Clinical question: What is the impact of a clinical practice guideline for hospitalized children with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) on antibiotic selection?

Background: CAP is one of the most common reasons for hospitalizations in children. Broad-spectrum antibiotics frequently are prescribed for presumed bacterial pneumonia in children. Recent guidelines for CAP in children have emphasized that ampicillin is an appropriate empiric inpatient treatment option.

Study design: Retrospective review.

Setting: Tertiary referral children’s hospital.

Synopsis: Patients older than two months old with acute, uncomplicated CAP and without significant secondary illness were identified in the 12-month periods preceding and following the implementation of a clinical practice guideline (CPG) that recommended empiric treatment with ampicillin upon admission, and amoxicillin upon discharge.

A total of 1,033 patients were identified, 530 pre-CPG and 503 post-CPG, and the groups were similar. After the CPG, there was a significant increase in empiric ampicillin use (13% to 63%) and concomitant decrease in ceftriaxone use (72% to 21%). Rates of outpatient narrow-spectrum antibiotic prescribing increased as well, and the rate of treatment failure was similar between the groups.

Complex regression analysis was used to analyze the impact of a concomitant antibiotic stewardship program (ASP), implemented three months prior to the initiation of the CPG and demonstrating a separate and additive effect of both initiatives. Thus, changes in antibiotic prescribing were multifactorial over this time period.

The outcomes remain impressive in the context of two increasingly popular QI efforts—CPGs and ASPs. This study represents a meaningful contribution toward demonstration of outcomes-based quality improvement (QI).

Bottom line: In the context of a CPG, antibiotic spectrum may be safely narrowed in pediatric CAP.

Citation: Newman RE, Hedican EB, Herigon JC, Williams DD, Williams AR, Newland JG. Impact of a guideline on management of children hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia. Pediatrics. 2012;129(3):e597-604.

Reviewed by Pediatric Editor Mark Shen, MD, FHM, medical director of hospital medicine at Dell Children’s Medical Center, Austin, Texas.

Clinical question: What is the impact of a clinical practice guideline for hospitalized children with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) on antibiotic selection?

Background: CAP is one of the most common reasons for hospitalizations in children. Broad-spectrum antibiotics frequently are prescribed for presumed bacterial pneumonia in children. Recent guidelines for CAP in children have emphasized that ampicillin is an appropriate empiric inpatient treatment option.

Study design: Retrospective review.

Setting: Tertiary referral children’s hospital.

Synopsis: Patients older than two months old with acute, uncomplicated CAP and without significant secondary illness were identified in the 12-month periods preceding and following the implementation of a clinical practice guideline (CPG) that recommended empiric treatment with ampicillin upon admission, and amoxicillin upon discharge.

A total of 1,033 patients were identified, 530 pre-CPG and 503 post-CPG, and the groups were similar. After the CPG, there was a significant increase in empiric ampicillin use (13% to 63%) and concomitant decrease in ceftriaxone use (72% to 21%). Rates of outpatient narrow-spectrum antibiotic prescribing increased as well, and the rate of treatment failure was similar between the groups.

Complex regression analysis was used to analyze the impact of a concomitant antibiotic stewardship program (ASP), implemented three months prior to the initiation of the CPG and demonstrating a separate and additive effect of both initiatives. Thus, changes in antibiotic prescribing were multifactorial over this time period.

The outcomes remain impressive in the context of two increasingly popular QI efforts—CPGs and ASPs. This study represents a meaningful contribution toward demonstration of outcomes-based quality improvement (QI).

Bottom line: In the context of a CPG, antibiotic spectrum may be safely narrowed in pediatric CAP.

Citation: Newman RE, Hedican EB, Herigon JC, Williams DD, Williams AR, Newland JG. Impact of a guideline on management of children hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia. Pediatrics. 2012;129(3):e597-604.

Reviewed by Pediatric Editor Mark Shen, MD, FHM, medical director of hospital medicine at Dell Children’s Medical Center, Austin, Texas.

Clinical question: What is the impact of a clinical practice guideline for hospitalized children with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) on antibiotic selection?

Background: CAP is one of the most common reasons for hospitalizations in children. Broad-spectrum antibiotics frequently are prescribed for presumed bacterial pneumonia in children. Recent guidelines for CAP in children have emphasized that ampicillin is an appropriate empiric inpatient treatment option.

Study design: Retrospective review.

Setting: Tertiary referral children’s hospital.

Synopsis: Patients older than two months old with acute, uncomplicated CAP and without significant secondary illness were identified in the 12-month periods preceding and following the implementation of a clinical practice guideline (CPG) that recommended empiric treatment with ampicillin upon admission, and amoxicillin upon discharge.

A total of 1,033 patients were identified, 530 pre-CPG and 503 post-CPG, and the groups were similar. After the CPG, there was a significant increase in empiric ampicillin use (13% to 63%) and concomitant decrease in ceftriaxone use (72% to 21%). Rates of outpatient narrow-spectrum antibiotic prescribing increased as well, and the rate of treatment failure was similar between the groups.

Complex regression analysis was used to analyze the impact of a concomitant antibiotic stewardship program (ASP), implemented three months prior to the initiation of the CPG and demonstrating a separate and additive effect of both initiatives. Thus, changes in antibiotic prescribing were multifactorial over this time period.

The outcomes remain impressive in the context of two increasingly popular QI efforts—CPGs and ASPs. This study represents a meaningful contribution toward demonstration of outcomes-based quality improvement (QI).

Bottom line: In the context of a CPG, antibiotic spectrum may be safely narrowed in pediatric CAP.

Citation: Newman RE, Hedican EB, Herigon JC, Williams DD, Williams AR, Newland JG. Impact of a guideline on management of children hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia. Pediatrics. 2012;129(3):e597-604.

Reviewed by Pediatric Editor Mark Shen, MD, FHM, medical director of hospital medicine at Dell Children’s Medical Center, Austin, Texas.

Background

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common condition, affecting more than 2 million Americans.¹ Hospital admissions due to AF have increased 66% in the past two decades. Hospitalization accounts for 52% of the cost of AF management, and the mortality rate of patients with this arrhythmia is twice that of patients in sinus rhythm.1

AF management decisions include choices for rate control, rhythm control, and prevention of thromboembolism. The benefits of a rhythm-control versus a rate-control strategy continue to be evaluated, along with consideration regarding an appropriate heart-rate goal. The modifiable risk factor of stroke in atrial fibrillation also continues to be a target for intervention as atrial fibrillation accounts for one-sixth of all strokes.

Guideline Update

The American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association (ACC/AHA), in conjunction with the European Society of Cardiology, released practice guidelines on the management of patients with atrial fibrillation in 2006. The ACCF/AHA, writing with the Heart Rhythm Society, released focused updates in early 2011 to be incorporated into the previous guidelines, given new data from major clinical trials and the FDA approval of new medications with indications for AF treatment.^2,3

The new recommendations address components of all three major management decisions for AF: rate control, rhythm control, and prevention of thromboembolism.

When managing AF with a rate-control strategy, new guidelines no longer recommend the goal of a resting heart rate of <80 bpm or <115 bpm with activity. This is based on data from the RACE II trial that show no difference in meaningful outcomes with a more aggressive heart-rate goal. Achieving a resting heart rate of 110 bpm was deemed a reasonable approach, as long as the patient has stable ventricular function and acceptable symptoms.

The new drug dronedarone has been introduced in the algorithm for maintenance of sinus rhythm strategy, based on the DIONYSOS, ATHENA, and ANDROMEDA studies. The new algorithm excluded the use of dronedarone in patients with left ventricular hypertrophy, decompensated heart failure, or Class IV heart failure because it was shown to increase mortality in these groups. The guidelines also recommend that it should also be used with caution in patients with bradycardia, prolonged QT interval, increased creatinine, and in patients on agents that moderate CYP3A4 function.

The risks of interventions to decrease thromboembolism against bleeding risk continue to be evaluated in specified patient populations. Although dabigatran did not have FDA approval prior to submission of the 2011 updated guidelines, the 2011 “focused update” incorporated the results of the RE-LY trial. Publication of RE-LY resulted in a Class 1 recommendation for dabigatran as a useful alternative to warfarin in patients with nonvalvular AF without severe renal failure or advanced liver disease.³ However, there is no specific antidote, and dabigatran use is associated with higher rates of dyspepsia and a nonsignificant increase in rates of myocardial infarction. In patients for whom oral anticoagulation with warfarin is considered unsuitable, aspirin with clopidogrel may be considered, although warfarin therapy continues to be a superior therapy to this dual antiplatelet regimen based on the ACTIVE-W and ACTIVE-A studies.²

Established Guideline Analysis

Apart from the listed updates, the management of AF has not changed considerably in the past decade. Rate control continues to be the recommended strategy for older patients along with appropriate symptom control, particularly if they have hypertension or heart disease. Rhythm control is a frequent strategy in AF management, but several studies have not found any difference in quality of life, development or progression of heart failure, or stroke rates in patients for whom a rhythm-control strategy was chosen.

Additionally, these patients still require anticoagulation, and the side effects of anti-arrhythmic drugs might offset the benefits of sinus rhythm. Therefore, rate control is an appropriate strategy. The stroke rate and side-effect risks with anti-arrhythmics are considerably lower in younger patients or those with paroxysmal lone AF, and so a rhythm-control strategy in these groups is reasonable.

Stroke rate in AF increases with known high-risk factors (prior thromboembolism or rheumatic mitral stenosis) and moderate-risk factors (heart failure, hypertension, age over 75, and diabetes). Less validated risk factors include female gender, age 65-74, thyrotoxicosis, and the presence of coronary artery disease.

There are well-defined recommendations for how to anticoagulate specific subgroups that pose clinical challenges not directly addressed in studies, but the guidelines do assist with:

• Patients who have a stroke with a therapeutic INR: Rather than adding antiplatelet agents, INR goal can be raised to 3-3.5;
• Patients >75 years old who are at a high risk for bleeding: A target INR of 2.0 (target range 1.6-2.5) seems reasonable;1 and
• Patients with stable coronary artery disease and AF: Warfarin anticoagulation alone should provide satisfactory antithrombotic prophylaxis against cerebrovascular and coronary atheroembolic events.¹

Decisions involving perioperative management of anticoagulation in patients with AF frequently arise. Per the guidelines, in patients with nonvalvular AF, anticoagulation can be stopped for up to one week without bridging for surgical or diagnostic procedures, but bridging should be considered in high-risk patients.

HM Takeaways

Hospitalists are likely to manage AF, whether alone or in conjunction with cardiology consultation. These new comprehensive guidelines deal with rate control, rhythm control, and prevention of thromboembolism. Hospitalists should take particular interest in the guidelines regarding lenient rate control, dronedarone for rhythm control, and dabigatran as a new alternative for anticoagulation in appropriate populations.

Drs. Farrell and Carbo are hospitalists at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

References

1. Fuster V, Rydén LE, Cannom DS, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA/HRS focused updates incorporated into the ACC/AHA/ESC 2006 Guidelines for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines developed in partnership with the European Society of Cardiology and in collaboration with the European Heart Rhythm Association and the Heart Rhythm Society. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57(11):e101-98.
2. Wann LS, Curtis AB, January CT, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA/HRS focused update on the management of patients with atrial fibrillation (Updating the 2006 Guideline): a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Heart Rhythm. 2011;8(1):157-76.
3. Wann LS, Curtis AB, Ellenbogen KA, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA/HRS focused update on the management of patients with atrial fibrillation (update on dabigatran): a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57(11):1330-7.

Background

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common condition, affecting more than 2 million Americans.¹ Hospital admissions due to AF have increased 66% in the past two decades. Hospitalization accounts for 52% of the cost of AF management, and the mortality rate of patients with this arrhythmia is twice that of patients in sinus rhythm.1

AF management decisions include choices for rate control, rhythm control, and prevention of thromboembolism. The benefits of a rhythm-control versus a rate-control strategy continue to be evaluated, along with consideration regarding an appropriate heart-rate goal. The modifiable risk factor of stroke in atrial fibrillation also continues to be a target for intervention as atrial fibrillation accounts for one-sixth of all strokes.

Guideline Update

The American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association (ACC/AHA), in conjunction with the European Society of Cardiology, released practice guidelines on the management of patients with atrial fibrillation in 2006. The ACCF/AHA, writing with the Heart Rhythm Society, released focused updates in early 2011 to be incorporated into the previous guidelines, given new data from major clinical trials and the FDA approval of new medications with indications for AF treatment.^2,3

The new recommendations address components of all three major management decisions for AF: rate control, rhythm control, and prevention of thromboembolism.

When managing AF with a rate-control strategy, new guidelines no longer recommend the goal of a resting heart rate of <80 bpm or <115 bpm with activity. This is based on data from the RACE II trial that show no difference in meaningful outcomes with a more aggressive heart-rate goal. Achieving a resting heart rate of 110 bpm was deemed a reasonable approach, as long as the patient has stable ventricular function and acceptable symptoms.

The new drug dronedarone has been introduced in the algorithm for maintenance of sinus rhythm strategy, based on the DIONYSOS, ATHENA, and ANDROMEDA studies. The new algorithm excluded the use of dronedarone in patients with left ventricular hypertrophy, decompensated heart failure, or Class IV heart failure because it was shown to increase mortality in these groups. The guidelines also recommend that it should also be used with caution in patients with bradycardia, prolonged QT interval, increased creatinine, and in patients on agents that moderate CYP3A4 function.

The risks of interventions to decrease thromboembolism against bleeding risk continue to be evaluated in specified patient populations. Although dabigatran did not have FDA approval prior to submission of the 2011 updated guidelines, the 2011 “focused update” incorporated the results of the RE-LY trial. Publication of RE-LY resulted in a Class 1 recommendation for dabigatran as a useful alternative to warfarin in patients with nonvalvular AF without severe renal failure or advanced liver disease.³ However, there is no specific antidote, and dabigatran use is associated with higher rates of dyspepsia and a nonsignificant increase in rates of myocardial infarction. In patients for whom oral anticoagulation with warfarin is considered unsuitable, aspirin with clopidogrel may be considered, although warfarin therapy continues to be a superior therapy to this dual antiplatelet regimen based on the ACTIVE-W and ACTIVE-A studies.²

Established Guideline Analysis

Apart from the listed updates, the management of AF has not changed considerably in the past decade. Rate control continues to be the recommended strategy for older patients along with appropriate symptom control, particularly if they have hypertension or heart disease. Rhythm control is a frequent strategy in AF management, but several studies have not found any difference in quality of life, development or progression of heart failure, or stroke rates in patients for whom a rhythm-control strategy was chosen.

Additionally, these patients still require anticoagulation, and the side effects of anti-arrhythmic drugs might offset the benefits of sinus rhythm. Therefore, rate control is an appropriate strategy. The stroke rate and side-effect risks with anti-arrhythmics are considerably lower in younger patients or those with paroxysmal lone AF, and so a rhythm-control strategy in these groups is reasonable.

Stroke rate in AF increases with known high-risk factors (prior thromboembolism or rheumatic mitral stenosis) and moderate-risk factors (heart failure, hypertension, age over 75, and diabetes). Less validated risk factors include female gender, age 65-74, thyrotoxicosis, and the presence of coronary artery disease.

There are well-defined recommendations for how to anticoagulate specific subgroups that pose clinical challenges not directly addressed in studies, but the guidelines do assist with:

• Patients who have a stroke with a therapeutic INR: Rather than adding antiplatelet agents, INR goal can be raised to 3-3.5;
• Patients >75 years old who are at a high risk for bleeding: A target INR of 2.0 (target range 1.6-2.5) seems reasonable;1 and
• Patients with stable coronary artery disease and AF: Warfarin anticoagulation alone should provide satisfactory antithrombotic prophylaxis against cerebrovascular and coronary atheroembolic events.¹

Decisions involving perioperative management of anticoagulation in patients with AF frequently arise. Per the guidelines, in patients with nonvalvular AF, anticoagulation can be stopped for up to one week without bridging for surgical or diagnostic procedures, but bridging should be considered in high-risk patients.

HM Takeaways

Hospitalists are likely to manage AF, whether alone or in conjunction with cardiology consultation. These new comprehensive guidelines deal with rate control, rhythm control, and prevention of thromboembolism. Hospitalists should take particular interest in the guidelines regarding lenient rate control, dronedarone for rhythm control, and dabigatran as a new alternative for anticoagulation in appropriate populations.

Drs. Farrell and Carbo are hospitalists at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

References

1. Fuster V, Rydén LE, Cannom DS, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA/HRS focused updates incorporated into the ACC/AHA/ESC 2006 Guidelines for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines developed in partnership with the European Society of Cardiology and in collaboration with the European Heart Rhythm Association and the Heart Rhythm Society. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57(11):e101-98.
2. Wann LS, Curtis AB, January CT, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA/HRS focused update on the management of patients with atrial fibrillation (Updating the 2006 Guideline): a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Heart Rhythm. 2011;8(1):157-76.
3. Wann LS, Curtis AB, Ellenbogen KA, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA/HRS focused update on the management of patients with atrial fibrillation (update on dabigatran): a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57(11):1330-7.

Background

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common condition, affecting more than 2 million Americans.¹ Hospital admissions due to AF have increased 66% in the past two decades. Hospitalization accounts for 52% of the cost of AF management, and the mortality rate of patients with this arrhythmia is twice that of patients in sinus rhythm.1

AF management decisions include choices for rate control, rhythm control, and prevention of thromboembolism. The benefits of a rhythm-control versus a rate-control strategy continue to be evaluated, along with consideration regarding an appropriate heart-rate goal. The modifiable risk factor of stroke in atrial fibrillation also continues to be a target for intervention as atrial fibrillation accounts for one-sixth of all strokes.

Guideline Update

The American College of Cardiology Foundation and American Heart Association (ACC/AHA), in conjunction with the European Society of Cardiology, released practice guidelines on the management of patients with atrial fibrillation in 2006. The ACCF/AHA, writing with the Heart Rhythm Society, released focused updates in early 2011 to be incorporated into the previous guidelines, given new data from major clinical trials and the FDA approval of new medications with indications for AF treatment.^2,3

The new recommendations address components of all three major management decisions for AF: rate control, rhythm control, and prevention of thromboembolism.

When managing AF with a rate-control strategy, new guidelines no longer recommend the goal of a resting heart rate of <80 bpm or <115 bpm with activity. This is based on data from the RACE II trial that show no difference in meaningful outcomes with a more aggressive heart-rate goal. Achieving a resting heart rate of 110 bpm was deemed a reasonable approach, as long as the patient has stable ventricular function and acceptable symptoms.

The new drug dronedarone has been introduced in the algorithm for maintenance of sinus rhythm strategy, based on the DIONYSOS, ATHENA, and ANDROMEDA studies. The new algorithm excluded the use of dronedarone in patients with left ventricular hypertrophy, decompensated heart failure, or Class IV heart failure because it was shown to increase mortality in these groups. The guidelines also recommend that it should also be used with caution in patients with bradycardia, prolonged QT interval, increased creatinine, and in patients on agents that moderate CYP3A4 function.

The risks of interventions to decrease thromboembolism against bleeding risk continue to be evaluated in specified patient populations. Although dabigatran did not have FDA approval prior to submission of the 2011 updated guidelines, the 2011 “focused update” incorporated the results of the RE-LY trial. Publication of RE-LY resulted in a Class 1 recommendation for dabigatran as a useful alternative to warfarin in patients with nonvalvular AF without severe renal failure or advanced liver disease.³ However, there is no specific antidote, and dabigatran use is associated with higher rates of dyspepsia and a nonsignificant increase in rates of myocardial infarction. In patients for whom oral anticoagulation with warfarin is considered unsuitable, aspirin with clopidogrel may be considered, although warfarin therapy continues to be a superior therapy to this dual antiplatelet regimen based on the ACTIVE-W and ACTIVE-A studies.²

Established Guideline Analysis

Apart from the listed updates, the management of AF has not changed considerably in the past decade. Rate control continues to be the recommended strategy for older patients along with appropriate symptom control, particularly if they have hypertension or heart disease. Rhythm control is a frequent strategy in AF management, but several studies have not found any difference in quality of life, development or progression of heart failure, or stroke rates in patients for whom a rhythm-control strategy was chosen.

Additionally, these patients still require anticoagulation, and the side effects of anti-arrhythmic drugs might offset the benefits of sinus rhythm. Therefore, rate control is an appropriate strategy. The stroke rate and side-effect risks with anti-arrhythmics are considerably lower in younger patients or those with paroxysmal lone AF, and so a rhythm-control strategy in these groups is reasonable.

Stroke rate in AF increases with known high-risk factors (prior thromboembolism or rheumatic mitral stenosis) and moderate-risk factors (heart failure, hypertension, age over 75, and diabetes). Less validated risk factors include female gender, age 65-74, thyrotoxicosis, and the presence of coronary artery disease.

There are well-defined recommendations for how to anticoagulate specific subgroups that pose clinical challenges not directly addressed in studies, but the guidelines do assist with:

• Patients who have a stroke with a therapeutic INR: Rather than adding antiplatelet agents, INR goal can be raised to 3-3.5;
• Patients >75 years old who are at a high risk for bleeding: A target INR of 2.0 (target range 1.6-2.5) seems reasonable;1 and
• Patients with stable coronary artery disease and AF: Warfarin anticoagulation alone should provide satisfactory antithrombotic prophylaxis against cerebrovascular and coronary atheroembolic events.¹

Decisions involving perioperative management of anticoagulation in patients with AF frequently arise. Per the guidelines, in patients with nonvalvular AF, anticoagulation can be stopped for up to one week without bridging for surgical or diagnostic procedures, but bridging should be considered in high-risk patients.

HM Takeaways

Hospitalists are likely to manage AF, whether alone or in conjunction with cardiology consultation. These new comprehensive guidelines deal with rate control, rhythm control, and prevention of thromboembolism. Hospitalists should take particular interest in the guidelines regarding lenient rate control, dronedarone for rhythm control, and dabigatran as a new alternative for anticoagulation in appropriate populations.

Drs. Farrell and Carbo are hospitalists at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

References

1. Fuster V, Rydén LE, Cannom DS, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA/HRS focused updates incorporated into the ACC/AHA/ESC 2006 Guidelines for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines developed in partnership with the European Society of Cardiology and in collaboration with the European Heart Rhythm Association and the Heart Rhythm Society. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57(11):e101-98.
2. Wann LS, Curtis AB, January CT, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA/HRS focused update on the management of patients with atrial fibrillation (Updating the 2006 Guideline): a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Heart Rhythm. 2011;8(1):157-76.
3. Wann LS, Curtis AB, Ellenbogen KA, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA/HRS focused update on the management of patients with atrial fibrillation (update on dabigatran): a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57(11):1330-7.

A hospitalist was recently offered a lucrative position in his community and was concerned that his previous employment agreement would prohibit him from accepting the new job opportunity. His former employment contract contained a noncompetition clause that made him and his prospective employer rightfully concerned. Upon a comprehensive review of his former employment contract, the noncompetition provision was not as restrictive as he and his prospective employer had previously thought. As it turned out, in his case, and in many others, the noncompetition clause was penetrable, and the physician accepted the new employment offer knowing he was not in violation of his previous contract.

What Is a Noncompetition Clause?

A noncompetition clause, also known as a covenant not to compete or a restrictive covenant, is a provision in a contract that precludes one party from engaging in competition with another party by working 1) in a particular field, 2) within a specific geographic area, and 3) for a stated period of time. A well-written noncompetition provision will prevent a physician from practicing within a certain geographical area surrounding the employer or the employer’s hospital relationships and for a prescribed period of time after the termination of the physician’s employment.

Often, the physician will be permitted to practice within the parameters of the restricted geographical area or time period if they (or the prospective employer) “buy out” of the clause. This is an especially good option when the reasonableness of the noncompetition is not black and white, and both parties want to avoid the expense of litigating the enforceability of the noncompetition clause. Otherwise, in the event the physician breaches the noncompetition clause, the former employer will usually first seek injunctive relief that prohibits the physician’s new employment, then follow with a request for monetary damages arising from the physician’s breach.

In states where noncompetition clauses for physicians are enforceable, the provision must: 1) protect the employer’s legitimate business interest, 2) be specific in geographical scope, and 3) have a narrowly tailored durational scope. Each of these factors is described below. If the language in the clause is vague or does not clearly describe the exact terms of the restrictions on practice, the clause might be unenforceable or open to greater interpretation than either party anticipated.

Do Employers Have a Legitimate Business Interest to Protect?

In order for a noncompetition clause to be enforceable, it must protect the employer’s legitimate business interest. Some examples of a legitimate business interest in the HM context are the employer’s goodwill and the retention of the employer’s clients (hospitals and medical practices). Moreover, since noncompetition clauses are not looked upon with favor by courts because they operate as a restraint of trade, the language needs to be narrowly tailored in order to protect the employer’s legitimate interests.

Is Geographical Scope Reasonable?

Noncompetition clauses must also specify the restricted geographical area where the physician is prohibited from practicing. However, whether a geographical scope is overly broad will not only depend on state law, but also the location of the employer and the surrounding community.

Typically, contracts will provide a radius in miles surrounding the employer’s location or locations as the restricted territory. But whether a geographic limitation is “reasonable” is a relative term. A five-mile radius in an urban area like New York City might be home to millions of people, whereas a five-mile radius in a suburb of New York might only be home to a few thousand people. For hospitalists, the geographic restriction might prohibit the physician from practicing at or for the employer’s clients (e.g. hospitals).

Although the following might seem obviously overly broad to some, a review of contracts with the following geographic restrictions should be considered red flags:

• Prohibition to practice anywhere in the U.S.;
• Prohibition to practice anywhere in a specific state;
• Prohibition to practice in a territory comprised of excessive miles from the employer’s location; and
• Prohibition to practice in certain counties.

Please note that exclusion to practice in certain counties might be overly broad in some situations but might be acceptable in others. For example, a hospitalist sold his ownership stake in his practice, and part of the deal required him to agree not to practice in Los Angeles County. This particular county restriction would be difficult, if not impossible, to enforce because Los Angeles County includes more than 80 cities and covers more than 4,000 square miles.

Is Durational Scope Reasonable?

A noncompetition clause should identify the length of time in which the physician is prohibited from practicing within the restricted geographic area. Whether the durational scope is reasonable will vary from state to state. As a general rule of thumb, if the restricted time frame is two years or less after termination of the contract, the time restriction will likely be considered “reasonable.” However, state laws vary on whether time restraints in excess of two years are enforceable.

A common pitfall with time restrictions is excessiveness based on the state’s laws and the specific circumstances of the physician and the employer. In negotiating the restricted length of time in a noncompetition clause, it is more common to have a longer time restriction when a physician is selling an ownership interest in a practice than for a physician entering into an employment relationship.

Prospective Employers: What You Need to Know

Great care must be taken when hiring a physician. States recognize the legal theory of interference with a contract. If an employer is recruiting a hospitalist who is subject to an employment agreement with a noncompetition clause, the prospective employer must be very careful in the recruiting process. It is recommended that the employment agreement include a representation by the physician-employee that he or she is not subject to any other agreement that would prohibit the physician from entering into the new employment relationship.

If a prospective employer is aware of an existing employment contract that contains practice restrictions on a recruited physician, the prospective employer could be held responsible for damages if a dispute arises between the parties.

It’s All in the Words

Although it might seem like semantics, a few words can change your future. Before you put pen to paper, be sure to have any contract containing a noncompetition clause reviewed by a lawyer who is well-versed in your state’s laws. If you have already signed an agreement with a noncompetition clause and you are considering your next career move, a lawyer can shed some light on a seemingly impenetrable clause.

Steven M. Harris, Esq., is a nationally recognized healthcare attorney and a member of the law firm McDonald Hopkins LLC in Chicago. Write to him at sharris@mcdonaldhopkins.com.

A hospitalist was recently offered a lucrative position in his community and was concerned that his previous employment agreement would prohibit him from accepting the new job opportunity. His former employment contract contained a noncompetition clause that made him and his prospective employer rightfully concerned. Upon a comprehensive review of his former employment contract, the noncompetition provision was not as restrictive as he and his prospective employer had previously thought. As it turned out, in his case, and in many others, the noncompetition clause was penetrable, and the physician accepted the new employment offer knowing he was not in violation of his previous contract.

What Is a Noncompetition Clause?

A noncompetition clause, also known as a covenant not to compete or a restrictive covenant, is a provision in a contract that precludes one party from engaging in competition with another party by working 1) in a particular field, 2) within a specific geographic area, and 3) for a stated period of time. A well-written noncompetition provision will prevent a physician from practicing within a certain geographical area surrounding the employer or the employer’s hospital relationships and for a prescribed period of time after the termination of the physician’s employment.

Often, the physician will be permitted to practice within the parameters of the restricted geographical area or time period if they (or the prospective employer) “buy out” of the clause. This is an especially good option when the reasonableness of the noncompetition is not black and white, and both parties want to avoid the expense of litigating the enforceability of the noncompetition clause. Otherwise, in the event the physician breaches the noncompetition clause, the former employer will usually first seek injunctive relief that prohibits the physician’s new employment, then follow with a request for monetary damages arising from the physician’s breach.

In states where noncompetition clauses for physicians are enforceable, the provision must: 1) protect the employer’s legitimate business interest, 2) be specific in geographical scope, and 3) have a narrowly tailored durational scope. Each of these factors is described below. If the language in the clause is vague or does not clearly describe the exact terms of the restrictions on practice, the clause might be unenforceable or open to greater interpretation than either party anticipated.

Do Employers Have a Legitimate Business Interest to Protect?

In order for a noncompetition clause to be enforceable, it must protect the employer’s legitimate business interest. Some examples of a legitimate business interest in the HM context are the employer’s goodwill and the retention of the employer’s clients (hospitals and medical practices). Moreover, since noncompetition clauses are not looked upon with favor by courts because they operate as a restraint of trade, the language needs to be narrowly tailored in order to protect the employer’s legitimate interests.

Is Geographical Scope Reasonable?

Noncompetition clauses must also specify the restricted geographical area where the physician is prohibited from practicing. However, whether a geographical scope is overly broad will not only depend on state law, but also the location of the employer and the surrounding community.

Typically, contracts will provide a radius in miles surrounding the employer’s location or locations as the restricted territory. But whether a geographic limitation is “reasonable” is a relative term. A five-mile radius in an urban area like New York City might be home to millions of people, whereas a five-mile radius in a suburb of New York might only be home to a few thousand people. For hospitalists, the geographic restriction might prohibit the physician from practicing at or for the employer’s clients (e.g. hospitals).

Although the following might seem obviously overly broad to some, a review of contracts with the following geographic restrictions should be considered red flags:

• Prohibition to practice anywhere in the U.S.;
• Prohibition to practice anywhere in a specific state;
• Prohibition to practice in a territory comprised of excessive miles from the employer’s location; and
• Prohibition to practice in certain counties.

Please note that exclusion to practice in certain counties might be overly broad in some situations but might be acceptable in others. For example, a hospitalist sold his ownership stake in his practice, and part of the deal required him to agree not to practice in Los Angeles County. This particular county restriction would be difficult, if not impossible, to enforce because Los Angeles County includes more than 80 cities and covers more than 4,000 square miles.

Is Durational Scope Reasonable?

A noncompetition clause should identify the length of time in which the physician is prohibited from practicing within the restricted geographic area. Whether the durational scope is reasonable will vary from state to state. As a general rule of thumb, if the restricted time frame is two years or less after termination of the contract, the time restriction will likely be considered “reasonable.” However, state laws vary on whether time restraints in excess of two years are enforceable.

A common pitfall with time restrictions is excessiveness based on the state’s laws and the specific circumstances of the physician and the employer. In negotiating the restricted length of time in a noncompetition clause, it is more common to have a longer time restriction when a physician is selling an ownership interest in a practice than for a physician entering into an employment relationship.

Prospective Employers: What You Need to Know

Great care must be taken when hiring a physician. States recognize the legal theory of interference with a contract. If an employer is recruiting a hospitalist who is subject to an employment agreement with a noncompetition clause, the prospective employer must be very careful in the recruiting process. It is recommended that the employment agreement include a representation by the physician-employee that he or she is not subject to any other agreement that would prohibit the physician from entering into the new employment relationship.

If a prospective employer is aware of an existing employment contract that contains practice restrictions on a recruited physician, the prospective employer could be held responsible for damages if a dispute arises between the parties.

It’s All in the Words

Although it might seem like semantics, a few words can change your future. Before you put pen to paper, be sure to have any contract containing a noncompetition clause reviewed by a lawyer who is well-versed in your state’s laws. If you have already signed an agreement with a noncompetition clause and you are considering your next career move, a lawyer can shed some light on a seemingly impenetrable clause.

Steven M. Harris, Esq., is a nationally recognized healthcare attorney and a member of the law firm McDonald Hopkins LLC in Chicago. Write to him at sharris@mcdonaldhopkins.com.

A hospitalist was recently offered a lucrative position in his community and was concerned that his previous employment agreement would prohibit him from accepting the new job opportunity. His former employment contract contained a noncompetition clause that made him and his prospective employer rightfully concerned. Upon a comprehensive review of his former employment contract, the noncompetition provision was not as restrictive as he and his prospective employer had previously thought. As it turned out, in his case, and in many others, the noncompetition clause was penetrable, and the physician accepted the new employment offer knowing he was not in violation of his previous contract.

What Is a Noncompetition Clause?

A noncompetition clause, also known as a covenant not to compete or a restrictive covenant, is a provision in a contract that precludes one party from engaging in competition with another party by working 1) in a particular field, 2) within a specific geographic area, and 3) for a stated period of time. A well-written noncompetition provision will prevent a physician from practicing within a certain geographical area surrounding the employer or the employer’s hospital relationships and for a prescribed period of time after the termination of the physician’s employment.

Often, the physician will be permitted to practice within the parameters of the restricted geographical area or time period if they (or the prospective employer) “buy out” of the clause. This is an especially good option when the reasonableness of the noncompetition is not black and white, and both parties want to avoid the expense of litigating the enforceability of the noncompetition clause. Otherwise, in the event the physician breaches the noncompetition clause, the former employer will usually first seek injunctive relief that prohibits the physician’s new employment, then follow with a request for monetary damages arising from the physician’s breach.

In states where noncompetition clauses for physicians are enforceable, the provision must: 1) protect the employer’s legitimate business interest, 2) be specific in geographical scope, and 3) have a narrowly tailored durational scope. Each of these factors is described below. If the language in the clause is vague or does not clearly describe the exact terms of the restrictions on practice, the clause might be unenforceable or open to greater interpretation than either party anticipated.

Do Employers Have a Legitimate Business Interest to Protect?

In order for a noncompetition clause to be enforceable, it must protect the employer’s legitimate business interest. Some examples of a legitimate business interest in the HM context are the employer’s goodwill and the retention of the employer’s clients (hospitals and medical practices). Moreover, since noncompetition clauses are not looked upon with favor by courts because they operate as a restraint of trade, the language needs to be narrowly tailored in order to protect the employer’s legitimate interests.

Is Geographical Scope Reasonable?

Noncompetition clauses must also specify the restricted geographical area where the physician is prohibited from practicing. However, whether a geographical scope is overly broad will not only depend on state law, but also the location of the employer and the surrounding community.

Typically, contracts will provide a radius in miles surrounding the employer’s location or locations as the restricted territory. But whether a geographic limitation is “reasonable” is a relative term. A five-mile radius in an urban area like New York City might be home to millions of people, whereas a five-mile radius in a suburb of New York might only be home to a few thousand people. For hospitalists, the geographic restriction might prohibit the physician from practicing at or for the employer’s clients (e.g. hospitals).

Although the following might seem obviously overly broad to some, a review of contracts with the following geographic restrictions should be considered red flags:

• Prohibition to practice anywhere in the U.S.;
• Prohibition to practice anywhere in a specific state;
• Prohibition to practice in a territory comprised of excessive miles from the employer’s location; and
• Prohibition to practice in certain counties.

Please note that exclusion to practice in certain counties might be overly broad in some situations but might be acceptable in others. For example, a hospitalist sold his ownership stake in his practice, and part of the deal required him to agree not to practice in Los Angeles County. This particular county restriction would be difficult, if not impossible, to enforce because Los Angeles County includes more than 80 cities and covers more than 4,000 square miles.

Is Durational Scope Reasonable?

A noncompetition clause should identify the length of time in which the physician is prohibited from practicing within the restricted geographic area. Whether the durational scope is reasonable will vary from state to state. As a general rule of thumb, if the restricted time frame is two years or less after termination of the contract, the time restriction will likely be considered “reasonable.” However, state laws vary on whether time restraints in excess of two years are enforceable.

A common pitfall with time restrictions is excessiveness based on the state’s laws and the specific circumstances of the physician and the employer. In negotiating the restricted length of time in a noncompetition clause, it is more common to have a longer time restriction when a physician is selling an ownership interest in a practice than for a physician entering into an employment relationship.

Prospective Employers: What You Need to Know

Great care must be taken when hiring a physician. States recognize the legal theory of interference with a contract. If an employer is recruiting a hospitalist who is subject to an employment agreement with a noncompetition clause, the prospective employer must be very careful in the recruiting process. It is recommended that the employment agreement include a representation by the physician-employee that he or she is not subject to any other agreement that would prohibit the physician from entering into the new employment relationship.

If a prospective employer is aware of an existing employment contract that contains practice restrictions on a recruited physician, the prospective employer could be held responsible for damages if a dispute arises between the parties.

It’s All in the Words

Although it might seem like semantics, a few words can change your future. Before you put pen to paper, be sure to have any contract containing a noncompetition clause reviewed by a lawyer who is well-versed in your state’s laws. If you have already signed an agreement with a noncompetition clause and you are considering your next career move, a lawyer can shed some light on a seemingly impenetrable clause.

Steven M. Harris, Esq., is a nationally recognized healthcare attorney and a member of the law firm McDonald Hopkins LLC in Chicago. Write to him at sharris@mcdonaldhopkins.com.

Internal medicine (IM) interns at the University of Texas Health Sciences Center in San Antonio are learning how to perform ultrasound-guided procedures (e.g. thoracentesis, paracentesis, lumbar puncture), gaining confidence in procedural skills that they can then take into residency and beyond,

according to an innovation poster presented at HM12.¹ The procedure service, which is a monthlong, mandatory rotation for IM interns, had its origins in funds allocated for an additional chief resident position that focused on quality and patient safety and the championing of procedures by one of the program’s directors, says David Schmit, MD, a chief resident and the abstract’s lead author.

Three chief residents, who lead the service, developed and teach its structured curriculum, which includes an instructional video, didactic presentations on indications, contraindications, risks and benefits, practice on a simulator, and instruction in obtaining appropriate consents from patients. Trainees perform each procedure under the chief residents’ supervision and complete competency checklists. Many participants complete the required five supervised procedures while still interns. “We since opened the service to second-year residents” so they can go back and master its curriculum, Dr. Schmit says.

Results in the first seven months of the service included 342 procedures performed by medical trainees, with 100% success for paracentesis and thoracentesis; slightly lower rates were seen for lumbar puncture. The rate of pneumothorax resulting from procedures declined to 4% from 12.5%, and the overall complication rate was 2.6%. Equally important, Dr. Schmit says, were 85 requests for procedures that were not performed because trainees recognized contraindications or safety considerations.

Reference

1. Schmit D, King P, Velasquez ST, Wathen P. The design, implementation and impact of an internal medicine resident ultrasound-based procedure service. Paper presented at: HM12, Society of Hospital Medicine; April 2012; San Diego.

Internal medicine (IM) interns at the University of Texas Health Sciences Center in San Antonio are learning how to perform ultrasound-guided procedures (e.g. thoracentesis, paracentesis, lumbar puncture), gaining confidence in procedural skills that they can then take into residency and beyond,

according to an innovation poster presented at HM12.¹ The procedure service, which is a monthlong, mandatory rotation for IM interns, had its origins in funds allocated for an additional chief resident position that focused on quality and patient safety and the championing of procedures by one of the program’s directors, says David Schmit, MD, a chief resident and the abstract’s lead author.

Three chief residents, who lead the service, developed and teach its structured curriculum, which includes an instructional video, didactic presentations on indications, contraindications, risks and benefits, practice on a simulator, and instruction in obtaining appropriate consents from patients. Trainees perform each procedure under the chief residents’ supervision and complete competency checklists. Many participants complete the required five supervised procedures while still interns. “We since opened the service to second-year residents” so they can go back and master its curriculum, Dr. Schmit says.

Results in the first seven months of the service included 342 procedures performed by medical trainees, with 100% success for paracentesis and thoracentesis; slightly lower rates were seen for lumbar puncture. The rate of pneumothorax resulting from procedures declined to 4% from 12.5%, and the overall complication rate was 2.6%. Equally important, Dr. Schmit says, were 85 requests for procedures that were not performed because trainees recognized contraindications or safety considerations.

Reference

1. Schmit D, King P, Velasquez ST, Wathen P. The design, implementation and impact of an internal medicine resident ultrasound-based procedure service. Paper presented at: HM12, Society of Hospital Medicine; April 2012; San Diego.

Internal medicine (IM) interns at the University of Texas Health Sciences Center in San Antonio are learning how to perform ultrasound-guided procedures (e.g. thoracentesis, paracentesis, lumbar puncture), gaining confidence in procedural skills that they can then take into residency and beyond,

according to an innovation poster presented at HM12.¹ The procedure service, which is a monthlong, mandatory rotation for IM interns, had its origins in funds allocated for an additional chief resident position that focused on quality and patient safety and the championing of procedures by one of the program’s directors, says David Schmit, MD, a chief resident and the abstract’s lead author.

Three chief residents, who lead the service, developed and teach its structured curriculum, which includes an instructional video, didactic presentations on indications, contraindications, risks and benefits, practice on a simulator, and instruction in obtaining appropriate consents from patients. Trainees perform each procedure under the chief residents’ supervision and complete competency checklists. Many participants complete the required five supervised procedures while still interns. “We since opened the service to second-year residents” so they can go back and master its curriculum, Dr. Schmit says.

Results in the first seven months of the service included 342 procedures performed by medical trainees, with 100% success for paracentesis and thoracentesis; slightly lower rates were seen for lumbar puncture. The rate of pneumothorax resulting from procedures declined to 4% from 12.5%, and the overall complication rate was 2.6%. Equally important, Dr. Schmit says, were 85 requests for procedures that were not performed because trainees recognized contraindications or safety considerations.

Reference

1. Schmit D, King P, Velasquez ST, Wathen P. The design, implementation and impact of an internal medicine resident ultrasound-based procedure service. Paper presented at: HM12, Society of Hospital Medicine; April 2012; San Diego.

The new “Guidelines for the Management of Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage,” published online May 3 in Stroke, call for hospitals treating fewer than 10 aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) cases per year to consider their immediate transfer to facilities that handle at least 35 such cases annually.¹ The recommendation is based on research suggesting that 30-day death rates were significantly higher in low-volume facilities (39%) vs. facilities treating more than 35 cases per year (27%), reflecting the latter’s greater access to cerebrovascular surgeons, endovascular specialists, and neuro-intensive-care services.

This type of hemorrhage accounts for 5% of all strokes and affects more than 30,000 Americans annually.

Reference

1. Connolly ES Jr., Rabinstein AA, Carhuapoma JR, et al. Guidelines for the management of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2012;43(6):1711-1737.

The new “Guidelines for the Management of Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage,” published online May 3 in Stroke, call for hospitals treating fewer than 10 aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) cases per year to consider their immediate transfer to facilities that handle at least 35 such cases annually.¹ The recommendation is based on research suggesting that 30-day death rates were significantly higher in low-volume facilities (39%) vs. facilities treating more than 35 cases per year (27%), reflecting the latter’s greater access to cerebrovascular surgeons, endovascular specialists, and neuro-intensive-care services.

This type of hemorrhage accounts for 5% of all strokes and affects more than 30,000 Americans annually.

Reference

1. Connolly ES Jr., Rabinstein AA, Carhuapoma JR, et al. Guidelines for the management of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2012;43(6):1711-1737.

The new “Guidelines for the Management of Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage,” published online May 3 in Stroke, call for hospitals treating fewer than 10 aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) cases per year to consider their immediate transfer to facilities that handle at least 35 such cases annually.¹ The recommendation is based on research suggesting that 30-day death rates were significantly higher in low-volume facilities (39%) vs. facilities treating more than 35 cases per year (27%), reflecting the latter’s greater access to cerebrovascular surgeons, endovascular specialists, and neuro-intensive-care services.

This type of hemorrhage accounts for 5% of all strokes and affects more than 30,000 Americans annually.

Reference

1. Connolly ES Jr., Rabinstein AA, Carhuapoma JR, et al. Guidelines for the management of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2012;43(6):1711-1737.

The year Medicare becomes insolvent, according to the Medicare Trustees Report for 2012, released in April. The date is the same as in the prior year’s report but is eight years later than the trustees believe funds would expire without the provisions contained in the Affordable Care Act to reward efficient, quality care. The trustees, who include the secretaries of the Treasury, Labor, Health and Human Services, and Social Security departments, say Medicare is stable for now, and Medicare expenditures in 2011, at $549 billion, were lower than expected. But action is still needed to secure its long-term future.¹ The report states that Medicare’s Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund is financially balanced, although some critics have offered far less sanguine projections for the future of the Medicare program, based on its annual and cumulative cash shortfalls.

Reference

1. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. The 2012 Annual Report of the Boards of Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance and Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services website. Available at: http://www.cms.gov/ReportsTrustFunds/downloads/tr2012.pdf. Accessed May 30, 2012.

The year Medicare becomes insolvent, according to the Medicare Trustees Report for 2012, released in April. The date is the same as in the prior year’s report but is eight years later than the trustees believe funds would expire without the provisions contained in the Affordable Care Act to reward efficient, quality care. The trustees, who include the secretaries of the Treasury, Labor, Health and Human Services, and Social Security departments, say Medicare is stable for now, and Medicare expenditures in 2011, at $549 billion, were lower than expected. But action is still needed to secure its long-term future.¹ The report states that Medicare’s Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund is financially balanced, although some critics have offered far less sanguine projections for the future of the Medicare program, based on its annual and cumulative cash shortfalls.

Reference

1. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. The 2012 Annual Report of the Boards of Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance and Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services website. Available at: http://www.cms.gov/ReportsTrustFunds/downloads/tr2012.pdf. Accessed May 30, 2012.

The year Medicare becomes insolvent, according to the Medicare Trustees Report for 2012, released in April. The date is the same as in the prior year’s report but is eight years later than the trustees believe funds would expire without the provisions contained in the Affordable Care Act to reward efficient, quality care. The trustees, who include the secretaries of the Treasury, Labor, Health and Human Services, and Social Security departments, say Medicare is stable for now, and Medicare expenditures in 2011, at $549 billion, were lower than expected. But action is still needed to secure its long-term future.¹ The report states that Medicare’s Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund is financially balanced, although some critics have offered far less sanguine projections for the future of the Medicare program, based on its annual and cumulative cash shortfalls.

Reference

1. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. The 2012 Annual Report of the Boards of Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance and Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services website. Available at: http://www.cms.gov/ReportsTrustFunds/downloads/tr2012.pdf. Accessed May 30, 2012.

A new clinical report from the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends ways to manage the home care and care transitions of special-needs pediatric patients.¹ As many as 10 million U.S. children have special needs based on prematurity, congenital disorders, developmental needs, technology dependencies, and “medical complexity.” Although they often have prolonged hospitalizations, most will go home.

In addition to recommendations for providing home care to keep children safe at home, the report explores complexities of the transition from the hospital—how to send children home with appropriate support, the importance of connecting them with a medical home, ensuring that parents are adequately trained to provide care, and evaluating community support.

Two key issues that can be addressed while a child with complex needs is still in the hospital are involving the primary-care physician (PCP) in discharge planning and making a candid appraisal of the family’s desire and ability to provide complex care at home.

Reference

1. Elias ER, Murphy NA, Council on Children with Disabilities. Home care of children and youth with complex health care needs and technology dependencies. Pediatrics. 2012;129:996-1005.

A new clinical report from the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends ways to manage the home care and care transitions of special-needs pediatric patients.¹ As many as 10 million U.S. children have special needs based on prematurity, congenital disorders, developmental needs, technology dependencies, and “medical complexity.” Although they often have prolonged hospitalizations, most will go home.

In addition to recommendations for providing home care to keep children safe at home, the report explores complexities of the transition from the hospital—how to send children home with appropriate support, the importance of connecting them with a medical home, ensuring that parents are adequately trained to provide care, and evaluating community support.

Two key issues that can be addressed while a child with complex needs is still in the hospital are involving the primary-care physician (PCP) in discharge planning and making a candid appraisal of the family’s desire and ability to provide complex care at home.

Reference

1. Elias ER, Murphy NA, Council on Children with Disabilities. Home care of children and youth with complex health care needs and technology dependencies. Pediatrics. 2012;129:996-1005.

A new clinical report from the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends ways to manage the home care and care transitions of special-needs pediatric patients.¹ As many as 10 million U.S. children have special needs based on prematurity, congenital disorders, developmental needs, technology dependencies, and “medical complexity.” Although they often have prolonged hospitalizations, most will go home.

In addition to recommendations for providing home care to keep children safe at home, the report explores complexities of the transition from the hospital—how to send children home with appropriate support, the importance of connecting them with a medical home, ensuring that parents are adequately trained to provide care, and evaluating community support.

Two key issues that can be addressed while a child with complex needs is still in the hospital are involving the primary-care physician (PCP) in discharge planning and making a candid appraisal of the family’s desire and ability to provide complex care at home.

Reference

1. Elias ER, Murphy NA, Council on Children with Disabilities. Home care of children and youth with complex health care needs and technology dependencies. Pediatrics. 2012;129:996-1005.

South Carolina hospitals have succeeded in reducing the incidence of mislabeled blood specimens, an error that occurs in 1 of every 1,000 blood draws in U.S. hospitals and carries potentially life-threatening consequences. The South Carolina Hospital Association has released a toolkit from the project, aimed at helping hospitals prevent specimens that are drawn at a hospitalized patient’s bedside from being labeled with another patient’s name.¹ In initial pilots at Palmetto Health Richland Hospital in Columbia starting in May 2011, then expanding to five other South Carolina hospitals, mislabeling of blood specimens was reduced by 90% in less than three months.

Under the “final check,” which follows a hospital’s normal identification verification procedures, the last three digits of the medical record number from the patient’s armband are read aloud by a nurse at the bedside in front of the patient and reconciled with the last three digits on the blood specimen container. This final check was found to require only a small change in the specimen-collecting process, with no additional money or staff time required. The use of only three digits and the vocal confirmation were considered keys to success, as was emphasizing a “just” culture—providers were not punished for systemic failures.

At Regional Medical Center in Orangeburg, a final check was piloted in an ED nursing unit, according to Gary Ferguson, BSMT, MHA, director of pathology and laboratory medicine. “Several unique features of the final check immediately interested me as a laboratory director—the first being its low cost and low impact to existing procedures,” Dr. Ferguson says.

For hospitalists, an erroneous lab result can mean redundant or unnecessary testing, even mismanagement of the patient, Dr. Ferguson says. On the piloted unit, mislabeled blood samples decreased to zero from 3.5 per month over the first three months of the project. It will next be rolled out in intensive- and coronary-care units.

Larry Beresford is a freelance writer in Oakland, Calif.

Reference

1. The Final Check. The Final Check website. Available at: http://www.thefinalcheck.org/. Accessed May 30, 2012.

South Carolina hospitals have succeeded in reducing the incidence of mislabeled blood specimens, an error that occurs in 1 of every 1,000 blood draws in U.S. hospitals and carries potentially life-threatening consequences. The South Carolina Hospital Association has released a toolkit from the project, aimed at helping hospitals prevent specimens that are drawn at a hospitalized patient’s bedside from being labeled with another patient’s name.¹ In initial pilots at Palmetto Health Richland Hospital in Columbia starting in May 2011, then expanding to five other South Carolina hospitals, mislabeling of blood specimens was reduced by 90% in less than three months.

Under the “final check,” which follows a hospital’s normal identification verification procedures, the last three digits of the medical record number from the patient’s armband are read aloud by a nurse at the bedside in front of the patient and reconciled with the last three digits on the blood specimen container. This final check was found to require only a small change in the specimen-collecting process, with no additional money or staff time required. The use of only three digits and the vocal confirmation were considered keys to success, as was emphasizing a “just” culture—providers were not punished for systemic failures.

At Regional Medical Center in Orangeburg, a final check was piloted in an ED nursing unit, according to Gary Ferguson, BSMT, MHA, director of pathology and laboratory medicine. “Several unique features of the final check immediately interested me as a laboratory director—the first being its low cost and low impact to existing procedures,” Dr. Ferguson says.

For hospitalists, an erroneous lab result can mean redundant or unnecessary testing, even mismanagement of the patient, Dr. Ferguson says. On the piloted unit, mislabeled blood samples decreased to zero from 3.5 per month over the first three months of the project. It will next be rolled out in intensive- and coronary-care units.

Larry Beresford is a freelance writer in Oakland, Calif.

Reference

1. The Final Check. The Final Check website. Available at: http://www.thefinalcheck.org/. Accessed May 30, 2012.

South Carolina hospitals have succeeded in reducing the incidence of mislabeled blood specimens, an error that occurs in 1 of every 1,000 blood draws in U.S. hospitals and carries potentially life-threatening consequences. The South Carolina Hospital Association has released a toolkit from the project, aimed at helping hospitals prevent specimens that are drawn at a hospitalized patient’s bedside from being labeled with another patient’s name.¹ In initial pilots at Palmetto Health Richland Hospital in Columbia starting in May 2011, then expanding to five other South Carolina hospitals, mislabeling of blood specimens was reduced by 90% in less than three months.

Under the “final check,” which follows a hospital’s normal identification verification procedures, the last three digits of the medical record number from the patient’s armband are read aloud by a nurse at the bedside in front of the patient and reconciled with the last three digits on the blood specimen container. This final check was found to require only a small change in the specimen-collecting process, with no additional money or staff time required. The use of only three digits and the vocal confirmation were considered keys to success, as was emphasizing a “just” culture—providers were not punished for systemic failures.

At Regional Medical Center in Orangeburg, a final check was piloted in an ED nursing unit, according to Gary Ferguson, BSMT, MHA, director of pathology and laboratory medicine. “Several unique features of the final check immediately interested me as a laboratory director—the first being its low cost and low impact to existing procedures,” Dr. Ferguson says.

For hospitalists, an erroneous lab result can mean redundant or unnecessary testing, even mismanagement of the patient, Dr. Ferguson says. On the piloted unit, mislabeled blood samples decreased to zero from 3.5 per month over the first three months of the project. It will next be rolled out in intensive- and coronary-care units.

Larry Beresford is a freelance writer in Oakland, Calif.

Reference

1. The Final Check. The Final Check website. Available at: http://www.thefinalcheck.org/. Accessed May 30, 2012.

Take a minute to recall your last credit-card statement. On it, say, is the hotel charge from your last out-of-town CME excursion. Below the total charge you were expecting is a separate line-item charge of $75 for a “recreational fee.” Puzzled, you call the hotel. They inform you that because you used the gym and pool—accessed with your room key—they levied the fee. No signs, alerts, or postings to denote such a policy, you innocently expected inclusive use of the facilities in the price of your visit.

Capture the emotion of that moment. It is likely your heart will race and you will think to yourself, “Get me the manager!”

Out of vigilance for penalties and fraud from recovery audit contractor (RAC) investigations, as well attentiveness to unnecessary readmissions, hospitals increasingly are categorizing Medicare patients under observation, rather than inpatient, status. This is to avoid conflict with regulators. Beneficiaries are in the crosshairs because of this designation change and, much in the same way as with our hotel charge, they also experience sticker shock when they get their bills. It is leading to confusion among providers, and consternation within the Medicare recipient community.

Why is this occurring? The dilemma stems from Medicare payments and the key distinction between inpatient coverage (Part A) and outpatient coverage (Parts B and D). When a patient receives their discharge notification—without an “official” inpatient designation—sometimes staying greater than 24 to 48 hours in the ED or in a specially defined observation unit can mean that beneficiary charges are different. This could result in discrete and sometimes jolting copayments and deductibles for drugs and services.

Worse, if beneficiaries require a skilled nursing facility stay (the “three-day stay” inpatient requirement), Medicare will not pay because they never registered “official” hospital time. Patients and caregivers are not prepared for the unexpected bills, and, consequently, tempers are rising.

The rules for Medicare Advantage enrollees, who make up 25% of the program, differ from conventional Medicare. However, commercial plans often shadow traditional fee-for-service in their policies, and, consequently, no exemplar of success in this realm exits.

Hospitals have increased both the number of their observation stays, as well as their hourly lengths (>48 hours). Because the definition of “observation status” is vague, and even the one- to two-day window is inflating, hospitals and hospitalists are often left to navigate without a compass. Again, fear of fraud and penalties places hospitals—and, indirectly, hospitalists, who often make judgments on admission grade—in a precarious position.

The responsibility of hospitals to notify beneficiaries of their status hinges on this murky determination milieu, which might change in real time during the stay and makes for an unsatisfactory standard. Understandably, CMS is attempting to rectify this quandary, taking into account a hospital’s need to clarify its billing and designation practices as well as beneficiaries’ desire to obtain clear guidance on their responsibilities both during and after a stay.

Hospitalists, of course, want direction on coding and an understanding of the impact their decisions will have on patients and subspecialty colleagues. To that end, Patrick Conway, MD, SFHM, chief medical officer for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid (CMS), offers some enlightenment on this matter:

Q: Is it tenable to keep the current system in place? However, as a fix, require payors and providers to inform beneficiaries of inpatient versus observation status at time zero in a more rigorous, yet-to-be determined manner?

A: Current regulations only require CMS to inform beneficiaries when they are admitted as an inpatient and not when they are an outpatient receiving observation services. There are important implications for coverage for beneficiaries post-hospital stay, coverage of self-administered drugs, and beneficiary coinsurance from this distinction. As a hospitalist, I think it is best to inform the patient of their status, especially if it has the potential to impact beneficiary liability, including coverage of post-acute care. CMS prepared a pamphlet in 2009, “Are You a Hospital Inpatient or Outpatient? If You Have Medicare, Ask!” to educate beneficiaries on this issue. The pamphlet can found at http://www.medicare.gov/Publications/Pubs/pdf/11435.pdf.

Q: Due to the nature of how hospital care is changing, are admission decisions potentially becoming too conflicted an endeavor for inpatient caregivers?

A: We want admission decisions to be based on clinical considerations. The decision to admit a patient should be based on the clinical judgment of the primary care, emergency medicine, and/or hospital medicine clinician.

Q: Before the U.S. healthcare system matures to a more integrated model with internalized risk, can you envision any near-term code changes that might simplify the difficulties all parties are facing, in a budget-neutral fashion?

A: CMS is currently investigating options to clarify when it is appropriate to admit the patient as an inpatient versus keeping the patient as an outpatient receiving observation services. We understand that this issue is of concern to hospitals, hospitalists, and patients, and we are considering carefully how to simplify the rules in a way that best meets the needs of patients and providers without increasing costs to the system.

I expect we will hear more from Medicare in the near-term on this matter. Stay tuned.

For more about the patient’s perspective on this issue, please see Brad’s blog: www.hospitalmedicine.org/pmblog.

Dr. Whitcomb is medical director of healthcare quality at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass. He is a co-founder and past president of SHM. Email him at wfwhit@comcast.net.

Take a minute to recall your last credit-card statement. On it, say, is the hotel charge from your last out-of-town CME excursion. Below the total charge you were expecting is a separate line-item charge of $75 for a “recreational fee.” Puzzled, you call the hotel. They inform you that because you used the gym and pool—accessed with your room key—they levied the fee. No signs, alerts, or postings to denote such a policy, you innocently expected inclusive use of the facilities in the price of your visit.

Capture the emotion of that moment. It is likely your heart will race and you will think to yourself, “Get me the manager!”

Out of vigilance for penalties and fraud from recovery audit contractor (RAC) investigations, as well attentiveness to unnecessary readmissions, hospitals increasingly are categorizing Medicare patients under observation, rather than inpatient, status. This is to avoid conflict with regulators. Beneficiaries are in the crosshairs because of this designation change and, much in the same way as with our hotel charge, they also experience sticker shock when they get their bills. It is leading to confusion among providers, and consternation within the Medicare recipient community.

Why is this occurring? The dilemma stems from Medicare payments and the key distinction between inpatient coverage (Part A) and outpatient coverage (Parts B and D). When a patient receives their discharge notification—without an “official” inpatient designation—sometimes staying greater than 24 to 48 hours in the ED or in a specially defined observation unit can mean that beneficiary charges are different. This could result in discrete and sometimes jolting copayments and deductibles for drugs and services.

Worse, if beneficiaries require a skilled nursing facility stay (the “three-day stay” inpatient requirement), Medicare will not pay because they never registered “official” hospital time. Patients and caregivers are not prepared for the unexpected bills, and, consequently, tempers are rising.

The rules for Medicare Advantage enrollees, who make up 25% of the program, differ from conventional Medicare. However, commercial plans often shadow traditional fee-for-service in their policies, and, consequently, no exemplar of success in this realm exits.

Hospitals have increased both the number of their observation stays, as well as their hourly lengths (>48 hours). Because the definition of “observation status” is vague, and even the one- to two-day window is inflating, hospitals and hospitalists are often left to navigate without a compass. Again, fear of fraud and penalties places hospitals—and, indirectly, hospitalists, who often make judgments on admission grade—in a precarious position.

The responsibility of hospitals to notify beneficiaries of their status hinges on this murky determination milieu, which might change in real time during the stay and makes for an unsatisfactory standard. Understandably, CMS is attempting to rectify this quandary, taking into account a hospital’s need to clarify its billing and designation practices as well as beneficiaries’ desire to obtain clear guidance on their responsibilities both during and after a stay.

Hospitalists, of course, want direction on coding and an understanding of the impact their decisions will have on patients and subspecialty colleagues. To that end, Patrick Conway, MD, SFHM, chief medical officer for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid (CMS), offers some enlightenment on this matter:

Q: Is it tenable to keep the current system in place? However, as a fix, require payors and providers to inform beneficiaries of inpatient versus observation status at time zero in a more rigorous, yet-to-be determined manner?

A: Current regulations only require CMS to inform beneficiaries when they are admitted as an inpatient and not when they are an outpatient receiving observation services. There are important implications for coverage for beneficiaries post-hospital stay, coverage of self-administered drugs, and beneficiary coinsurance from this distinction. As a hospitalist, I think it is best to inform the patient of their status, especially if it has the potential to impact beneficiary liability, including coverage of post-acute care. CMS prepared a pamphlet in 2009, “Are You a Hospital Inpatient or Outpatient? If You Have Medicare, Ask!” to educate beneficiaries on this issue. The pamphlet can found at http://www.medicare.gov/Publications/Pubs/pdf/11435.pdf.

Q: Due to the nature of how hospital care is changing, are admission decisions potentially becoming too conflicted an endeavor for inpatient caregivers?

A: We want admission decisions to be based on clinical considerations. The decision to admit a patient should be based on the clinical judgment of the primary care, emergency medicine, and/or hospital medicine clinician.

Q: Before the U.S. healthcare system matures to a more integrated model with internalized risk, can you envision any near-term code changes that might simplify the difficulties all parties are facing, in a budget-neutral fashion?

A: CMS is currently investigating options to clarify when it is appropriate to admit the patient as an inpatient versus keeping the patient as an outpatient receiving observation services. We understand that this issue is of concern to hospitals, hospitalists, and patients, and we are considering carefully how to simplify the rules in a way that best meets the needs of patients and providers without increasing costs to the system.

I expect we will hear more from Medicare in the near-term on this matter. Stay tuned.

For more about the patient’s perspective on this issue, please see Brad’s blog: www.hospitalmedicine.org/pmblog.

Dr. Whitcomb is medical director of healthcare quality at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass. He is a co-founder and past president of SHM. Email him at wfwhit@comcast.net.

Take a minute to recall your last credit-card statement. On it, say, is the hotel charge from your last out-of-town CME excursion. Below the total charge you were expecting is a separate line-item charge of $75 for a “recreational fee.” Puzzled, you call the hotel. They inform you that because you used the gym and pool—accessed with your room key—they levied the fee. No signs, alerts, or postings to denote such a policy, you innocently expected inclusive use of the facilities in the price of your visit.

Capture the emotion of that moment. It is likely your heart will race and you will think to yourself, “Get me the manager!”

Out of vigilance for penalties and fraud from recovery audit contractor (RAC) investigations, as well attentiveness to unnecessary readmissions, hospitals increasingly are categorizing Medicare patients under observation, rather than inpatient, status. This is to avoid conflict with regulators. Beneficiaries are in the crosshairs because of this designation change and, much in the same way as with our hotel charge, they also experience sticker shock when they get their bills. It is leading to confusion among providers, and consternation within the Medicare recipient community.

Why is this occurring? The dilemma stems from Medicare payments and the key distinction between inpatient coverage (Part A) and outpatient coverage (Parts B and D). When a patient receives their discharge notification—without an “official” inpatient designation—sometimes staying greater than 24 to 48 hours in the ED or in a specially defined observation unit can mean that beneficiary charges are different. This could result in discrete and sometimes jolting copayments and deductibles for drugs and services.

Worse, if beneficiaries require a skilled nursing facility stay (the “three-day stay” inpatient requirement), Medicare will not pay because they never registered “official” hospital time. Patients and caregivers are not prepared for the unexpected bills, and, consequently, tempers are rising.

The rules for Medicare Advantage enrollees, who make up 25% of the program, differ from conventional Medicare. However, commercial plans often shadow traditional fee-for-service in their policies, and, consequently, no exemplar of success in this realm exits.

Hospitals have increased both the number of their observation stays, as well as their hourly lengths (>48 hours). Because the definition of “observation status” is vague, and even the one- to two-day window is inflating, hospitals and hospitalists are often left to navigate without a compass. Again, fear of fraud and penalties places hospitals—and, indirectly, hospitalists, who often make judgments on admission grade—in a precarious position.

The responsibility of hospitals to notify beneficiaries of their status hinges on this murky determination milieu, which might change in real time during the stay and makes for an unsatisfactory standard. Understandably, CMS is attempting to rectify this quandary, taking into account a hospital’s need to clarify its billing and designation practices as well as beneficiaries’ desire to obtain clear guidance on their responsibilities both during and after a stay.

Hospitalists, of course, want direction on coding and an understanding of the impact their decisions will have on patients and subspecialty colleagues. To that end, Patrick Conway, MD, SFHM, chief medical officer for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid (CMS), offers some enlightenment on this matter:

Q: Is it tenable to keep the current system in place? However, as a fix, require payors and providers to inform beneficiaries of inpatient versus observation status at time zero in a more rigorous, yet-to-be determined manner?

A: Current regulations only require CMS to inform beneficiaries when they are admitted as an inpatient and not when they are an outpatient receiving observation services. There are important implications for coverage for beneficiaries post-hospital stay, coverage of self-administered drugs, and beneficiary coinsurance from this distinction. As a hospitalist, I think it is best to inform the patient of their status, especially if it has the potential to impact beneficiary liability, including coverage of post-acute care. CMS prepared a pamphlet in 2009, “Are You a Hospital Inpatient or Outpatient? If You Have Medicare, Ask!” to educate beneficiaries on this issue. The pamphlet can found at http://www.medicare.gov/Publications/Pubs/pdf/11435.pdf.

Q: Due to the nature of how hospital care is changing, are admission decisions potentially becoming too conflicted an endeavor for inpatient caregivers?

A: We want admission decisions to be based on clinical considerations. The decision to admit a patient should be based on the clinical judgment of the primary care, emergency medicine, and/or hospital medicine clinician.

Q: Before the U.S. healthcare system matures to a more integrated model with internalized risk, can you envision any near-term code changes that might simplify the difficulties all parties are facing, in a budget-neutral fashion?

A: CMS is currently investigating options to clarify when it is appropriate to admit the patient as an inpatient versus keeping the patient as an outpatient receiving observation services. We understand that this issue is of concern to hospitals, hospitalists, and patients, and we are considering carefully how to simplify the rules in a way that best meets the needs of patients and providers without increasing costs to the system.

I expect we will hear more from Medicare in the near-term on this matter. Stay tuned.

For more about the patient’s perspective on this issue, please see Brad’s blog: www.hospitalmedicine.org/pmblog.

Dr. Whitcomb is medical director of healthcare quality at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass. He is a co-founder and past president of SHM. Email him at wfwhit@comcast.net.

It’s been one year since the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education’s (ACGME) most recent residency program regulations took effect, updating standards put into place in 2003. The regulations are the latest manifestation of an ongoing challenge in medical training: how to strike the right balance of optimal clinical training with patient safety, resident well-being, and other concerns.

Clearly the most controversial change in the latest regulations is the restriction of first-year residents to a work shift of no more than 16 hours and older residents to 24 hours, with an additional four hours to manage transitions in care (previously, 30-hour shifts were permitted for all residents). ACGME applied the 16-hour restriction after extensive discussions with members of an Institute of Medicine committee that drafted a report at the request of Congress that explored the dangers to patient care of sleep-deprived caregivers. The IOM report argued that revisions to medical residents’ workloads and duty-hours were necessary to better protect patients against fatigue-related errors and to ensure that residents get the best educational experience.¹

This month, the ACGME begins its annual reviews of institutions to gauge the impact of the new regulations. While few expect the ACGME to find decisive answers regarding optimal work-hour regulations for residents, the 16-hour rule has both its opponents and supporters. On balance, HM appears to be well-positioned to benefit from the changes, having been given yet another opportunity to demonstrate value by helping their institutions weather the changes, enhance the residency training experience, and support the patient safety imperative.

Is 16 the Magic Number?

In defending the new rules last year, ACGME CEO Thomas J. Nasca, MD, acknowledged that the evidence linking long duty-hours and patient safety is mixed, while also explaining that another part of the rationale for limiting shifts for the youngest residents was to ease them into the profession. Older residents, he said, must be taught to recognize and manage the fatigue they will encounter regularly in their actual clinical practice, where hours are not regulated.

“It makes sense how ACGME has structured this—giving trainees the chance to learn in a more measured way, while recognizing that more experienced residents have more mature judgment,” says Daniel D. Dressler, MD, MSc, SFHM, FACP, hospital medicine associate division director for education, and associate program director for the J. Willis Hurst Internal Medicine Residency Program at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta. “I believe it’s an overall positive move, in terms of morale and work/life balance.”

Others disagree. Patient safety expert Lucian Leape, MD, adjunct professor at Harvard School of Public Health, decried that the ACGME rules did not apply to all residents, just those in their first year, and he rejected the assumption that one can learn to tolerate sleep deprivation.² HM pioneer Bob Wachter, MD, MHM, professor, chief of the division of hospital medicine, and chief of the medical service at University of California San Francisco Medical Center, agrees the work-hour restrictions are here to stay—and are a good thing. At his blog Wachter’s World, he recently posted that research shows “prolonged wakefulness” degrades cognitive skills, and equates to a blood-alcohol level of 0.1, or “legally drunk in every state.”

“Even without strong evidence one way or the other, if it has improved safety, I think 16 hours is probably right for interns, and 24-plus-four hours for second-year residents and above. It’s the ACGME’s best guess, to date, of the right balance,” says Jeffrey G. Wiese, MD, SFHM, FACP, associate dean for graduate medical education, director of the internal medicine program at Tulane University School of Medicine in New Orleans, and former SHM president. “It’s no huge intellectual stretch to say that someone who’s been up for 32 hours is not in the best condition to make optimal patient-care decisions.”

While preserving optimal cognitive abilities is important for all physicians, ACGME’s new work-hour limits matter even more to specialties like surgery, which rely heavily on manual dexterity skills, Dr. Wiese suggests. Ironically, surgical specialty societies have been among the most critical of the new limits.

“My surgical colleagues have been particularly vocal critics of the new work-hour limit,” says Dr. Dressler, noting that Emory’s residency programs are smaller and have greater challenges in adjusting for fewer work hours as they rely more heavily on residents for certain clinical tasks than do other specialties.

Ideally, Dr. Wiese maintains, resident duty-hours should be increased gradually based on progressively demonstrated levels of ability and competence by individual residents, regardless of program year. Such milestone-based accountability is supported by SHM as well as several other medical societies.

Continuity of Care

A downside to the work-hour limit is its potential to disrupt both the continuity of care and the learning process, as fewer patients are likely to be followed by a single resident from admission to resolution of a case. Dr. Wachter, who is chair of the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) and a former SHM president, acknowledges this sacrifice, noting that care teams at his hospital inherit nearly half their patients as handoffs from night admitters, and some never know handed-off patients as well as those they admitted themselves.

“In a system in which half the patients are cared for by two sets of doctors during these crucial stages [early assessment, data gathering, and initial patient response], neither group fully sees this arc play out, and their education suffers,” he wrote on his blog.

New limits means “less flexibility,” says Dr. Dressler, “and it can become a hindrance to completing the work-up of a patient—like not being able to put a central line in at 8:30 p.m. ... Some trainees feel they have less continuity with their patients because of the shorter hours.”

It’s no huge intellectual stretch to say that someone who’s been up for 32 hours is not in the best condition to make optimal patient-care decisions.

—Jeffrey G. Wiese, MD, SFHM, FACP, associate dean, graduate medical education, director, internal medicine program, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, former SHM president

Thoughtful management is required to minimize schedule disruption and maximize learning opportunities, he adds. “We’ve decided that our interns will have five overnight shifts over 10 days as part of one of their 30-day rotations. It’s important that interns get overnight experience before their second year,” Dr. Dressler says. “We had to incorporate three interns per team instead of two. Any way you slice it, you’re going to need additional manpower from other sources.”

Such workforce issues are hot topics in teaching hospitals across the country, Dr. Wiese says. He also warns that using hospitalists solely as “resident extenders” is not sustainable. “If an academic program is using hospitalists as stopgap labor, they do so at the risk of accelerating burnout,” he says.

Hospitalist Opportunity

Hospitalists can and should, however, take full advantage of a much-needed niche that the new ACGME regulations have called attention to: the need for expertise in minimizing patient-care disruptions resulting from more frequent patient handoffs.

“Hospitalists have an opportunity to get more involved in residency training programs by sharing their knowledge of effective patient handoff protocols,” Dr. Dressler says. “Hospitalists have treaded those waters for over a decade. We’ve learned a lot about structuring handoff information effectively, and we can inform training programs about those issues.”

The increased urgency of effective handoff management might even lead to an increased investment in HM programs, Dr. Dressler believes. “The expectation, of course, is that we are able to demonstrate effective patient handoffs—and show that we’re ‘walking the walk,’ and not just talking about it,” he says.

Christopher Guadagnino is a freelance medical writer in Philadelphia.

References

1. Institute of Medicine. Resident duty hours: enhancing sleep, supervision, and safety. Institute of Medicine website. Available at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12508#toc. Accessed May 1, 2012.
2. Krups C. Residency programs scramble to adopt changes. American Medical News website. Available at: http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2011/07/11/prsa0711.htm#s1. Accessed May 1, 2012.

It’s been one year since the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education’s (ACGME) most recent residency program regulations took effect, updating standards put into place in 2003. The regulations are the latest manifestation of an ongoing challenge in medical training: how to strike the right balance of optimal clinical training with patient safety, resident well-being, and other concerns.

Clearly the most controversial change in the latest regulations is the restriction of first-year residents to a work shift of no more than 16 hours and older residents to 24 hours, with an additional four hours to manage transitions in care (previously, 30-hour shifts were permitted for all residents). ACGME applied the 16-hour restriction after extensive discussions with members of an Institute of Medicine committee that drafted a report at the request of Congress that explored the dangers to patient care of sleep-deprived caregivers. The IOM report argued that revisions to medical residents’ workloads and duty-hours were necessary to better protect patients against fatigue-related errors and to ensure that residents get the best educational experience.¹

This month, the ACGME begins its annual reviews of institutions to gauge the impact of the new regulations. While few expect the ACGME to find decisive answers regarding optimal work-hour regulations for residents, the 16-hour rule has both its opponents and supporters. On balance, HM appears to be well-positioned to benefit from the changes, having been given yet another opportunity to demonstrate value by helping their institutions weather the changes, enhance the residency training experience, and support the patient safety imperative.

Is 16 the Magic Number?

In defending the new rules last year, ACGME CEO Thomas J. Nasca, MD, acknowledged that the evidence linking long duty-hours and patient safety is mixed, while also explaining that another part of the rationale for limiting shifts for the youngest residents was to ease them into the profession. Older residents, he said, must be taught to recognize and manage the fatigue they will encounter regularly in their actual clinical practice, where hours are not regulated.

“It makes sense how ACGME has structured this—giving trainees the chance to learn in a more measured way, while recognizing that more experienced residents have more mature judgment,” says Daniel D. Dressler, MD, MSc, SFHM, FACP, hospital medicine associate division director for education, and associate program director for the J. Willis Hurst Internal Medicine Residency Program at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta. “I believe it’s an overall positive move, in terms of morale and work/life balance.”

Others disagree. Patient safety expert Lucian Leape, MD, adjunct professor at Harvard School of Public Health, decried that the ACGME rules did not apply to all residents, just those in their first year, and he rejected the assumption that one can learn to tolerate sleep deprivation.² HM pioneer Bob Wachter, MD, MHM, professor, chief of the division of hospital medicine, and chief of the medical service at University of California San Francisco Medical Center, agrees the work-hour restrictions are here to stay—and are a good thing. At his blog Wachter’s World, he recently posted that research shows “prolonged wakefulness” degrades cognitive skills, and equates to a blood-alcohol level of 0.1, or “legally drunk in every state.”

“Even without strong evidence one way or the other, if it has improved safety, I think 16 hours is probably right for interns, and 24-plus-four hours for second-year residents and above. It’s the ACGME’s best guess, to date, of the right balance,” says Jeffrey G. Wiese, MD, SFHM, FACP, associate dean for graduate medical education, director of the internal medicine program at Tulane University School of Medicine in New Orleans, and former SHM president. “It’s no huge intellectual stretch to say that someone who’s been up for 32 hours is not in the best condition to make optimal patient-care decisions.”

While preserving optimal cognitive abilities is important for all physicians, ACGME’s new work-hour limits matter even more to specialties like surgery, which rely heavily on manual dexterity skills, Dr. Wiese suggests. Ironically, surgical specialty societies have been among the most critical of the new limits.

“My surgical colleagues have been particularly vocal critics of the new work-hour limit,” says Dr. Dressler, noting that Emory’s residency programs are smaller and have greater challenges in adjusting for fewer work hours as they rely more heavily on residents for certain clinical tasks than do other specialties.

Ideally, Dr. Wiese maintains, resident duty-hours should be increased gradually based on progressively demonstrated levels of ability and competence by individual residents, regardless of program year. Such milestone-based accountability is supported by SHM as well as several other medical societies.

Continuity of Care

A downside to the work-hour limit is its potential to disrupt both the continuity of care and the learning process, as fewer patients are likely to be followed by a single resident from admission to resolution of a case. Dr. Wachter, who is chair of the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) and a former SHM president, acknowledges this sacrifice, noting that care teams at his hospital inherit nearly half their patients as handoffs from night admitters, and some never know handed-off patients as well as those they admitted themselves.

“In a system in which half the patients are cared for by two sets of doctors during these crucial stages [early assessment, data gathering, and initial patient response], neither group fully sees this arc play out, and their education suffers,” he wrote on his blog.

New limits means “less flexibility,” says Dr. Dressler, “and it can become a hindrance to completing the work-up of a patient—like not being able to put a central line in at 8:30 p.m. ... Some trainees feel they have less continuity with their patients because of the shorter hours.”

It’s no huge intellectual stretch to say that someone who’s been up for 32 hours is not in the best condition to make optimal patient-care decisions.

—Jeffrey G. Wiese, MD, SFHM, FACP, associate dean, graduate medical education, director, internal medicine program, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, former SHM president

Thoughtful management is required to minimize schedule disruption and maximize learning opportunities, he adds. “We’ve decided that our interns will have five overnight shifts over 10 days as part of one of their 30-day rotations. It’s important that interns get overnight experience before their second year,” Dr. Dressler says. “We had to incorporate three interns per team instead of two. Any way you slice it, you’re going to need additional manpower from other sources.”

Such workforce issues are hot topics in teaching hospitals across the country, Dr. Wiese says. He also warns that using hospitalists solely as “resident extenders” is not sustainable. “If an academic program is using hospitalists as stopgap labor, they do so at the risk of accelerating burnout,” he says.

Hospitalist Opportunity

Hospitalists can and should, however, take full advantage of a much-needed niche that the new ACGME regulations have called attention to: the need for expertise in minimizing patient-care disruptions resulting from more frequent patient handoffs.

“Hospitalists have an opportunity to get more involved in residency training programs by sharing their knowledge of effective patient handoff protocols,” Dr. Dressler says. “Hospitalists have treaded those waters for over a decade. We’ve learned a lot about structuring handoff information effectively, and we can inform training programs about those issues.”

The increased urgency of effective handoff management might even lead to an increased investment in HM programs, Dr. Dressler believes. “The expectation, of course, is that we are able to demonstrate effective patient handoffs—and show that we’re ‘walking the walk,’ and not just talking about it,” he says.

Christopher Guadagnino is a freelance medical writer in Philadelphia.

References

1. Institute of Medicine. Resident duty hours: enhancing sleep, supervision, and safety. Institute of Medicine website. Available at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12508#toc. Accessed May 1, 2012.
2. Krups C. Residency programs scramble to adopt changes. American Medical News website. Available at: http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2011/07/11/prsa0711.htm#s1. Accessed May 1, 2012.

It’s been one year since the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education’s (ACGME) most recent residency program regulations took effect, updating standards put into place in 2003. The regulations are the latest manifestation of an ongoing challenge in medical training: how to strike the right balance of optimal clinical training with patient safety, resident well-being, and other concerns.

Clearly the most controversial change in the latest regulations is the restriction of first-year residents to a work shift of no more than 16 hours and older residents to 24 hours, with an additional four hours to manage transitions in care (previously, 30-hour shifts were permitted for all residents). ACGME applied the 16-hour restriction after extensive discussions with members of an Institute of Medicine committee that drafted a report at the request of Congress that explored the dangers to patient care of sleep-deprived caregivers. The IOM report argued that revisions to medical residents’ workloads and duty-hours were necessary to better protect patients against fatigue-related errors and to ensure that residents get the best educational experience.¹

This month, the ACGME begins its annual reviews of institutions to gauge the impact of the new regulations. While few expect the ACGME to find decisive answers regarding optimal work-hour regulations for residents, the 16-hour rule has both its opponents and supporters. On balance, HM appears to be well-positioned to benefit from the changes, having been given yet another opportunity to demonstrate value by helping their institutions weather the changes, enhance the residency training experience, and support the patient safety imperative.

Is 16 the Magic Number?

In defending the new rules last year, ACGME CEO Thomas J. Nasca, MD, acknowledged that the evidence linking long duty-hours and patient safety is mixed, while also explaining that another part of the rationale for limiting shifts for the youngest residents was to ease them into the profession. Older residents, he said, must be taught to recognize and manage the fatigue they will encounter regularly in their actual clinical practice, where hours are not regulated.

“It makes sense how ACGME has structured this—giving trainees the chance to learn in a more measured way, while recognizing that more experienced residents have more mature judgment,” says Daniel D. Dressler, MD, MSc, SFHM, FACP, hospital medicine associate division director for education, and associate program director for the J. Willis Hurst Internal Medicine Residency Program at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta. “I believe it’s an overall positive move, in terms of morale and work/life balance.”

Others disagree. Patient safety expert Lucian Leape, MD, adjunct professor at Harvard School of Public Health, decried that the ACGME rules did not apply to all residents, just those in their first year, and he rejected the assumption that one can learn to tolerate sleep deprivation.² HM pioneer Bob Wachter, MD, MHM, professor, chief of the division of hospital medicine, and chief of the medical service at University of California San Francisco Medical Center, agrees the work-hour restrictions are here to stay—and are a good thing. At his blog Wachter’s World, he recently posted that research shows “prolonged wakefulness” degrades cognitive skills, and equates to a blood-alcohol level of 0.1, or “legally drunk in every state.”

“Even without strong evidence one way or the other, if it has improved safety, I think 16 hours is probably right for interns, and 24-plus-four hours for second-year residents and above. It’s the ACGME’s best guess, to date, of the right balance,” says Jeffrey G. Wiese, MD, SFHM, FACP, associate dean for graduate medical education, director of the internal medicine program at Tulane University School of Medicine in New Orleans, and former SHM president. “It’s no huge intellectual stretch to say that someone who’s been up for 32 hours is not in the best condition to make optimal patient-care decisions.”

While preserving optimal cognitive abilities is important for all physicians, ACGME’s new work-hour limits matter even more to specialties like surgery, which rely heavily on manual dexterity skills, Dr. Wiese suggests. Ironically, surgical specialty societies have been among the most critical of the new limits.

“My surgical colleagues have been particularly vocal critics of the new work-hour limit,” says Dr. Dressler, noting that Emory’s residency programs are smaller and have greater challenges in adjusting for fewer work hours as they rely more heavily on residents for certain clinical tasks than do other specialties.

Ideally, Dr. Wiese maintains, resident duty-hours should be increased gradually based on progressively demonstrated levels of ability and competence by individual residents, regardless of program year. Such milestone-based accountability is supported by SHM as well as several other medical societies.

Continuity of Care

A downside to the work-hour limit is its potential to disrupt both the continuity of care and the learning process, as fewer patients are likely to be followed by a single resident from admission to resolution of a case. Dr. Wachter, who is chair of the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) and a former SHM president, acknowledges this sacrifice, noting that care teams at his hospital inherit nearly half their patients as handoffs from night admitters, and some never know handed-off patients as well as those they admitted themselves.

“In a system in which half the patients are cared for by two sets of doctors during these crucial stages [early assessment, data gathering, and initial patient response], neither group fully sees this arc play out, and their education suffers,” he wrote on his blog.

New limits means “less flexibility,” says Dr. Dressler, “and it can become a hindrance to completing the work-up of a patient—like not being able to put a central line in at 8:30 p.m. ... Some trainees feel they have less continuity with their patients because of the shorter hours.”

It’s no huge intellectual stretch to say that someone who’s been up for 32 hours is not in the best condition to make optimal patient-care decisions.

—Jeffrey G. Wiese, MD, SFHM, FACP, associate dean, graduate medical education, director, internal medicine program, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, former SHM president

Thoughtful management is required to minimize schedule disruption and maximize learning opportunities, he adds. “We’ve decided that our interns will have five overnight shifts over 10 days as part of one of their 30-day rotations. It’s important that interns get overnight experience before their second year,” Dr. Dressler says. “We had to incorporate three interns per team instead of two. Any way you slice it, you’re going to need additional manpower from other sources.”

Such workforce issues are hot topics in teaching hospitals across the country, Dr. Wiese says. He also warns that using hospitalists solely as “resident extenders” is not sustainable. “If an academic program is using hospitalists as stopgap labor, they do so at the risk of accelerating burnout,” he says.

Hospitalist Opportunity

Hospitalists can and should, however, take full advantage of a much-needed niche that the new ACGME regulations have called attention to: the need for expertise in minimizing patient-care disruptions resulting from more frequent patient handoffs.

“Hospitalists have an opportunity to get more involved in residency training programs by sharing their knowledge of effective patient handoff protocols,” Dr. Dressler says. “Hospitalists have treaded those waters for over a decade. We’ve learned a lot about structuring handoff information effectively, and we can inform training programs about those issues.”

The increased urgency of effective handoff management might even lead to an increased investment in HM programs, Dr. Dressler believes. “The expectation, of course, is that we are able to demonstrate effective patient handoffs—and show that we’re ‘walking the walk,’ and not just talking about it,” he says.

Christopher Guadagnino is a freelance medical writer in Philadelphia.

References

1. Institute of Medicine. Resident duty hours: enhancing sleep, supervision, and safety. Institute of Medicine website. Available at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12508#toc. Accessed May 1, 2012.
2. Krups C. Residency programs scramble to adopt changes. American Medical News website. Available at: http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2011/07/11/prsa0711.htm#s1. Accessed May 1, 2012.