Editorial

In the past five years, it has become increasingly apparent that hospital physiologic monitoring systems are not functioning optimally for children. On pediatric wards, 26%-48% of children are continuously monitored, and these children generate between 42 and 155 alarms per day.¹ Just 1% or fewer are considered actionable or informative, slowing nurses’ response times and placing patients at risk of delayed recognition of life-threatening events.^2,3 While some factors associated with alarm response times have been elucidated,³ in order to design safe and effective monitoring systems, further work is needed to understand the complex decision-making process that nurses face when encountering alarms outside a patient’s room. It is in this area that Schondelmeyer and colleagues strive to enhance our understanding in this issue of the Journal of Hospital Medicine.⁴

Schondelmeyer et al. conducted a single-center, observational study using mixed methods in a general pediatric unit. Trained observers shadowed nine nurses one to four times each, during which nurses were asked to “think aloud” as they managed physiologic monitor alarms, rationalizing their decisions about how and why they might respond for the observer to document. Observers accumulated 61 patient-hours of observation before investigators halted data collection because new insights about alarm responses were no longer emerging from the data (thematic saturation).

Nurses thought aloud about 207 alarms during the study, which the investigators estimated comprised about one third of the alarms that occurred during observation periods. Most of the 207 occurred while the nurse was already in the patient’s room, where a response decision is uncomplicated. More interesting were the 45 alarms heard while outside the patient’s room, where nurses face the complex decision of whether to interrupt their current tasks and respond or delay their response and assume the associated risk of nonresponse to a potentially deteriorating patient. Of the 45 alarms, nurses went into the room to evaluate the patient 15 times and, after doing so, reported that five of the 15 warranted in-person responses to address technical issues with the monitor, clinical issues, or patients’ comfort. Reassuring clinical contexts—such as presence of the medical team or family in the room and recent patient assessments—were the reasons most commonly provided to explain alarm nonresponse.

This study has two key limitations. First, the authors designed the study to observe nurses’ responses until thematic saturation was achieved. However, the small sample size (nine nurses, 45 out-of-room alarms) could raise questions about whether sufficient data were captured to make broadly generalizable conclusions, given the diverse range of patients, families, and clinical scenarios nurses encounter on an inpatient unit. Second, by instructing nurse participants to verbalize their rationale for response or nonresponse, investigators essentially asked nurses to override the “Type 1”, heuristic-based reasoning⁵ that research suggests regulates nursing responses to alarms when adapting to circumstances requiring high cognitive demand or a heavy workload.³ While innovative, it is possible that this approach prevented the investigators from fully achieving their stated objective of describing how bedside nurses think about and act upon alarms.

Nonetheless, the findings by Schondelmeyer and colleagues extend our emerging understanding of why alarm responses are disconcertingly slow. Nursing staff’s dismissal of monitor alarms that are discordant with a reassuring patient evaluation underscores the imperative to reduce nuisance alarms. Furthermore, the explicit statements justifying alarm nonresponse because of the presence of family members build upon prior findings of longer response times when family members are at the bedside³ and invite a provocative question: how would family members feel if they knew that they were being entrusted as a foundational component of safety monitoring in the hospital? In their recently published study conducted at the same hospital,⁶ Schondelmeyer’s team elicited perceptions that families are deeply concerned about staff nonresponse to alarms—as one nurse stated, parents “wonder what’s going on when no one comes in.” While there is a valuable role for integrating families into efforts to overcome threats to patient safety, as has been achieved with family error reporting⁷ and communication on family-centered rounds,⁸ this must occur in a structured, explicit, and deliberate manner, with families engaged as key stakeholders.

In summary, while Schondelmeyer and colleagues may not have exposed the depth of implicit thinking that governs nurses’ responses to alarms, they have highlighted the high-stakes decisions that nurses confront on a daily basis in an environment with exceedingly high alarm rates and low alarm actionability. The authors cite staff education among potential solutions to improve the safety of continuous monitoring, but such an intervention cannot be effective in a system that places impossible burdens on nurses. An openly family centered and multidisciplinary approach to reengineering the system for monitoring hospitalized children is needed to enable nurses to respond quickly and accurately to patients at risk of clinical deterioration.

Disclosures

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

In the past five years, it has become increasingly apparent that hospital physiologic monitoring systems are not functioning optimally for children. On pediatric wards, 26%-48% of children are continuously monitored, and these children generate between 42 and 155 alarms per day.¹ Just 1% or fewer are considered actionable or informative, slowing nurses’ response times and placing patients at risk of delayed recognition of life-threatening events.^2,3 While some factors associated with alarm response times have been elucidated,³ in order to design safe and effective monitoring systems, further work is needed to understand the complex decision-making process that nurses face when encountering alarms outside a patient’s room. It is in this area that Schondelmeyer and colleagues strive to enhance our understanding in this issue of the Journal of Hospital Medicine.⁴

Schondelmeyer et al. conducted a single-center, observational study using mixed methods in a general pediatric unit. Trained observers shadowed nine nurses one to four times each, during which nurses were asked to “think aloud” as they managed physiologic monitor alarms, rationalizing their decisions about how and why they might respond for the observer to document. Observers accumulated 61 patient-hours of observation before investigators halted data collection because new insights about alarm responses were no longer emerging from the data (thematic saturation).

Nurses thought aloud about 207 alarms during the study, which the investigators estimated comprised about one third of the alarms that occurred during observation periods. Most of the 207 occurred while the nurse was already in the patient’s room, where a response decision is uncomplicated. More interesting were the 45 alarms heard while outside the patient’s room, where nurses face the complex decision of whether to interrupt their current tasks and respond or delay their response and assume the associated risk of nonresponse to a potentially deteriorating patient. Of the 45 alarms, nurses went into the room to evaluate the patient 15 times and, after doing so, reported that five of the 15 warranted in-person responses to address technical issues with the monitor, clinical issues, or patients’ comfort. Reassuring clinical contexts—such as presence of the medical team or family in the room and recent patient assessments—were the reasons most commonly provided to explain alarm nonresponse.

This study has two key limitations. First, the authors designed the study to observe nurses’ responses until thematic saturation was achieved. However, the small sample size (nine nurses, 45 out-of-room alarms) could raise questions about whether sufficient data were captured to make broadly generalizable conclusions, given the diverse range of patients, families, and clinical scenarios nurses encounter on an inpatient unit. Second, by instructing nurse participants to verbalize their rationale for response or nonresponse, investigators essentially asked nurses to override the “Type 1”, heuristic-based reasoning⁵ that research suggests regulates nursing responses to alarms when adapting to circumstances requiring high cognitive demand or a heavy workload.³ While innovative, it is possible that this approach prevented the investigators from fully achieving their stated objective of describing how bedside nurses think about and act upon alarms.

Nonetheless, the findings by Schondelmeyer and colleagues extend our emerging understanding of why alarm responses are disconcertingly slow. Nursing staff’s dismissal of monitor alarms that are discordant with a reassuring patient evaluation underscores the imperative to reduce nuisance alarms. Furthermore, the explicit statements justifying alarm nonresponse because of the presence of family members build upon prior findings of longer response times when family members are at the bedside³ and invite a provocative question: how would family members feel if they knew that they were being entrusted as a foundational component of safety monitoring in the hospital? In their recently published study conducted at the same hospital,⁶ Schondelmeyer’s team elicited perceptions that families are deeply concerned about staff nonresponse to alarms—as one nurse stated, parents “wonder what’s going on when no one comes in.” While there is a valuable role for integrating families into efforts to overcome threats to patient safety, as has been achieved with family error reporting⁷ and communication on family-centered rounds,⁸ this must occur in a structured, explicit, and deliberate manner, with families engaged as key stakeholders.

In summary, while Schondelmeyer and colleagues may not have exposed the depth of implicit thinking that governs nurses’ responses to alarms, they have highlighted the high-stakes decisions that nurses confront on a daily basis in an environment with exceedingly high alarm rates and low alarm actionability. The authors cite staff education among potential solutions to improve the safety of continuous monitoring, but such an intervention cannot be effective in a system that places impossible burdens on nurses. An openly family centered and multidisciplinary approach to reengineering the system for monitoring hospitalized children is needed to enable nurses to respond quickly and accurately to patients at risk of clinical deterioration.

Disclosures

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

In the past five years, it has become increasingly apparent that hospital physiologic monitoring systems are not functioning optimally for children. On pediatric wards, 26%-48% of children are continuously monitored, and these children generate between 42 and 155 alarms per day.¹ Just 1% or fewer are considered actionable or informative, slowing nurses’ response times and placing patients at risk of delayed recognition of life-threatening events.^2,3 While some factors associated with alarm response times have been elucidated,³ in order to design safe and effective monitoring systems, further work is needed to understand the complex decision-making process that nurses face when encountering alarms outside a patient’s room. It is in this area that Schondelmeyer and colleagues strive to enhance our understanding in this issue of the Journal of Hospital Medicine.⁴

Schondelmeyer et al. conducted a single-center, observational study using mixed methods in a general pediatric unit. Trained observers shadowed nine nurses one to four times each, during which nurses were asked to “think aloud” as they managed physiologic monitor alarms, rationalizing their decisions about how and why they might respond for the observer to document. Observers accumulated 61 patient-hours of observation before investigators halted data collection because new insights about alarm responses were no longer emerging from the data (thematic saturation).

Nurses thought aloud about 207 alarms during the study, which the investigators estimated comprised about one third of the alarms that occurred during observation periods. Most of the 207 occurred while the nurse was already in the patient’s room, where a response decision is uncomplicated. More interesting were the 45 alarms heard while outside the patient’s room, where nurses face the complex decision of whether to interrupt their current tasks and respond or delay their response and assume the associated risk of nonresponse to a potentially deteriorating patient. Of the 45 alarms, nurses went into the room to evaluate the patient 15 times and, after doing so, reported that five of the 15 warranted in-person responses to address technical issues with the monitor, clinical issues, or patients’ comfort. Reassuring clinical contexts—such as presence of the medical team or family in the room and recent patient assessments—were the reasons most commonly provided to explain alarm nonresponse.

This study has two key limitations. First, the authors designed the study to observe nurses’ responses until thematic saturation was achieved. However, the small sample size (nine nurses, 45 out-of-room alarms) could raise questions about whether sufficient data were captured to make broadly generalizable conclusions, given the diverse range of patients, families, and clinical scenarios nurses encounter on an inpatient unit. Second, by instructing nurse participants to verbalize their rationale for response or nonresponse, investigators essentially asked nurses to override the “Type 1”, heuristic-based reasoning⁵ that research suggests regulates nursing responses to alarms when adapting to circumstances requiring high cognitive demand or a heavy workload.³ While innovative, it is possible that this approach prevented the investigators from fully achieving their stated objective of describing how bedside nurses think about and act upon alarms.

Nonetheless, the findings by Schondelmeyer and colleagues extend our emerging understanding of why alarm responses are disconcertingly slow. Nursing staff’s dismissal of monitor alarms that are discordant with a reassuring patient evaluation underscores the imperative to reduce nuisance alarms. Furthermore, the explicit statements justifying alarm nonresponse because of the presence of family members build upon prior findings of longer response times when family members are at the bedside³ and invite a provocative question: how would family members feel if they knew that they were being entrusted as a foundational component of safety monitoring in the hospital? In their recently published study conducted at the same hospital,⁶ Schondelmeyer’s team elicited perceptions that families are deeply concerned about staff nonresponse to alarms—as one nurse stated, parents “wonder what’s going on when no one comes in.” While there is a valuable role for integrating families into efforts to overcome threats to patient safety, as has been achieved with family error reporting⁷ and communication on family-centered rounds,⁸ this must occur in a structured, explicit, and deliberate manner, with families engaged as key stakeholders.

In summary, while Schondelmeyer and colleagues may not have exposed the depth of implicit thinking that governs nurses’ responses to alarms, they have highlighted the high-stakes decisions that nurses confront on a daily basis in an environment with exceedingly high alarm rates and low alarm actionability. The authors cite staff education among potential solutions to improve the safety of continuous monitoring, but such an intervention cannot be effective in a system that places impossible burdens on nurses. An openly family centered and multidisciplinary approach to reengineering the system for monitoring hospitalized children is needed to enable nurses to respond quickly and accurately to patients at risk of clinical deterioration.

Disclosures

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

The Choosing Wisely^® campaign, launched in 2012 by the American Board of Internal Medicine, aims to reduce overuse of tests and treatments that do not add value for patients. The campaign has caught the attention of the medical profession and spread internationally. Over the last seven years, most specialty societies have published specific recommendations on what tests and treatments clinicians should stop doing. However, has this campaign actually had an impact on the testing and treating behaviors of clinicians?

In this issue of the Journal of Hospital Medicine, Reyes and colleagues examine changes in five overuse metrics linked with the 2013 Choosing Wisely^® Pediatric Hospital Medicine recommendations at 37 children’s hospitals from 2008 to 2017, five years before and after the recommendations were published.^1,2 The tests and treatments targeted by these recommendations are not individually costly, but given the high prevalence of the conditions, the cumulative cost is not insignificant. More importantly, reducing the potentially harmful long-term effects of unnecessary radiation and adverse effects from exposure to inappropriate systemic steroids and antacids is a laudable goal. Results from unnecessary tests may also lead to a further cascade of unnecessary testing and/or treatment.³

The authors used an administrative data source, the Pediatric Health Information System (PHIS), to measure billing charges for the tests and medications linked with the overuse measures in over 278,000 hospitalizations. The good news is that overuse declined over the 10-year study period. After adjusting for differences in patient characteristics over time, they observed a substantial absolute reduction in bronchiolitis bronchodilator use (36.6%, from 64% in 2008 to 27.4% in 2017) and chest x-ray (CXR) use (31.5%, from 58.4% to 26.9%). There were also reductions for the other metrics: acid-suppressing medications for gastroesophageal reflux (24.1%, from 63% to 48.9%), asthma CXR use (20.8%, from 52.8% to 32%), and steroids for lower respiratory tract infections (2.9%, from 15.1% to 12.2%). We would not expect the goal for these overuse metrics to be zero percent given the diagnostic uncertainties in real-world clinical decision-making.

The Choosing Wisely^® Pediatric Hospital Medicine recommendations, however, were associated with only a modest impact on the overuse decline. A before-and-after interrupted time series analysis showed that the overuse measures were on the downturn prior to the recommendations being published. Then after publication, only the rate of CXR use in asthma decreased immediately. The rate of bronchodilator use for bronchiolitis declined in the following five-year period. There were no changes in the rate of decline in overuse for the other tests and treatments associated with the recommendations.

With such a widespread national campaign, a control group of hospitals to better understand the specific influence of the Choosing Wisely^® recommendations was not possible. The decline in overuse over the 10-year period reported by Reyes et al. is likely due to a combination of efforts at multiple levels—including national society guidelines, local hospital guidelines and pathways, increased awareness by clinicians of the problem of overuse, and focused quality improvement efforts.

The use of the PHIS database provided Reyes et al. a powerful data source to evaluate overuse across a large number of patients and hospitals efficiently. However, there are limitations with administrative data that are important to consider. Detailed clinical data, such as patient disease characteristics and test and treatment indications, are not available, which limits the specificity of these measures. For example, one of the recommendations suggests that gastroesophageal reflux should not be routinely treated with acid suppression therapy. Using administrative data, it is impossible to know whether the use of antacids in hospitalized children with a primary discharge diagnosis code of gastroesophageal reflux was inappropriate or because they failed other treatments in the outpatient setting and/or had complicated disease appropriately warranting treatment. This misclassification would result in an overestimation of overuse. The authors did attempt to minimize the possibility of misclassification by excluding children with comorbidities, those who had longer hospital stays, those admitted to the intensive care unit, and those with greater severity of illness where some of these tests and treatments would be indicated.

While the report by Reyes et al. focuses on Pediatric Hospital Medicine Choosing Wisely^®recommendations, it is important to recognize that tests and treatments for conditions like asthma, bronchiolitis, and lower respiratory tract infections are initially performed in the emergency department (ED). Collaboration between the ED and the Hospital Medicine Unit is essential to tackle the issue of overuse.⁴

The study by Reyes et al. provides a nice description of the trends in the Choosing Wisely^®overuse metrics at a group of children’s hospitals and is one of few such reports. The NIH funded, Eliminating Monitor Overuse: pulse oximetry (EMO: SpO2) study is focusing on the 5th Choosing Wisely^® Pediatric Hospital Medicine recommendation that was not studied by Reyes.⁵

So then, with the decline in overuse reported in this study over 10 years, is it time to celebrate? Not yet. There is much work to do in the pursuit of Choosing Wisely^®: developing a host of valid measures of overuse in pediatric hospital care, expanding the examination of overuse to community hospitals where the majority of children are hospitalized, and using implementation science theory to de-implement the ingrained practices.

The Choosing Wisely^® campaign, launched in 2012 by the American Board of Internal Medicine, aims to reduce overuse of tests and treatments that do not add value for patients. The campaign has caught the attention of the medical profession and spread internationally. Over the last seven years, most specialty societies have published specific recommendations on what tests and treatments clinicians should stop doing. However, has this campaign actually had an impact on the testing and treating behaviors of clinicians?

In this issue of the Journal of Hospital Medicine, Reyes and colleagues examine changes in five overuse metrics linked with the 2013 Choosing Wisely^® Pediatric Hospital Medicine recommendations at 37 children’s hospitals from 2008 to 2017, five years before and after the recommendations were published.^1,2 The tests and treatments targeted by these recommendations are not individually costly, but given the high prevalence of the conditions, the cumulative cost is not insignificant. More importantly, reducing the potentially harmful long-term effects of unnecessary radiation and adverse effects from exposure to inappropriate systemic steroids and antacids is a laudable goal. Results from unnecessary tests may also lead to a further cascade of unnecessary testing and/or treatment.³

The authors used an administrative data source, the Pediatric Health Information System (PHIS), to measure billing charges for the tests and medications linked with the overuse measures in over 278,000 hospitalizations. The good news is that overuse declined over the 10-year study period. After adjusting for differences in patient characteristics over time, they observed a substantial absolute reduction in bronchiolitis bronchodilator use (36.6%, from 64% in 2008 to 27.4% in 2017) and chest x-ray (CXR) use (31.5%, from 58.4% to 26.9%). There were also reductions for the other metrics: acid-suppressing medications for gastroesophageal reflux (24.1%, from 63% to 48.9%), asthma CXR use (20.8%, from 52.8% to 32%), and steroids for lower respiratory tract infections (2.9%, from 15.1% to 12.2%). We would not expect the goal for these overuse metrics to be zero percent given the diagnostic uncertainties in real-world clinical decision-making.

The Choosing Wisely^® Pediatric Hospital Medicine recommendations, however, were associated with only a modest impact on the overuse decline. A before-and-after interrupted time series analysis showed that the overuse measures were on the downturn prior to the recommendations being published. Then after publication, only the rate of CXR use in asthma decreased immediately. The rate of bronchodilator use for bronchiolitis declined in the following five-year period. There were no changes in the rate of decline in overuse for the other tests and treatments associated with the recommendations.

With such a widespread national campaign, a control group of hospitals to better understand the specific influence of the Choosing Wisely^® recommendations was not possible. The decline in overuse over the 10-year period reported by Reyes et al. is likely due to a combination of efforts at multiple levels—including national society guidelines, local hospital guidelines and pathways, increased awareness by clinicians of the problem of overuse, and focused quality improvement efforts.

The use of the PHIS database provided Reyes et al. a powerful data source to evaluate overuse across a large number of patients and hospitals efficiently. However, there are limitations with administrative data that are important to consider. Detailed clinical data, such as patient disease characteristics and test and treatment indications, are not available, which limits the specificity of these measures. For example, one of the recommendations suggests that gastroesophageal reflux should not be routinely treated with acid suppression therapy. Using administrative data, it is impossible to know whether the use of antacids in hospitalized children with a primary discharge diagnosis code of gastroesophageal reflux was inappropriate or because they failed other treatments in the outpatient setting and/or had complicated disease appropriately warranting treatment. This misclassification would result in an overestimation of overuse. The authors did attempt to minimize the possibility of misclassification by excluding children with comorbidities, those who had longer hospital stays, those admitted to the intensive care unit, and those with greater severity of illness where some of these tests and treatments would be indicated.

While the report by Reyes et al. focuses on Pediatric Hospital Medicine Choosing Wisely^®recommendations, it is important to recognize that tests and treatments for conditions like asthma, bronchiolitis, and lower respiratory tract infections are initially performed in the emergency department (ED). Collaboration between the ED and the Hospital Medicine Unit is essential to tackle the issue of overuse.⁴

The study by Reyes et al. provides a nice description of the trends in the Choosing Wisely^®overuse metrics at a group of children’s hospitals and is one of few such reports. The NIH funded, Eliminating Monitor Overuse: pulse oximetry (EMO: SpO2) study is focusing on the 5th Choosing Wisely^® Pediatric Hospital Medicine recommendation that was not studied by Reyes.⁵

So then, with the decline in overuse reported in this study over 10 years, is it time to celebrate? Not yet. There is much work to do in the pursuit of Choosing Wisely^®: developing a host of valid measures of overuse in pediatric hospital care, expanding the examination of overuse to community hospitals where the majority of children are hospitalized, and using implementation science theory to de-implement the ingrained practices.

The Choosing Wisely^® campaign, launched in 2012 by the American Board of Internal Medicine, aims to reduce overuse of tests and treatments that do not add value for patients. The campaign has caught the attention of the medical profession and spread internationally. Over the last seven years, most specialty societies have published specific recommendations on what tests and treatments clinicians should stop doing. However, has this campaign actually had an impact on the testing and treating behaviors of clinicians?

In this issue of the Journal of Hospital Medicine, Reyes and colleagues examine changes in five overuse metrics linked with the 2013 Choosing Wisely^® Pediatric Hospital Medicine recommendations at 37 children’s hospitals from 2008 to 2017, five years before and after the recommendations were published.^1,2 The tests and treatments targeted by these recommendations are not individually costly, but given the high prevalence of the conditions, the cumulative cost is not insignificant. More importantly, reducing the potentially harmful long-term effects of unnecessary radiation and adverse effects from exposure to inappropriate systemic steroids and antacids is a laudable goal. Results from unnecessary tests may also lead to a further cascade of unnecessary testing and/or treatment.³

The authors used an administrative data source, the Pediatric Health Information System (PHIS), to measure billing charges for the tests and medications linked with the overuse measures in over 278,000 hospitalizations. The good news is that overuse declined over the 10-year study period. After adjusting for differences in patient characteristics over time, they observed a substantial absolute reduction in bronchiolitis bronchodilator use (36.6%, from 64% in 2008 to 27.4% in 2017) and chest x-ray (CXR) use (31.5%, from 58.4% to 26.9%). There were also reductions for the other metrics: acid-suppressing medications for gastroesophageal reflux (24.1%, from 63% to 48.9%), asthma CXR use (20.8%, from 52.8% to 32%), and steroids for lower respiratory tract infections (2.9%, from 15.1% to 12.2%). We would not expect the goal for these overuse metrics to be zero percent given the diagnostic uncertainties in real-world clinical decision-making.

The Choosing Wisely^® Pediatric Hospital Medicine recommendations, however, were associated with only a modest impact on the overuse decline. A before-and-after interrupted time series analysis showed that the overuse measures were on the downturn prior to the recommendations being published. Then after publication, only the rate of CXR use in asthma decreased immediately. The rate of bronchodilator use for bronchiolitis declined in the following five-year period. There were no changes in the rate of decline in overuse for the other tests and treatments associated with the recommendations.

With such a widespread national campaign, a control group of hospitals to better understand the specific influence of the Choosing Wisely^® recommendations was not possible. The decline in overuse over the 10-year period reported by Reyes et al. is likely due to a combination of efforts at multiple levels—including national society guidelines, local hospital guidelines and pathways, increased awareness by clinicians of the problem of overuse, and focused quality improvement efforts.

The use of the PHIS database provided Reyes et al. a powerful data source to evaluate overuse across a large number of patients and hospitals efficiently. However, there are limitations with administrative data that are important to consider. Detailed clinical data, such as patient disease characteristics and test and treatment indications, are not available, which limits the specificity of these measures. For example, one of the recommendations suggests that gastroesophageal reflux should not be routinely treated with acid suppression therapy. Using administrative data, it is impossible to know whether the use of antacids in hospitalized children with a primary discharge diagnosis code of gastroesophageal reflux was inappropriate or because they failed other treatments in the outpatient setting and/or had complicated disease appropriately warranting treatment. This misclassification would result in an overestimation of overuse. The authors did attempt to minimize the possibility of misclassification by excluding children with comorbidities, those who had longer hospital stays, those admitted to the intensive care unit, and those with greater severity of illness where some of these tests and treatments would be indicated.

While the report by Reyes et al. focuses on Pediatric Hospital Medicine Choosing Wisely^®recommendations, it is important to recognize that tests and treatments for conditions like asthma, bronchiolitis, and lower respiratory tract infections are initially performed in the emergency department (ED). Collaboration between the ED and the Hospital Medicine Unit is essential to tackle the issue of overuse.⁴

The study by Reyes et al. provides a nice description of the trends in the Choosing Wisely^®overuse metrics at a group of children’s hospitals and is one of few such reports. The NIH funded, Eliminating Monitor Overuse: pulse oximetry (EMO: SpO2) study is focusing on the 5th Choosing Wisely^® Pediatric Hospital Medicine recommendation that was not studied by Reyes.⁵

So then, with the decline in overuse reported in this study over 10 years, is it time to celebrate? Not yet. There is much work to do in the pursuit of Choosing Wisely^®: developing a host of valid measures of overuse in pediatric hospital care, expanding the examination of overuse to community hospitals where the majority of children are hospitalized, and using implementation science theory to de-implement the ingrained practices.

Is there a single intervention more important to hospitalized patients than vascular access? Since their advent in the 1950s, small plastic tubes have revolutionized medication administration and become a mainstay of modern medicine. Yet, for much of the last 60 years, nurses and doctors have used the same landmark-guided approaches to acquire peripheral and, more specifically, central access.¹ Minor improvements to the Seldinger technique and sterile preparation have been reported.² However, for such a vital and common procedure, the complication rates of landmark-based approaches to central venous access remain unacceptably high.³

In the position statement released by the Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM), Franco–Sadud et al. outline the transformative effects ultrasound can have in obtaining adult vascular access.⁴ The authors cite comprehensive evidence, leaving little doubt of the technique’s benefits compared with landmark-based approaches. However, several questions remain: Is vascular access the domain of the hospitalist? If so, how can hospitalists pursue and afford ultrasound training? Finally, how will this shift toward ultrasound-guided vascular access affect patients in resource-limited settings?

Through an expert-driven literature review, the authors present 29 succinct recommendations for ultrasound use in vascular access. Supporting data consistently illustrate the association of ultrasound with increased successful vessel cannulation rates and decreased complication rates for all types of vascular access; including central venous access (internal jugular, subclavian, femoral), arterial line placement, peripherally inserted central catheters, and difficult peripheral venous access. Despite this compelling evidence, however, 20%-55% of all central venous catheters are still placed without ultrasound.⁵ How, then, can hospitalists expand ultrasound use for vascular access or perform these procedures in general?

Hospitalists likely fall into one of three categories in terms of vascular access: (1) they are proficient in ultrasound use for vascular access, (2) they still routinely use traditional landmark-based approaches, or (3) they have little to no involvement in vascular access and defer to intensivists, interventional radiologists, or nurse specialists. Franco-Sadud et al.’s position statement acknowledges the wide range of hospitalist practices and only asserts that, if providers perform vascular access, they should be trained and use ultrasound to do them. We would advocate further that, regardless of their practice, hospitalists have a role in expanding ultrasound use for vascular access given its direct impact on the patients they care for. Hospitalists who do not directly practice vascular access can still leverage the skills that have established hospital medicine’s reputation as leaders in patient safety and quality improvement. Hospitalists can partner with proceduralists in their institutions to ensure that they are supported and trained in the most evidence-based approaches to vascular access and that their patients have access to the highest quality of care.

For the individual hospitalist, the investment of time and resources to incorporate ultrasound into routine practice can seem daunting. In previous position statements, the SHM has advocated for the robust use of simulation and directly observed assessment in credentialing for all bedside procedures.⁶ However, the Society also acknowledges that this degree of training and monitoring can constitute significant barriers and has argued that the onus for change lies not only with providers but with healthcare institutions at large. How, then, can hospitalists approach their institutions to successfully solicit support? While the evidence is not yet conclusive, Cohen et al. have shown promising data for potential long-term cost savings through ultrasound-guided vascular access.⁷ Due to decreased complication rates, downstream benefits of lower resource use, higher patient satisfaction, and, theoretically, even lower clinician burnout rates have been attained. These effects, combined with hospitalists acquiring ultrasound skills translatable to other bedside procedures and fundamentals of diagnostic point of care ultrasound, form a compelling argument for institutional support. Many academic medical centers, typically with increased resources and training programs, have been early adopters; but, how will the shift from landmark-based to ultrasound-guided vascular access affect those in resource-limited settings?

While incredible strides have been made in care quality and patient safety over the last 15 years, improvements clearly do not always benefit patients, clinicians, or institutions equally.⁸ In fact, those in resource-limited settings often experience disproportionately reduced benefits. While focus on the “quality gap” has transformed the culture of the quality improvement and patient safety fields, an “equity gap” has long undermined and limited the impact of those very improvements. Unfortunately, changes in care driven by costly technological advances such as ultrasound are particularly likely to widen this “equity gap.” While ultrasound technology is rapidly becoming more affordable, a lack of access to machines and appropriate training remain significant barriers in the resource-limited settings that hospitalists are most likely to be performing these procedures. Without a focus on equity, the benefits offered by ultrasound will continue to be limited in their reach.

The SHM position statement by Franco-Sadud et al. is an important step in expanding evidence-based ultrasound use for vascular access and improving patient care. While the recommendations are, at times, aspirational and the barriers are real, hospitalists have shown time and again their ability to overcome these challenges and advance the standard of care for all.

Is there a single intervention more important to hospitalized patients than vascular access? Since their advent in the 1950s, small plastic tubes have revolutionized medication administration and become a mainstay of modern medicine. Yet, for much of the last 60 years, nurses and doctors have used the same landmark-guided approaches to acquire peripheral and, more specifically, central access.¹ Minor improvements to the Seldinger technique and sterile preparation have been reported.² However, for such a vital and common procedure, the complication rates of landmark-based approaches to central venous access remain unacceptably high.³

In the position statement released by the Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM), Franco–Sadud et al. outline the transformative effects ultrasound can have in obtaining adult vascular access.⁴ The authors cite comprehensive evidence, leaving little doubt of the technique’s benefits compared with landmark-based approaches. However, several questions remain: Is vascular access the domain of the hospitalist? If so, how can hospitalists pursue and afford ultrasound training? Finally, how will this shift toward ultrasound-guided vascular access affect patients in resource-limited settings?

Through an expert-driven literature review, the authors present 29 succinct recommendations for ultrasound use in vascular access. Supporting data consistently illustrate the association of ultrasound with increased successful vessel cannulation rates and decreased complication rates for all types of vascular access; including central venous access (internal jugular, subclavian, femoral), arterial line placement, peripherally inserted central catheters, and difficult peripheral venous access. Despite this compelling evidence, however, 20%-55% of all central venous catheters are still placed without ultrasound.⁵ How, then, can hospitalists expand ultrasound use for vascular access or perform these procedures in general?

Hospitalists likely fall into one of three categories in terms of vascular access: (1) they are proficient in ultrasound use for vascular access, (2) they still routinely use traditional landmark-based approaches, or (3) they have little to no involvement in vascular access and defer to intensivists, interventional radiologists, or nurse specialists. Franco-Sadud et al.’s position statement acknowledges the wide range of hospitalist practices and only asserts that, if providers perform vascular access, they should be trained and use ultrasound to do them. We would advocate further that, regardless of their practice, hospitalists have a role in expanding ultrasound use for vascular access given its direct impact on the patients they care for. Hospitalists who do not directly practice vascular access can still leverage the skills that have established hospital medicine’s reputation as leaders in patient safety and quality improvement. Hospitalists can partner with proceduralists in their institutions to ensure that they are supported and trained in the most evidence-based approaches to vascular access and that their patients have access to the highest quality of care.

For the individual hospitalist, the investment of time and resources to incorporate ultrasound into routine practice can seem daunting. In previous position statements, the SHM has advocated for the robust use of simulation and directly observed assessment in credentialing for all bedside procedures.⁶ However, the Society also acknowledges that this degree of training and monitoring can constitute significant barriers and has argued that the onus for change lies not only with providers but with healthcare institutions at large. How, then, can hospitalists approach their institutions to successfully solicit support? While the evidence is not yet conclusive, Cohen et al. have shown promising data for potential long-term cost savings through ultrasound-guided vascular access.⁷ Due to decreased complication rates, downstream benefits of lower resource use, higher patient satisfaction, and, theoretically, even lower clinician burnout rates have been attained. These effects, combined with hospitalists acquiring ultrasound skills translatable to other bedside procedures and fundamentals of diagnostic point of care ultrasound, form a compelling argument for institutional support. Many academic medical centers, typically with increased resources and training programs, have been early adopters; but, how will the shift from landmark-based to ultrasound-guided vascular access affect those in resource-limited settings?

While incredible strides have been made in care quality and patient safety over the last 15 years, improvements clearly do not always benefit patients, clinicians, or institutions equally.⁸ In fact, those in resource-limited settings often experience disproportionately reduced benefits. While focus on the “quality gap” has transformed the culture of the quality improvement and patient safety fields, an “equity gap” has long undermined and limited the impact of those very improvements. Unfortunately, changes in care driven by costly technological advances such as ultrasound are particularly likely to widen this “equity gap.” While ultrasound technology is rapidly becoming more affordable, a lack of access to machines and appropriate training remain significant barriers in the resource-limited settings that hospitalists are most likely to be performing these procedures. Without a focus on equity, the benefits offered by ultrasound will continue to be limited in their reach.

The SHM position statement by Franco-Sadud et al. is an important step in expanding evidence-based ultrasound use for vascular access and improving patient care. While the recommendations are, at times, aspirational and the barriers are real, hospitalists have shown time and again their ability to overcome these challenges and advance the standard of care for all.

Is there a single intervention more important to hospitalized patients than vascular access? Since their advent in the 1950s, small plastic tubes have revolutionized medication administration and become a mainstay of modern medicine. Yet, for much of the last 60 years, nurses and doctors have used the same landmark-guided approaches to acquire peripheral and, more specifically, central access.¹ Minor improvements to the Seldinger technique and sterile preparation have been reported.² However, for such a vital and common procedure, the complication rates of landmark-based approaches to central venous access remain unacceptably high.³

In the position statement released by the Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM), Franco–Sadud et al. outline the transformative effects ultrasound can have in obtaining adult vascular access.⁴ The authors cite comprehensive evidence, leaving little doubt of the technique’s benefits compared with landmark-based approaches. However, several questions remain: Is vascular access the domain of the hospitalist? If so, how can hospitalists pursue and afford ultrasound training? Finally, how will this shift toward ultrasound-guided vascular access affect patients in resource-limited settings?

Through an expert-driven literature review, the authors present 29 succinct recommendations for ultrasound use in vascular access. Supporting data consistently illustrate the association of ultrasound with increased successful vessel cannulation rates and decreased complication rates for all types of vascular access; including central venous access (internal jugular, subclavian, femoral), arterial line placement, peripherally inserted central catheters, and difficult peripheral venous access. Despite this compelling evidence, however, 20%-55% of all central venous catheters are still placed without ultrasound.⁵ How, then, can hospitalists expand ultrasound use for vascular access or perform these procedures in general?

Hospitalists likely fall into one of three categories in terms of vascular access: (1) they are proficient in ultrasound use for vascular access, (2) they still routinely use traditional landmark-based approaches, or (3) they have little to no involvement in vascular access and defer to intensivists, interventional radiologists, or nurse specialists. Franco-Sadud et al.’s position statement acknowledges the wide range of hospitalist practices and only asserts that, if providers perform vascular access, they should be trained and use ultrasound to do them. We would advocate further that, regardless of their practice, hospitalists have a role in expanding ultrasound use for vascular access given its direct impact on the patients they care for. Hospitalists who do not directly practice vascular access can still leverage the skills that have established hospital medicine’s reputation as leaders in patient safety and quality improvement. Hospitalists can partner with proceduralists in their institutions to ensure that they are supported and trained in the most evidence-based approaches to vascular access and that their patients have access to the highest quality of care.

For the individual hospitalist, the investment of time and resources to incorporate ultrasound into routine practice can seem daunting. In previous position statements, the SHM has advocated for the robust use of simulation and directly observed assessment in credentialing for all bedside procedures.⁶ However, the Society also acknowledges that this degree of training and monitoring can constitute significant barriers and has argued that the onus for change lies not only with providers but with healthcare institutions at large. How, then, can hospitalists approach their institutions to successfully solicit support? While the evidence is not yet conclusive, Cohen et al. have shown promising data for potential long-term cost savings through ultrasound-guided vascular access.⁷ Due to decreased complication rates, downstream benefits of lower resource use, higher patient satisfaction, and, theoretically, even lower clinician burnout rates have been attained. These effects, combined with hospitalists acquiring ultrasound skills translatable to other bedside procedures and fundamentals of diagnostic point of care ultrasound, form a compelling argument for institutional support. Many academic medical centers, typically with increased resources and training programs, have been early adopters; but, how will the shift from landmark-based to ultrasound-guided vascular access affect those in resource-limited settings?

While incredible strides have been made in care quality and patient safety over the last 15 years, improvements clearly do not always benefit patients, clinicians, or institutions equally.⁸ In fact, those in resource-limited settings often experience disproportionately reduced benefits. While focus on the “quality gap” has transformed the culture of the quality improvement and patient safety fields, an “equity gap” has long undermined and limited the impact of those very improvements. Unfortunately, changes in care driven by costly technological advances such as ultrasound are particularly likely to widen this “equity gap.” While ultrasound technology is rapidly becoming more affordable, a lack of access to machines and appropriate training remain significant barriers in the resource-limited settings that hospitalists are most likely to be performing these procedures. Without a focus on equity, the benefits offered by ultrasound will continue to be limited in their reach.

The SHM position statement by Franco-Sadud et al. is an important step in expanding evidence-based ultrasound use for vascular access and improving patient care. While the recommendations are, at times, aspirational and the barriers are real, hospitalists have shown time and again their ability to overcome these challenges and advance the standard of care for all.

Inhibition of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) is widely used in the treatment of heart failure, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, and coronary artery disease with left ventricular dysfunction.

See related article

In this issue, Momoniat et al¹ review the benefits of ACE inhibitors and ARBs and how to manage adverse effects. I would like to add some of my own observations.

ARE ACE INHIBITORS REALLY BETTER THAN ARBs?

ACE inhibitors have been the cornerstone of treatment for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), in whom their use is associated with reduced rates of morbidity and death.^2,3 The use of ARBs in these patients is also associated with decreased rates of morbidity and death^4,5; however, in early comparisons, ACE inhibitors were deemed more effective in decreasing the incidence of myocardial infarction, cardiovascular death, and all-cause mortality in patients with hypertension, diabetes, and increased cardiovascular risk,⁶ and all-cause mortality in patients with HFrEF.⁷

This presumed superiority of ACE inhibitors over ARBs was thought to be a result of a greater vasodilatory effect caused by inhibiting the degradation of bradykinin and leading to increased levels of nitric oxide and vasoactive prostaglandins.⁸ Another proposed explanation was that because ARBs block angiotensin II AT1 receptors but not AT2 receptors, the increased stimulation of markedly upregulated AT2 receptors in atheromatous plaques in response to elevated serum levels of angiotensin II was deleterious.⁶ Therefore, ACE inhibitors have been recommended as first-line therapy by most guidelines, whereas ARBs are recommended as second-line therapy, when patients are unable to tolerate ACE inhibitors.

Nevertheless, the much debated differences in outcomes between ACE inhibitors and ARBs do not seem to be real and may have originated from a generational gap in the trials.

The ACE inhibitor trials were performed a decade earlier than the ARB trials. Indirect comparisons of their respective placebo-controlled trials assumed that the placebo groups used for comparison in the 2 sets of trials were similar.^9,10 Actually, the rate of cardiovascular disease decreased nearly 50% between the decades of 1990 to 2000 and 2000 to 2010, the likely result of aggressive primary and secondary prevention strategies in clinical practice, including revascularization and lipid-lowering therapy.¹⁰

In fact, a meta-regression analysis showed that the differences between ACE inhibitors and ARBs compared with placebo were due to higher event rates in the placebo groups in the ACE inhibitor trials than in the ARB trials for the outcomes of death, cardiovascular death, and myocardial infarction.¹¹ Sensitivity analyses restricted to trials published after 2000 to control for this generational gap showed similar efficacy with ACE inhibitors vs placebo and with ARBs vs placebo for all clinical outcomes.¹¹ Moreover, recent studies have shown that ARBs produce a greater decrease in cardiovascular events than ACE inhibitors, especially in patients with established cardiovascular disease.^12,13

An advantage of ARBs over ACE inhibitors is fewer adverse effects: in general, ARBs are better tolerated than ACE inhibitors.¹⁴ There are also ethnic differences in the risks of adverse reactions to these medications. African Americans have a higher risk of developing angioedema with ACE inhibitors compared with the rest of the US population, and Chinese Americans have a higher risk than whites of developing cough with ACE inhibitors.^9,15

In my medical practice, I try to make sure patients with HFrEF, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, and coronary artery disease with left ventricular dysfunction receive an inhibitor of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system.

Which agent?

I prefer ARBs because patients tolerate them better. I continue ACE inhibitors in patients who are already taking them without adverse effects, and I change to ARBs in patients who later become unable to tolerate ACE inhibitors.

Most antihypertensive agents increase the risk of incident gout, except for calcium channel blockers and losartan.¹⁶ Losartan is the only ARB with a uricosuric effect, although a mild one,^17,18 due to inhibition of the urate transporter 1,¹⁹ and therefore I prefer to use it instead of other ARBs or ACE inhibitors in patients who have a concomitant diagnosis of gout.

Which combinations of agents?

The addition of beta-blockers and mineralocorticoid receptor blockers to ACE inhibitors or ARBs is associated with a further decrease in the mortality risk for patients with HFrEF,^20–22 but some patients cannot tolerate these combinations or optimized doses of these medications because of worsening hypotension or increased risk of developing acute kidney injury or hyperkalemia.

In most cases, I try not to combine ACE inhibitors with ARBs. This combination may be useful in nondiabetic patients with proteinuria refractory to maximum treatment with 1 class of these agents, but it is associated with an increased risk of hyperkalemia or acute kidney injury in patients with diabetic nephropathy without improving rates of the clinical outcomes of death or cardiovascular events.²³ I prefer adding a daily low dose of a mineralocorticoid receptor blocker to an ACE inhibitor or an ARB, which is more effective in controlling refractory proteinuria.²⁴ This regimen is associated with decreased rates of mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and hospitalization for heart failure in patients with HFrEF,²² although it can lead to a higher frequency of hyperkalemia,²⁵ and patients on it require frequent dietary education and monitoring of serum potassium.

I avoid combining direct renin inhibitors with ACE inhibitors or ARBs, since this combination has been contraindicated by the US Food and Drug Administration due to lack of reduction in target-organ damage and an associated increased risk of hypotension, hyperkalemia, and kidney failure, and a slight increase in the risk of stroke or death in patients with diabetic nephropathy.²⁶

Valsartan-sacubitril

Neprilysin is a membrane-bound endopeptidase that degrades vasoactive peptides, including B-type natriuretic peptide and atrial natriuretic peptide.²⁷ The combination of the ARB valsartan and the neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril is associated with a 20% further decrease in rates of cardiovascular mortality and hospitalization and a 16% decrease in total mortality for patients with HFrEF compared with an ACE inhibitor, although there can also be more hypotension and angioedema with the combination.^27,28

Very importantly, an ACE inhibitor cannot be used together with valsartan-sacubitril due to increased risk of angioedema and cough. I change ACE inhibitors or ARBs to valsartan-sacubitril in patients with HFrEF who still have symptoms of heart failure. Interestingly, a network meta-analysis showed that the combination of valsartan-sacubitril plus a mineralocorticoid receptor blocker and a beta-blocker resulted in the greatest mortality reduction in patients with HFrEF.⁷ A word of caution, though: one can also expect an increased risk of hypotension, hyperkalemia, and kidney failure.

Monitoring

It is crucial to monitor blood pressure, serum potassium, and renal function in patients receiving ACE inhibitors, ARBs, mineralocorticoid receptor blockers, valsartan-sacubitril, or combinations of these medications, particularly in elderly patients, who are more susceptible to complications. I use a multidisciplinary approach in my clinic: a patient educator, dietitian, pharmacist, and advanced practice nurse play key roles in educating and monitoring patients for the development of possible complications from this therapy or interactions with other medications.

A recent population-based cohort study found an association of ACE inhibitor use with a 14% relative increase in lung cancer incidence after 10 years of use, compared with ARBs,²⁹ but this may not represent a large absolute risk (calculated number needed to harm of 2,970 after 10 years of ACE inhibitor use) and should be balanced against the improvement in morbidity and mortality gained with use of an ACE inhibitor. Additional studies with long-term follow-up are needed to investigate this possible association.

TAKE-HOME POINTS

• Blockade of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system is a cornerstone in the therapy of cardiovascular disease.
• ARBs are as effective as ACE inhibitors and have a better tolerability profile.
• ACE inhibitors cause more angioedema in African Americans and more cough in Chinese Americans than in the rest of the population.
• ACE inhibitors and most ARBs (except for losartan) increase the risk of gout.
• The combination of beta-blockers and mineralocorticoid receptor blockers with ACE inhibitors or ARBs and, lately, the use of the valsartan-sacubitril combination have been increasingly beneficial for patients with HFrEF.

Inhibition of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) is widely used in the treatment of heart failure, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, and coronary artery disease with left ventricular dysfunction.

See related article

In this issue, Momoniat et al¹ review the benefits of ACE inhibitors and ARBs and how to manage adverse effects. I would like to add some of my own observations.

ARE ACE INHIBITORS REALLY BETTER THAN ARBs?

ACE inhibitors have been the cornerstone of treatment for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), in whom their use is associated with reduced rates of morbidity and death.^2,3 The use of ARBs in these patients is also associated with decreased rates of morbidity and death^4,5; however, in early comparisons, ACE inhibitors were deemed more effective in decreasing the incidence of myocardial infarction, cardiovascular death, and all-cause mortality in patients with hypertension, diabetes, and increased cardiovascular risk,⁶ and all-cause mortality in patients with HFrEF.⁷

This presumed superiority of ACE inhibitors over ARBs was thought to be a result of a greater vasodilatory effect caused by inhibiting the degradation of bradykinin and leading to increased levels of nitric oxide and vasoactive prostaglandins.⁸ Another proposed explanation was that because ARBs block angiotensin II AT1 receptors but not AT2 receptors, the increased stimulation of markedly upregulated AT2 receptors in atheromatous plaques in response to elevated serum levels of angiotensin II was deleterious.⁶ Therefore, ACE inhibitors have been recommended as first-line therapy by most guidelines, whereas ARBs are recommended as second-line therapy, when patients are unable to tolerate ACE inhibitors.

Nevertheless, the much debated differences in outcomes between ACE inhibitors and ARBs do not seem to be real and may have originated from a generational gap in the trials.

The ACE inhibitor trials were performed a decade earlier than the ARB trials. Indirect comparisons of their respective placebo-controlled trials assumed that the placebo groups used for comparison in the 2 sets of trials were similar.^9,10 Actually, the rate of cardiovascular disease decreased nearly 50% between the decades of 1990 to 2000 and 2000 to 2010, the likely result of aggressive primary and secondary prevention strategies in clinical practice, including revascularization and lipid-lowering therapy.¹⁰

In fact, a meta-regression analysis showed that the differences between ACE inhibitors and ARBs compared with placebo were due to higher event rates in the placebo groups in the ACE inhibitor trials than in the ARB trials for the outcomes of death, cardiovascular death, and myocardial infarction.¹¹ Sensitivity analyses restricted to trials published after 2000 to control for this generational gap showed similar efficacy with ACE inhibitors vs placebo and with ARBs vs placebo for all clinical outcomes.¹¹ Moreover, recent studies have shown that ARBs produce a greater decrease in cardiovascular events than ACE inhibitors, especially in patients with established cardiovascular disease.^12,13

An advantage of ARBs over ACE inhibitors is fewer adverse effects: in general, ARBs are better tolerated than ACE inhibitors.¹⁴ There are also ethnic differences in the risks of adverse reactions to these medications. African Americans have a higher risk of developing angioedema with ACE inhibitors compared with the rest of the US population, and Chinese Americans have a higher risk than whites of developing cough with ACE inhibitors.^9,15

In my medical practice, I try to make sure patients with HFrEF, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, and coronary artery disease with left ventricular dysfunction receive an inhibitor of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system.

Which agent?

I prefer ARBs because patients tolerate them better. I continue ACE inhibitors in patients who are already taking them without adverse effects, and I change to ARBs in patients who later become unable to tolerate ACE inhibitors.

Most antihypertensive agents increase the risk of incident gout, except for calcium channel blockers and losartan.¹⁶ Losartan is the only ARB with a uricosuric effect, although a mild one,^17,18 due to inhibition of the urate transporter 1,¹⁹ and therefore I prefer to use it instead of other ARBs or ACE inhibitors in patients who have a concomitant diagnosis of gout.

Which combinations of agents?

The addition of beta-blockers and mineralocorticoid receptor blockers to ACE inhibitors or ARBs is associated with a further decrease in the mortality risk for patients with HFrEF,^20–22 but some patients cannot tolerate these combinations or optimized doses of these medications because of worsening hypotension or increased risk of developing acute kidney injury or hyperkalemia.

In most cases, I try not to combine ACE inhibitors with ARBs. This combination may be useful in nondiabetic patients with proteinuria refractory to maximum treatment with 1 class of these agents, but it is associated with an increased risk of hyperkalemia or acute kidney injury in patients with diabetic nephropathy without improving rates of the clinical outcomes of death or cardiovascular events.²³ I prefer adding a daily low dose of a mineralocorticoid receptor blocker to an ACE inhibitor or an ARB, which is more effective in controlling refractory proteinuria.²⁴ This regimen is associated with decreased rates of mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and hospitalization for heart failure in patients with HFrEF,²² although it can lead to a higher frequency of hyperkalemia,²⁵ and patients on it require frequent dietary education and monitoring of serum potassium.

I avoid combining direct renin inhibitors with ACE inhibitors or ARBs, since this combination has been contraindicated by the US Food and Drug Administration due to lack of reduction in target-organ damage and an associated increased risk of hypotension, hyperkalemia, and kidney failure, and a slight increase in the risk of stroke or death in patients with diabetic nephropathy.²⁶

Valsartan-sacubitril

Neprilysin is a membrane-bound endopeptidase that degrades vasoactive peptides, including B-type natriuretic peptide and atrial natriuretic peptide.²⁷ The combination of the ARB valsartan and the neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril is associated with a 20% further decrease in rates of cardiovascular mortality and hospitalization and a 16% decrease in total mortality for patients with HFrEF compared with an ACE inhibitor, although there can also be more hypotension and angioedema with the combination.^27,28

Very importantly, an ACE inhibitor cannot be used together with valsartan-sacubitril due to increased risk of angioedema and cough. I change ACE inhibitors or ARBs to valsartan-sacubitril in patients with HFrEF who still have symptoms of heart failure. Interestingly, a network meta-analysis showed that the combination of valsartan-sacubitril plus a mineralocorticoid receptor blocker and a beta-blocker resulted in the greatest mortality reduction in patients with HFrEF.⁷ A word of caution, though: one can also expect an increased risk of hypotension, hyperkalemia, and kidney failure.

Monitoring

It is crucial to monitor blood pressure, serum potassium, and renal function in patients receiving ACE inhibitors, ARBs, mineralocorticoid receptor blockers, valsartan-sacubitril, or combinations of these medications, particularly in elderly patients, who are more susceptible to complications. I use a multidisciplinary approach in my clinic: a patient educator, dietitian, pharmacist, and advanced practice nurse play key roles in educating and monitoring patients for the development of possible complications from this therapy or interactions with other medications.

A recent population-based cohort study found an association of ACE inhibitor use with a 14% relative increase in lung cancer incidence after 10 years of use, compared with ARBs,²⁹ but this may not represent a large absolute risk (calculated number needed to harm of 2,970 after 10 years of ACE inhibitor use) and should be balanced against the improvement in morbidity and mortality gained with use of an ACE inhibitor. Additional studies with long-term follow-up are needed to investigate this possible association.

TAKE-HOME POINTS

• Blockade of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system is a cornerstone in the therapy of cardiovascular disease.
• ARBs are as effective as ACE inhibitors and have a better tolerability profile.
• ACE inhibitors cause more angioedema in African Americans and more cough in Chinese Americans than in the rest of the population.
• ACE inhibitors and most ARBs (except for losartan) increase the risk of gout.
• The combination of beta-blockers and mineralocorticoid receptor blockers with ACE inhibitors or ARBs and, lately, the use of the valsartan-sacubitril combination have been increasingly beneficial for patients with HFrEF.

Inhibition of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) is widely used in the treatment of heart failure, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, and coronary artery disease with left ventricular dysfunction.

See related article

In this issue, Momoniat et al¹ review the benefits of ACE inhibitors and ARBs and how to manage adverse effects. I would like to add some of my own observations.

ARE ACE INHIBITORS REALLY BETTER THAN ARBs?

ACE inhibitors have been the cornerstone of treatment for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), in whom their use is associated with reduced rates of morbidity and death.^2,3 The use of ARBs in these patients is also associated with decreased rates of morbidity and death^4,5; however, in early comparisons, ACE inhibitors were deemed more effective in decreasing the incidence of myocardial infarction, cardiovascular death, and all-cause mortality in patients with hypertension, diabetes, and increased cardiovascular risk,⁶ and all-cause mortality in patients with HFrEF.⁷

This presumed superiority of ACE inhibitors over ARBs was thought to be a result of a greater vasodilatory effect caused by inhibiting the degradation of bradykinin and leading to increased levels of nitric oxide and vasoactive prostaglandins.⁸ Another proposed explanation was that because ARBs block angiotensin II AT1 receptors but not AT2 receptors, the increased stimulation of markedly upregulated AT2 receptors in atheromatous plaques in response to elevated serum levels of angiotensin II was deleterious.⁶ Therefore, ACE inhibitors have been recommended as first-line therapy by most guidelines, whereas ARBs are recommended as second-line therapy, when patients are unable to tolerate ACE inhibitors.

Nevertheless, the much debated differences in outcomes between ACE inhibitors and ARBs do not seem to be real and may have originated from a generational gap in the trials.

The ACE inhibitor trials were performed a decade earlier than the ARB trials. Indirect comparisons of their respective placebo-controlled trials assumed that the placebo groups used for comparison in the 2 sets of trials were similar.^9,10 Actually, the rate of cardiovascular disease decreased nearly 50% between the decades of 1990 to 2000 and 2000 to 2010, the likely result of aggressive primary and secondary prevention strategies in clinical practice, including revascularization and lipid-lowering therapy.¹⁰

In fact, a meta-regression analysis showed that the differences between ACE inhibitors and ARBs compared with placebo were due to higher event rates in the placebo groups in the ACE inhibitor trials than in the ARB trials for the outcomes of death, cardiovascular death, and myocardial infarction.¹¹ Sensitivity analyses restricted to trials published after 2000 to control for this generational gap showed similar efficacy with ACE inhibitors vs placebo and with ARBs vs placebo for all clinical outcomes.¹¹ Moreover, recent studies have shown that ARBs produce a greater decrease in cardiovascular events than ACE inhibitors, especially in patients with established cardiovascular disease.^12,13

An advantage of ARBs over ACE inhibitors is fewer adverse effects: in general, ARBs are better tolerated than ACE inhibitors.¹⁴ There are also ethnic differences in the risks of adverse reactions to these medications. African Americans have a higher risk of developing angioedema with ACE inhibitors compared with the rest of the US population, and Chinese Americans have a higher risk than whites of developing cough with ACE inhibitors.^9,15

In my medical practice, I try to make sure patients with HFrEF, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, and coronary artery disease with left ventricular dysfunction receive an inhibitor of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system.

Which agent?

I prefer ARBs because patients tolerate them better. I continue ACE inhibitors in patients who are already taking them without adverse effects, and I change to ARBs in patients who later become unable to tolerate ACE inhibitors.

Most antihypertensive agents increase the risk of incident gout, except for calcium channel blockers and losartan.¹⁶ Losartan is the only ARB with a uricosuric effect, although a mild one,^17,18 due to inhibition of the urate transporter 1,¹⁹ and therefore I prefer to use it instead of other ARBs or ACE inhibitors in patients who have a concomitant diagnosis of gout.

Which combinations of agents?

The addition of beta-blockers and mineralocorticoid receptor blockers to ACE inhibitors or ARBs is associated with a further decrease in the mortality risk for patients with HFrEF,^20–22 but some patients cannot tolerate these combinations or optimized doses of these medications because of worsening hypotension or increased risk of developing acute kidney injury or hyperkalemia.

In most cases, I try not to combine ACE inhibitors with ARBs. This combination may be useful in nondiabetic patients with proteinuria refractory to maximum treatment with 1 class of these agents, but it is associated with an increased risk of hyperkalemia or acute kidney injury in patients with diabetic nephropathy without improving rates of the clinical outcomes of death or cardiovascular events.²³ I prefer adding a daily low dose of a mineralocorticoid receptor blocker to an ACE inhibitor or an ARB, which is more effective in controlling refractory proteinuria.²⁴ This regimen is associated with decreased rates of mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and hospitalization for heart failure in patients with HFrEF,²² although it can lead to a higher frequency of hyperkalemia,²⁵ and patients on it require frequent dietary education and monitoring of serum potassium.

I avoid combining direct renin inhibitors with ACE inhibitors or ARBs, since this combination has been contraindicated by the US Food and Drug Administration due to lack of reduction in target-organ damage and an associated increased risk of hypotension, hyperkalemia, and kidney failure, and a slight increase in the risk of stroke or death in patients with diabetic nephropathy.²⁶

Valsartan-sacubitril

Neprilysin is a membrane-bound endopeptidase that degrades vasoactive peptides, including B-type natriuretic peptide and atrial natriuretic peptide.²⁷ The combination of the ARB valsartan and the neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril is associated with a 20% further decrease in rates of cardiovascular mortality and hospitalization and a 16% decrease in total mortality for patients with HFrEF compared with an ACE inhibitor, although there can also be more hypotension and angioedema with the combination.^27,28

Very importantly, an ACE inhibitor cannot be used together with valsartan-sacubitril due to increased risk of angioedema and cough. I change ACE inhibitors or ARBs to valsartan-sacubitril in patients with HFrEF who still have symptoms of heart failure. Interestingly, a network meta-analysis showed that the combination of valsartan-sacubitril plus a mineralocorticoid receptor blocker and a beta-blocker resulted in the greatest mortality reduction in patients with HFrEF.⁷ A word of caution, though: one can also expect an increased risk of hypotension, hyperkalemia, and kidney failure.

Monitoring

It is crucial to monitor blood pressure, serum potassium, and renal function in patients receiving ACE inhibitors, ARBs, mineralocorticoid receptor blockers, valsartan-sacubitril, or combinations of these medications, particularly in elderly patients, who are more susceptible to complications. I use a multidisciplinary approach in my clinic: a patient educator, dietitian, pharmacist, and advanced practice nurse play key roles in educating and monitoring patients for the development of possible complications from this therapy or interactions with other medications.

A recent population-based cohort study found an association of ACE inhibitor use with a 14% relative increase in lung cancer incidence after 10 years of use, compared with ARBs,²⁹ but this may not represent a large absolute risk (calculated number needed to harm of 2,970 after 10 years of ACE inhibitor use) and should be balanced against the improvement in morbidity and mortality gained with use of an ACE inhibitor. Additional studies with long-term follow-up are needed to investigate this possible association.

TAKE-HOME POINTS

• Blockade of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system is a cornerstone in the therapy of cardiovascular disease.
• ARBs are as effective as ACE inhibitors and have a better tolerability profile.
• ACE inhibitors cause more angioedema in African Americans and more cough in Chinese Americans than in the rest of the population.
• ACE inhibitors and most ARBs (except for losartan) increase the risk of gout.
• The combination of beta-blockers and mineralocorticoid receptor blockers with ACE inhibitors or ARBs and, lately, the use of the valsartan-sacubitril combination have been increasingly beneficial for patients with HFrEF.

Three years after gabapentin received US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval in 1990 for epilepsy, case reports and animal studies emerged announcing its potential in the treatment of pain syndromes through then-novel analgesic mechanisms.¹ Fast forward 20 years to 2016: gabapentin and its close cousin, pregabalin, are internationally considered first-line agents for the treatment of neuropathic pain in guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Canadian Pain Society, and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Gabapentin is the 10th most prescribed drug in the United States, and brand-name pregabalin sales were $4.4 billion USD, ranking 8th in invoice drug spending.²

The ascendancy of gabapentinoids as drugs of choice for pain, though, is fraught with controversy; yet, they were shepherded to commercial success. In 2004, the patent owner of gabapentin, Warner-Lambert (now owned by Pfizer), admitted guilt to charges that it violated federal regulations in its promotion: they encouraged off-label prescribing through paid physician-to-physician communications, publication of positive outcomes, and suppression of negative ones.³ Pfizer paid another settlement in 2009 for false claims about off-label indications for brand-name pregabalin.⁴

Mindful of historical biases, recent trials and meta-analyses have found less favorable outcomes for gabapentinoids in the treatment of off-label pain conditions and greater risks than previously reported. Cochrane reviews for gabapentin demonstrate efficacy only in postherpetic neuralgia (for which it has FDA approval) and diabetic peripheral neuropathy (for which it does not); pregabalin has efficacy in both these conditions as well as posttraumatic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia (and FDA approval for all four). For other types of neuropathic pain, the evidence is of lower quality. Even for approved indications, the risk–benefit ratio is questionable, as the numbers needed to harm for dizziness and somnolence are similar to the numbers needed to treat for pain.^5,6 Further, case–control studies have found increased odds of opioid-related death when gabapentinoids were coprescribed with opioids,^7,8 prompting gabapentinoids to be reclassified as class C controlled substances in the UK as of April 2019.⁹

On this backdrop, Gingras and colleagues publish their retrospective cohort study on high-risk prescribing of these popular drugs in Montreal, Canada in this issue of Journal of Hospital Medicine.¹⁰ In their retrospective cohort study of 4,103 patients admitted to a clinical teaching unit, more than one in eight patients (13%) were being prescribed a gabapentinoid as an outpatient; chart review of the admission notes indicated that only 17% of them had an FDA-approved indication and 28% had no clear indication. Gabapentinoid users were more likely to be coprescribed an opioid than nonusers (28% vs 12%). There was no significant difference in length of stay or inpatient death between users and nonusers.

Gingras et al. thereby conclude that there is an opportunity to deprescribe on the basis of few gabapentinoid users having a documented indication and the recent research showing potentials for harm and abuse.¹¹ We agree. Messaging around gabapentinoids should be similar to that for opioids: these are medications with limited evidence supporting their use in the treatment of chronic pain, and prescribing them for unapproved indications risks doing greater harm than good. We offer two recommendations on how hospitalists can proceed with deprescribing them safely.

First, the urgency of deprescribing in inpatient settings should be titrated to the degree of risk. When the reason for hospitalization is potentially an adverse drug effect, culprit medications posing a substantial and near-term risk of harm should be stopped, such as when patients on gabapentinoids present with major alteration of their mental status.

In less urgent circumstances, hospitalists should speak first with outpatient prescribers because they may have important contextual information (eg, indication, patient preference, failure of alternative therapies, etc.) about previous care that the inpatient clinician lacks. For gabapentinoids, it is easy to imagine how treated pain syndromes without objective markers of disease may escape notice by a hospitalist and remain undocumented, which may encourage erroneous deprescribing. If the shared decision between the patient and providers is to deprescribe, patients on high doses warrant a tapering schedule.¹¹ Pharmacist consultation can help with this.

Second, before discharge, hospitalists should communicate their rationale for deprescribing medications to both patients and outpatient prescribers, especially if a prolonged tapering schedule is required. This type of communication occurred infrequently in this study: the reason for deprescribing a gabapentinoid was missing from the discharge summary 55% of the time. Without this, outpatient prescribers may simply reinitiate the medication after the patient is discharged.

To counter the overuse of gabapentinoids, hospitalists should look for opportunities to deprescribe them where there is concern about adverse events and when evidence-based indications do not exist. Successful deprescribing of these popular drugs will require deliberate collaboration and communication with the outpatient circle of care, as ongoing deprescribing ultimately depends on patients and outpatient prescribers agreeing to the change.

Disclosures

Dr. Steinman served as an unpaid expert witness in United States of America ex. Rel. David Franklin vs. Parke-Davis, Division of Warner-Lambert Company and Pfizer, Inc, litigation which alleged that the named pharmaceutical companies improperly marketed gabapentin for non-FDA-approved uses. Drs. Lam and Rochon have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Funding

Dr. Rochon is supported by the Retired Teachers of Ontario (RTO/ERO) Chair in Geriatric Medicine at the University of Toronto. Dr. Steinman is supported by the National Institute on Aging, US (K24AG049057 and P30AG044281).

Three years after gabapentin received US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval in 1990 for epilepsy, case reports and animal studies emerged announcing its potential in the treatment of pain syndromes through then-novel analgesic mechanisms.¹ Fast forward 20 years to 2016: gabapentin and its close cousin, pregabalin, are internationally considered first-line agents for the treatment of neuropathic pain in guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Canadian Pain Society, and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Gabapentin is the 10th most prescribed drug in the United States, and brand-name pregabalin sales were $4.4 billion USD, ranking 8th in invoice drug spending.²

The ascendancy of gabapentinoids as drugs of choice for pain, though, is fraught with controversy; yet, they were shepherded to commercial success. In 2004, the patent owner of gabapentin, Warner-Lambert (now owned by Pfizer), admitted guilt to charges that it violated federal regulations in its promotion: they encouraged off-label prescribing through paid physician-to-physician communications, publication of positive outcomes, and suppression of negative ones.³ Pfizer paid another settlement in 2009 for false claims about off-label indications for brand-name pregabalin.⁴

Mindful of historical biases, recent trials and meta-analyses have found less favorable outcomes for gabapentinoids in the treatment of off-label pain conditions and greater risks than previously reported. Cochrane reviews for gabapentin demonstrate efficacy only in postherpetic neuralgia (for which it has FDA approval) and diabetic peripheral neuropathy (for which it does not); pregabalin has efficacy in both these conditions as well as posttraumatic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia (and FDA approval for all four). For other types of neuropathic pain, the evidence is of lower quality. Even for approved indications, the risk–benefit ratio is questionable, as the numbers needed to harm for dizziness and somnolence are similar to the numbers needed to treat for pain.^5,6 Further, case–control studies have found increased odds of opioid-related death when gabapentinoids were coprescribed with opioids,^7,8 prompting gabapentinoids to be reclassified as class C controlled substances in the UK as of April 2019.⁹

On this backdrop, Gingras and colleagues publish their retrospective cohort study on high-risk prescribing of these popular drugs in Montreal, Canada in this issue of Journal of Hospital Medicine.¹⁰ In their retrospective cohort study of 4,103 patients admitted to a clinical teaching unit, more than one in eight patients (13%) were being prescribed a gabapentinoid as an outpatient; chart review of the admission notes indicated that only 17% of them had an FDA-approved indication and 28% had no clear indication. Gabapentinoid users were more likely to be coprescribed an opioid than nonusers (28% vs 12%). There was no significant difference in length of stay or inpatient death between users and nonusers.

Gingras et al. thereby conclude that there is an opportunity to deprescribe on the basis of few gabapentinoid users having a documented indication and the recent research showing potentials for harm and abuse.¹¹ We agree. Messaging around gabapentinoids should be similar to that for opioids: these are medications with limited evidence supporting their use in the treatment of chronic pain, and prescribing them for unapproved indications risks doing greater harm than good. We offer two recommendations on how hospitalists can proceed with deprescribing them safely.

First, the urgency of deprescribing in inpatient settings should be titrated to the degree of risk. When the reason for hospitalization is potentially an adverse drug effect, culprit medications posing a substantial and near-term risk of harm should be stopped, such as when patients on gabapentinoids present with major alteration of their mental status.

In less urgent circumstances, hospitalists should speak first with outpatient prescribers because they may have important contextual information (eg, indication, patient preference, failure of alternative therapies, etc.) about previous care that the inpatient clinician lacks. For gabapentinoids, it is easy to imagine how treated pain syndromes without objective markers of disease may escape notice by a hospitalist and remain undocumented, which may encourage erroneous deprescribing. If the shared decision between the patient and providers is to deprescribe, patients on high doses warrant a tapering schedule.¹¹ Pharmacist consultation can help with this.

Second, before discharge, hospitalists should communicate their rationale for deprescribing medications to both patients and outpatient prescribers, especially if a prolonged tapering schedule is required. This type of communication occurred infrequently in this study: the reason for deprescribing a gabapentinoid was missing from the discharge summary 55% of the time. Without this, outpatient prescribers may simply reinitiate the medication after the patient is discharged.

To counter the overuse of gabapentinoids, hospitalists should look for opportunities to deprescribe them where there is concern about adverse events and when evidence-based indications do not exist. Successful deprescribing of these popular drugs will require deliberate collaboration and communication with the outpatient circle of care, as ongoing deprescribing ultimately depends on patients and outpatient prescribers agreeing to the change.

Disclosures

Dr. Steinman served as an unpaid expert witness in United States of America ex. Rel. David Franklin vs. Parke-Davis, Division of Warner-Lambert Company and Pfizer, Inc, litigation which alleged that the named pharmaceutical companies improperly marketed gabapentin for non-FDA-approved uses. Drs. Lam and Rochon have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Funding

Dr. Rochon is supported by the Retired Teachers of Ontario (RTO/ERO) Chair in Geriatric Medicine at the University of Toronto. Dr. Steinman is supported by the National Institute on Aging, US (K24AG049057 and P30AG044281).

Three years after gabapentin received US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval in 1990 for epilepsy, case reports and animal studies emerged announcing its potential in the treatment of pain syndromes through then-novel analgesic mechanisms.¹ Fast forward 20 years to 2016: gabapentin and its close cousin, pregabalin, are internationally considered first-line agents for the treatment of neuropathic pain in guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Canadian Pain Society, and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Gabapentin is the 10th most prescribed drug in the United States, and brand-name pregabalin sales were $4.4 billion USD, ranking 8th in invoice drug spending.²

The ascendancy of gabapentinoids as drugs of choice for pain, though, is fraught with controversy; yet, they were shepherded to commercial success. In 2004, the patent owner of gabapentin, Warner-Lambert (now owned by Pfizer), admitted guilt to charges that it violated federal regulations in its promotion: they encouraged off-label prescribing through paid physician-to-physician communications, publication of positive outcomes, and suppression of negative ones.³ Pfizer paid another settlement in 2009 for false claims about off-label indications for brand-name pregabalin.⁴

Mindful of historical biases, recent trials and meta-analyses have found less favorable outcomes for gabapentinoids in the treatment of off-label pain conditions and greater risks than previously reported. Cochrane reviews for gabapentin demonstrate efficacy only in postherpetic neuralgia (for which it has FDA approval) and diabetic peripheral neuropathy (for which it does not); pregabalin has efficacy in both these conditions as well as posttraumatic neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia (and FDA approval for all four). For other types of neuropathic pain, the evidence is of lower quality. Even for approved indications, the risk–benefit ratio is questionable, as the numbers needed to harm for dizziness and somnolence are similar to the numbers needed to treat for pain.^5,6 Further, case–control studies have found increased odds of opioid-related death when gabapentinoids were coprescribed with opioids,^7,8 prompting gabapentinoids to be reclassified as class C controlled substances in the UK as of April 2019.⁹

On this backdrop, Gingras and colleagues publish their retrospective cohort study on high-risk prescribing of these popular drugs in Montreal, Canada in this issue of Journal of Hospital Medicine.¹⁰ In their retrospective cohort study of 4,103 patients admitted to a clinical teaching unit, more than one in eight patients (13%) were being prescribed a gabapentinoid as an outpatient; chart review of the admission notes indicated that only 17% of them had an FDA-approved indication and 28% had no clear indication. Gabapentinoid users were more likely to be coprescribed an opioid than nonusers (28% vs 12%). There was no significant difference in length of stay or inpatient death between users and nonusers.

Gingras et al. thereby conclude that there is an opportunity to deprescribe on the basis of few gabapentinoid users having a documented indication and the recent research showing potentials for harm and abuse.¹¹ We agree. Messaging around gabapentinoids should be similar to that for opioids: these are medications with limited evidence supporting their use in the treatment of chronic pain, and prescribing them for unapproved indications risks doing greater harm than good. We offer two recommendations on how hospitalists can proceed with deprescribing them safely.

First, the urgency of deprescribing in inpatient settings should be titrated to the degree of risk. When the reason for hospitalization is potentially an adverse drug effect, culprit medications posing a substantial and near-term risk of harm should be stopped, such as when patients on gabapentinoids present with major alteration of their mental status.

In less urgent circumstances, hospitalists should speak first with outpatient prescribers because they may have important contextual information (eg, indication, patient preference, failure of alternative therapies, etc.) about previous care that the inpatient clinician lacks. For gabapentinoids, it is easy to imagine how treated pain syndromes without objective markers of disease may escape notice by a hospitalist and remain undocumented, which may encourage erroneous deprescribing. If the shared decision between the patient and providers is to deprescribe, patients on high doses warrant a tapering schedule.¹¹ Pharmacist consultation can help with this.

Second, before discharge, hospitalists should communicate their rationale for deprescribing medications to both patients and outpatient prescribers, especially if a prolonged tapering schedule is required. This type of communication occurred infrequently in this study: the reason for deprescribing a gabapentinoid was missing from the discharge summary 55% of the time. Without this, outpatient prescribers may simply reinitiate the medication after the patient is discharged.

To counter the overuse of gabapentinoids, hospitalists should look for opportunities to deprescribe them where there is concern about adverse events and when evidence-based indications do not exist. Successful deprescribing of these popular drugs will require deliberate collaboration and communication with the outpatient circle of care, as ongoing deprescribing ultimately depends on patients and outpatient prescribers agreeing to the change.

Disclosures

Dr. Steinman served as an unpaid expert witness in United States of America ex. Rel. David Franklin vs. Parke-Davis, Division of Warner-Lambert Company and Pfizer, Inc, litigation which alleged that the named pharmaceutical companies improperly marketed gabapentin for non-FDA-approved uses. Drs. Lam and Rochon have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Funding

Dr. Rochon is supported by the Retired Teachers of Ontario (RTO/ERO) Chair in Geriatric Medicine at the University of Toronto. Dr. Steinman is supported by the National Institute on Aging, US (K24AG049057 and P30AG044281).

Rapid dissemination and adoption of evidence-based guidelines remains a challenge despite studies showing that key evidence-based care processes improve outcomes in sepsis and heart failure.¹ Hospital medicine was virtually founded on the premise that hospitalists would be champions of delivering high-quality care. Hospitalists are now dealing with a new challenge—unprecedented growth of healthcare systems because of mergers and acquisitions. The year 2018 was a banner time for healthcare mergers and acquisitions, with a total of 1,182, up 14% from 2017.² These are in response to the belief that healthcare systems may better navigate the mixed reimbursement models of fee-for-service and fee-for-value by achieving a larger patient base and economies of scale. Hospitalists must now achieve consistent, evidence-based standards of care across larger networks by educating their colleagues (often separated by large geographic areas) to manifest durable changes in their group practice with demonstrable improvement in patient outcomes and cost savings.

The study by Yurso et al. focused on implementing an education program, which included standardized learning through Clinical Performance and Value (CPV) vignettes with process measurement and feedback for sepsis and heart failure.³ Sepsis and heart failure have been a focus for treatment standardization because of the associated morbidity, mortality, and high cost of care. The study by Yurso et al. is a prospective quasi-controlled cohort of hospitalists in eight hospitals who were matched with comparator hospitalists in six nonparticipating hospitals across the AdventHealth system. Measurement and feedback were provided using CPV vignettes. Over two years, hospitalists who participated improved CPV scores by 8%, compliance with the utilization of the three-hour sepsis bundle from 46.0% to 57.5%, and orders of essential medical treatment elements for heart failure from 58.2% to 72.1%. In year one, the average length of stay (LOS) observed/expected (O/E) rates dropped by 8% for participating hospitalists compared with 2.5% in the comparator group. By year two, cost O/E rates improved slightly resulting in cost savings. The authors concluded that CPV case simulation-based measurement and feedback helped drive improvements in evidence-based care, which was associated with lower costs and shorter LOS.

While studies using traditional didactic CME struggle to demonstrate changes in practice leading to improved patient outcomes,⁴ the study by Yurso et al. gives a glimpse into how simulation can be used to help improve clinical performance and measure adherence to best practice. A remarkably similar study used CPV for simulated patients with serial performance measurement and feedback for heart failure and pneumonia. The study showed reduced practice variation between hospitalists at 11 hospitals across four states and decreased LOS and readmissions. However, the sole clinical outcome was no change in in-house mortality.⁵ Another study using CPV training in breast cancer treatment demonstrated increased adherence to evidence-based practice standards and decreased variation in care between providers across four states.⁶ Of note, this study did not include clinical outcomes. These studies collectively imply that simulation training with interactive learning, educational feedback, repetitive practice, and curriculum integration has shown modest success in creating practice change and improving adherence to best practice standards. However, they have minimal measures of patient outcomes and fairly simple analyses for cost savings. Because the education is computer-based and feedback can be performed remotely, it can be deployed across large and diverse growing healthcare systems. To really move the needle, future research in the field of simulation should identify optimal simulation methods and be designed with more rigor to include patient and cost outcomes.

At Intermountain Healthcare, hospitalist expansion occurred through a strategic realignment from the different geographic regions into the One Intermountain model. This model is built on the commitment that our patients will receive the same high-quality, high-value care wherever they walk through our doors. We have found four substantive changes have been particularly powerful in spurring a group practice mentality toward standardizing best practice. One, hospitalists are now aligned across the system under a single operational leadership structure that encourages combined efforts to share best practices and develop and deploy strategic initiatives around them. Two, hospitalists continue to build on a culture of quality and measure what matters to patients. While Intermountain Healthcare has a long history of using quality improvement to achieve better patient outcomes and lower costs,⁷ the new structure is allowing our group to test novel methods including redesigned education to see what actually improves adherence to best practice. Three, the group knows where the system’s reimbursement is coming from; Intermountain Healthcare has transitioned to a larger percentage of capitation,⁸ currently about 40%, with a strong commitment to partner with services geared to transition patients home quickly and keep them at home. Four, the organization has created a structure of accountability and reporting; an executive-sponsored systemwide operating model has been designed to cut through system barriers being identified by the frontline, allowing them to be rapidly surfaced and then solved at the executive level through daily huddles.⁹

Innovative educational programs such as the one described in the study by Yurso et al. that help the busy hospitalist achieve improved adherence to best practice are likely to be an important component leading to improved outcomes, but only after a group has been structured for success. As hospitalist groups continue to act as a single effector arm for high-value care, this will help meet the expectations of our patients and deliver on the promise of our field.

Disclosures: Dr. Srivastava is a physician founder of the I- PASS Patient Safety Institute. His employer, Intermountain Healthcare owns his equity in the I-PASS Patient Safety Institute. Dr. Srivastava is supported in part by the Children’s Hospital Association for his work as an executive council member of the Pediatric Research in Inpatient Settings (PRIS) network. Dr. Srivastava has received monetary awards, honorariums, and travel reimbursement from multiple academic and professional organizations for talks about pediatric hospitalist research networks and quality of care. All other authors have nothing to disclose. No funding was provided for this editorial.

Disclosures

The authors have no disclosures of financial conflicts of interest.

Funding

Dr. Walke was supported an award from the Health Resources and Services Administration Geriatric Workforce Enhancement Program to the University of Pennsylvania (U1QHP28720).

Rapid dissemination and adoption of evidence-based guidelines remains a challenge despite studies showing that key evidence-based care processes improve outcomes in sepsis and heart failure.¹ Hospital medicine was virtually founded on the premise that hospitalists would be champions of delivering high-quality care. Hospitalists are now dealing with a new challenge—unprecedented growth of healthcare systems because of mergers and acquisitions. The year 2018 was a banner time for healthcare mergers and acquisitions, with a total of 1,182, up 14% from 2017.² These are in response to the belief that healthcare systems may better navigate the mixed reimbursement models of fee-for-service and fee-for-value by achieving a larger patient base and economies of scale. Hospitalists must now achieve consistent, evidence-based standards of care across larger networks by educating their colleagues (often separated by large geographic areas) to manifest durable changes in their group practice with demonstrable improvement in patient outcomes and cost savings.

The study by Yurso et al. focused on implementing an education program, which included standardized learning through Clinical Performance and Value (CPV) vignettes with process measurement and feedback for sepsis and heart failure.³ Sepsis and heart failure have been a focus for treatment standardization because of the associated morbidity, mortality, and high cost of care. The study by Yurso et al. is a prospective quasi-controlled cohort of hospitalists in eight hospitals who were matched with comparator hospitalists in six nonparticipating hospitals across the AdventHealth system. Measurement and feedback were provided using CPV vignettes. Over two years, hospitalists who participated improved CPV scores by 8%, compliance with the utilization of the three-hour sepsis bundle from 46.0% to 57.5%, and orders of essential medical treatment elements for heart failure from 58.2% to 72.1%. In year one, the average length of stay (LOS) observed/expected (O/E) rates dropped by 8% for participating hospitalists compared with 2.5% in the comparator group. By year two, cost O/E rates improved slightly resulting in cost savings. The authors concluded that CPV case simulation-based measurement and feedback helped drive improvements in evidence-based care, which was associated with lower costs and shorter LOS.

While studies using traditional didactic CME struggle to demonstrate changes in practice leading to improved patient outcomes,⁴ the study by Yurso et al. gives a glimpse into how simulation can be used to help improve clinical performance and measure adherence to best practice. A remarkably similar study used CPV for simulated patients with serial performance measurement and feedback for heart failure and pneumonia. The study showed reduced practice variation between hospitalists at 11 hospitals across four states and decreased LOS and readmissions. However, the sole clinical outcome was no change in in-house mortality.⁵ Another study using CPV training in breast cancer treatment demonstrated increased adherence to evidence-based practice standards and decreased variation in care between providers across four states.⁶ Of note, this study did not include clinical outcomes. These studies collectively imply that simulation training with interactive learning, educational feedback, repetitive practice, and curriculum integration has shown modest success in creating practice change and improving adherence to best practice standards. However, they have minimal measures of patient outcomes and fairly simple analyses for cost savings. Because the education is computer-based and feedback can be performed remotely, it can be deployed across large and diverse growing healthcare systems. To really move the needle, future research in the field of simulation should identify optimal simulation methods and be designed with more rigor to include patient and cost outcomes.

At Intermountain Healthcare, hospitalist expansion occurred through a strategic realignment from the different geographic regions into the One Intermountain model. This model is built on the commitment that our patients will receive the same high-quality, high-value care wherever they walk through our doors. We have found four substantive changes have been particularly powerful in spurring a group practice mentality toward standardizing best practice. One, hospitalists are now aligned across the system under a single operational leadership structure that encourages combined efforts to share best practices and develop and deploy strategic initiatives around them. Two, hospitalists continue to build on a culture of quality and measure what matters to patients. While Intermountain Healthcare has a long history of using quality improvement to achieve better patient outcomes and lower costs,⁷ the new structure is allowing our group to test novel methods including redesigned education to see what actually improves adherence to best practice. Three, the group knows where the system’s reimbursement is coming from; Intermountain Healthcare has transitioned to a larger percentage of capitation,⁸ currently about 40%, with a strong commitment to partner with services geared to transition patients home quickly and keep them at home. Four, the organization has created a structure of accountability and reporting; an executive-sponsored systemwide operating model has been designed to cut through system barriers being identified by the frontline, allowing them to be rapidly surfaced and then solved at the executive level through daily huddles.⁹

Innovative educational programs such as the one described in the study by Yurso et al. that help the busy hospitalist achieve improved adherence to best practice are likely to be an important component leading to improved outcomes, but only after a group has been structured for success. As hospitalist groups continue to act as a single effector arm for high-value care, this will help meet the expectations of our patients and deliver on the promise of our field.

Disclosures: Dr. Srivastava is a physician founder of the I- PASS Patient Safety Institute. His employer, Intermountain Healthcare owns his equity in the I-PASS Patient Safety Institute. Dr. Srivastava is supported in part by the Children’s Hospital Association for his work as an executive council member of the Pediatric Research in Inpatient Settings (PRIS) network. Dr. Srivastava has received monetary awards, honorariums, and travel reimbursement from multiple academic and professional organizations for talks about pediatric hospitalist research networks and quality of care. All other authors have nothing to disclose. No funding was provided for this editorial.

Disclosures

The authors have no disclosures of financial conflicts of interest.

Funding

Dr. Walke was supported an award from the Health Resources and Services Administration Geriatric Workforce Enhancement Program to the University of Pennsylvania (U1QHP28720).

Rapid dissemination and adoption of evidence-based guidelines remains a challenge despite studies showing that key evidence-based care processes improve outcomes in sepsis and heart failure.¹ Hospital medicine was virtually founded on the premise that hospitalists would be champions of delivering high-quality care. Hospitalists are now dealing with a new challenge—unprecedented growth of healthcare systems because of mergers and acquisitions. The year 2018 was a banner time for healthcare mergers and acquisitions, with a total of 1,182, up 14% from 2017.² These are in response to the belief that healthcare systems may better navigate the mixed reimbursement models of fee-for-service and fee-for-value by achieving a larger patient base and economies of scale. Hospitalists must now achieve consistent, evidence-based standards of care across larger networks by educating their colleagues (often separated by large geographic areas) to manifest durable changes in their group practice with demonstrable improvement in patient outcomes and cost savings.

The study by Yurso et al. focused on implementing an education program, which included standardized learning through Clinical Performance and Value (CPV) vignettes with process measurement and feedback for sepsis and heart failure.³ Sepsis and heart failure have been a focus for treatment standardization because of the associated morbidity, mortality, and high cost of care. The study by Yurso et al. is a prospective quasi-controlled cohort of hospitalists in eight hospitals who were matched with comparator hospitalists in six nonparticipating hospitals across the AdventHealth system. Measurement and feedback were provided using CPV vignettes. Over two years, hospitalists who participated improved CPV scores by 8%, compliance with the utilization of the three-hour sepsis bundle from 46.0% to 57.5%, and orders of essential medical treatment elements for heart failure from 58.2% to 72.1%. In year one, the average length of stay (LOS) observed/expected (O/E) rates dropped by 8% for participating hospitalists compared with 2.5% in the comparator group. By year two, cost O/E rates improved slightly resulting in cost savings. The authors concluded that CPV case simulation-based measurement and feedback helped drive improvements in evidence-based care, which was associated with lower costs and shorter LOS.

While studies using traditional didactic CME struggle to demonstrate changes in practice leading to improved patient outcomes,⁴ the study by Yurso et al. gives a glimpse into how simulation can be used to help improve clinical performance and measure adherence to best practice. A remarkably similar study used CPV for simulated patients with serial performance measurement and feedback for heart failure and pneumonia. The study showed reduced practice variation between hospitalists at 11 hospitals across four states and decreased LOS and readmissions. However, the sole clinical outcome was no change in in-house mortality.⁵ Another study using CPV training in breast cancer treatment demonstrated increased adherence to evidence-based practice standards and decreased variation in care between providers across four states.⁶ Of note, this study did not include clinical outcomes. These studies collectively imply that simulation training with interactive learning, educational feedback, repetitive practice, and curriculum integration has shown modest success in creating practice change and improving adherence to best practice standards. However, they have minimal measures of patient outcomes and fairly simple analyses for cost savings. Because the education is computer-based and feedback can be performed remotely, it can be deployed across large and diverse growing healthcare systems. To really move the needle, future research in the field of simulation should identify optimal simulation methods and be designed with more rigor to include patient and cost outcomes.

At Intermountain Healthcare, hospitalist expansion occurred through a strategic realignment from the different geographic regions into the One Intermountain model. This model is built on the commitment that our patients will receive the same high-quality, high-value care wherever they walk through our doors. We have found four substantive changes have been particularly powerful in spurring a group practice mentality toward standardizing best practice. One, hospitalists are now aligned across the system under a single operational leadership structure that encourages combined efforts to share best practices and develop and deploy strategic initiatives around them. Two, hospitalists continue to build on a culture of quality and measure what matters to patients. While Intermountain Healthcare has a long history of using quality improvement to achieve better patient outcomes and lower costs,⁷ the new structure is allowing our group to test novel methods including redesigned education to see what actually improves adherence to best practice. Three, the group knows where the system’s reimbursement is coming from; Intermountain Healthcare has transitioned to a larger percentage of capitation,⁸ currently about 40%, with a strong commitment to partner with services geared to transition patients home quickly and keep them at home. Four, the organization has created a structure of accountability and reporting; an executive-sponsored systemwide operating model has been designed to cut through system barriers being identified by the frontline, allowing them to be rapidly surfaced and then solved at the executive level through daily huddles.⁹

Innovative educational programs such as the one described in the study by Yurso et al. that help the busy hospitalist achieve improved adherence to best practice are likely to be an important component leading to improved outcomes, but only after a group has been structured for success. As hospitalist groups continue to act as a single effector arm for high-value care, this will help meet the expectations of our patients and deliver on the promise of our field.

Disclosures: Dr. Srivastava is a physician founder of the I- PASS Patient Safety Institute. His employer, Intermountain Healthcare owns his equity in the I-PASS Patient Safety Institute. Dr. Srivastava is supported in part by the Children’s Hospital Association for his work as an executive council member of the Pediatric Research in Inpatient Settings (PRIS) network. Dr. Srivastava has received monetary awards, honorariums, and travel reimbursement from multiple academic and professional organizations for talks about pediatric hospitalist research networks and quality of care. All other authors have nothing to disclose. No funding was provided for this editorial.

Disclosures

The authors have no disclosures of financial conflicts of interest.

Funding

Dr. Walke was supported an award from the Health Resources and Services Administration Geriatric Workforce Enhancement Program to the University of Pennsylvania (U1QHP28720).

Like the rest of the world, the United States is experiencing an aging boom. The number of adults aged 65 years or older is expected to grow from 49 million in 2016 to 82 million in 2040, indicating an increase of 67%. Even more impressively, the population of individuals aged 85 years or older is expected to increase by 129% to 14.6 million within this same time period.¹ Considering that one in five Medicare Fee for Service beneficiaries are hospitalized at least once a year,² hospitals can expect the number of adults over the age of 65 requiring acute care will substantially increase over the next 20 years. These demographic changes have important implications for the overall healthcare costs in the US. Of persons with the highest annual healthcare expenditures, 40% are 65 years of age or older. ³ Thus, optimizing the care of hospitalized older adults will remain a critical component in the management of healthcare costs in the next 20 years.

As such, the Acute Care for the Elderly (ACE) unit, an interprofessional model of care that has been shown to provide high-quality care to hospitalized older adults without increasing costs,⁴ will become an increasingly important component of acute care as the older adult population grows. In this edition of the Journal of Hospital Medicine, Brennan et al.⁵ describe a quality improvement initiative in which an interprofessional team that included a geriatric clinician, nurses, pharmacist, and chaplain developed a daily plan of care for ACE unit patients aged 70 years or older. The daily care plan, which focused on symptom management and advance care planning, was the nidus for collaboration between the hospital medicine attending and geriatrics team. Their results demonstrate that ACE unit patients had lower hospital costs and shorter lengths of stay (LOS) as compared with age-matched, usual-care patients despite having higher comorbidity scores. In addition, the greatest benefits were seen among persons in the highest quartile of the comorbidity score.

These results add to the small but consistent body of literature that demonstrates quality and cost benefits to the ACE unit care. Importantly, however, in contrast with the prior ACE unit studies in which persons with moderate risk were the ones to demonstrate the greatest benefits, Brennan et al.⁵ were able to demonstrate the greatest effect for the highest-need, highest-cost population. Reasons for this impressive effect may be attributed to this intervention’s specific emphasis on symptom management and estimated life expectancy. In an era when Medicare and other payers are looking to increase the value proposition in population health-based approaches by reducing high costs while preserving high quality, these findings represent an important example that merits a broader dissemination.

Of course, ACE units are not the only hospital-based programs that have shown to improve outcomes for older adults. The Hospital Elder Life Program (HELP) is an evidence-based delirium prevention intervention that has been shown to not only prevent delirium but also prevent cognitive and functional decline while decreasing hospital LOS, hospital falls, and sitter use.⁶ Moreover, similar to ACE units, HELP has been shown to reduce inhospital patient costs. Geriatrics surgery comanagement programs are another hospital-based intervention that has shown to improve outcomes for older surgical patients. Reductions in LOS, improved mobility, and higher discharge to home have been demonstrated in patients who have undergone spinal surgery.⁷ Decreased LOS and lower hospital costs have also been demonstrated among patients with hip fracture undergoing repair.⁸ Programs such as ACE units, HELP, and geriatric surgery comanagement are well aligned with the growing emphasis on value-based healthcare and will be especially needed by hospitals that strive to be high-reliability organizations as the number of adults aged 65 and older continues to grow. To date, few studies have explored the potential synergistic effects (or redundancies) of these programs and how to maximize the impact of these evidence-based interventions across healthcare systems with multiple hospitals that care for older adults from various socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds.

Looking toward the future, the implementation of ACE units and other innovative geriatric programs will equip hospitals to develop into Age-Friendly Health Systems (AFHS). AFHS is an initiative being led by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, The John A. Hartford Foundation, the American Hospital Association, and the Catholic Health Association of the United States in partnership with several other leading healthcare organizations to provide high-value care to every older adult.⁹ AFHS provide care focused on the 4M framework—What Matters, Medications, Mobility, and Mentation. The goal is for 20% of hospitals and medical practices to join the AFHS initiative by 2020; to date, over 70 organizations nationwide have done so. Clearly, to reach this goal, and beyond, a greater collaboration between aging-focused interprofessional teams including geriatricians and hospitalists will be essential.

Given the aging demographic and rising healthcare costs, Brennan et al.’s work⁵ suggests that each hospital should have an ACE unit by 2040. Consistently, hospital care delivery has appropriately developed in response to the needs of the patient population served. Intensive care units (ICUs), dialysis units, and emergency rooms are just a few innovations that were adopted by hospitals to provide specialty care to individuals with complex acute illnesses. While technology within the ICU certainly plays a role in the care delivered in that setting, it could be argued that what makes the ICUs most effective is the cohorting of interprofessional expertise. Since the implementation of ICUs, the survival rate for critically ill patients has substantially improved and additional specialty units with an interprofessional team model, eg, cardiac care units, dialysis units, emergency rooms, etc., have followed suit. Specialty units have become a part of the fabric of acute care, so much so that it would be hard to imagine a modern hospital without an ICU, dialysis unit, or emergency room. The same should be true for ACE units. Even hospitals without geriatricians on site can use teleconferencing to successfully implement an ACE unit.¹⁰ We owe it to our older patients to transform our institutions into AFHS; implementing models of care proven to improve outcomes, such as the ACE unit, is one of the critical first steps.

Disclosures

The authors have no disclosures or financial conflicts of interest.

Funding

Dr. Walke was supported by an award from the Health Resources and Services Administration Geriatric Workforce Enhancement Program to the University of Pennsylvania (U1QHP28720).

Like the rest of the world, the United States is experiencing an aging boom. The number of adults aged 65 years or older is expected to grow from 49 million in 2016 to 82 million in 2040, indicating an increase of 67%. Even more impressively, the population of individuals aged 85 years or older is expected to increase by 129% to 14.6 million within this same time period.¹ Considering that one in five Medicare Fee for Service beneficiaries are hospitalized at least once a year,² hospitals can expect the number of adults over the age of 65 requiring acute care will substantially increase over the next 20 years. These demographic changes have important implications for the overall healthcare costs in the US. Of persons with the highest annual healthcare expenditures, 40% are 65 years of age or older. ³ Thus, optimizing the care of hospitalized older adults will remain a critical component in the management of healthcare costs in the next 20 years.

As such, the Acute Care for the Elderly (ACE) unit, an interprofessional model of care that has been shown to provide high-quality care to hospitalized older adults without increasing costs,⁴ will become an increasingly important component of acute care as the older adult population grows. In this edition of the Journal of Hospital Medicine, Brennan et al.⁵ describe a quality improvement initiative in which an interprofessional team that included a geriatric clinician, nurses, pharmacist, and chaplain developed a daily plan of care for ACE unit patients aged 70 years or older. The daily care plan, which focused on symptom management and advance care planning, was the nidus for collaboration between the hospital medicine attending and geriatrics team. Their results demonstrate that ACE unit patients had lower hospital costs and shorter lengths of stay (LOS) as compared with age-matched, usual-care patients despite having higher comorbidity scores. In addition, the greatest benefits were seen among persons in the highest quartile of the comorbidity score.

These results add to the small but consistent body of literature that demonstrates quality and cost benefits to the ACE unit care. Importantly, however, in contrast with the prior ACE unit studies in which persons with moderate risk were the ones to demonstrate the greatest benefits, Brennan et al.⁵ were able to demonstrate the greatest effect for the highest-need, highest-cost population. Reasons for this impressive effect may be attributed to this intervention’s specific emphasis on symptom management and estimated life expectancy. In an era when Medicare and other payers are looking to increase the value proposition in population health-based approaches by reducing high costs while preserving high quality, these findings represent an important example that merits a broader dissemination.

Of course, ACE units are not the only hospital-based programs that have shown to improve outcomes for older adults. The Hospital Elder Life Program (HELP) is an evidence-based delirium prevention intervention that has been shown to not only prevent delirium but also prevent cognitive and functional decline while decreasing hospital LOS, hospital falls, and sitter use.⁶ Moreover, similar to ACE units, HELP has been shown to reduce inhospital patient costs. Geriatrics surgery comanagement programs are another hospital-based intervention that has shown to improve outcomes for older surgical patients. Reductions in LOS, improved mobility, and higher discharge to home have been demonstrated in patients who have undergone spinal surgery.⁷ Decreased LOS and lower hospital costs have also been demonstrated among patients with hip fracture undergoing repair.⁸ Programs such as ACE units, HELP, and geriatric surgery comanagement are well aligned with the growing emphasis on value-based healthcare and will be especially needed by hospitals that strive to be high-reliability organizations as the number of adults aged 65 and older continues to grow. To date, few studies have explored the potential synergistic effects (or redundancies) of these programs and how to maximize the impact of these evidence-based interventions across healthcare systems with multiple hospitals that care for older adults from various socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds.

Looking toward the future, the implementation of ACE units and other innovative geriatric programs will equip hospitals to develop into Age-Friendly Health Systems (AFHS). AFHS is an initiative being led by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, The John A. Hartford Foundation, the American Hospital Association, and the Catholic Health Association of the United States in partnership with several other leading healthcare organizations to provide high-value care to every older adult.⁹ AFHS provide care focused on the 4M framework—What Matters, Medications, Mobility, and Mentation. The goal is for 20% of hospitals and medical practices to join the AFHS initiative by 2020; to date, over 70 organizations nationwide have done so. Clearly, to reach this goal, and beyond, a greater collaboration between aging-focused interprofessional teams including geriatricians and hospitalists will be essential.

Given the aging demographic and rising healthcare costs, Brennan et al.’s work⁵ suggests that each hospital should have an ACE unit by 2040. Consistently, hospital care delivery has appropriately developed in response to the needs of the patient population served. Intensive care units (ICUs), dialysis units, and emergency rooms are just a few innovations that were adopted by hospitals to provide specialty care to individuals with complex acute illnesses. While technology within the ICU certainly plays a role in the care delivered in that setting, it could be argued that what makes the ICUs most effective is the cohorting of interprofessional expertise. Since the implementation of ICUs, the survival rate for critically ill patients has substantially improved and additional specialty units with an interprofessional team model, eg, cardiac care units, dialysis units, emergency rooms, etc., have followed suit. Specialty units have become a part of the fabric of acute care, so much so that it would be hard to imagine a modern hospital without an ICU, dialysis unit, or emergency room. The same should be true for ACE units. Even hospitals without geriatricians on site can use teleconferencing to successfully implement an ACE unit.¹⁰ We owe it to our older patients to transform our institutions into AFHS; implementing models of care proven to improve outcomes, such as the ACE unit, is one of the critical first steps.

Disclosures

The authors have no disclosures or financial conflicts of interest.

Funding

Dr. Walke was supported by an award from the Health Resources and Services Administration Geriatric Workforce Enhancement Program to the University of Pennsylvania (U1QHP28720).

Like the rest of the world, the United States is experiencing an aging boom. The number of adults aged 65 years or older is expected to grow from 49 million in 2016 to 82 million in 2040, indicating an increase of 67%. Even more impressively, the population of individuals aged 85 years or older is expected to increase by 129% to 14.6 million within this same time period.¹ Considering that one in five Medicare Fee for Service beneficiaries are hospitalized at least once a year,² hospitals can expect the number of adults over the age of 65 requiring acute care will substantially increase over the next 20 years. These demographic changes have important implications for the overall healthcare costs in the US. Of persons with the highest annual healthcare expenditures, 40% are 65 years of age or older. ³ Thus, optimizing the care of hospitalized older adults will remain a critical component in the management of healthcare costs in the next 20 years.

As such, the Acute Care for the Elderly (ACE) unit, an interprofessional model of care that has been shown to provide high-quality care to hospitalized older adults without increasing costs,⁴ will become an increasingly important component of acute care as the older adult population grows. In this edition of the Journal of Hospital Medicine, Brennan et al.⁵ describe a quality improvement initiative in which an interprofessional team that included a geriatric clinician, nurses, pharmacist, and chaplain developed a daily plan of care for ACE unit patients aged 70 years or older. The daily care plan, which focused on symptom management and advance care planning, was the nidus for collaboration between the hospital medicine attending and geriatrics team. Their results demonstrate that ACE unit patients had lower hospital costs and shorter lengths of stay (LOS) as compared with age-matched, usual-care patients despite having higher comorbidity scores. In addition, the greatest benefits were seen among persons in the highest quartile of the comorbidity score.

These results add to the small but consistent body of literature that demonstrates quality and cost benefits to the ACE unit care. Importantly, however, in contrast with the prior ACE unit studies in which persons with moderate risk were the ones to demonstrate the greatest benefits, Brennan et al.⁵ were able to demonstrate the greatest effect for the highest-need, highest-cost population. Reasons for this impressive effect may be attributed to this intervention’s specific emphasis on symptom management and estimated life expectancy. In an era when Medicare and other payers are looking to increase the value proposition in population health-based approaches by reducing high costs while preserving high quality, these findings represent an important example that merits a broader dissemination.

Of course, ACE units are not the only hospital-based programs that have shown to improve outcomes for older adults. The Hospital Elder Life Program (HELP) is an evidence-based delirium prevention intervention that has been shown to not only prevent delirium but also prevent cognitive and functional decline while decreasing hospital LOS, hospital falls, and sitter use.⁶ Moreover, similar to ACE units, HELP has been shown to reduce inhospital patient costs. Geriatrics surgery comanagement programs are another hospital-based intervention that has shown to improve outcomes for older surgical patients. Reductions in LOS, improved mobility, and higher discharge to home have been demonstrated in patients who have undergone spinal surgery.⁷ Decreased LOS and lower hospital costs have also been demonstrated among patients with hip fracture undergoing repair.⁸ Programs such as ACE units, HELP, and geriatric surgery comanagement are well aligned with the growing emphasis on value-based healthcare and will be especially needed by hospitals that strive to be high-reliability organizations as the number of adults aged 65 and older continues to grow. To date, few studies have explored the potential synergistic effects (or redundancies) of these programs and how to maximize the impact of these evidence-based interventions across healthcare systems with multiple hospitals that care for older adults from various socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds.

Looking toward the future, the implementation of ACE units and other innovative geriatric programs will equip hospitals to develop into Age-Friendly Health Systems (AFHS). AFHS is an initiative being led by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, The John A. Hartford Foundation, the American Hospital Association, and the Catholic Health Association of the United States in partnership with several other leading healthcare organizations to provide high-value care to every older adult.⁹ AFHS provide care focused on the 4M framework—What Matters, Medications, Mobility, and Mentation. The goal is for 20% of hospitals and medical practices to join the AFHS initiative by 2020; to date, over 70 organizations nationwide have done so. Clearly, to reach this goal, and beyond, a greater collaboration between aging-focused interprofessional teams including geriatricians and hospitalists will be essential.

Given the aging demographic and rising healthcare costs, Brennan et al.’s work⁵ suggests that each hospital should have an ACE unit by 2040. Consistently, hospital care delivery has appropriately developed in response to the needs of the patient population served. Intensive care units (ICUs), dialysis units, and emergency rooms are just a few innovations that were adopted by hospitals to provide specialty care to individuals with complex acute illnesses. While technology within the ICU certainly plays a role in the care delivered in that setting, it could be argued that what makes the ICUs most effective is the cohorting of interprofessional expertise. Since the implementation of ICUs, the survival rate for critically ill patients has substantially improved and additional specialty units with an interprofessional team model, eg, cardiac care units, dialysis units, emergency rooms, etc., have followed suit. Specialty units have become a part of the fabric of acute care, so much so that it would be hard to imagine a modern hospital without an ICU, dialysis unit, or emergency room. The same should be true for ACE units. Even hospitals without geriatricians on site can use teleconferencing to successfully implement an ACE unit.¹⁰ We owe it to our older patients to transform our institutions into AFHS; implementing models of care proven to improve outcomes, such as the ACE unit, is one of the critical first steps.

Disclosures

The authors have no disclosures or financial conflicts of interest.

Funding

Dr. Walke was supported by an award from the Health Resources and Services Administration Geriatric Workforce Enhancement Program to the University of Pennsylvania (U1QHP28720).

In the context of rapidly rising healthcare costs and increasing disparities in health outcomes in the United States, there has been increasing interest in identifying and addressing the needs of our country’s most frequently admitted patients. These patients account for a disproportionate percentage of healthcare expenditures^1-3; they also represent a vulnerable and high-risk population. Finding solutions to address the needs of these patients is important for the patients themselves and for the systems in which they receive care. The last 10-15 years have seen a proliferation of programs working to address the needs and contain the costs of frequently admitted patients,^2,4-6 as well as increased interest in understanding the risk factors and drivers that lead to high utilization.

In this edition of the Journal of Hospital Medicine, O’Leary et al. report on their study of patients enrolled in the CHAMP program at Northwestern University, in which the authors elicit patients’ perceptions of factors contributing to the onset and continuation of high hospital use.⁷ The authors identify several themes, including the important role of psychological, social, and economic factors in course fluctuation, the perception of acute illness as uncontrollable and unpredictable, and a strong desire to avoid hospitalization. As a group, the themes suggest multiple strategies that may be of use in developing individualized plans for patients.

Several of the most commonly cited risk factors for high utilization—including mental health issues, housing insecurity or homelessness, and substance use^2,3,8,9—did not emerge as themes identified by patients in this study as contributing to high hospital utilization. Although identified themes such as social support and psychological stress could certainly be related to these underlying risk factors, the risk factors themselves did not emerge. This is particularly notable in a population whose utilization is in line with other studies (participants had at least two unplanned 30-day inpatient readmissions within 12 months, and one readmission in the last six months, a referral, or at least three observation visits). In contrast to prior qualitative work with complex, high-needs patients,¹⁰ patients in this study did not identify difficult (or positive) relationships with care provider teams, or a history of early life trauma, as factors related to current utilization.

These findings raise several important questions. To what extent are frequently hospitalized patient populations comparable with each other? This is both a question about how populations are defined and a question about the inherent variability between populations (including geographic, social, socioeconomic, and other factors). It is not evident from the demographic information provided whether this population is fundamentally different from others that have been studied, or whether risk factors such as mental health issues, housing insecurity, substance abuse, and trauma history are present, but are just not identified by patients here as proximal contributors to their utilization. In either case, the findings raise important questions about the development of effective interventions for these patients. The discrepancies also highlight the utility of ascertaining and reporting the prevalence of these risk factors among study populations, ideally both among patients who opt in and those who opt out. Although obtaining this information adds an additional layer of complexity to data collection, this history, along with extended demographic data, would significantly improve our ability to assess the comparability of populations across studies. It would also help us understand whether perspectives of any specific groups of patients are not represented, due to frequent opting out of the study.

The fact that commonly identified risk factors for high utilization are not identified by patients in this study as contributing to their high hospital use highlights the importance of (1) including the patient perspective as an integral part of care plan and intervention development and (2) continuing local work aimed at understanding the risk factors and drivers of high utilization in specific populations. Many programs, including CHAMP at Northwestern and our own hospitalist-run program at Penn Medicine, work closely with patients to develop individualized care plans that aim to address the underlying drivers of high utilization. In our experience, a multidisciplinary committee reviewing patient cases has identified mental health conditions as likely drivers of frequent admissions in over 95% of program patients. In line with the findings here, however, patients themselves often do not see mental health as a significant contributor. If patients do not see factors such as mental health as important, this has significant implications for the development of interventions around these factors as part of a solution to high hospital use.

Patients are unlikely to respond to interventions targeting problems that they themselves do not identify as important. This is not to say that drivers such as mental health, housing instability, substance abuse, and behaviors rooted in childhood trauma cannot be addressed if they are not identified by a patient as problems. Rather, interventions must be sensitive to and developed within the context of the patient’s own perceptions and priorities. For any program aimed at addressing the underlying drivers of high utilization, therefore, it is critical to elicit individual patient perspectives and to incorporate them in the development of interventions tailored to a specific patient’s needs. This process not only informs the creation of an individualized care plan but also promotes engagement and builds trust.

In prior work,⁶ O’Leary et al. have joined others throughout the field in calling for standardized definitions of “high utilizers”; this is critical for our ability to compare study results across programs. However, standardizing definitions is just the first step. Individual site studies such as this are needed to help us understand which themes are universal, versus those that are population- and site-specific. They are also important for individual institutions in targeting, developing, and refining local interventions. As a whole, the results will help guide the development of best practices within the field and allow providers to better understand the needs of specific populations. This work is essential to our ability as providers, hospitals, and systems to develop effective interventions for individual patients in this heterogeneous, vulnerable, and high-risk population.

Disclosures

Dr. Knox and Dr. Greysen have nothing to disclose.

In the context of rapidly rising healthcare costs and increasing disparities in health outcomes in the United States, there has been increasing interest in identifying and addressing the needs of our country’s most frequently admitted patients. These patients account for a disproportionate percentage of healthcare expenditures^1-3; they also represent a vulnerable and high-risk population. Finding solutions to address the needs of these patients is important for the patients themselves and for the systems in which they receive care. The last 10-15 years have seen a proliferation of programs working to address the needs and contain the costs of frequently admitted patients,^2,4-6 as well as increased interest in understanding the risk factors and drivers that lead to high utilization.

In this edition of the Journal of Hospital Medicine, O’Leary et al. report on their study of patients enrolled in the CHAMP program at Northwestern University, in which the authors elicit patients’ perceptions of factors contributing to the onset and continuation of high hospital use.⁷ The authors identify several themes, including the important role of psychological, social, and economic factors in course fluctuation, the perception of acute illness as uncontrollable and unpredictable, and a strong desire to avoid hospitalization. As a group, the themes suggest multiple strategies that may be of use in developing individualized plans for patients.

Several of the most commonly cited risk factors for high utilization—including mental health issues, housing insecurity or homelessness, and substance use^2,3,8,9—did not emerge as themes identified by patients in this study as contributing to high hospital utilization. Although identified themes such as social support and psychological stress could certainly be related to these underlying risk factors, the risk factors themselves did not emerge. This is particularly notable in a population whose utilization is in line with other studies (participants had at least two unplanned 30-day inpatient readmissions within 12 months, and one readmission in the last six months, a referral, or at least three observation visits). In contrast to prior qualitative work with complex, high-needs patients,¹⁰ patients in this study did not identify difficult (or positive) relationships with care provider teams, or a history of early life trauma, as factors related to current utilization.

These findings raise several important questions. To what extent are frequently hospitalized patient populations comparable with each other? This is both a question about how populations are defined and a question about the inherent variability between populations (including geographic, social, socioeconomic, and other factors). It is not evident from the demographic information provided whether this population is fundamentally different from others that have been studied, or whether risk factors such as mental health issues, housing insecurity, substance abuse, and trauma history are present, but are just not identified by patients here as proximal contributors to their utilization. In either case, the findings raise important questions about the development of effective interventions for these patients. The discrepancies also highlight the utility of ascertaining and reporting the prevalence of these risk factors among study populations, ideally both among patients who opt in and those who opt out. Although obtaining this information adds an additional layer of complexity to data collection, this history, along with extended demographic data, would significantly improve our ability to assess the comparability of populations across studies. It would also help us understand whether perspectives of any specific groups of patients are not represented, due to frequent opting out of the study.

The fact that commonly identified risk factors for high utilization are not identified by patients in this study as contributing to their high hospital use highlights the importance of (1) including the patient perspective as an integral part of care plan and intervention development and (2) continuing local work aimed at understanding the risk factors and drivers of high utilization in specific populations. Many programs, including CHAMP at Northwestern and our own hospitalist-run program at Penn Medicine, work closely with patients to develop individualized care plans that aim to address the underlying drivers of high utilization. In our experience, a multidisciplinary committee reviewing patient cases has identified mental health conditions as likely drivers of frequent admissions in over 95% of program patients. In line with the findings here, however, patients themselves often do not see mental health as a significant contributor. If patients do not see factors such as mental health as important, this has significant implications for the development of interventions around these factors as part of a solution to high hospital use.

Patients are unlikely to respond to interventions targeting problems that they themselves do not identify as important. This is not to say that drivers such as mental health, housing instability, substance abuse, and behaviors rooted in childhood trauma cannot be addressed if they are not identified by a patient as problems. Rather, interventions must be sensitive to and developed within the context of the patient’s own perceptions and priorities. For any program aimed at addressing the underlying drivers of high utilization, therefore, it is critical to elicit individual patient perspectives and to incorporate them in the development of interventions tailored to a specific patient’s needs. This process not only informs the creation of an individualized care plan but also promotes engagement and builds trust.

In prior work,⁶ O’Leary et al. have joined others throughout the field in calling for standardized definitions of “high utilizers”; this is critical for our ability to compare study results across programs. However, standardizing definitions is just the first step. Individual site studies such as this are needed to help us understand which themes are universal, versus those that are population- and site-specific. They are also important for individual institutions in targeting, developing, and refining local interventions. As a whole, the results will help guide the development of best practices within the field and allow providers to better understand the needs of specific populations. This work is essential to our ability as providers, hospitals, and systems to develop effective interventions for individual patients in this heterogeneous, vulnerable, and high-risk population.

Disclosures

Dr. Knox and Dr. Greysen have nothing to disclose.

In the context of rapidly rising healthcare costs and increasing disparities in health outcomes in the United States, there has been increasing interest in identifying and addressing the needs of our country’s most frequently admitted patients. These patients account for a disproportionate percentage of healthcare expenditures^1-3; they also represent a vulnerable and high-risk population. Finding solutions to address the needs of these patients is important for the patients themselves and for the systems in which they receive care. The last 10-15 years have seen a proliferation of programs working to address the needs and contain the costs of frequently admitted patients,^2,4-6 as well as increased interest in understanding the risk factors and drivers that lead to high utilization.

In this edition of the Journal of Hospital Medicine, O’Leary et al. report on their study of patients enrolled in the CHAMP program at Northwestern University, in which the authors elicit patients’ perceptions of factors contributing to the onset and continuation of high hospital use.⁷ The authors identify several themes, including the important role of psychological, social, and economic factors in course fluctuation, the perception of acute illness as uncontrollable and unpredictable, and a strong desire to avoid hospitalization. As a group, the themes suggest multiple strategies that may be of use in developing individualized plans for patients.

Several of the most commonly cited risk factors for high utilization—including mental health issues, housing insecurity or homelessness, and substance use^2,3,8,9—did not emerge as themes identified by patients in this study as contributing to high hospital utilization. Although identified themes such as social support and psychological stress could certainly be related to these underlying risk factors, the risk factors themselves did not emerge. This is particularly notable in a population whose utilization is in line with other studies (participants had at least two unplanned 30-day inpatient readmissions within 12 months, and one readmission in the last six months, a referral, or at least three observation visits). In contrast to prior qualitative work with complex, high-needs patients,¹⁰ patients in this study did not identify difficult (or positive) relationships with care provider teams, or a history of early life trauma, as factors related to current utilization.

These findings raise several important questions. To what extent are frequently hospitalized patient populations comparable with each other? This is both a question about how populations are defined and a question about the inherent variability between populations (including geographic, social, socioeconomic, and other factors). It is not evident from the demographic information provided whether this population is fundamentally different from others that have been studied, or whether risk factors such as mental health issues, housing insecurity, substance abuse, and trauma history are present, but are just not identified by patients here as proximal contributors to their utilization. In either case, the findings raise important questions about the development of effective interventions for these patients. The discrepancies also highlight the utility of ascertaining and reporting the prevalence of these risk factors among study populations, ideally both among patients who opt in and those who opt out. Although obtaining this information adds an additional layer of complexity to data collection, this history, along with extended demographic data, would significantly improve our ability to assess the comparability of populations across studies. It would also help us understand whether perspectives of any specific groups of patients are not represented, due to frequent opting out of the study.

The fact that commonly identified risk factors for high utilization are not identified by patients in this study as contributing to their high hospital use highlights the importance of (1) including the patient perspective as an integral part of care plan and intervention development and (2) continuing local work aimed at understanding the risk factors and drivers of high utilization in specific populations. Many programs, including CHAMP at Northwestern and our own hospitalist-run program at Penn Medicine, work closely with patients to develop individualized care plans that aim to address the underlying drivers of high utilization. In our experience, a multidisciplinary committee reviewing patient cases has identified mental health conditions as likely drivers of frequent admissions in over 95% of program patients. In line with the findings here, however, patients themselves often do not see mental health as a significant contributor. If patients do not see factors such as mental health as important, this has significant implications for the development of interventions around these factors as part of a solution to high hospital use.

Patients are unlikely to respond to interventions targeting problems that they themselves do not identify as important. This is not to say that drivers such as mental health, housing instability, substance abuse, and behaviors rooted in childhood trauma cannot be addressed if they are not identified by a patient as problems. Rather, interventions must be sensitive to and developed within the context of the patient’s own perceptions and priorities. For any program aimed at addressing the underlying drivers of high utilization, therefore, it is critical to elicit individual patient perspectives and to incorporate them in the development of interventions tailored to a specific patient’s needs. This process not only informs the creation of an individualized care plan but also promotes engagement and builds trust.

In prior work,⁶ O’Leary et al. have joined others throughout the field in calling for standardized definitions of “high utilizers”; this is critical for our ability to compare study results across programs. However, standardizing definitions is just the first step. Individual site studies such as this are needed to help us understand which themes are universal, versus those that are population- and site-specific. They are also important for individual institutions in targeting, developing, and refining local interventions. As a whole, the results will help guide the development of best practices within the field and allow providers to better understand the needs of specific populations. This work is essential to our ability as providers, hospitals, and systems to develop effective interventions for individual patients in this heterogeneous, vulnerable, and high-risk population.

Disclosures

Dr. Knox and Dr. Greysen have nothing to disclose.