality Reporting Initiative (PQRI).

The chapter also acknowledged Dr. Len Scarpinato of St. Luke’s Hospital, who achieved Senior Fellow in Hospital Medicine (SFHM) designation and was honored at HM10 in April in Washington, D.C. As the regional director of Cogent Healthcare in southeast Wisconsin, Dr. Scarpinato has been instrumental in bringing hospitalists together to network and exchange innovative ideas.

Chapter member Jeanette Kalupa, DNP, ACNP-BC, APNP, of St. Luke’s was mentioned in the opening presentation at HM10 for her work as co-chair of the Nonphysician Providers Committee. Despite a busy HM10 schedule, Drs. Don Lee, Wes Lafferty, Scarpinato, Betty Tucker, and Peter Quandt took time out for a White House tour.

Greater Baltimore Area

The Greater Baltimore Area chapter of SHM met June 16 at Linwood’s Restaurant in Owings Mills, Md. Dr. Suzanne Mitchell spoke on “Relating to the Patient.” The meeting, sponsored by Merck, attracted 50 hospitalists and guests from 10 HM groups.

Los Angeles

The latest Los Angeles chapter meeting was held July 29. The featured speaker was Darrell Harrington, MD, associate medical director for Graduate Medical Education and chief of the division of general internal medicine at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center. Dr. Harrington delivered a presentation about maximizing DVT and PE quality measures. The chapter’s next meeting will be held in the fall.

Fellow in Hospital Medicine Spotlight

James C. Pile, MD, FACP, SFHM

Dr. Pile is an associate professor of medicine, interim director of hospital medicine, and associate program director of the internal residency program at the MetroHealth Campus of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. As a 10-year SHM member, he has been heavily involved in the growth of the Journal of Hospital Medicine, for which he is now deputy editor. He is an active member of the Annual Meeting and Education committees, and is former physician editor of The Hospitalist.

Undergraduate: Kings College in Briarcliff Manor, N.Y.

Medical school: Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus.

Internship and residency: University Hospitals of Cleveland.

Fellowship: Infectious Disease, National Naval Medicine Center, Bethesda, Md.

Notable: Prior to working as a hospitalist, Dr. Pile served as a battalion surgeon with Marine infantry on the front lines of the first Gulf War. He also worked as a general practitioner and infectious-disease specialist. His current interests lie in medical education, anti-microbial stewardship, and perioperative medicine.

Quotable: “I continue to see hospital medicine being front and center in patient safety in this country. … That is our whole reason for being, essentially. I anticipate us continuing to grow and develop into the real national leaders in quality improvement in the inpatient setting.”

FYI: Dr. Pile is an avid cyclist. He recently completed a one-day, 200-mile ride, and during his time in medical school, he biked from Seattle to New York City. He loves traveling and spending time with his wife and two daughters.

— Sarah Gelotte

SHAPE the Landscape of Academic Hospital Medicine: Participate in the Academic Hospitalist Survey

The recently released State of Hospital Medicine: 2010 Report Based on 2009 Data provides an unprecedented look at the factors shaping the specialty. However, for academic hospitalists, the picture can be very different. That is why SHM and the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA) are embarking on their first joint survey of academic hospitalists.

Academic HM groups—including groups at community-based teaching hospitals—can participate in the survey now through Nov. 5 by logging on to www6.mgma.com, or by contacting MGMA’s Survey Operations Department at 877-275-6462, Ext. 1895.

“Academic hospitalists and executive leaders at academic institutions need to know how they stack up against their peers in the field,” says Leslie Flores, SHM’s senior advisor for practice management. “Participating in this survey is the first step in providing an in-depth resource that identifies the major trends in academic hospital medicine.”

Like the new State of Hospital Medicine report, the academic report will provide data on hospitalist compensation and productivity, staffing information, and financial support. It also will examine the organizational structure of academic hospitalist practices and how academic hospitalists allocate their time between clinical, research, and teaching responsibilities. The new report also will feature information about medical-school and research funding.

MGMA will publish its standard academic survey results early next spring. Hospitalist-specific data will also be published in the 2011 State of Hospital Medicine report, to be released next summer.

In the past three years, SHM has brought in-depth quality-improvement (QI) programs to nearly every state in the country.

Between its three major mentored implementation projects—Project BOOST (Better Outcomes for Older Adults through Safe Transitions), Glycemic Control Mentored Implemen-tation, and the Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) Collaborative—SHM has worked with more than 100 hospitals across the country and in Canada. SHM is expanding these three programs to additional hospitals and actively developing other QI initiatives.

“SHM’s quality-improvement programs focus on real change, and they have made a substantial impact,” says Joe Miller, SHM’s senior vice president and chief solutions officer. “Hospitalists using SHM’s quality-improvement methods have impacted the care of tens of thousands of hospitalized patients.”

SHM’s programs all use a mix of in-depth mentoring led by national experts and specially designed resource toolkits that enable hospitalists to lead major initiatives within their hospitals. The programs also facilitate “peer learning,” allowing hospitalists to learn from one another.

Project BOOST, which is designed to reduce unplanned readmissions to the hospital, has received national attention. In early 2010, SHM teamed with Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Michigan and the University of Michigan to bring the program to more than a dozen hospitals in that state. SHM also announced a new collaboration with the California HealthCare Foundation to implement Project BOOST in more than 20 hospitals in California.

“Healthcare reform is creating a new focus on quality improvement,” Miller says. “SHM is bringing a multidisciplinary approach to transforming inpatient care to hospitals across the country.” TH

Chapter Updates

Milwaukee/SE Wisconsin

The Milwaukee/SE Wisconsin chapter held a meeting June 10 at Bacchus Restaurant in Milwaukee, at which congratulations were doled out to chapter member Eric Siegal, MD, SFHM, on his election to SHM’s board of directors. As chair of SHM’s Public Policy Committee, Dr. Siegal advocates for such issues as the Physician Quality Reporting Initiative (PQRI).

The chapter also acknowledged Dr. Len Scarpinato of St. Luke’s Hospital, who achieved Senior Fellow in Hospital Medicine (SFHM) designation and was honored at HM10 in April in Washington, D.C. As the regional director of Cogent Healthcare in southeast Wisconsin, Dr. Scarpinato has been instrumental in bringing hospitalists together to network and exchange innovative ideas.

Chapter member Jeanette Kalupa, DNP, ACNP-BC, APNP, of St. Luke’s was mentioned in the opening presentation at HM10 for her work as co-chair of the Nonphysician Providers Committee. Despite a busy HM10 schedule, Drs. Don Lee, Wes Lafferty, Scarpinato, Betty Tucker, and Peter Quandt took time out for a White House tour.

Greater Baltimore Area

The Greater Baltimore Area chapter of SHM met June 16 at Linwood’s Restaurant in Owings Mills, Md. Dr. Suzanne Mitchell spoke on “Relating to the Patient.” The meeting, sponsored by Merck, attracted 50 hospitalists and guests from 10 HM groups.

Los Angeles

The latest Los Angeles chapter meeting was held July 29. The featured speaker was Darrell Harrington, MD, associate medical director for Graduate Medical Education and chief of the division of general internal medicine at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center. Dr. Harrington delivered a presentation about maximizing DVT and PE quality measures. The chapter’s next meeting will be held in the fall.

Fellow in Hospital Medicine Spotlight

James C. Pile, MD, FACP, SFHM

Dr. Pile is an associate professor of medicine, interim director of hospital medicine, and associate program director of the internal residency program at the MetroHealth Campus of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. As a 10-year SHM member, he has been heavily involved in the growth of the Journal of Hospital Medicine, for which he is now deputy editor. He is an active member of the Annual Meeting and Education committees, and is former physician editor of The Hospitalist.

Undergraduate: Kings College in Briarcliff Manor, N.Y.

Medical school: Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus.

Internship and residency: University Hospitals of Cleveland.

Fellowship: Infectious Disease, National Naval Medicine Center, Bethesda, Md.

Notable: Prior to working as a hospitalist, Dr. Pile served as a battalion surgeon with Marine infantry on the front lines of the first Gulf War. He also worked as a general practitioner and infectious-disease specialist. His current interests lie in medical education, anti-microbial stewardship, and perioperative medicine.

Quotable: “I continue to see hospital medicine being front and center in patient safety in this country. … That is our whole reason for being, essentially. I anticipate us continuing to grow and develop into the real national leaders in quality improvement in the inpatient setting.”

FYI: Dr. Pile is an avid cyclist. He recently completed a one-day, 200-mile ride, and during his time in medical school, he biked from Seattle to New York City. He loves traveling and spending time with his wife and two daughters.

— Sarah Gelotte

SHAPE the Landscape of Academic Hospital Medicine: Participate in the Academic Hospitalist Survey

The recently released State of Hospital Medicine: 2010 Report Based on 2009 Data provides an unprecedented look at the factors shaping the specialty. However, for academic hospitalists, the picture can be very different. That is why SHM and the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA) are embarking on their first joint survey of academic hospitalists.

Academic HM groups—including groups at community-based teaching hospitals—can participate in the survey now through Nov. 5 by logging on to www6.mgma.com, or by contacting MGMA’s Survey Operations Department at 877-275-6462, Ext. 1895.

“Academic hospitalists and executive leaders at academic institutions need to know how they stack up against their peers in the field,” says Leslie Flores, SHM’s senior advisor for practice management. “Participating in this survey is the first step in providing an in-depth resource that identifies the major trends in academic hospital medicine.”

Like the new State of Hospital Medicine report, the academic report will provide data on hospitalist compensation and productivity, staffing information, and financial support. It also will examine the organizational structure of academic hospitalist practices and how academic hospitalists allocate their time between clinical, research, and teaching responsibilities. The new report also will feature information about medical-school and research funding.

MGMA will publish its standard academic survey results early next spring. Hospitalist-specific data will also be published in the 2011 State of Hospital Medicine report, to be released next summer.

In the past three years, SHM has brought in-depth quality-improvement (QI) programs to nearly every state in the country.

Between its three major mentored implementation projects—Project BOOST (Better Outcomes for Older Adults through Safe Transitions), Glycemic Control Mentored Implemen-tation, and the Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) Collaborative—SHM has worked with more than 100 hospitals across the country and in Canada. SHM is expanding these three programs to additional hospitals and actively developing other QI initiatives.

“SHM’s quality-improvement programs focus on real change, and they have made a substantial impact,” says Joe Miller, SHM’s senior vice president and chief solutions officer. “Hospitalists using SHM’s quality-improvement methods have impacted the care of tens of thousands of hospitalized patients.”

SHM’s programs all use a mix of in-depth mentoring led by national experts and specially designed resource toolkits that enable hospitalists to lead major initiatives within their hospitals. The programs also facilitate “peer learning,” allowing hospitalists to learn from one another.

Project BOOST, which is designed to reduce unplanned readmissions to the hospital, has received national attention. In early 2010, SHM teamed with Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Michigan and the University of Michigan to bring the program to more than a dozen hospitals in that state. SHM also announced a new collaboration with the California HealthCare Foundation to implement Project BOOST in more than 20 hospitals in California.

“Healthcare reform is creating a new focus on quality improvement,” Miller says. “SHM is bringing a multidisciplinary approach to transforming inpatient care to hospitals across the country.” TH

Chapter Updates

Milwaukee/SE Wisconsin

The Milwaukee/SE Wisconsin chapter held a meeting June 10 at Bacchus Restaurant in Milwaukee, at which congratulations were doled out to chapter member Eric Siegal, MD, SFHM, on his election to SHM’s board of directors. As chair of SHM’s Public Policy Committee, Dr. Siegal advocates for such issues as the Physician Quality Reporting Initiative (PQRI).

The chapter also acknowledged Dr. Len Scarpinato of St. Luke’s Hospital, who achieved Senior Fellow in Hospital Medicine (SFHM) designation and was honored at HM10 in April in Washington, D.C. As the regional director of Cogent Healthcare in southeast Wisconsin, Dr. Scarpinato has been instrumental in bringing hospitalists together to network and exchange innovative ideas.

Chapter member Jeanette Kalupa, DNP, ACNP-BC, APNP, of St. Luke’s was mentioned in the opening presentation at HM10 for her work as co-chair of the Nonphysician Providers Committee. Despite a busy HM10 schedule, Drs. Don Lee, Wes Lafferty, Scarpinato, Betty Tucker, and Peter Quandt took time out for a White House tour.

Greater Baltimore Area

The Greater Baltimore Area chapter of SHM met June 16 at Linwood’s Restaurant in Owings Mills, Md. Dr. Suzanne Mitchell spoke on “Relating to the Patient.” The meeting, sponsored by Merck, attracted 50 hospitalists and guests from 10 HM groups.

Los Angeles

The latest Los Angeles chapter meeting was held July 29. The featured speaker was Darrell Harrington, MD, associate medical director for Graduate Medical Education and chief of the division of general internal medicine at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center. Dr. Harrington delivered a presentation about maximizing DVT and PE quality measures. The chapter’s next meeting will be held in the fall.

Fellow in Hospital Medicine Spotlight

James C. Pile, MD, FACP, SFHM

Dr. Pile is an associate professor of medicine, interim director of hospital medicine, and associate program director of the internal residency program at the MetroHealth Campus of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. As a 10-year SHM member, he has been heavily involved in the growth of the Journal of Hospital Medicine, for which he is now deputy editor. He is an active member of the Annual Meeting and Education committees, and is former physician editor of The Hospitalist.

Undergraduate: Kings College in Briarcliff Manor, N.Y.

Medical school: Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus.

Internship and residency: University Hospitals of Cleveland.

Fellowship: Infectious Disease, National Naval Medicine Center, Bethesda, Md.

Notable: Prior to working as a hospitalist, Dr. Pile served as a battalion surgeon with Marine infantry on the front lines of the first Gulf War. He also worked as a general practitioner and infectious-disease specialist. His current interests lie in medical education, anti-microbial stewardship, and perioperative medicine.

Quotable: “I continue to see hospital medicine being front and center in patient safety in this country. … That is our whole reason for being, essentially. I anticipate us continuing to grow and develop into the real national leaders in quality improvement in the inpatient setting.”

FYI: Dr. Pile is an avid cyclist. He recently completed a one-day, 200-mile ride, and during his time in medical school, he biked from Seattle to New York City. He loves traveling and spending time with his wife and two daughters.

— Sarah Gelotte

SHAPE the Landscape of Academic Hospital Medicine: Participate in the Academic Hospitalist Survey

The recently released State of Hospital Medicine: 2010 Report Based on 2009 Data provides an unprecedented look at the factors shaping the specialty. However, for academic hospitalists, the picture can be very different. That is why SHM and the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA) are embarking on their first joint survey of academic hospitalists.

Academic HM groups—including groups at community-based teaching hospitals—can participate in the survey now through Nov. 5 by logging on to www6.mgma.com, or by contacting MGMA’s Survey Operations Department at 877-275-6462, Ext. 1895.

“Academic hospitalists and executive leaders at academic institutions need to know how they stack up against their peers in the field,” says Leslie Flores, SHM’s senior advisor for practice management. “Participating in this survey is the first step in providing an in-depth resource that identifies the major trends in academic hospital medicine.”

Like the new State of Hospital Medicine report, the academic report will provide data on hospitalist compensation and productivity, staffing information, and financial support. It also will examine the organizational structure of academic hospitalist practices and how academic hospitalists allocate their time between clinical, research, and teaching responsibilities. The new report also will feature information about medical-school and research funding.

MGMA will publish its standard academic survey results early next spring. Hospitalist-specific data will also be published in the 2011 State of Hospital Medicine report, to be released next summer.