M­y mind has been very much on New Orleans and the Gulf Coast the past couple of weeks. The utter devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina, and the horrific images of stranded people clinging to rooftops, are shocking. Sitting in San Francisco it was hard to imagine just how terrifying and chaotic it could be.

What a different image than the one I had during my first visit to New Orleans in 1999 for the 2nd Annual Meeting of the National Association of Inpatient Physicians. I remember being enchanted by New Orleans and thinking how it seemed more European than American and the most foreign of any American city I had visited.

I brought my family to the meeting, and we had a wonderful visit. We stayed near the convention center and enjoyed strolling the streets of the French Quarter, eating beignets, and riding the streetcar. I had an unforgettable dinner at Emeril’s that still ranks among the finest I’ve ever had. These memories are completely at odds with the images in the newspaper and on television. Some of the most vivid stories I read of Hurricane Katrina were e-mails from hospitalists on the ground in New Orleans and from others helping to care for sick patients evacuated from hospitals in Louisiana.

The first-hand accounts from hospitalists in New Orleans were gripping. I read the now-familiar stories of trying to live in a city with no electricity, no safe drinking water, no sewer system, and no government. I read of one physician entering a darkened pharmacy under police escort so that he could gather life-saving medicines for people whose prescriptions were destroyed along with their homes. Steve Deitzelsweig, MD, FACP, a hospitalist at Ochsner Clinic in New Orleans described the fear of epidemics in the Wall Street Journal, as well as in The Hospitalist (see October, p. 1). The possibility of a typhoid outbreak in 21st century America seemed more like a plot from a bad movie than a headline in a major newspaper. Even hospitalists far from New Orleans enlisted in aiding evacuees.

E-mail dispatches from Pat Cawley, MD, in South Carolina and others described hospitalists helping care for the sick airlifted from Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. Jeanne Huddleston, MD, SHM’s immediate past president, described her role leading a team of doctors from Mayo Clinic who went to Louisiana to care for the sick and injured.

Perhaps the most frightening images were of doctors and nurses caring for critically ill patients without the help of monitors, ventilators, or other equipment when the emergency power went out. The images of patients waiting for helicopters to airlift them to safety were harrowing. Also striking were reports from hospitalists whose families had been evacuated, their homes destroyed—and they were at the hospital caring for those who were sick prior to and because of the hurricane.

My gratitude and admiration go out to all of the doctors, nurses, respiratory therapists, pharmacists, social workers, chaplains, and others in the hurricane-devastated regions and elsewhere who worked so valiantly to help patients in the face of chaos. As president of SHM I am proud of the efforts of our members and of all hospitalists who continue to assist in the face of this tragedy.

The medical crisis caused by Hurricane Katrina is perhaps most noteworthy because it happened in America. Of course, physicians and nurses struggle to help their patients under similar or worse conditions every day across the world without the ability to airlift their patients anywhere. Nonetheless, to watch this happen in New Orleans was shocking and offered insights into what it must be like in war zones and the developing world.

In addition, this was the fist time I recall hospitalists playing a prominent role in the medical response (see “Tours of Duty,” p. 1 and “The Red Badge of Katrina,” p. 13). To be sure, hospitals and healthcare personnel responded actively to tragedies like this one before hospitalists. But to the many advantages we bring as hospitalists, we can now add being in place—in the hospital—when disaster strikes. I do not pretend that this reason will convince many hospitals to start hospitalist programs—there are better and more pressing reasons to do so. But the ability to respond to disaster is clearly a benefit of a hospitalist program.

Included among the many e-mails circulating on the SHM listserv and among hospitalists was the question of whether hospitalists were included in official disaster response plans including those by FEMA and other agencies. After Hurricane Katrina, we will be.

Dire Inequities

Among the many tragedies revealed by Hurricane Katrina perhaps none was so striking as the inequities in our society. Even if we are willing to accept that in a free-market society some have more than others, the desperate situation faced by so many in New Orleans who were left behind is an indictment of a system that pays too little attention to those who have no resources.

We are aware of inequities in healthcare evidenced in part by the fact that millions of Americans have no health insurance. This tragedy showed that, in addition to not having health insurance, being poor exposes you to the brunt of a natural disaster that those with money can escape. The buses that arrived days after Hurricane Katrina to take people to Houston and elsewhere should have been there days before the hurricane.

What role do we play in changing this system? I can’t say that I have easy answers. Many of us contributed our skills after the tragedy to help those in need. Some of us farther away contributed money or goods to assist those affected by the hurricane. Some of us will begin or continue to advocate for a more just system.

While some of these issues are beyond the scope of SHM, during our planned legislative day preceding the 2006 Annual Meeting in Washington, D.C., we will have the opportunity to meet with our elected representatives to tell them about hospitalists and hospital medicine. We should share with them our experience from the frontline of American healthcare: Every day we care for many people who present to the hospital with illnesses that could have been prevented or significantly ameliorated by earlier intervention if they had only had access to healthcare. We are direct witnesses to what befalls those who lack health insurance and have poor access to healthcare. I hope that one of the messages we bring to Congress is that all Americans should have access to healthcare with health insurance.

The scenes of the hurricane-ravaged Gulf Coast also led me to reflect on the fragility of life and its precarious balance. Here in San Francisco we are safe from hurricanes, but at the mercy of earthquakes. It is still true that anyone who experienced the 1989 earthquake here in San Francisco can tell you exactly where they were and what they were doing at the time.

Final Thoughts

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina my wife and I have been talking a lot about earthquakes and how to ensure that we are prepared—if such a thing is even possible. The news reports tell us to have 72 hours’ worth of food and water, a battery operated radio, gas in the car, flashlights, and other necessities. We promise ourselves to get all the supplies we need and believe we will do so. But I also realize that denial is part of life and that in living near an earthquake fault denial might be necessary; just as living on the Gulf Coast may require a certain denial about the destructive power of hurricanes. But as one e-mail correspondent from New Orleans wrote, “Despite it all, this is a soul-edifying experience.”

Perhaps the tragedy that hit the Gulf Coast will help each of us edify our souls through less drastic measures and remind us that any day can be our last. This knowledge is a gift to help us spend our time in the best way possible. Those who are helping the people whose lives were ravaged by Hurricane Katrina remind us of the good that we can do in the world. As hospitalists we get to experience this good every day at the bedside through the privilege of patient care. May we cherish this opportunity and fulfill it with dignity and pride. To all those involved in hurricane relief efforts, thank you, and to all those whose lives were ravaged by the hurricane I wish you strength and recovery. TH

SHM President Dr. Pantilat is an associate professor of clinical medicine at the University of California at San Francisco.

M­y mind has been very much on New Orleans and the Gulf Coast the past couple of weeks. The utter devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina, and the horrific images of stranded people clinging to rooftops, are shocking. Sitting in San Francisco it was hard to imagine just how terrifying and chaotic it could be.

What a different image than the one I had during my first visit to New Orleans in 1999 for the 2nd Annual Meeting of the National Association of Inpatient Physicians. I remember being enchanted by New Orleans and thinking how it seemed more European than American and the most foreign of any American city I had visited.

I brought my family to the meeting, and we had a wonderful visit. We stayed near the convention center and enjoyed strolling the streets of the French Quarter, eating beignets, and riding the streetcar. I had an unforgettable dinner at Emeril’s that still ranks among the finest I’ve ever had. These memories are completely at odds with the images in the newspaper and on television. Some of the most vivid stories I read of Hurricane Katrina were e-mails from hospitalists on the ground in New Orleans and from others helping to care for sick patients evacuated from hospitals in Louisiana.

The first-hand accounts from hospitalists in New Orleans were gripping. I read the now-familiar stories of trying to live in a city with no electricity, no safe drinking water, no sewer system, and no government. I read of one physician entering a darkened pharmacy under police escort so that he could gather life-saving medicines for people whose prescriptions were destroyed along with their homes. Steve Deitzelsweig, MD, FACP, a hospitalist at Ochsner Clinic in New Orleans described the fear of epidemics in the Wall Street Journal, as well as in The Hospitalist (see October, p. 1). The possibility of a typhoid outbreak in 21st century America seemed more like a plot from a bad movie than a headline in a major newspaper. Even hospitalists far from New Orleans enlisted in aiding evacuees.

E-mail dispatches from Pat Cawley, MD, in South Carolina and others described hospitalists helping care for the sick airlifted from Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. Jeanne Huddleston, MD, SHM’s immediate past president, described her role leading a team of doctors from Mayo Clinic who went to Louisiana to care for the sick and injured.

Perhaps the most frightening images were of doctors and nurses caring for critically ill patients without the help of monitors, ventilators, or other equipment when the emergency power went out. The images of patients waiting for helicopters to airlift them to safety were harrowing. Also striking were reports from hospitalists whose families had been evacuated, their homes destroyed—and they were at the hospital caring for those who were sick prior to and because of the hurricane.

My gratitude and admiration go out to all of the doctors, nurses, respiratory therapists, pharmacists, social workers, chaplains, and others in the hurricane-devastated regions and elsewhere who worked so valiantly to help patients in the face of chaos. As president of SHM I am proud of the efforts of our members and of all hospitalists who continue to assist in the face of this tragedy.

The medical crisis caused by Hurricane Katrina is perhaps most noteworthy because it happened in America. Of course, physicians and nurses struggle to help their patients under similar or worse conditions every day across the world without the ability to airlift their patients anywhere. Nonetheless, to watch this happen in New Orleans was shocking and offered insights into what it must be like in war zones and the developing world.

In addition, this was the fist time I recall hospitalists playing a prominent role in the medical response (see “Tours of Duty,” p. 1 and “The Red Badge of Katrina,” p. 13). To be sure, hospitals and healthcare personnel responded actively to tragedies like this one before hospitalists. But to the many advantages we bring as hospitalists, we can now add being in place—in the hospital—when disaster strikes. I do not pretend that this reason will convince many hospitals to start hospitalist programs—there are better and more pressing reasons to do so. But the ability to respond to disaster is clearly a benefit of a hospitalist program.

Included among the many e-mails circulating on the SHM listserv and among hospitalists was the question of whether hospitalists were included in official disaster response plans including those by FEMA and other agencies. After Hurricane Katrina, we will be.

Dire Inequities

Among the many tragedies revealed by Hurricane Katrina perhaps none was so striking as the inequities in our society. Even if we are willing to accept that in a free-market society some have more than others, the desperate situation faced by so many in New Orleans who were left behind is an indictment of a system that pays too little attention to those who have no resources.

We are aware of inequities in healthcare evidenced in part by the fact that millions of Americans have no health insurance. This tragedy showed that, in addition to not having health insurance, being poor exposes you to the brunt of a natural disaster that those with money can escape. The buses that arrived days after Hurricane Katrina to take people to Houston and elsewhere should have been there days before the hurricane.

What role do we play in changing this system? I can’t say that I have easy answers. Many of us contributed our skills after the tragedy to help those in need. Some of us farther away contributed money or goods to assist those affected by the hurricane. Some of us will begin or continue to advocate for a more just system.

While some of these issues are beyond the scope of SHM, during our planned legislative day preceding the 2006 Annual Meeting in Washington, D.C., we will have the opportunity to meet with our elected representatives to tell them about hospitalists and hospital medicine. We should share with them our experience from the frontline of American healthcare: Every day we care for many people who present to the hospital with illnesses that could have been prevented or significantly ameliorated by earlier intervention if they had only had access to healthcare. We are direct witnesses to what befalls those who lack health insurance and have poor access to healthcare. I hope that one of the messages we bring to Congress is that all Americans should have access to healthcare with health insurance.

The scenes of the hurricane-ravaged Gulf Coast also led me to reflect on the fragility of life and its precarious balance. Here in San Francisco we are safe from hurricanes, but at the mercy of earthquakes. It is still true that anyone who experienced the 1989 earthquake here in San Francisco can tell you exactly where they were and what they were doing at the time.

Final Thoughts

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina my wife and I have been talking a lot about earthquakes and how to ensure that we are prepared—if such a thing is even possible. The news reports tell us to have 72 hours’ worth of food and water, a battery operated radio, gas in the car, flashlights, and other necessities. We promise ourselves to get all the supplies we need and believe we will do so. But I also realize that denial is part of life and that in living near an earthquake fault denial might be necessary; just as living on the Gulf Coast may require a certain denial about the destructive power of hurricanes. But as one e-mail correspondent from New Orleans wrote, “Despite it all, this is a soul-edifying experience.”

Perhaps the tragedy that hit the Gulf Coast will help each of us edify our souls through less drastic measures and remind us that any day can be our last. This knowledge is a gift to help us spend our time in the best way possible. Those who are helping the people whose lives were ravaged by Hurricane Katrina remind us of the good that we can do in the world. As hospitalists we get to experience this good every day at the bedside through the privilege of patient care. May we cherish this opportunity and fulfill it with dignity and pride. To all those involved in hurricane relief efforts, thank you, and to all those whose lives were ravaged by the hurricane I wish you strength and recovery. TH

SHM President Dr. Pantilat is an associate professor of clinical medicine at the University of California at San Francisco.

M­y mind has been very much on New Orleans and the Gulf Coast the past couple of weeks. The utter devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina, and the horrific images of stranded people clinging to rooftops, are shocking. Sitting in San Francisco it was hard to imagine just how terrifying and chaotic it could be.

What a different image than the one I had during my first visit to New Orleans in 1999 for the 2nd Annual Meeting of the National Association of Inpatient Physicians. I remember being enchanted by New Orleans and thinking how it seemed more European than American and the most foreign of any American city I had visited.

I brought my family to the meeting, and we had a wonderful visit. We stayed near the convention center and enjoyed strolling the streets of the French Quarter, eating beignets, and riding the streetcar. I had an unforgettable dinner at Emeril’s that still ranks among the finest I’ve ever had. These memories are completely at odds with the images in the newspaper and on television. Some of the most vivid stories I read of Hurricane Katrina were e-mails from hospitalists on the ground in New Orleans and from others helping to care for sick patients evacuated from hospitals in Louisiana.

The first-hand accounts from hospitalists in New Orleans were gripping. I read the now-familiar stories of trying to live in a city with no electricity, no safe drinking water, no sewer system, and no government. I read of one physician entering a darkened pharmacy under police escort so that he could gather life-saving medicines for people whose prescriptions were destroyed along with their homes. Steve Deitzelsweig, MD, FACP, a hospitalist at Ochsner Clinic in New Orleans described the fear of epidemics in the Wall Street Journal, as well as in The Hospitalist (see October, p. 1). The possibility of a typhoid outbreak in 21st century America seemed more like a plot from a bad movie than a headline in a major newspaper. Even hospitalists far from New Orleans enlisted in aiding evacuees.

E-mail dispatches from Pat Cawley, MD, in South Carolina and others described hospitalists helping care for the sick airlifted from Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. Jeanne Huddleston, MD, SHM’s immediate past president, described her role leading a team of doctors from Mayo Clinic who went to Louisiana to care for the sick and injured.

Perhaps the most frightening images were of doctors and nurses caring for critically ill patients without the help of monitors, ventilators, or other equipment when the emergency power went out. The images of patients waiting for helicopters to airlift them to safety were harrowing. Also striking were reports from hospitalists whose families had been evacuated, their homes destroyed—and they were at the hospital caring for those who were sick prior to and because of the hurricane.

My gratitude and admiration go out to all of the doctors, nurses, respiratory therapists, pharmacists, social workers, chaplains, and others in the hurricane-devastated regions and elsewhere who worked so valiantly to help patients in the face of chaos. As president of SHM I am proud of the efforts of our members and of all hospitalists who continue to assist in the face of this tragedy.

The medical crisis caused by Hurricane Katrina is perhaps most noteworthy because it happened in America. Of course, physicians and nurses struggle to help their patients under similar or worse conditions every day across the world without the ability to airlift their patients anywhere. Nonetheless, to watch this happen in New Orleans was shocking and offered insights into what it must be like in war zones and the developing world.

In addition, this was the fist time I recall hospitalists playing a prominent role in the medical response (see “Tours of Duty,” p. 1 and “The Red Badge of Katrina,” p. 13). To be sure, hospitals and healthcare personnel responded actively to tragedies like this one before hospitalists. But to the many advantages we bring as hospitalists, we can now add being in place—in the hospital—when disaster strikes. I do not pretend that this reason will convince many hospitals to start hospitalist programs—there are better and more pressing reasons to do so. But the ability to respond to disaster is clearly a benefit of a hospitalist program.

Included among the many e-mails circulating on the SHM listserv and among hospitalists was the question of whether hospitalists were included in official disaster response plans including those by FEMA and other agencies. After Hurricane Katrina, we will be.

Dire Inequities

Among the many tragedies revealed by Hurricane Katrina perhaps none was so striking as the inequities in our society. Even if we are willing to accept that in a free-market society some have more than others, the desperate situation faced by so many in New Orleans who were left behind is an indictment of a system that pays too little attention to those who have no resources.

We are aware of inequities in healthcare evidenced in part by the fact that millions of Americans have no health insurance. This tragedy showed that, in addition to not having health insurance, being poor exposes you to the brunt of a natural disaster that those with money can escape. The buses that arrived days after Hurricane Katrina to take people to Houston and elsewhere should have been there days before the hurricane.

What role do we play in changing this system? I can’t say that I have easy answers. Many of us contributed our skills after the tragedy to help those in need. Some of us farther away contributed money or goods to assist those affected by the hurricane. Some of us will begin or continue to advocate for a more just system.

While some of these issues are beyond the scope of SHM, during our planned legislative day preceding the 2006 Annual Meeting in Washington, D.C., we will have the opportunity to meet with our elected representatives to tell them about hospitalists and hospital medicine. We should share with them our experience from the frontline of American healthcare: Every day we care for many people who present to the hospital with illnesses that could have been prevented or significantly ameliorated by earlier intervention if they had only had access to healthcare. We are direct witnesses to what befalls those who lack health insurance and have poor access to healthcare. I hope that one of the messages we bring to Congress is that all Americans should have access to healthcare with health insurance.

The scenes of the hurricane-ravaged Gulf Coast also led me to reflect on the fragility of life and its precarious balance. Here in San Francisco we are safe from hurricanes, but at the mercy of earthquakes. It is still true that anyone who experienced the 1989 earthquake here in San Francisco can tell you exactly where they were and what they were doing at the time.

Final Thoughts

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina my wife and I have been talking a lot about earthquakes and how to ensure that we are prepared—if such a thing is even possible. The news reports tell us to have 72 hours’ worth of food and water, a battery operated radio, gas in the car, flashlights, and other necessities. We promise ourselves to get all the supplies we need and believe we will do so. But I also realize that denial is part of life and that in living near an earthquake fault denial might be necessary; just as living on the Gulf Coast may require a certain denial about the destructive power of hurricanes. But as one e-mail correspondent from New Orleans wrote, “Despite it all, this is a soul-edifying experience.”

Perhaps the tragedy that hit the Gulf Coast will help each of us edify our souls through less drastic measures and remind us that any day can be our last. This knowledge is a gift to help us spend our time in the best way possible. Those who are helping the people whose lives were ravaged by Hurricane Katrina remind us of the good that we can do in the world. As hospitalists we get to experience this good every day at the bedside through the privilege of patient care. May we cherish this opportunity and fulfill it with dignity and pride. To all those involved in hurricane relief efforts, thank you, and to all those whose lives were ravaged by the hurricane I wish you strength and recovery. TH

SHM President Dr. Pantilat is an associate professor of clinical medicine at the University of California at San Francisco.

While President Obama made a splash last week with his first stump speeches for healthcare reform, SHM policy leaders want to hear more—a lot more. Those hospitalists say HM advocates need to stay on top of the details that will emerge in coming months about “accountable healthcare,” the bundling of Medicare reimbursement payments, and other sensitive issues.

"Reform is going to happen," says Eric Siegal, MD, FHM, a critical-care fellow at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health in Madison and the chair of SHM’s Public Policy Committee. “The scope of what it is remains to be seen. ... The devil is absolutely in the details."

Dr. Siegal resisted focusing on Obama's opposition to cap malpractice awards. "While tort reform is important and should be addressed, medical malpractice is not the root cause of our dysfunctional healthcare system." Dr. Siegal agrees "conceptually" with the administration’s plans to bundle payments, encourage more medical students to enter primary care, and hold healthcare organizations accountable. But he and other SHM leaders want pilot programs to test the efficacy of such initiatives before any broad changes are implemented.

Some policy wonks wonder how fast HM leaders might see the impact of Obama’s proposal to cut $600 billion from Medicare and Medicaid by 2019. SHM policy committee member Bradley Flansbaum, DO, MPH, said if cuts are implemented quickly, then hospitalists could see hospital subsidies to their programs reduced, or could simply be competing with other specialists for a shrinking fiscal pie.

“Short-term, I would be concerned,” says Dr. Flansbaum, chief of hospitalist services at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City. “What he’s proposing is more or less ... a haircut. Depending on how quickly the system is worked out, there could be a lot of pain on the hospital medicine side.”

For more public policy information, visit SHM’s Advocacy Website.

While President Obama made a splash last week with his first stump speeches for healthcare reform, SHM policy leaders want to hear more—a lot more. Those hospitalists say HM advocates need to stay on top of the details that will emerge in coming months about “accountable healthcare,” the bundling of Medicare reimbursement payments, and other sensitive issues.

"Reform is going to happen," says Eric Siegal, MD, FHM, a critical-care fellow at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health in Madison and the chair of SHM’s Public Policy Committee. “The scope of what it is remains to be seen. ... The devil is absolutely in the details."

Dr. Siegal resisted focusing on Obama's opposition to cap malpractice awards. "While tort reform is important and should be addressed, medical malpractice is not the root cause of our dysfunctional healthcare system." Dr. Siegal agrees "conceptually" with the administration’s plans to bundle payments, encourage more medical students to enter primary care, and hold healthcare organizations accountable. But he and other SHM leaders want pilot programs to test the efficacy of such initiatives before any broad changes are implemented.

Some policy wonks wonder how fast HM leaders might see the impact of Obama’s proposal to cut $600 billion from Medicare and Medicaid by 2019. SHM policy committee member Bradley Flansbaum, DO, MPH, said if cuts are implemented quickly, then hospitalists could see hospital subsidies to their programs reduced, or could simply be competing with other specialists for a shrinking fiscal pie.

“Short-term, I would be concerned,” says Dr. Flansbaum, chief of hospitalist services at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City. “What he’s proposing is more or less ... a haircut. Depending on how quickly the system is worked out, there could be a lot of pain on the hospital medicine side.”

For more public policy information, visit SHM’s Advocacy Website.

While President Obama made a splash last week with his first stump speeches for healthcare reform, SHM policy leaders want to hear more—a lot more. Those hospitalists say HM advocates need to stay on top of the details that will emerge in coming months about “accountable healthcare,” the bundling of Medicare reimbursement payments, and other sensitive issues.

"Reform is going to happen," says Eric Siegal, MD, FHM, a critical-care fellow at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health in Madison and the chair of SHM’s Public Policy Committee. “The scope of what it is remains to be seen. ... The devil is absolutely in the details."

Dr. Siegal resisted focusing on Obama's opposition to cap malpractice awards. "While tort reform is important and should be addressed, medical malpractice is not the root cause of our dysfunctional healthcare system." Dr. Siegal agrees "conceptually" with the administration’s plans to bundle payments, encourage more medical students to enter primary care, and hold healthcare organizations accountable. But he and other SHM leaders want pilot programs to test the efficacy of such initiatives before any broad changes are implemented.

Some policy wonks wonder how fast HM leaders might see the impact of Obama’s proposal to cut $600 billion from Medicare and Medicaid by 2019. SHM policy committee member Bradley Flansbaum, DO, MPH, said if cuts are implemented quickly, then hospitalists could see hospital subsidies to their programs reduced, or could simply be competing with other specialists for a shrinking fiscal pie.

“Short-term, I would be concerned,” says Dr. Flansbaum, chief of hospitalist services at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City. “What he’s proposing is more or less ... a haircut. Depending on how quickly the system is worked out, there could be a lot of pain on the hospital medicine side.”

For more public policy information, visit SHM’s Advocacy Website.

2008-09 apparently was a good time to find a job in HM. The Wall Street Journal’s Health Blog cites a new report from Merritt Hawkins & Associates (download PDF) that shows from April 2008 to March 2009, 85% of searches offered signing bonuses averaging $24,850. That’s in contrast to 46% of searches in 2005-2006, when the average bonus was $14,030.

The report also included average salaries for HM, which was the third-most-requested search assignment following family medicine and general internal medicine. The average salary for HM during that time period, excluding benefits or productivity bonuses, was $201,000, according to the report. It represents a 14.8% increase since 2005-2006, when the annual average annual salary for a hospitalist was $175,000, according to the report.

Fun & Games

On his blog, Running a Hospital, Paul Levy, president and CEO of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, offers physicians a game to help them better understand the value of standardized medicine. Interestingly, the game involves drawing a pig. For instructions, visit http://runningahospital.blogspot.com/2009/06/pig-part-1.html.

Work-Life Balance

In her Well blog, New York Times writer Tara Parker Pope cites a recent article from Times columnist Pauline Chen, MD, in which Dr. Chen recalls the toll her intense medical training took on her temperament and personal relationships.

Doctors responded to the post with a variety of viewpoints. Here’s what one old-timer had to say:

“I am from the era of 120-hour weeks, every second or third night on call. No ‘cap’ on the numbers of patients we admitted or carried on our service. I remember still being in the hospital at 10 p.m. after a night on call (40 hours straight). I learned how to manage the sickest patients through the entire course of their hospitalization. My residency and fellowship after medical school was seven years in duration, and I loved it. The ONLY regret I have after all these years is reading the NYT comments and blogs about all the doctor-haters and disgruntled patients who think that medicine is an easy path to riches.”

2008-09 apparently was a good time to find a job in HM. The Wall Street Journal’s Health Blog cites a new report from Merritt Hawkins & Associates (download PDF) that shows from April 2008 to March 2009, 85% of searches offered signing bonuses averaging $24,850. That’s in contrast to 46% of searches in 2005-2006, when the average bonus was $14,030.

The report also included average salaries for HM, which was the third-most-requested search assignment following family medicine and general internal medicine. The average salary for HM during that time period, excluding benefits or productivity bonuses, was $201,000, according to the report. It represents a 14.8% increase since 2005-2006, when the annual average annual salary for a hospitalist was $175,000, according to the report.

Fun & Games

On his blog, Running a Hospital, Paul Levy, president and CEO of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, offers physicians a game to help them better understand the value of standardized medicine. Interestingly, the game involves drawing a pig. For instructions, visit http://runningahospital.blogspot.com/2009/06/pig-part-1.html.

Work-Life Balance

In her Well blog, New York Times writer Tara Parker Pope cites a recent article from Times columnist Pauline Chen, MD, in which Dr. Chen recalls the toll her intense medical training took on her temperament and personal relationships.

Doctors responded to the post with a variety of viewpoints. Here’s what one old-timer had to say:

“I am from the era of 120-hour weeks, every second or third night on call. No ‘cap’ on the numbers of patients we admitted or carried on our service. I remember still being in the hospital at 10 p.m. after a night on call (40 hours straight). I learned how to manage the sickest patients through the entire course of their hospitalization. My residency and fellowship after medical school was seven years in duration, and I loved it. The ONLY regret I have after all these years is reading the NYT comments and blogs about all the doctor-haters and disgruntled patients who think that medicine is an easy path to riches.”

2008-09 apparently was a good time to find a job in HM. The Wall Street Journal’s Health Blog cites a new report from Merritt Hawkins & Associates (download PDF) that shows from April 2008 to March 2009, 85% of searches offered signing bonuses averaging $24,850. That’s in contrast to 46% of searches in 2005-2006, when the average bonus was $14,030.

The report also included average salaries for HM, which was the third-most-requested search assignment following family medicine and general internal medicine. The average salary for HM during that time period, excluding benefits or productivity bonuses, was $201,000, according to the report. It represents a 14.8% increase since 2005-2006, when the annual average annual salary for a hospitalist was $175,000, according to the report.

Fun & Games

On his blog, Running a Hospital, Paul Levy, president and CEO of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, offers physicians a game to help them better understand the value of standardized medicine. Interestingly, the game involves drawing a pig. For instructions, visit http://runningahospital.blogspot.com/2009/06/pig-part-1.html.

Work-Life Balance

In her Well blog, New York Times writer Tara Parker Pope cites a recent article from Times columnist Pauline Chen, MD, in which Dr. Chen recalls the toll her intense medical training took on her temperament and personal relationships.

Doctors responded to the post with a variety of viewpoints. Here’s what one old-timer had to say:

“I am from the era of 120-hour weeks, every second or third night on call. No ‘cap’ on the numbers of patients we admitted or carried on our service. I remember still being in the hospital at 10 p.m. after a night on call (40 hours straight). I learned how to manage the sickest patients through the entire course of their hospitalization. My residency and fellowship after medical school was seven years in duration, and I loved it. The ONLY regret I have after all these years is reading the NYT comments and blogs about all the doctor-haters and disgruntled patients who think that medicine is an easy path to riches.”

Dr. William Wierda discusses ofatumumab, an investigational monoclonal antibody that targets B cells and has been studied in the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Mitchel Zoler of the Global Medical News Network (GMNN) reports from the annual congress of the European Hematology Association in Berlin.

Dr. William Wierda discusses ofatumumab, an investigational monoclonal antibody that targets B cells and has been studied in the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Mitchel Zoler of the Global Medical News Network (GMNN) reports from the annual congress of the European Hematology Association in Berlin.

Dr. William Wierda discusses ofatumumab, an investigational monoclonal antibody that targets B cells and has been studied in the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Mitchel Zoler of the Global Medical News Network (GMNN) reports from the annual congress of the European Hematology Association in Berlin.

The hospitalist business model has been adopted nationwide to help stem the tide of obstetrician/gynecologists who forgo delivering babies at hospitals—or providing emergency obstetric care—because of skyrocketing malpractice costs and a frustration with on-call schedules. Like the familiar HM model, a new class of OB-GYN has cropped up to work in medical centers.

Called laborists or OB hospitalists, this breed resembles hospital-based physicians: They work out of their respective institutions but don’t have private-practice patients. Hospitals like the arrangement because they have trained delivery staff in-house, and private-practice physicians don't mind giving up hospital calls because they can earn more cycling patients through their office.

The OB Hospitalist Group of Greenville, S.C., already has placed 60 OB hospitalists in six states, including Texas, California, and Florida. Group president Chris Swain, MD, hopes to place 100 by year's end, but only if he can find enough qualified candidates to manage both deliveries and OB emergencies.

"If you're going to be in a hospital 24 hours a day, you want to be able to handle all the emergencies that come in," Dr. Swain says. “You can't take time to look it up. You need to know it."

Dr. Swain's group pays for that knowledge. The average OB-GYN makes about $280,000 per year; Dr. Swain's OB hospitalists earn roughly $300,000 a year. In exchange for the higher salaries and defined work schedules, OB Hospitalist Group requires board certification, monitoring courses, and continued training. "We want our doctors to be the experts in emergency obstetrics care," Dr. Swain says. "We pay our doctors more; we expect more out of them."

The hospitalist business model has been adopted nationwide to help stem the tide of obstetrician/gynecologists who forgo delivering babies at hospitals—or providing emergency obstetric care—because of skyrocketing malpractice costs and a frustration with on-call schedules. Like the familiar HM model, a new class of OB-GYN has cropped up to work in medical centers.

Called laborists or OB hospitalists, this breed resembles hospital-based physicians: They work out of their respective institutions but don’t have private-practice patients. Hospitals like the arrangement because they have trained delivery staff in-house, and private-practice physicians don't mind giving up hospital calls because they can earn more cycling patients through their office.

The OB Hospitalist Group of Greenville, S.C., already has placed 60 OB hospitalists in six states, including Texas, California, and Florida. Group president Chris Swain, MD, hopes to place 100 by year's end, but only if he can find enough qualified candidates to manage both deliveries and OB emergencies.

"If you're going to be in a hospital 24 hours a day, you want to be able to handle all the emergencies that come in," Dr. Swain says. “You can't take time to look it up. You need to know it."

Dr. Swain's group pays for that knowledge. The average OB-GYN makes about $280,000 per year; Dr. Swain's OB hospitalists earn roughly $300,000 a year. In exchange for the higher salaries and defined work schedules, OB Hospitalist Group requires board certification, monitoring courses, and continued training. "We want our doctors to be the experts in emergency obstetrics care," Dr. Swain says. "We pay our doctors more; we expect more out of them."

The hospitalist business model has been adopted nationwide to help stem the tide of obstetrician/gynecologists who forgo delivering babies at hospitals—or providing emergency obstetric care—because of skyrocketing malpractice costs and a frustration with on-call schedules. Like the familiar HM model, a new class of OB-GYN has cropped up to work in medical centers.

Called laborists or OB hospitalists, this breed resembles hospital-based physicians: They work out of their respective institutions but don’t have private-practice patients. Hospitals like the arrangement because they have trained delivery staff in-house, and private-practice physicians don't mind giving up hospital calls because they can earn more cycling patients through their office.

The OB Hospitalist Group of Greenville, S.C., already has placed 60 OB hospitalists in six states, including Texas, California, and Florida. Group president Chris Swain, MD, hopes to place 100 by year's end, but only if he can find enough qualified candidates to manage both deliveries and OB emergencies.

"If you're going to be in a hospital 24 hours a day, you want to be able to handle all the emergencies that come in," Dr. Swain says. “You can't take time to look it up. You need to know it."

Dr. Swain's group pays for that knowledge. The average OB-GYN makes about $280,000 per year; Dr. Swain's OB hospitalists earn roughly $300,000 a year. In exchange for the higher salaries and defined work schedules, OB Hospitalist Group requires board certification, monitoring courses, and continued training. "We want our doctors to be the experts in emergency obstetrics care," Dr. Swain says. "We pay our doctors more; we expect more out of them."

Clinical question: Does intensive glucose control reduce mortality at 90 days in adult ICU patients?

Background: The American Diabetic Association currently recommends tight glucose control for patients admitted to an ICU, despite conflicting evidence in the literature about the benefits of this practice.

Study design: Randomized controlled trial.

Setting: Medical and surgical ICUs at 42 hospitals in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand.

Synopsis: More than 6,000 medical and surgical ICU patients were randomly assigned to receive either intensive (target blood sugar range of 81 mg/dL to 108 mg/dL) or conventional (target blood sugar of <180 mg/dL) glucose control. Eligible patients were expected to stay at least three days in the ICU. Mortality at 90 days for the intensive treatment group was 27.5% versus 24.9% in the conventional treatment group, with an absolute difference in mortality of 2.6% resulting in a number needed to harm of 38.5. This difference in mortality remained significant whether the patients were in a SICU or MICU, diabetic or nondiabetic, with or without sepsis, and with APACHE II scores of above or below 25. The excess deaths were attributed to cardiovascular causes, but more investigation is needed. This study demonstrates that there is no additional benefit and that there may be harm in pursuing aggressive glucose control in ICU patients.

Bottom line: When compared with conventional practice in adult ICU patients, intensive glucose control resulted in an increase in 90-day mortality.

Citation: NICE-SUGAR Study Investigators, Finfer S, Chittock DR, et al. Intensive versus conventional glucose control in critically ill patients. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(13):1283-1297.

Clinical question: Does intensive glucose control reduce mortality at 90 days in adult ICU patients?

Background: The American Diabetic Association currently recommends tight glucose control for patients admitted to an ICU, despite conflicting evidence in the literature about the benefits of this practice.

Study design: Randomized controlled trial.

Setting: Medical and surgical ICUs at 42 hospitals in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand.

Synopsis: More than 6,000 medical and surgical ICU patients were randomly assigned to receive either intensive (target blood sugar range of 81 mg/dL to 108 mg/dL) or conventional (target blood sugar of <180 mg/dL) glucose control. Eligible patients were expected to stay at least three days in the ICU. Mortality at 90 days for the intensive treatment group was 27.5% versus 24.9% in the conventional treatment group, with an absolute difference in mortality of 2.6% resulting in a number needed to harm of 38.5. This difference in mortality remained significant whether the patients were in a SICU or MICU, diabetic or nondiabetic, with or without sepsis, and with APACHE II scores of above or below 25. The excess deaths were attributed to cardiovascular causes, but more investigation is needed. This study demonstrates that there is no additional benefit and that there may be harm in pursuing aggressive glucose control in ICU patients.

Bottom line: When compared with conventional practice in adult ICU patients, intensive glucose control resulted in an increase in 90-day mortality.

Citation: NICE-SUGAR Study Investigators, Finfer S, Chittock DR, et al. Intensive versus conventional glucose control in critically ill patients. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(13):1283-1297.

Clinical question: Does intensive glucose control reduce mortality at 90 days in adult ICU patients?

Background: The American Diabetic Association currently recommends tight glucose control for patients admitted to an ICU, despite conflicting evidence in the literature about the benefits of this practice.

Study design: Randomized controlled trial.

Setting: Medical and surgical ICUs at 42 hospitals in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand.

Synopsis: More than 6,000 medical and surgical ICU patients were randomly assigned to receive either intensive (target blood sugar range of 81 mg/dL to 108 mg/dL) or conventional (target blood sugar of <180 mg/dL) glucose control. Eligible patients were expected to stay at least three days in the ICU. Mortality at 90 days for the intensive treatment group was 27.5% versus 24.9% in the conventional treatment group, with an absolute difference in mortality of 2.6% resulting in a number needed to harm of 38.5. This difference in mortality remained significant whether the patients were in a SICU or MICU, diabetic or nondiabetic, with or without sepsis, and with APACHE II scores of above or below 25. The excess deaths were attributed to cardiovascular causes, but more investigation is needed. This study demonstrates that there is no additional benefit and that there may be harm in pursuing aggressive glucose control in ICU patients.

Bottom line: When compared with conventional practice in adult ICU patients, intensive glucose control resulted in an increase in 90-day mortality.

Citation: NICE-SUGAR Study Investigators, Finfer S, Chittock DR, et al. Intensive versus conventional glucose control in critically ill patients. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(13):1283-1297.

Hospitalists find themselves working with nonphysician providers (NPP) more and more as institutions spread workloads and cut costs. The work arrangement can be panaceas when they work well, barely palatable when they don’t.

Several sessions at HM09 in Chicago explored the best practices of HM groups that use nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs). A particularly popular session examined case studies that showed two main trends: NPP programs run into trouble when the people involved view their positions as competition; programs succeed when there is buy-in from all stakeholders.

“There are things DOs and MDs do better than NPs and PAs, and there are things NPs and PAs do better than DOs and MDs,” says Mitch Wilson, MD, FHM, corporate medical director for Eagle Hospital Physicians in Atlanta. "It’s all about understanding the cumulative skill set.”

Dr. Wilson and Tracy Cardin, ACNP, at the University of Chicago Medical Center, used care stories as teaching tools for hospitals looking to implement new programs. The first cautionary tale failed because an “old school” culture left a new NPP so isolated from physicians and nursing staff that she quit. Two other cases showed NPPs integrate more easily because of mutual respect, defined responsibilities, and an alignment of expectations between both hospitalists and NPPs.

Mac McCormick, MD, vice president of clinical services at Eagle Hospital Physicians in Atlanta, offers the following suggestions to best utilize NPPs:

•Conduct an analysis of your practice environment, bylaws, staff experience, and pre-existing attitudes to identify potential barriers and optimal opportunities in hiring NPPs;

•Avoid pigeonholing NPPs into such narrow roles as completing discharge summaries or collecting data. Tasks that tend not to utilize their skills set might lead to professional dissatisfaction and likely aren't the most cost-efficient use of resources; and

•Approach things in a team model. Shared visits are one way to accomplish this. Keep communication lines open to make sure accurate and timely information is available to all.

Hospitalists find themselves working with nonphysician providers (NPP) more and more as institutions spread workloads and cut costs. The work arrangement can be panaceas when they work well, barely palatable when they don’t.

Several sessions at HM09 in Chicago explored the best practices of HM groups that use nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs). A particularly popular session examined case studies that showed two main trends: NPP programs run into trouble when the people involved view their positions as competition; programs succeed when there is buy-in from all stakeholders.

“There are things DOs and MDs do better than NPs and PAs, and there are things NPs and PAs do better than DOs and MDs,” says Mitch Wilson, MD, FHM, corporate medical director for Eagle Hospital Physicians in Atlanta. "It’s all about understanding the cumulative skill set.”

Dr. Wilson and Tracy Cardin, ACNP, at the University of Chicago Medical Center, used care stories as teaching tools for hospitals looking to implement new programs. The first cautionary tale failed because an “old school” culture left a new NPP so isolated from physicians and nursing staff that she quit. Two other cases showed NPPs integrate more easily because of mutual respect, defined responsibilities, and an alignment of expectations between both hospitalists and NPPs.

Mac McCormick, MD, vice president of clinical services at Eagle Hospital Physicians in Atlanta, offers the following suggestions to best utilize NPPs:

•Conduct an analysis of your practice environment, bylaws, staff experience, and pre-existing attitudes to identify potential barriers and optimal opportunities in hiring NPPs;

•Avoid pigeonholing NPPs into such narrow roles as completing discharge summaries or collecting data. Tasks that tend not to utilize their skills set might lead to professional dissatisfaction and likely aren't the most cost-efficient use of resources; and

•Approach things in a team model. Shared visits are one way to accomplish this. Keep communication lines open to make sure accurate and timely information is available to all.

Hospitalists find themselves working with nonphysician providers (NPP) more and more as institutions spread workloads and cut costs. The work arrangement can be panaceas when they work well, barely palatable when they don’t.

Several sessions at HM09 in Chicago explored the best practices of HM groups that use nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs). A particularly popular session examined case studies that showed two main trends: NPP programs run into trouble when the people involved view their positions as competition; programs succeed when there is buy-in from all stakeholders.

“There are things DOs and MDs do better than NPs and PAs, and there are things NPs and PAs do better than DOs and MDs,” says Mitch Wilson, MD, FHM, corporate medical director for Eagle Hospital Physicians in Atlanta. "It’s all about understanding the cumulative skill set.”

Dr. Wilson and Tracy Cardin, ACNP, at the University of Chicago Medical Center, used care stories as teaching tools for hospitals looking to implement new programs. The first cautionary tale failed because an “old school” culture left a new NPP so isolated from physicians and nursing staff that she quit. Two other cases showed NPPs integrate more easily because of mutual respect, defined responsibilities, and an alignment of expectations between both hospitalists and NPPs.

Mac McCormick, MD, vice president of clinical services at Eagle Hospital Physicians in Atlanta, offers the following suggestions to best utilize NPPs:

•Conduct an analysis of your practice environment, bylaws, staff experience, and pre-existing attitudes to identify potential barriers and optimal opportunities in hiring NPPs;

•Avoid pigeonholing NPPs into such narrow roles as completing discharge summaries or collecting data. Tasks that tend not to utilize their skills set might lead to professional dissatisfaction and likely aren't the most cost-efficient use of resources; and

•Approach things in a team model. Shared visits are one way to accomplish this. Keep communication lines open to make sure accurate and timely information is available to all.

Overwhelmed by medical school debt? You're not alone. A 2008 American Medical Association survey showed that the average 2007 medical school graduate was left with a $139,000 debt burden and a powerful incentive to avoid primary care.

But according to Renee Zerehi, the American College of Physicians' manager of health policy, increasing numbers of students choose HM because of flexible scheduling and opportunities to reduce their debt. Zerehi and Bijo Chacko, MD, FHM, a member of SHM's Young Physicians Committee and hospitalist program medical director for Preferred Health Partners in New York City, offer these strategies for debt reduction.

•Understand your debt portfolio: Talk to a financial consultant to assess debt, your family situation, and lifestyle issues. "A strong, keen understanding of how debt impacts your budget is essential," Dr. Chacko says. Medical school loans often come with different interest rates and grace periods, so try to pay off the high-interest loans immediately, he explains.

•Consolidate your debt: Loans from different lenders with different balances, interest rates, and due dates may best be handled by a federal consolidation loan. The AMA explains it all in

"The Ins and Outs of Student Loan Consolidation."

•Student loan forgiveness: A number of hospitalist programs offer loan repayment programs. The National Health Service Corps, the Health Professions Scholarship Program, and state loan repayment programs offer loan forgiveness for physicians practicing in underserved areas. Visit the AAMC Web site for a comprehensive list.

•NIH Faculty Loan Forgiveness: For academic hospitalists doing research, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) offers up to $35,000 a year for loan repayment and tax reimbursement for each year of service.

For more information, visit SHM's Young Physician microsite.

Overwhelmed by medical school debt? You're not alone. A 2008 American Medical Association survey showed that the average 2007 medical school graduate was left with a $139,000 debt burden and a powerful incentive to avoid primary care.

But according to Renee Zerehi, the American College of Physicians' manager of health policy, increasing numbers of students choose HM because of flexible scheduling and opportunities to reduce their debt. Zerehi and Bijo Chacko, MD, FHM, a member of SHM's Young Physicians Committee and hospitalist program medical director for Preferred Health Partners in New York City, offer these strategies for debt reduction.

•Understand your debt portfolio: Talk to a financial consultant to assess debt, your family situation, and lifestyle issues. "A strong, keen understanding of how debt impacts your budget is essential," Dr. Chacko says. Medical school loans often come with different interest rates and grace periods, so try to pay off the high-interest loans immediately, he explains.

•Consolidate your debt: Loans from different lenders with different balances, interest rates, and due dates may best be handled by a federal consolidation loan. The AMA explains it all in

"The Ins and Outs of Student Loan Consolidation."

•Student loan forgiveness: A number of hospitalist programs offer loan repayment programs. The National Health Service Corps, the Health Professions Scholarship Program, and state loan repayment programs offer loan forgiveness for physicians practicing in underserved areas. Visit the AAMC Web site for a comprehensive list.

•NIH Faculty Loan Forgiveness: For academic hospitalists doing research, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) offers up to $35,000 a year for loan repayment and tax reimbursement for each year of service.

For more information, visit SHM's Young Physician microsite.

Overwhelmed by medical school debt? You're not alone. A 2008 American Medical Association survey showed that the average 2007 medical school graduate was left with a $139,000 debt burden and a powerful incentive to avoid primary care.

But according to Renee Zerehi, the American College of Physicians' manager of health policy, increasing numbers of students choose HM because of flexible scheduling and opportunities to reduce their debt. Zerehi and Bijo Chacko, MD, FHM, a member of SHM's Young Physicians Committee and hospitalist program medical director for Preferred Health Partners in New York City, offer these strategies for debt reduction.

•Understand your debt portfolio: Talk to a financial consultant to assess debt, your family situation, and lifestyle issues. "A strong, keen understanding of how debt impacts your budget is essential," Dr. Chacko says. Medical school loans often come with different interest rates and grace periods, so try to pay off the high-interest loans immediately, he explains.

•Consolidate your debt: Loans from different lenders with different balances, interest rates, and due dates may best be handled by a federal consolidation loan. The AMA explains it all in

"The Ins and Outs of Student Loan Consolidation."

•Student loan forgiveness: A number of hospitalist programs offer loan repayment programs. The National Health Service Corps, the Health Professions Scholarship Program, and state loan repayment programs offer loan forgiveness for physicians practicing in underserved areas. Visit the AAMC Web site for a comprehensive list.

•NIH Faculty Loan Forgiveness: For academic hospitalists doing research, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) offers up to $35,000 a year for loan repayment and tax reimbursement for each year of service.

For more information, visit SHM's Young Physician microsite.

Factors Influencing the Treatment of COPD

Lindenauer PK, Pekow P, Gao S, et al. Quality of care for patients hospitalized for acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Ann Intern Med. 2006;144:894-903.

Background

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is the fourth leading cause of death in the United States, resulting in more than $18 billion in annual health costs. Acute exacerbations of COPD can lead to respiratory compromise and are one of the 10 leading causes of hospitalization in the United States.

Hospitalists currently have evidence-based guidelines available that recommend therapies for patients with acute exacerbations of COPD. This study was designed to evaluate the practice patterns in the United States and to evaluate the quality of care provided to hospitalized patients based on comparisons with these published guidelines. The authors did not report any conflicts of interest, and this work was performed without external grant support.

Methods

Using administrative data from the 360 hospitals that participate in Perspective, a database developed for measuring healthcare quality and utilization, the authors performed a retrospective cohort study. Patients hospitalized for a primary diagnosis of acute exacerbation of COPD were chosen. Patients with pneumonia were specifically excluded. The outcomes of interest included adherence to the diagnostic and therapeutic recommendations of the joint American College of Physicians and American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based COPD guideline, published in 2001.

Results

Of the 69,820 patients included in the analysis, 33% received “ideal care,” defined as all of the recommended care and none of the non-beneficial interventions. Specific results included varied utilization of recommended care: 95% had chest radiography, 91% received supplemental oxygen, 97% had bronchodilators, 85% were given systemic steroids, and 85% received antibiotics.

Overall, 45% of patients received at least one non-beneficial intervention specified in the guidelines: 24% were treated with methylxanthines, 14% underwent sputum testing, 12% had acute spirometry, 6% received chest physiotherapy, and 2% were given mucolytics.

Older patients and women were more likely to receive ideal care as defined, but hospitals with a higher annual volume of COPD cases were not associated with improved performance in this analysis.

Conclusions

Given a widely accepted evidence-based practice guideline as a benchmark, significant variation exists across hospitals in the quality of care for acute exacerbations of COPD. Opportunities exist to improve the quality of care, in particular by increasing the use of systemic corticosteroids and antibiotic therapy and reducing the utilization of many diagnostic and therapeutic interventions that are not only not recommended but are also potentially harmful.

Commentary

COPD management in the acute inpatient setting is on the horizon as a focus of policymakers, and this study suggests that significant opportunities exist for inpatient physicians to reduce variation in practice and utilize an evidence-based approach to the treatment of acute exacerbations of COPD. This study is limited by its use of administrative data, its inability to use clinical data to best determine appropriate care processes for individual patients, and its retrospective design.

As we move toward external quality metrics for the care of patients with acute exacerbations of COPD, further prospective studies evaluating clinical outcomes of interest, including mortality and readmission rates, are needed to determine the effects of adherence to ideal or recommended care for acute exacerbations of COPD.1-3

References

1. Snow V, Lascher S, Mottur-Pilson C, et al. Evidence base for management of acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Ann Intern Med. 2001 Apr 3;134(7):595-599.
2. American Thoracic Society. Standards for the diagnosis and care of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma. This official statement of the American Thoracic Society was adopted by the ATS Board of Directors, November 1986. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1987 Jul;136(1):225-244.
3. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Management of Acute Exacerbations of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. Rockville, Md.: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2000.

The Role of Dipyridamole in the Secondary Prevention of Stroke

ESPRIT Study Group. Aspirin plus dipyridamole versus aspirin alone after cerebral ischaemia of arterial origin (ESPRIT): randomized controlled trial. Lancet. 2006 May 20;367(9623):1665-1673.

Background

To date, studies have resulted in inconsistent results in trials of aspirin versus aspirin in combination with dipyridamole for secondary prevention of ischemic stroke. Four early, smaller studies have yielded non-significant results, in contrast to the statistically significant relative risk reduction seen with the addition of dipyridamole to aspirin in the European Stroke Prevention Study 2 (ESPS-2).1-2

Methods

The European/Australian Stroke Prevention in Reversible Ischaemia Trial (ESPRIT) study group conducted a prospective randomized controlled trial of 2,763 patients with transient ischemic attacks or minor ischemic stroke of presumed arterial origin who received aspirin (30-325 mg daily) with or without dipyridamole (200 mg twice daily) as secondary prevention. The primary outcome for this study was a composite of death from vascular causes, nonfatal stroke, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or major bleeding complication. Mean follow-up of patients enrolled was 3.5 years.

Results

In an intention-to-treat analysis, the primary combined endpoint occurred in 16% (216) of the patients on aspirin alone (median aspirin dose was 75 mg in both groups) compared with 13% (173) of the patients on aspirin plus dipyridamole. This result was statistically significant, with an absolute risk reduction of 1% per year. As noted in other trials, patients on dipyridamole discontinued their study medication more frequently than patients on aspirin alone, mostly due to headache.

Conclusions

The results of this trial, taken in the context of previously published data, support the combination of aspirin plus dipyridamole over aspirin alone for the secondary prevention of ischemic stroke of presumed arterial origin. Addition of these data to the previous meta-analysis of trials resulted in a statistically significant risk ratio for the composite endpoint of 0.82 (95% confidence interval, 0.74-0.91).1

Commentary

Ischemic stroke and transient ischemic attacks remain a challenge to effectively manage medically and are appropriately greatly feared health complications for many patients, resulting in significant morbidity and mortality. Prior studies of secondary prevention with aspirin therapy have demonstrated only a modest reduction in vascular complications in these patients.3-4

The results of this trial are consistent with data from the Second European Stroke Prevention Study, and in combination, these data confirm that the addition of dipyridamole for patients who can tolerate it offers significant benefit.2 The magnitude of the effect results in a number needed to treat of 100 patients for one year to prevent one vascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction. Given the clinical significance of these outcomes, many patients may prefer a trial on combination therapy.

References

1. Antithrombotic Trialists’ Collaboration. Collaborative meta-analysis of randomised trials of antiplatelet therapy for prevention of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke in high risk patients. BMJ. 2002 Jan 12;324(7329):71-86.
2. Diener HC, Cunha L, Forbes C, et al. European Stroke Prevention Study. Dipyridamole and acetylsalicylic acid in the secondary prevention of stroke. J Neurol Sci. 1996;143:1-13.
3. Warlow C. Secondary prevention of stroke. Lancet. 1992;339:724-727.
4. Algra A, van Gijn J. Cumulative meta-analysis of aspirin efficacy after cerebral ischaemia of arterial origin. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1999 Feb;66(2):255.

The Effectiveness of CTA in Diagnosing Acute Pulmonary Embolism

Stein PD, Fowler SE, Goodman LR, et al. Multidetector computed tomography for acute pulmonary embolism. N Engl J Med. 2006 Jun 1;354(22):2317-2327.

Background

The Prospective Investigation of Pulmonary Embolism Diagnosis II (PIOPED II) trial was designed to answer questions about the accuracy of contrast-enhanced multidetector computed tomographic angiography (CTA). Recent studies of the use of single-row or multidetector CTA alone have suggested a low incidence of pulmonary embolism in follow-up of untreated patients with normal findings on CTA.

The specific goals of this study were to determine the ability of multidetector CTA to rule out or detect pulmonary embolism, and to evaluate whether the addition of computed tomographic venography (CTV) improves the diagnostic accuracy of CTA.

Methods

Using a technique similar to PIOPED I, the investigators performed a prospective, multi-center trial using a composite reference standard to confirm the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. Once again, for ethical reasons, the use of pulmonary artery digital-subtraction angiography was limited to patients whose diagnosis could neither be confirmed nor ruled out by less invasive tests. In contrast to PIOPED I, a clinical scoring system was used to assess the clinical probability of pulmonary embolism. Central readings were performed on all imaging studies except for venous ultrasonography.

Results

Of the 7,284 patients screened for the study, 3,262 were eligible, and 1,090 were enrolled. Of those, 824 patients received a completed CTA study and a reference standard for analysis. In 51 patients, the quality of the CTA was not suitable for interpretation, and these patients were excluded from the subsequent analysis. Pulmonary embolism was diagnosed in192 patients.

CTA was found to have a sensitivity of 83% and a specificity of 96%, yielding a likelihood ratio for a positive multidetector CTA test of 19.6 (95% confidence interval, 13.3 to 29.0), while the likelihood ratio for a negative test was 0.18 (95% confidence interval, 0.13 to 0.24). The quality of results on CTA-CTV was not adequate for interpretation in 87 patients; when these patients were excluded from analysis, the sensitivity was 90% with a specificity of 95%, yielding likelihood ratios of 16.5 (95% confidence interval, 11.6 to 23.5) for a positive test and 0.11 (95% confidence interval, 0.07 to 0.16) for a negative test.

Conclusions

Multidetector CTA and CTA-CTV perform well when the results of these tests are concordant with pre-test clinical probabilities of pulmonary embolism. CTA-CTV offers slightly increased sensitivity compared with CTA alone, with no significant difference in specificity. If the results of CTA or CTA-CTV are inconsistent with the clinical probability of pulmonary embolism, additional diagnostic testing is indicated.

Commentary

CTA has been used widely, and in many centers has largely replaced other diagnostic tests for pulmonary embolism. This well-done study incorporated recent advances in technology with multidetector CTA-CTV, along with a clinical prediction rule to better estimate pre-test probabilities of pulmonary embolism.2 It is important to recognize that 266 of the 1,090 patients enrolled were not included in the calculations of sensitivity and specificity for CTA-CTV because they did not have interpretable test results.

Although the specificity of both CTA and the CTA-CTV combination were high, the sensitivity was not sufficient to identify all cases of pulmonary embolism. This result contrasts to the recent outcomes studies of CTA, in which low rates of venous thromboembolism were seen in follow-up of patients with negative multidetector CTA.3,4 Although multidetector CTA has a higher sensitivity than single-slice technology, this test may still miss small subsegmental thrombi that might be detected using other diagnostic tests (ventilation-perfusion scintigraphy and/or pulmonary digital-subtraction angiography).

An important take-home message from this study is to recognize once again the importance of utilizing established clinical prediction rules for venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism (such as the Wells clinical model).2 As with the majority of diagnostic tests at our disposal, when our clinical judgment is in contrast with test results, as in the case of a high likelihood of a potentially fatal disease like pulmonary embolism with a normal CTA result, additional diagnostic testing is necessary.

References

1. The PIOPED Investigators. Value of the ventilation/perfusion scan in acute pulmonary embolism: results of the prospective investigation of pulmonary embolism diagnosis (PIOPED). JAMA. 1990;263:2753-2759.
2. Wells PS, Anderson DR, Rodger M, et al. Excluding pulmonary embolism at the bedside without diagnostic imaging: management of patients with suspected pulmonary embolism presenting to the emergency department by using a simple clinical model and d-dimer. Ann Intern Med. 2001 Jul 17;135(2):98-107.
3. Perrier A, Roy PM, Sanchez O, et al. Multidetector-row computed tomography in suspected pulmonary embolism. N Engl J Med. 2005 Apr;352(17):1760-1768.
4. van Belle A, Buller HR, Huisman MV, et al. Effectiveness of managing suspected pulmonary embolism using an algorithm combining clinical probability, D-dimer testing, and computed tomography. JAMA. 2006 Jan 11;295(2):172-179.

Classic Article:

PIOPED Investigators

The PIOPED Investigators. Value of ventilation/perfusion scan in acute pulmonary embolism: results of the prospective investigation of pulmonary embolism diagnosis (PIOPED). JAMA. 1990;263:2753-2759.

Background

The risk of untreated pulmonary embolism requires either the diagnosis or the exclusion of this diagnosis when clinical suspicion exists. The reference test for pulmonary embolism, standard pulmonary angiography, is invasive and expensive, and carries with it a measurable procedural risk.

Non-invasive diagnostic tests, including ventilation/perfusion (V/Q) scintigraphy, have been used to detect perfusion defects consistent with pulmonary embolism, though the performance characteristics of this diagnostic test were not well known prior to 1990. This study was designed to evaluate the sensitivity and specificities of ventilation/perfusion lung scans for pulmonary embolism in the acute setting.

Methods

This prospective, multi-center study evaluated V/Q scintigraphy on a random sample of 931 patients. A composite reference standard was used because only 755 patients underwent scintigraphy and pulmonary angiography. Clinical follow-up and subsequent diagnostic testing were employed in untreated patients with low clinical probabilities of pulmonary embolism who did not undergo angiography. Clinical assessment of the probability of pulmonary embolism was determined on the basis of the clinician’s judgment, without systematic prediction rules.

Results

Almost all patients with pulmonary embolism had abnormal ventilation/perfusion lung scans of high, intermediate, or low probability. Unfortunately, most patients without pulmonary embolism also had abnormal studies, limiting the utility of this test. Clinical follow-up and angiography revealed that pulmonary embolism occurred among 12% of patients with low-probability scans.

Conclusions

V/Q scintigraphy is useful in establishing or excluding the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism in only a minority of patients, where clinical suspicion of pulmonary embolism is concordant with the diagnostic test findings. The likelihood of pulmonary embolism in patients with a high pre-test probability of pulmonary embolism and a high probability scan is 95%, while in low probability patients with a low probability or normal scan the probability is 4% or 2%, respectively.

Commentary

This original PIOPED study established the diagnostic characteristics of V/Q scintigraphy and demonstrated, for the first time, evidence of the role of clinical assessment and prior probability in a diagnostic strategy for pulmonary embolism. Although subsequent studies have significantly advanced our knowledge of clinical prediction and diagnostic strategies in venous thromboembolism, the first PIOPED study continues to serve as an example of a high-quality, multi-center diagnostic test study utilizing a composite reference standard in a difficult-to-study disease. Unfortunately, the results of this study demonstrated that V/Q scintigraphy performs well for only a minority of patients. The majority of patients (72%) had clinical probabilities of pulmonary embolism and ventilation/perfusion scan results, which yielded post-test probabilities of 15-86%, leaving, in many cases, enough remaining diagnostic uncertainty to warrant additional testing.—TO TH

Factors Influencing the Treatment of COPD

Lindenauer PK, Pekow P, Gao S, et al. Quality of care for patients hospitalized for acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Ann Intern Med. 2006;144:894-903.

Background

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is the fourth leading cause of death in the United States, resulting in more than $18 billion in annual health costs. Acute exacerbations of COPD can lead to respiratory compromise and are one of the 10 leading causes of hospitalization in the United States.

Hospitalists currently have evidence-based guidelines available that recommend therapies for patients with acute exacerbations of COPD. This study was designed to evaluate the practice patterns in the United States and to evaluate the quality of care provided to hospitalized patients based on comparisons with these published guidelines. The authors did not report any conflicts of interest, and this work was performed without external grant support.

Methods

Using administrative data from the 360 hospitals that participate in Perspective, a database developed for measuring healthcare quality and utilization, the authors performed a retrospective cohort study. Patients hospitalized for a primary diagnosis of acute exacerbation of COPD were chosen. Patients with pneumonia were specifically excluded. The outcomes of interest included adherence to the diagnostic and therapeutic recommendations of the joint American College of Physicians and American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based COPD guideline, published in 2001.

Results

Of the 69,820 patients included in the analysis, 33% received “ideal care,” defined as all of the recommended care and none of the non-beneficial interventions. Specific results included varied utilization of recommended care: 95% had chest radiography, 91% received supplemental oxygen, 97% had bronchodilators, 85% were given systemic steroids, and 85% received antibiotics.

Overall, 45% of patients received at least one non-beneficial intervention specified in the guidelines: 24% were treated with methylxanthines, 14% underwent sputum testing, 12% had acute spirometry, 6% received chest physiotherapy, and 2% were given mucolytics.

Older patients and women were more likely to receive ideal care as defined, but hospitals with a higher annual volume of COPD cases were not associated with improved performance in this analysis.

Conclusions

Given a widely accepted evidence-based practice guideline as a benchmark, significant variation exists across hospitals in the quality of care for acute exacerbations of COPD. Opportunities exist to improve the quality of care, in particular by increasing the use of systemic corticosteroids and antibiotic therapy and reducing the utilization of many diagnostic and therapeutic interventions that are not only not recommended but are also potentially harmful.

Commentary

COPD management in the acute inpatient setting is on the horizon as a focus of policymakers, and this study suggests that significant opportunities exist for inpatient physicians to reduce variation in practice and utilize an evidence-based approach to the treatment of acute exacerbations of COPD. This study is limited by its use of administrative data, its inability to use clinical data to best determine appropriate care processes for individual patients, and its retrospective design.

As we move toward external quality metrics for the care of patients with acute exacerbations of COPD, further prospective studies evaluating clinical outcomes of interest, including mortality and readmission rates, are needed to determine the effects of adherence to ideal or recommended care for acute exacerbations of COPD.1-3

References

1. Snow V, Lascher S, Mottur-Pilson C, et al. Evidence base for management of acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Ann Intern Med. 2001 Apr 3;134(7):595-599.
2. American Thoracic Society. Standards for the diagnosis and care of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma. This official statement of the American Thoracic Society was adopted by the ATS Board of Directors, November 1986. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1987 Jul;136(1):225-244.
3. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Management of Acute Exacerbations of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. Rockville, Md.: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2000.

The Role of Dipyridamole in the Secondary Prevention of Stroke

ESPRIT Study Group. Aspirin plus dipyridamole versus aspirin alone after cerebral ischaemia of arterial origin (ESPRIT): randomized controlled trial. Lancet. 2006 May 20;367(9623):1665-1673.

Background

To date, studies have resulted in inconsistent results in trials of aspirin versus aspirin in combination with dipyridamole for secondary prevention of ischemic stroke. Four early, smaller studies have yielded non-significant results, in contrast to the statistically significant relative risk reduction seen with the addition of dipyridamole to aspirin in the European Stroke Prevention Study 2 (ESPS-2).1-2

Methods

The European/Australian Stroke Prevention in Reversible Ischaemia Trial (ESPRIT) study group conducted a prospective randomized controlled trial of 2,763 patients with transient ischemic attacks or minor ischemic stroke of presumed arterial origin who received aspirin (30-325 mg daily) with or without dipyridamole (200 mg twice daily) as secondary prevention. The primary outcome for this study was a composite of death from vascular causes, nonfatal stroke, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or major bleeding complication. Mean follow-up of patients enrolled was 3.5 years.

Results

In an intention-to-treat analysis, the primary combined endpoint occurred in 16% (216) of the patients on aspirin alone (median aspirin dose was 75 mg in both groups) compared with 13% (173) of the patients on aspirin plus dipyridamole. This result was statistically significant, with an absolute risk reduction of 1% per year. As noted in other trials, patients on dipyridamole discontinued their study medication more frequently than patients on aspirin alone, mostly due to headache.

Conclusions

The results of this trial, taken in the context of previously published data, support the combination of aspirin plus dipyridamole over aspirin alone for the secondary prevention of ischemic stroke of presumed arterial origin. Addition of these data to the previous meta-analysis of trials resulted in a statistically significant risk ratio for the composite endpoint of 0.82 (95% confidence interval, 0.74-0.91).1

Commentary

Ischemic stroke and transient ischemic attacks remain a challenge to effectively manage medically and are appropriately greatly feared health complications for many patients, resulting in significant morbidity and mortality. Prior studies of secondary prevention with aspirin therapy have demonstrated only a modest reduction in vascular complications in these patients.3-4

The results of this trial are consistent with data from the Second European Stroke Prevention Study, and in combination, these data confirm that the addition of dipyridamole for patients who can tolerate it offers significant benefit.2 The magnitude of the effect results in a number needed to treat of 100 patients for one year to prevent one vascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction. Given the clinical significance of these outcomes, many patients may prefer a trial on combination therapy.

References

1. Antithrombotic Trialists’ Collaboration. Collaborative meta-analysis of randomised trials of antiplatelet therapy for prevention of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke in high risk patients. BMJ. 2002 Jan 12;324(7329):71-86.
2. Diener HC, Cunha L, Forbes C, et al. European Stroke Prevention Study. Dipyridamole and acetylsalicylic acid in the secondary prevention of stroke. J Neurol Sci. 1996;143:1-13.
3. Warlow C. Secondary prevention of stroke. Lancet. 1992;339:724-727.
4. Algra A, van Gijn J. Cumulative meta-analysis of aspirin efficacy after cerebral ischaemia of arterial origin. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1999 Feb;66(2):255.

The Effectiveness of CTA in Diagnosing Acute Pulmonary Embolism

Stein PD, Fowler SE, Goodman LR, et al. Multidetector computed tomography for acute pulmonary embolism. N Engl J Med. 2006 Jun 1;354(22):2317-2327.

Background

The Prospective Investigation of Pulmonary Embolism Diagnosis II (PIOPED II) trial was designed to answer questions about the accuracy of contrast-enhanced multidetector computed tomographic angiography (CTA). Recent studies of the use of single-row or multidetector CTA alone have suggested a low incidence of pulmonary embolism in follow-up of untreated patients with normal findings on CTA.

The specific goals of this study were to determine the ability of multidetector CTA to rule out or detect pulmonary embolism, and to evaluate whether the addition of computed tomographic venography (CTV) improves the diagnostic accuracy of CTA.

Methods

Using a technique similar to PIOPED I, the investigators performed a prospective, multi-center trial using a composite reference standard to confirm the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. Once again, for ethical reasons, the use of pulmonary artery digital-subtraction angiography was limited to patients whose diagnosis could neither be confirmed nor ruled out by less invasive tests. In contrast to PIOPED I, a clinical scoring system was used to assess the clinical probability of pulmonary embolism. Central readings were performed on all imaging studies except for venous ultrasonography.

Results

Of the 7,284 patients screened for the study, 3,262 were eligible, and 1,090 were enrolled. Of those, 824 patients received a completed CTA study and a reference standard for analysis. In 51 patients, the quality of the CTA was not suitable for interpretation, and these patients were excluded from the subsequent analysis. Pulmonary embolism was diagnosed in192 patients.

CTA was found to have a sensitivity of 83% and a specificity of 96%, yielding a likelihood ratio for a positive multidetector CTA test of 19.6 (95% confidence interval, 13.3 to 29.0), while the likelihood ratio for a negative test was 0.18 (95% confidence interval, 0.13 to 0.24). The quality of results on CTA-CTV was not adequate for interpretation in 87 patients; when these patients were excluded from analysis, the sensitivity was 90% with a specificity of 95%, yielding likelihood ratios of 16.5 (95% confidence interval, 11.6 to 23.5) for a positive test and 0.11 (95% confidence interval, 0.07 to 0.16) for a negative test.

Conclusions

Multidetector CTA and CTA-CTV perform well when the results of these tests are concordant with pre-test clinical probabilities of pulmonary embolism. CTA-CTV offers slightly increased sensitivity compared with CTA alone, with no significant difference in specificity. If the results of CTA or CTA-CTV are inconsistent with the clinical probability of pulmonary embolism, additional diagnostic testing is indicated.

Commentary

CTA has been used widely, and in many centers has largely replaced other diagnostic tests for pulmonary embolism. This well-done study incorporated recent advances in technology with multidetector CTA-CTV, along with a clinical prediction rule to better estimate pre-test probabilities of pulmonary embolism.2 It is important to recognize that 266 of the 1,090 patients enrolled were not included in the calculations of sensitivity and specificity for CTA-CTV because they did not have interpretable test results.

Although the specificity of both CTA and the CTA-CTV combination were high, the sensitivity was not sufficient to identify all cases of pulmonary embolism. This result contrasts to the recent outcomes studies of CTA, in which low rates of venous thromboembolism were seen in follow-up of patients with negative multidetector CTA.3,4 Although multidetector CTA has a higher sensitivity than single-slice technology, this test may still miss small subsegmental thrombi that might be detected using other diagnostic tests (ventilation-perfusion scintigraphy and/or pulmonary digital-subtraction angiography).

An important take-home message from this study is to recognize once again the importance of utilizing established clinical prediction rules for venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism (such as the Wells clinical model).2 As with the majority of diagnostic tests at our disposal, when our clinical judgment is in contrast with test results, as in the case of a high likelihood of a potentially fatal disease like pulmonary embolism with a normal CTA result, additional diagnostic testing is necessary.

References

1. The PIOPED Investigators. Value of the ventilation/perfusion scan in acute pulmonary embolism: results of the prospective investigation of pulmonary embolism diagnosis (PIOPED). JAMA. 1990;263:2753-2759.
2. Wells PS, Anderson DR, Rodger M, et al. Excluding pulmonary embolism at the bedside without diagnostic imaging: management of patients with suspected pulmonary embolism presenting to the emergency department by using a simple clinical model and d-dimer. Ann Intern Med. 2001 Jul 17;135(2):98-107.
3. Perrier A, Roy PM, Sanchez O, et al. Multidetector-row computed tomography in suspected pulmonary embolism. N Engl J Med. 2005 Apr;352(17):1760-1768.
4. van Belle A, Buller HR, Huisman MV, et al. Effectiveness of managing suspected pulmonary embolism using an algorithm combining clinical probability, D-dimer testing, and computed tomography. JAMA. 2006 Jan 11;295(2):172-179.

Classic Article:

PIOPED Investigators

The PIOPED Investigators. Value of ventilation/perfusion scan in acute pulmonary embolism: results of the prospective investigation of pulmonary embolism diagnosis (PIOPED). JAMA. 1990;263:2753-2759.

Background

The risk of untreated pulmonary embolism requires either the diagnosis or the exclusion of this diagnosis when clinical suspicion exists. The reference test for pulmonary embolism, standard pulmonary angiography, is invasive and expensive, and carries with it a measurable procedural risk.

Non-invasive diagnostic tests, including ventilation/perfusion (V/Q) scintigraphy, have been used to detect perfusion defects consistent with pulmonary embolism, though the performance characteristics of this diagnostic test were not well known prior to 1990. This study was designed to evaluate the sensitivity and specificities of ventilation/perfusion lung scans for pulmonary embolism in the acute setting.

Methods

This prospective, multi-center study evaluated V/Q scintigraphy on a random sample of 931 patients. A composite reference standard was used because only 755 patients underwent scintigraphy and pulmonary angiography. Clinical follow-up and subsequent diagnostic testing were employed in untreated patients with low clinical probabilities of pulmonary embolism who did not undergo angiography. Clinical assessment of the probability of pulmonary embolism was determined on the basis of the clinician’s judgment, without systematic prediction rules.

Results

Almost all patients with pulmonary embolism had abnormal ventilation/perfusion lung scans of high, intermediate, or low probability. Unfortunately, most patients without pulmonary embolism also had abnormal studies, limiting the utility of this test. Clinical follow-up and angiography revealed that pulmonary embolism occurred among 12% of patients with low-probability scans.

Conclusions

V/Q scintigraphy is useful in establishing or excluding the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism in only a minority of patients, where clinical suspicion of pulmonary embolism is concordant with the diagnostic test findings. The likelihood of pulmonary embolism in patients with a high pre-test probability of pulmonary embolism and a high probability scan is 95%, while in low probability patients with a low probability or normal scan the probability is 4% or 2%, respectively.

Commentary

This original PIOPED study established the diagnostic characteristics of V/Q scintigraphy and demonstrated, for the first time, evidence of the role of clinical assessment and prior probability in a diagnostic strategy for pulmonary embolism. Although subsequent studies have significantly advanced our knowledge of clinical prediction and diagnostic strategies in venous thromboembolism, the first PIOPED study continues to serve as an example of a high-quality, multi-center diagnostic test study utilizing a composite reference standard in a difficult-to-study disease. Unfortunately, the results of this study demonstrated that V/Q scintigraphy performs well for only a minority of patients. The majority of patients (72%) had clinical probabilities of pulmonary embolism and ventilation/perfusion scan results, which yielded post-test probabilities of 15-86%, leaving, in many cases, enough remaining diagnostic uncertainty to warrant additional testing.—TO TH

Factors Influencing the Treatment of COPD

Lindenauer PK, Pekow P, Gao S, et al. Quality of care for patients hospitalized for acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Ann Intern Med. 2006;144:894-903.

Background

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is the fourth leading cause of death in the United States, resulting in more than $18 billion in annual health costs. Acute exacerbations of COPD can lead to respiratory compromise and are one of the 10 leading causes of hospitalization in the United States.

Hospitalists currently have evidence-based guidelines available that recommend therapies for patients with acute exacerbations of COPD. This study was designed to evaluate the practice patterns in the United States and to evaluate the quality of care provided to hospitalized patients based on comparisons with these published guidelines. The authors did not report any conflicts of interest, and this work was performed without external grant support.

Methods

Using administrative data from the 360 hospitals that participate in Perspective, a database developed for measuring healthcare quality and utilization, the authors performed a retrospective cohort study. Patients hospitalized for a primary diagnosis of acute exacerbation of COPD were chosen. Patients with pneumonia were specifically excluded. The outcomes of interest included adherence to the diagnostic and therapeutic recommendations of the joint American College of Physicians and American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based COPD guideline, published in 2001.

Results

Of the 69,820 patients included in the analysis, 33% received “ideal care,” defined as all of the recommended care and none of the non-beneficial interventions. Specific results included varied utilization of recommended care: 95% had chest radiography, 91% received supplemental oxygen, 97% had bronchodilators, 85% were given systemic steroids, and 85% received antibiotics.

Overall, 45% of patients received at least one non-beneficial intervention specified in the guidelines: 24% were treated with methylxanthines, 14% underwent sputum testing, 12% had acute spirometry, 6% received chest physiotherapy, and 2% were given mucolytics.

Older patients and women were more likely to receive ideal care as defined, but hospitals with a higher annual volume of COPD cases were not associated with improved performance in this analysis.

Conclusions

Given a widely accepted evidence-based practice guideline as a benchmark, significant variation exists across hospitals in the quality of care for acute exacerbations of COPD. Opportunities exist to improve the quality of care, in particular by increasing the use of systemic corticosteroids and antibiotic therapy and reducing the utilization of many diagnostic and therapeutic interventions that are not only not recommended but are also potentially harmful.

Commentary

COPD management in the acute inpatient setting is on the horizon as a focus of policymakers, and this study suggests that significant opportunities exist for inpatient physicians to reduce variation in practice and utilize an evidence-based approach to the treatment of acute exacerbations of COPD. This study is limited by its use of administrative data, its inability to use clinical data to best determine appropriate care processes for individual patients, and its retrospective design.

As we move toward external quality metrics for the care of patients with acute exacerbations of COPD, further prospective studies evaluating clinical outcomes of interest, including mortality and readmission rates, are needed to determine the effects of adherence to ideal or recommended care for acute exacerbations of COPD.1-3

References

1. Snow V, Lascher S, Mottur-Pilson C, et al. Evidence base for management of acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Ann Intern Med. 2001 Apr 3;134(7):595-599.
2. American Thoracic Society. Standards for the diagnosis and care of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma. This official statement of the American Thoracic Society was adopted by the ATS Board of Directors, November 1986. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1987 Jul;136(1):225-244.
3. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Management of Acute Exacerbations of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. Rockville, Md.: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2000.

The Role of Dipyridamole in the Secondary Prevention of Stroke

ESPRIT Study Group. Aspirin plus dipyridamole versus aspirin alone after cerebral ischaemia of arterial origin (ESPRIT): randomized controlled trial. Lancet. 2006 May 20;367(9623):1665-1673.

Background

To date, studies have resulted in inconsistent results in trials of aspirin versus aspirin in combination with dipyridamole for secondary prevention of ischemic stroke. Four early, smaller studies have yielded non-significant results, in contrast to the statistically significant relative risk reduction seen with the addition of dipyridamole to aspirin in the European Stroke Prevention Study 2 (ESPS-2).1-2

Methods

The European/Australian Stroke Prevention in Reversible Ischaemia Trial (ESPRIT) study group conducted a prospective randomized controlled trial of 2,763 patients with transient ischemic attacks or minor ischemic stroke of presumed arterial origin who received aspirin (30-325 mg daily) with or without dipyridamole (200 mg twice daily) as secondary prevention. The primary outcome for this study was a composite of death from vascular causes, nonfatal stroke, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or major bleeding complication. Mean follow-up of patients enrolled was 3.5 years.

Results

In an intention-to-treat analysis, the primary combined endpoint occurred in 16% (216) of the patients on aspirin alone (median aspirin dose was 75 mg in both groups) compared with 13% (173) of the patients on aspirin plus dipyridamole. This result was statistically significant, with an absolute risk reduction of 1% per year. As noted in other trials, patients on dipyridamole discontinued their study medication more frequently than patients on aspirin alone, mostly due to headache.

Conclusions

The results of this trial, taken in the context of previously published data, support the combination of aspirin plus dipyridamole over aspirin alone for the secondary prevention of ischemic stroke of presumed arterial origin. Addition of these data to the previous meta-analysis of trials resulted in a statistically significant risk ratio for the composite endpoint of 0.82 (95% confidence interval, 0.74-0.91).1

Commentary

Ischemic stroke and transient ischemic attacks remain a challenge to effectively manage medically and are appropriately greatly feared health complications for many patients, resulting in significant morbidity and mortality. Prior studies of secondary prevention with aspirin therapy have demonstrated only a modest reduction in vascular complications in these patients.3-4

The results of this trial are consistent with data from the Second European Stroke Prevention Study, and in combination, these data confirm that the addition of dipyridamole for patients who can tolerate it offers significant benefit.2 The magnitude of the effect results in a number needed to treat of 100 patients for one year to prevent one vascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction. Given the clinical significance of these outcomes, many patients may prefer a trial on combination therapy.

References

1. Antithrombotic Trialists’ Collaboration. Collaborative meta-analysis of randomised trials of antiplatelet therapy for prevention of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke in high risk patients. BMJ. 2002 Jan 12;324(7329):71-86.
2. Diener HC, Cunha L, Forbes C, et al. European Stroke Prevention Study. Dipyridamole and acetylsalicylic acid in the secondary prevention of stroke. J Neurol Sci. 1996;143:1-13.
3. Warlow C. Secondary prevention of stroke. Lancet. 1992;339:724-727.
4. Algra A, van Gijn J. Cumulative meta-analysis of aspirin efficacy after cerebral ischaemia of arterial origin. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1999 Feb;66(2):255.

The Effectiveness of CTA in Diagnosing Acute Pulmonary Embolism

Stein PD, Fowler SE, Goodman LR, et al. Multidetector computed tomography for acute pulmonary embolism. N Engl J Med. 2006 Jun 1;354(22):2317-2327.

Background

The Prospective Investigation of Pulmonary Embolism Diagnosis II (PIOPED II) trial was designed to answer questions about the accuracy of contrast-enhanced multidetector computed tomographic angiography (CTA). Recent studies of the use of single-row or multidetector CTA alone have suggested a low incidence of pulmonary embolism in follow-up of untreated patients with normal findings on CTA.

The specific goals of this study were to determine the ability of multidetector CTA to rule out or detect pulmonary embolism, and to evaluate whether the addition of computed tomographic venography (CTV) improves the diagnostic accuracy of CTA.

Methods

Using a technique similar to PIOPED I, the investigators performed a prospective, multi-center trial using a composite reference standard to confirm the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism. Once again, for ethical reasons, the use of pulmonary artery digital-subtraction angiography was limited to patients whose diagnosis could neither be confirmed nor ruled out by less invasive tests. In contrast to PIOPED I, a clinical scoring system was used to assess the clinical probability of pulmonary embolism. Central readings were performed on all imaging studies except for venous ultrasonography.

Results

Of the 7,284 patients screened for the study, 3,262 were eligible, and 1,090 were enrolled. Of those, 824 patients received a completed CTA study and a reference standard for analysis. In 51 patients, the quality of the CTA was not suitable for interpretation, and these patients were excluded from the subsequent analysis. Pulmonary embolism was diagnosed in192 patients.

CTA was found to have a sensitivity of 83% and a specificity of 96%, yielding a likelihood ratio for a positive multidetector CTA test of 19.6 (95% confidence interval, 13.3 to 29.0), while the likelihood ratio for a negative test was 0.18 (95% confidence interval, 0.13 to 0.24). The quality of results on CTA-CTV was not adequate for interpretation in 87 patients; when these patients were excluded from analysis, the sensitivity was 90% with a specificity of 95%, yielding likelihood ratios of 16.5 (95% confidence interval, 11.6 to 23.5) for a positive test and 0.11 (95% confidence interval, 0.07 to 0.16) for a negative test.

Conclusions

Multidetector CTA and CTA-CTV perform well when the results of these tests are concordant with pre-test clinical probabilities of pulmonary embolism. CTA-CTV offers slightly increased sensitivity compared with CTA alone, with no significant difference in specificity. If the results of CTA or CTA-CTV are inconsistent with the clinical probability of pulmonary embolism, additional diagnostic testing is indicated.

Commentary

CTA has been used widely, and in many centers has largely replaced other diagnostic tests for pulmonary embolism. This well-done study incorporated recent advances in technology with multidetector CTA-CTV, along with a clinical prediction rule to better estimate pre-test probabilities of pulmonary embolism.2 It is important to recognize that 266 of the 1,090 patients enrolled were not included in the calculations of sensitivity and specificity for CTA-CTV because they did not have interpretable test results.

Although the specificity of both CTA and the CTA-CTV combination were high, the sensitivity was not sufficient to identify all cases of pulmonary embolism. This result contrasts to the recent outcomes studies of CTA, in which low rates of venous thromboembolism were seen in follow-up of patients with negative multidetector CTA.3,4 Although multidetector CTA has a higher sensitivity than single-slice technology, this test may still miss small subsegmental thrombi that might be detected using other diagnostic tests (ventilation-perfusion scintigraphy and/or pulmonary digital-subtraction angiography).

An important take-home message from this study is to recognize once again the importance of utilizing established clinical prediction rules for venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism (such as the Wells clinical model).2 As with the majority of diagnostic tests at our disposal, when our clinical judgment is in contrast with test results, as in the case of a high likelihood of a potentially fatal disease like pulmonary embolism with a normal CTA result, additional diagnostic testing is necessary.

References

1. The PIOPED Investigators. Value of the ventilation/perfusion scan in acute pulmonary embolism: results of the prospective investigation of pulmonary embolism diagnosis (PIOPED). JAMA. 1990;263:2753-2759.
2. Wells PS, Anderson DR, Rodger M, et al. Excluding pulmonary embolism at the bedside without diagnostic imaging: management of patients with suspected pulmonary embolism presenting to the emergency department by using a simple clinical model and d-dimer. Ann Intern Med. 2001 Jul 17;135(2):98-107.
3. Perrier A, Roy PM, Sanchez O, et al. Multidetector-row computed tomography in suspected pulmonary embolism. N Engl J Med. 2005 Apr;352(17):1760-1768.
4. van Belle A, Buller HR, Huisman MV, et al. Effectiveness of managing suspected pulmonary embolism using an algorithm combining clinical probability, D-dimer testing, and computed tomography. JAMA. 2006 Jan 11;295(2):172-179.

Classic Article:

PIOPED Investigators

The PIOPED Investigators. Value of ventilation/perfusion scan in acute pulmonary embolism: results of the prospective investigation of pulmonary embolism diagnosis (PIOPED). JAMA. 1990;263:2753-2759.

Background

The risk of untreated pulmonary embolism requires either the diagnosis or the exclusion of this diagnosis when clinical suspicion exists. The reference test for pulmonary embolism, standard pulmonary angiography, is invasive and expensive, and carries with it a measurable procedural risk.

Non-invasive diagnostic tests, including ventilation/perfusion (V/Q) scintigraphy, have been used to detect perfusion defects consistent with pulmonary embolism, though the performance characteristics of this diagnostic test were not well known prior to 1990. This study was designed to evaluate the sensitivity and specificities of ventilation/perfusion lung scans for pulmonary embolism in the acute setting.

Methods

This prospective, multi-center study evaluated V/Q scintigraphy on a random sample of 931 patients. A composite reference standard was used because only 755 patients underwent scintigraphy and pulmonary angiography. Clinical follow-up and subsequent diagnostic testing were employed in untreated patients with low clinical probabilities of pulmonary embolism who did not undergo angiography. Clinical assessment of the probability of pulmonary embolism was determined on the basis of the clinician’s judgment, without systematic prediction rules.

Results

Almost all patients with pulmonary embolism had abnormal ventilation/perfusion lung scans of high, intermediate, or low probability. Unfortunately, most patients without pulmonary embolism also had abnormal studies, limiting the utility of this test. Clinical follow-up and angiography revealed that pulmonary embolism occurred among 12% of patients with low-probability scans.

Conclusions

V/Q scintigraphy is useful in establishing or excluding the diagnosis of pulmonary embolism in only a minority of patients, where clinical suspicion of pulmonary embolism is concordant with the diagnostic test findings. The likelihood of pulmonary embolism in patients with a high pre-test probability of pulmonary embolism and a high probability scan is 95%, while in low probability patients with a low probability or normal scan the probability is 4% or 2%, respectively.

Commentary

This original PIOPED study established the diagnostic characteristics of V/Q scintigraphy and demonstrated, for the first time, evidence of the role of clinical assessment and prior probability in a diagnostic strategy for pulmonary embolism. Although subsequent studies have significantly advanced our knowledge of clinical prediction and diagnostic strategies in venous thromboembolism, the first PIOPED study continues to serve as an example of a high-quality, multi-center diagnostic test study utilizing a composite reference standard in a difficult-to-study disease. Unfortunately, the results of this study demonstrated that V/Q scintigraphy performs well for only a minority of patients. The majority of patients (72%) had clinical probabilities of pulmonary embolism and ventilation/perfusion scan results, which yielded post-test probabilities of 15-86%, leaving, in many cases, enough remaining diagnostic uncertainty to warrant additional testing.—TO TH

Andrew Fishmann, MD, FCCP, FACP, listened for more than an hour as an award-winning hospitalist talked about strategies to improve communication between physicians and administrators. Brian Bossard, MD, FACP, FHM, gleaned lessons from case studies of how two HM groups (HMGs) navigated the adolescent years. And dozens more hospitalists sat still for the bulk of an hour as they were given a nuts-and-bolts tutorial of HM finances.

Welcome to SHM’s new practice management track, a three-day series of training sessions that debuted at HM09 and focuses on the inner workings of HMGs—from startup to coding and billing to expansion. “There’s always a quality track, there’s always a clinical track, and there’s always a leadership track,” says Kimberly Dickinson, vice president of operations for Cogent Healthcare in Brentwood, Tenn., and an SHM Career Satisfaction Task Force member. “This was trying to bring together some of the nonclinical aspects.”

The experiment drew positive reviews, if rooms crowded with physicians—some lined up along the walls—are any indication. Dr. Fishmann, a Cogent co-founder who is practicing as a hospitalist with California Lung Associates in Los Angeles, says the courses give younger hospitalists different perspectives. “It’s taking doctors a little out of the hospital and putting them in the boardroom,” he says. “You don’t have a choice. … You need to be involved and have more input.”

The practice management courses are structured to give a broad overview of nearly every facet of opening and operating an HMG. One popular course, which ran nearly 15 minutes long because of participant questions, focused on managing HMG growth. Another session spent more than an hour taking physicians through comanagement issues that arise during collaborations with surgeons.

Real-Life Experiences

Most of the courses were led by familiar SHM leaders. But several attendees said they enjoyed sessions that were led by rank-and-file hospitalists and administrators who live the front-line struggles every day.

The “Case Studies in Managing Program Growth” course featured detailed explanations of the growing pains of HM programs in Michigan and Massachusetts. In the former case, Carole Montgomery, MD, talked about how the Michigan Medical PC group she helped start in western Michigan struggled to formalize certain procedures when it signed its first contract with a hospital in 2002. The group doubled its hospitalist roster and instantly went from an informal HM practice in which everyone knew each other and had relatively similar opinions to a business in which it was unclear who would make major decisions.

In response, Dr. Montgomery’s group crafted a mission statement, created a hospitalist executive committee to make routine operational decisions, and changed how it negotiated contracts with hospitals. Soon after, the group fired its first physician. Last year, the group instituted “internal governance guidelines” to make management decisions clearer. Dr. Montgomery says each of the developments taught her that solving major issues takes patience and a willingness to continually adapt. “I thought I was done each time,” she says. “Now I realize it’s an interactive process.”

Dr. Bossard

Results-Oriented

Peter Short, MD, FAAP, CPE, medical director of Northeast Hospital Corp., shared his recent struggles to hire one hospitalist and expand night coverage. Hospitalists in Dr. Short’s service, who practice at Beverly Hospital in Beverly, Mass., resisted the change at first, not wanting to add additional night-shift responsibility. Dr. Short also spoke about financial concerns to the group and the hospital. After explaining the pros and cons of hiring a sixth rounder, the hospitalists embraced the idea. So far, hospital administrators have had zero complaints, as the first three months of data show a reduction in length of stay by 0.3 days and an average cost decrease of roughly $500 per case.

Dr. Short also explained an unexpected byproduct of the hiring: Night work proved so popular that the hospitalists have demanded that they receive a specified number of overnight shifts a year. “They went from not wanting it to fighting for it,” Dr. Short says proudly. “There is no one-size-fits-all for hospital programs.”

Dr. Bossard, who founded Inpatient Physician Associates in Lincoln, Neb., says the types of detail-oriented presentations made by Drs. Montgomery and Short are useful if physicians learn lessons they can take home and adapt to their practice. “If it’s a lot of smoke without an action item or a bullet point we can latch on to,” he says, “it’s not as helpful.”

Richard Quinn is a freelance writer based in New Jersey.

Andrew Fishmann, MD, FCCP, FACP, listened for more than an hour as an award-winning hospitalist talked about strategies to improve communication between physicians and administrators. Brian Bossard, MD, FACP, FHM, gleaned lessons from case studies of how two HM groups (HMGs) navigated the adolescent years. And dozens more hospitalists sat still for the bulk of an hour as they were given a nuts-and-bolts tutorial of HM finances.

Welcome to SHM’s new practice management track, a three-day series of training sessions that debuted at HM09 and focuses on the inner workings of HMGs—from startup to coding and billing to expansion. “There’s always a quality track, there’s always a clinical track, and there’s always a leadership track,” says Kimberly Dickinson, vice president of operations for Cogent Healthcare in Brentwood, Tenn., and an SHM Career Satisfaction Task Force member. “This was trying to bring together some of the nonclinical aspects.”

The experiment drew positive reviews, if rooms crowded with physicians—some lined up along the walls—are any indication. Dr. Fishmann, a Cogent co-founder who is practicing as a hospitalist with California Lung Associates in Los Angeles, says the courses give younger hospitalists different perspectives. “It’s taking doctors a little out of the hospital and putting them in the boardroom,” he says. “You don’t have a choice. … You need to be involved and have more input.”

The practice management courses are structured to give a broad overview of nearly every facet of opening and operating an HMG. One popular course, which ran nearly 15 minutes long because of participant questions, focused on managing HMG growth. Another session spent more than an hour taking physicians through comanagement issues that arise during collaborations with surgeons.

Real-Life Experiences

Most of the courses were led by familiar SHM leaders. But several attendees said they enjoyed sessions that were led by rank-and-file hospitalists and administrators who live the front-line struggles every day.

The “Case Studies in Managing Program Growth” course featured detailed explanations of the growing pains of HM programs in Michigan and Massachusetts. In the former case, Carole Montgomery, MD, talked about how the Michigan Medical PC group she helped start in western Michigan struggled to formalize certain procedures when it signed its first contract with a hospital in 2002. The group doubled its hospitalist roster and instantly went from an informal HM practice in which everyone knew each other and had relatively similar opinions to a business in which it was unclear who would make major decisions.

In response, Dr. Montgomery’s group crafted a mission statement, created a hospitalist executive committee to make routine operational decisions, and changed how it negotiated contracts with hospitals. Soon after, the group fired its first physician. Last year, the group instituted “internal governance guidelines” to make management decisions clearer. Dr. Montgomery says each of the developments taught her that solving major issues takes patience and a willingness to continually adapt. “I thought I was done each time,” she says. “Now I realize it’s an interactive process.”

Dr. Bossard

Results-Oriented

Peter Short, MD, FAAP, CPE, medical director of Northeast Hospital Corp., shared his recent struggles to hire one hospitalist and expand night coverage. Hospitalists in Dr. Short’s service, who practice at Beverly Hospital in Beverly, Mass., resisted the change at first, not wanting to add additional night-shift responsibility. Dr. Short also spoke about financial concerns to the group and the hospital. After explaining the pros and cons of hiring a sixth rounder, the hospitalists embraced the idea. So far, hospital administrators have had zero complaints, as the first three months of data show a reduction in length of stay by 0.3 days and an average cost decrease of roughly $500 per case.

Dr. Short also explained an unexpected byproduct of the hiring: Night work proved so popular that the hospitalists have demanded that they receive a specified number of overnight shifts a year. “They went from not wanting it to fighting for it,” Dr. Short says proudly. “There is no one-size-fits-all for hospital programs.”

Dr. Bossard, who founded Inpatient Physician Associates in Lincoln, Neb., says the types of detail-oriented presentations made by Drs. Montgomery and Short are useful if physicians learn lessons they can take home and adapt to their practice. “If it’s a lot of smoke without an action item or a bullet point we can latch on to,” he says, “it’s not as helpful.”

Richard Quinn is a freelance writer based in New Jersey.

Andrew Fishmann, MD, FCCP, FACP, listened for more than an hour as an award-winning hospitalist talked about strategies to improve communication between physicians and administrators. Brian Bossard, MD, FACP, FHM, gleaned lessons from case studies of how two HM groups (HMGs) navigated the adolescent years. And dozens more hospitalists sat still for the bulk of an hour as they were given a nuts-and-bolts tutorial of HM finances.

Welcome to SHM’s new practice management track, a three-day series of training sessions that debuted at HM09 and focuses on the inner workings of HMGs—from startup to coding and billing to expansion. “There’s always a quality track, there’s always a clinical track, and there’s always a leadership track,” says Kimberly Dickinson, vice president of operations for Cogent Healthcare in Brentwood, Tenn., and an SHM Career Satisfaction Task Force member. “This was trying to bring together some of the nonclinical aspects.”

The experiment drew positive reviews, if rooms crowded with physicians—some lined up along the walls—are any indication. Dr. Fishmann, a Cogent co-founder who is practicing as a hospitalist with California Lung Associates in Los Angeles, says the courses give younger hospitalists different perspectives. “It’s taking doctors a little out of the hospital and putting them in the boardroom,” he says. “You don’t have a choice. … You need to be involved and have more input.”

The practice management courses are structured to give a broad overview of nearly every facet of opening and operating an HMG. One popular course, which ran nearly 15 minutes long because of participant questions, focused on managing HMG growth. Another session spent more than an hour taking physicians through comanagement issues that arise during collaborations with surgeons.

Real-Life Experiences

Most of the courses were led by familiar SHM leaders. But several attendees said they enjoyed sessions that were led by rank-and-file hospitalists and administrators who live the front-line struggles every day.

The “Case Studies in Managing Program Growth” course featured detailed explanations of the growing pains of HM programs in Michigan and Massachusetts. In the former case, Carole Montgomery, MD, talked about how the Michigan Medical PC group she helped start in western Michigan struggled to formalize certain procedures when it signed its first contract with a hospital in 2002. The group doubled its hospitalist roster and instantly went from an informal HM practice in which everyone knew each other and had relatively similar opinions to a business in which it was unclear who would make major decisions.

In response, Dr. Montgomery’s group crafted a mission statement, created a hospitalist executive committee to make routine operational decisions, and changed how it negotiated contracts with hospitals. Soon after, the group fired its first physician. Last year, the group instituted “internal governance guidelines” to make management decisions clearer. Dr. Montgomery says each of the developments taught her that solving major issues takes patience and a willingness to continually adapt. “I thought I was done each time,” she says. “Now I realize it’s an interactive process.”

Dr. Bossard

Results-Oriented

Peter Short, MD, FAAP, CPE, medical director of Northeast Hospital Corp., shared his recent struggles to hire one hospitalist and expand night coverage. Hospitalists in Dr. Short’s service, who practice at Beverly Hospital in Beverly, Mass., resisted the change at first, not wanting to add additional night-shift responsibility. Dr. Short also spoke about financial concerns to the group and the hospital. After explaining the pros and cons of hiring a sixth rounder, the hospitalists embraced the idea. So far, hospital administrators have had zero complaints, as the first three months of data show a reduction in length of stay by 0.3 days and an average cost decrease of roughly $500 per case.

Dr. Short also explained an unexpected byproduct of the hiring: Night work proved so popular that the hospitalists have demanded that they receive a specified number of overnight shifts a year. “They went from not wanting it to fighting for it,” Dr. Short says proudly. “There is no one-size-fits-all for hospital programs.”

Dr. Bossard, who founded Inpatient Physician Associates in Lincoln, Neb., says the types of detail-oriented presentations made by Drs. Montgomery and Short are useful if physicians learn lessons they can take home and adapt to their practice. “If it’s a lot of smoke without an action item or a bullet point we can latch on to,” he says, “it’s not as helpful.”

Richard Quinn is a freelance writer based in New Jersey.