Quality

Dr. Hospitalist

Dear Dr. Hospitalist:

Our group is considering hiring another nocturnist. This may reduce the number of shifts that hospitalists will be able to work per month—we have some who work 20 or more shifts per month. While the vast majority of hospitalists would welcome a nocturnist in order to decrease the number of night shifts required, some who work a lot of shifts are concerned that their income will be affected since there won’t necessarily be any day shifts available to compensate for the decrease in night shifts.

I am wondering if there is a maximum number of shifts per month that a hospitalist should not exceed. We work 12-hour shifts. In other words, is there a tipping point when too many shifts starts to negatively impact the quality of work, increase length of stay, decrease patient satisfaction, and lead to physician burnout? Are there any studies or data to look at this question?

Your feedback is very much appreciated.

–Donna Ting, MD, MPH

Dr. Hospitalist responds:

Although many jobs (i.e. air-traffic controllers, truck drivers) use hours worked as a gauge of operator fatigue, physicians traditionally have not used these criteria to judge one’s ability to be effective. That being said, we all know of occasions when we were physically and/or mentally exhausted and not performing at our best.

Multiple studies have shown that physicians tend to work an average of 60 hours a week. Of course, this does not take into consideration the typical hospitalist, who still tends to work 12-hour shifts on a seven-on/seven-off schedule, although there is a trend away from this type of block scheduling. A recent study also showed that physicians in practice less than five years were more likely to work hours in agreement with the 2003 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) duty-hour regulations for physicians in training. The authors speculated that this was due to this group having trained under the new ACGME guidelines and being of Generation X, whose members tend to favor more work-life balance than their predecessors.

Several studies have examined physician work hours in relationship to fatigue and patient safety. Volp et al examined two large studies and found no change in mortality among Medicare patients for the first two years after implementation of the ACGME duty-hour regulations. However, they did find that mortality decreased for four common medical conditions in a VA hospital. Fletcher et al performed a systematic review and found no conclusive evidence that the decreased resident work hours had any affect on patient safety.

This is what I would have expected: inconclusive data. Most studies of this type are surveys, which have well-known limitations. Each of us has our own individual stamina, tolerance for fatigue, and desire for work-life balance. We intuitively know that most individuals are not at their best when tired or stressed, but to capture the true effect of these variables on patient satisfaction, morbidity, mortality, and other clinical metrics will be very difficult.

There are several ways I would approach a group that is contemplating another nocturnist. Because most hospitalists don’t want to work nights, the group members who feel their moonlighting income would be affected should commit to covering a certain portion or all of the available nights. If only some of the nights are covered, then you can hire a part-time nocturnist.

This is easier than you might imagine, as my very large hospitalist group has four nocturnists and none work a full FTE. I think three to four extra shifts a month are reasonable on a routine basis. We have, however, allowed physicians who wanted to have a month off to work seven extra days the months before and after to get their desired time off. We would not allow that to occur on a regular basis.

Ultimately, your group has to decide its own tolerance for fatigue and burnout, and have some mechanism to monitor the quality of work. After all, we owe it to our patients to not place their safety in jeopardy.

Do you have a problem or concern that you’d like Dr. Hospitalist to address? Email your questions to drhospit@wiley.com.

Dr. Hospitalist

Dear Dr. Hospitalist:

Our group is considering hiring another nocturnist. This may reduce the number of shifts that hospitalists will be able to work per month—we have some who work 20 or more shifts per month. While the vast majority of hospitalists would welcome a nocturnist in order to decrease the number of night shifts required, some who work a lot of shifts are concerned that their income will be affected since there won’t necessarily be any day shifts available to compensate for the decrease in night shifts.

I am wondering if there is a maximum number of shifts per month that a hospitalist should not exceed. We work 12-hour shifts. In other words, is there a tipping point when too many shifts starts to negatively impact the quality of work, increase length of stay, decrease patient satisfaction, and lead to physician burnout? Are there any studies or data to look at this question?

Your feedback is very much appreciated.

–Donna Ting, MD, MPH

Dr. Hospitalist responds:

Although many jobs (i.e. air-traffic controllers, truck drivers) use hours worked as a gauge of operator fatigue, physicians traditionally have not used these criteria to judge one’s ability to be effective. That being said, we all know of occasions when we were physically and/or mentally exhausted and not performing at our best.

Multiple studies have shown that physicians tend to work an average of 60 hours a week. Of course, this does not take into consideration the typical hospitalist, who still tends to work 12-hour shifts on a seven-on/seven-off schedule, although there is a trend away from this type of block scheduling. A recent study also showed that physicians in practice less than five years were more likely to work hours in agreement with the 2003 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) duty-hour regulations for physicians in training. The authors speculated that this was due to this group having trained under the new ACGME guidelines and being of Generation X, whose members tend to favor more work-life balance than their predecessors.

Several studies have examined physician work hours in relationship to fatigue and patient safety. Volp et al examined two large studies and found no change in mortality among Medicare patients for the first two years after implementation of the ACGME duty-hour regulations. However, they did find that mortality decreased for four common medical conditions in a VA hospital. Fletcher et al performed a systematic review and found no conclusive evidence that the decreased resident work hours had any affect on patient safety.

This is what I would have expected: inconclusive data. Most studies of this type are surveys, which have well-known limitations. Each of us has our own individual stamina, tolerance for fatigue, and desire for work-life balance. We intuitively know that most individuals are not at their best when tired or stressed, but to capture the true effect of these variables on patient satisfaction, morbidity, mortality, and other clinical metrics will be very difficult.

There are several ways I would approach a group that is contemplating another nocturnist. Because most hospitalists don’t want to work nights, the group members who feel their moonlighting income would be affected should commit to covering a certain portion or all of the available nights. If only some of the nights are covered, then you can hire a part-time nocturnist.

This is easier than you might imagine, as my very large hospitalist group has four nocturnists and none work a full FTE. I think three to four extra shifts a month are reasonable on a routine basis. We have, however, allowed physicians who wanted to have a month off to work seven extra days the months before and after to get their desired time off. We would not allow that to occur on a regular basis.

Ultimately, your group has to decide its own tolerance for fatigue and burnout, and have some mechanism to monitor the quality of work. After all, we owe it to our patients to not place their safety in jeopardy.

Do you have a problem or concern that you’d like Dr. Hospitalist to address? Email your questions to drhospit@wiley.com.

Dr. Hospitalist

Dear Dr. Hospitalist:

Our group is considering hiring another nocturnist. This may reduce the number of shifts that hospitalists will be able to work per month—we have some who work 20 or more shifts per month. While the vast majority of hospitalists would welcome a nocturnist in order to decrease the number of night shifts required, some who work a lot of shifts are concerned that their income will be affected since there won’t necessarily be any day shifts available to compensate for the decrease in night shifts.

I am wondering if there is a maximum number of shifts per month that a hospitalist should not exceed. We work 12-hour shifts. In other words, is there a tipping point when too many shifts starts to negatively impact the quality of work, increase length of stay, decrease patient satisfaction, and lead to physician burnout? Are there any studies or data to look at this question?

Your feedback is very much appreciated.

–Donna Ting, MD, MPH

Dr. Hospitalist responds:

Although many jobs (i.e. air-traffic controllers, truck drivers) use hours worked as a gauge of operator fatigue, physicians traditionally have not used these criteria to judge one’s ability to be effective. That being said, we all know of occasions when we were physically and/or mentally exhausted and not performing at our best.

Multiple studies have shown that physicians tend to work an average of 60 hours a week. Of course, this does not take into consideration the typical hospitalist, who still tends to work 12-hour shifts on a seven-on/seven-off schedule, although there is a trend away from this type of block scheduling. A recent study also showed that physicians in practice less than five years were more likely to work hours in agreement with the 2003 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) duty-hour regulations for physicians in training. The authors speculated that this was due to this group having trained under the new ACGME guidelines and being of Generation X, whose members tend to favor more work-life balance than their predecessors.

Several studies have examined physician work hours in relationship to fatigue and patient safety. Volp et al examined two large studies and found no change in mortality among Medicare patients for the first two years after implementation of the ACGME duty-hour regulations. However, they did find that mortality decreased for four common medical conditions in a VA hospital. Fletcher et al performed a systematic review and found no conclusive evidence that the decreased resident work hours had any affect on patient safety.

This is what I would have expected: inconclusive data. Most studies of this type are surveys, which have well-known limitations. Each of us has our own individual stamina, tolerance for fatigue, and desire for work-life balance. We intuitively know that most individuals are not at their best when tired or stressed, but to capture the true effect of these variables on patient satisfaction, morbidity, mortality, and other clinical metrics will be very difficult.

There are several ways I would approach a group that is contemplating another nocturnist. Because most hospitalists don’t want to work nights, the group members who feel their moonlighting income would be affected should commit to covering a certain portion or all of the available nights. If only some of the nights are covered, then you can hire a part-time nocturnist.

This is easier than you might imagine, as my very large hospitalist group has four nocturnists and none work a full FTE. I think three to four extra shifts a month are reasonable on a routine basis. We have, however, allowed physicians who wanted to have a month off to work seven extra days the months before and after to get their desired time off. We would not allow that to occur on a regular basis.

Ultimately, your group has to decide its own tolerance for fatigue and burnout, and have some mechanism to monitor the quality of work. After all, we owe it to our patients to not place their safety in jeopardy.

Do you have a problem or concern that you’d like Dr. Hospitalist to address? Email your questions to drhospit@wiley.com.

Clinical question: Is the use of proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) associated with risk of mortality or combined risk of death or rehospitalization in older patients discharged from acute-care hospitals?

Background: Previous studies have shown that the use of PPIs could be associated with increased mortality in institutionalized older people and in patients discharged from acute-care hospitals. Older patients could be more vulnerable to adverse effects of PPIs, such as drug-drug interactions and absorption of nutrients, because of the higher incidence of polypharmacy and malnutrition in the elderly.

Study design: Prospective cohort.

Setting: Eleven acute-care medical wards participating in the Italian study Pharmacosurveillance in the Elderly Care.

Synopsis: All patients aged 65 years or older consecutively admitted to participating wards from April to June 2007 underwent screening. Excluding patients who refused, died during hospitalization, or were admitted to long-term care or rehabilitation units, a total of 491 patients were analyzed. The study team administered questionnaires during admission and conducted follow-up visits every three months for one year after discharge. Outcomes included one-year survival of patients discharged from acute-care medical wards and the combined endpoint of death or rehospitalization.

Overall, 174 patients (35.4%) had PPI exposure. After adjusting for age, cognitive impairment, disability, comorbidities, nutritional status, and number of drugs prescribed, patients exposed to PPIs had a significantly increased risk of death (adjusted HR 1.51, 95% CI 1.03-2.77). This association was strongest among patients receiving high-dose PPIs. No such association was found when considering the combined endpoint (HR 1.49, 95% CI 0.98-2.17). Limitations of the study include observational design, small size, potential for confounding by indication for PPI, and indeterminate PPI use prior to index hospitalization. Finally, the finding of an association between PPIs and increased mortality does not equate to a causative relationship between the two variables.

Bottom line: Proton-pump inhibitor use in older patients discharged from acute-care hospitals is associated with increased all-cause mortality at one year.

Citation: Maggio M, Corsonello A, Ceda GP, et al. Proton-pump inhibitors and risk of 1-year mortality and rehospitalization in older patients discharged from acute care hospitals. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(7):518-523.

Clinical question: Is the use of proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) associated with risk of mortality or combined risk of death or rehospitalization in older patients discharged from acute-care hospitals?

Background: Previous studies have shown that the use of PPIs could be associated with increased mortality in institutionalized older people and in patients discharged from acute-care hospitals. Older patients could be more vulnerable to adverse effects of PPIs, such as drug-drug interactions and absorption of nutrients, because of the higher incidence of polypharmacy and malnutrition in the elderly.

Study design: Prospective cohort.

Setting: Eleven acute-care medical wards participating in the Italian study Pharmacosurveillance in the Elderly Care.

Synopsis: All patients aged 65 years or older consecutively admitted to participating wards from April to June 2007 underwent screening. Excluding patients who refused, died during hospitalization, or were admitted to long-term care or rehabilitation units, a total of 491 patients were analyzed. The study team administered questionnaires during admission and conducted follow-up visits every three months for one year after discharge. Outcomes included one-year survival of patients discharged from acute-care medical wards and the combined endpoint of death or rehospitalization.

Overall, 174 patients (35.4%) had PPI exposure. After adjusting for age, cognitive impairment, disability, comorbidities, nutritional status, and number of drugs prescribed, patients exposed to PPIs had a significantly increased risk of death (adjusted HR 1.51, 95% CI 1.03-2.77). This association was strongest among patients receiving high-dose PPIs. No such association was found when considering the combined endpoint (HR 1.49, 95% CI 0.98-2.17). Limitations of the study include observational design, small size, potential for confounding by indication for PPI, and indeterminate PPI use prior to index hospitalization. Finally, the finding of an association between PPIs and increased mortality does not equate to a causative relationship between the two variables.

Bottom line: Proton-pump inhibitor use in older patients discharged from acute-care hospitals is associated with increased all-cause mortality at one year.

Citation: Maggio M, Corsonello A, Ceda GP, et al. Proton-pump inhibitors and risk of 1-year mortality and rehospitalization in older patients discharged from acute care hospitals. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(7):518-523.

Clinical question: Is the use of proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) associated with risk of mortality or combined risk of death or rehospitalization in older patients discharged from acute-care hospitals?

Background: Previous studies have shown that the use of PPIs could be associated with increased mortality in institutionalized older people and in patients discharged from acute-care hospitals. Older patients could be more vulnerable to adverse effects of PPIs, such as drug-drug interactions and absorption of nutrients, because of the higher incidence of polypharmacy and malnutrition in the elderly.

Study design: Prospective cohort.

Setting: Eleven acute-care medical wards participating in the Italian study Pharmacosurveillance in the Elderly Care.

Synopsis: All patients aged 65 years or older consecutively admitted to participating wards from April to June 2007 underwent screening. Excluding patients who refused, died during hospitalization, or were admitted to long-term care or rehabilitation units, a total of 491 patients were analyzed. The study team administered questionnaires during admission and conducted follow-up visits every three months for one year after discharge. Outcomes included one-year survival of patients discharged from acute-care medical wards and the combined endpoint of death or rehospitalization.

Overall, 174 patients (35.4%) had PPI exposure. After adjusting for age, cognitive impairment, disability, comorbidities, nutritional status, and number of drugs prescribed, patients exposed to PPIs had a significantly increased risk of death (adjusted HR 1.51, 95% CI 1.03-2.77). This association was strongest among patients receiving high-dose PPIs. No such association was found when considering the combined endpoint (HR 1.49, 95% CI 0.98-2.17). Limitations of the study include observational design, small size, potential for confounding by indication for PPI, and indeterminate PPI use prior to index hospitalization. Finally, the finding of an association between PPIs and increased mortality does not equate to a causative relationship between the two variables.

Bottom line: Proton-pump inhibitor use in older patients discharged from acute-care hospitals is associated with increased all-cause mortality at one year.

Citation: Maggio M, Corsonello A, Ceda GP, et al. Proton-pump inhibitors and risk of 1-year mortality and rehospitalization in older patients discharged from acute care hospitals. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(7):518-523.

Clinical question: What are the effects of the 2011 resident duty-hour requirements on first-year residents’ well-being and patient safety?

Background: In an effort to reduce adverse consequences associated with extended shift length and sleep deprivation, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) released a new set of duty-hour requirements effective July 2011. To date, little is known about the effects of the 2011 reforms on resident and patient outcomes.

Study design: Prospective, longitudinal cohort with pre-post analysis.

Setting: Residency programs from university- and community-based medical centers.

Synopsis: Fifty-one residency programs from 10 university-based and four community-based GME institutions were included. Incoming interns during the 2009, 2010, and 2011 academic years were invited to participate, and 58% (n=2,323) agreed to take part. Participants completed online surveys two months before starting their first residency (intern) year and at three, six, nine, and 12 months of internship. Questions addressed work hours, sleep, medical errors, depressive symptoms, and subjective well-being.

No significant differences in baseline findings were found between the pre-implementation cohort (interns entering in 2009 and 2010) and the post-implementation cohort (interns starting in 2011, following the new duty-hour requirements). Interns in the post-implementation cohort worked fewer hours than those in the pre-implementation cohort (mean hours per week 64.3 vs. 67.0, P<0.001). There were no significant changes in reported hours of sleep, depressive symptom score, or well-being score between the pre- and post-implementation cohorts. The percentage of respondents who reported committing a serious medical error increased in the post-implementation group (23.3% vs. 19.9%, P=0.007).

Limitations include the self-reported nature of the responses and the modest participation rate. The authors concluded that although the 2011 reforms decreased the total number of hours worked, additional strategies could be needed to achieve the desired effects on intern well-being and patient safety.

Bottom line: Following implementation of the 2011 ACGME duty-hour reforms, interns from diverse specialties and institutions experienced reductions in self-reported work hours, without any associated improvements in sleep, depressive symptoms, or well-being and with an increase in reported medical errors.

Citation: Sen S, Kranzler HR, Didwania AK, et al. Effects of the 2011 duty hour reforms on interns and their patients: a prospective longitudinal cohort study. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(8):657-662.

Clinical question: What are the effects of the 2011 resident duty-hour requirements on first-year residents’ well-being and patient safety?

Background: In an effort to reduce adverse consequences associated with extended shift length and sleep deprivation, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) released a new set of duty-hour requirements effective July 2011. To date, little is known about the effects of the 2011 reforms on resident and patient outcomes.

Study design: Prospective, longitudinal cohort with pre-post analysis.

Setting: Residency programs from university- and community-based medical centers.

Synopsis: Fifty-one residency programs from 10 university-based and four community-based GME institutions were included. Incoming interns during the 2009, 2010, and 2011 academic years were invited to participate, and 58% (n=2,323) agreed to take part. Participants completed online surveys two months before starting their first residency (intern) year and at three, six, nine, and 12 months of internship. Questions addressed work hours, sleep, medical errors, depressive symptoms, and subjective well-being.

No significant differences in baseline findings were found between the pre-implementation cohort (interns entering in 2009 and 2010) and the post-implementation cohort (interns starting in 2011, following the new duty-hour requirements). Interns in the post-implementation cohort worked fewer hours than those in the pre-implementation cohort (mean hours per week 64.3 vs. 67.0, P<0.001). There were no significant changes in reported hours of sleep, depressive symptom score, or well-being score between the pre- and post-implementation cohorts. The percentage of respondents who reported committing a serious medical error increased in the post-implementation group (23.3% vs. 19.9%, P=0.007).

Limitations include the self-reported nature of the responses and the modest participation rate. The authors concluded that although the 2011 reforms decreased the total number of hours worked, additional strategies could be needed to achieve the desired effects on intern well-being and patient safety.

Bottom line: Following implementation of the 2011 ACGME duty-hour reforms, interns from diverse specialties and institutions experienced reductions in self-reported work hours, without any associated improvements in sleep, depressive symptoms, or well-being and with an increase in reported medical errors.

Citation: Sen S, Kranzler HR, Didwania AK, et al. Effects of the 2011 duty hour reforms on interns and their patients: a prospective longitudinal cohort study. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(8):657-662.

Clinical question: What are the effects of the 2011 resident duty-hour requirements on first-year residents’ well-being and patient safety?

Background: In an effort to reduce adverse consequences associated with extended shift length and sleep deprivation, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) released a new set of duty-hour requirements effective July 2011. To date, little is known about the effects of the 2011 reforms on resident and patient outcomes.

Study design: Prospective, longitudinal cohort with pre-post analysis.

Setting: Residency programs from university- and community-based medical centers.

Synopsis: Fifty-one residency programs from 10 university-based and four community-based GME institutions were included. Incoming interns during the 2009, 2010, and 2011 academic years were invited to participate, and 58% (n=2,323) agreed to take part. Participants completed online surveys two months before starting their first residency (intern) year and at three, six, nine, and 12 months of internship. Questions addressed work hours, sleep, medical errors, depressive symptoms, and subjective well-being.

No significant differences in baseline findings were found between the pre-implementation cohort (interns entering in 2009 and 2010) and the post-implementation cohort (interns starting in 2011, following the new duty-hour requirements). Interns in the post-implementation cohort worked fewer hours than those in the pre-implementation cohort (mean hours per week 64.3 vs. 67.0, P<0.001). There were no significant changes in reported hours of sleep, depressive symptom score, or well-being score between the pre- and post-implementation cohorts. The percentage of respondents who reported committing a serious medical error increased in the post-implementation group (23.3% vs. 19.9%, P=0.007).

Limitations include the self-reported nature of the responses and the modest participation rate. The authors concluded that although the 2011 reforms decreased the total number of hours worked, additional strategies could be needed to achieve the desired effects on intern well-being and patient safety.

Bottom line: Following implementation of the 2011 ACGME duty-hour reforms, interns from diverse specialties and institutions experienced reductions in self-reported work hours, without any associated improvements in sleep, depressive symptoms, or well-being and with an increase in reported medical errors.

Citation: Sen S, Kranzler HR, Didwania AK, et al. Effects of the 2011 duty hour reforms on interns and their patients: a prospective longitudinal cohort study. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(8):657-662.

Clinical question: How often do inpatient providers report direct communication with outpatient providers, and how is direct communication associated with 30-day readmissions?

Background: Studies have demonstrated that adverse events and errors occurring after hospital discharge can result from poor provider communication between the inpatient and outpatient setting.

Study design: Prospective cohort.

Setting: Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore.

Synopsis: The presence or absence of direct communication between inpatient and outpatient healthcare providers was captured from a required field in an electronic discharge worksheet completed by the discharging physician. Of 6,635 hospitalizations studied, successful direct communication was reported in 36.7% of cases. Predictors of successful direct communication included patients cared for by hospitalists without house staff (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.59-2.08), high expected 30-day readmission rate (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.10-1.28), and insurance by Medicare (OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.16-1.56) and private insurance companies (OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.18-1.56). In adjusted analyses, direct communication between the inpatient and outpatient providers was not associated with 30-day readmissions (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.92-1.26).

There were several limitations in this study. Only the primary team was surveyed; thus, it is not known if consulting providers might have contacted the outpatient providers. Only readmissions to the same medical center were studied, and therefore it is not known if patients were readmitted to other facilities. Additionally, information regarding discharge communication was self-reported, which might have introduced bias.

Bottom line: Self-reported direct communication between inpatient and outpatient providers occurred infrequently and was not associated with 30-day same-hospital readmission.

Citation: Oduyebo I, Lehmann C, Pollack C, et al. Association of self-reported hospital discharge handoffs with 30-day readmissions. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173:624-629.

Clinical question: How often do inpatient providers report direct communication with outpatient providers, and how is direct communication associated with 30-day readmissions?

Background: Studies have demonstrated that adverse events and errors occurring after hospital discharge can result from poor provider communication between the inpatient and outpatient setting.

Study design: Prospective cohort.

Setting: Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore.

Synopsis: The presence or absence of direct communication between inpatient and outpatient healthcare providers was captured from a required field in an electronic discharge worksheet completed by the discharging physician. Of 6,635 hospitalizations studied, successful direct communication was reported in 36.7% of cases. Predictors of successful direct communication included patients cared for by hospitalists without house staff (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.59-2.08), high expected 30-day readmission rate (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.10-1.28), and insurance by Medicare (OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.16-1.56) and private insurance companies (OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.18-1.56). In adjusted analyses, direct communication between the inpatient and outpatient providers was not associated with 30-day readmissions (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.92-1.26).

There were several limitations in this study. Only the primary team was surveyed; thus, it is not known if consulting providers might have contacted the outpatient providers. Only readmissions to the same medical center were studied, and therefore it is not known if patients were readmitted to other facilities. Additionally, information regarding discharge communication was self-reported, which might have introduced bias.

Bottom line: Self-reported direct communication between inpatient and outpatient providers occurred infrequently and was not associated with 30-day same-hospital readmission.

Citation: Oduyebo I, Lehmann C, Pollack C, et al. Association of self-reported hospital discharge handoffs with 30-day readmissions. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173:624-629.

Clinical question: How often do inpatient providers report direct communication with outpatient providers, and how is direct communication associated with 30-day readmissions?

Background: Studies have demonstrated that adverse events and errors occurring after hospital discharge can result from poor provider communication between the inpatient and outpatient setting.

Study design: Prospective cohort.

Setting: Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore.

Synopsis: The presence or absence of direct communication between inpatient and outpatient healthcare providers was captured from a required field in an electronic discharge worksheet completed by the discharging physician. Of 6,635 hospitalizations studied, successful direct communication was reported in 36.7% of cases. Predictors of successful direct communication included patients cared for by hospitalists without house staff (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.59-2.08), high expected 30-day readmission rate (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.10-1.28), and insurance by Medicare (OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.16-1.56) and private insurance companies (OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.18-1.56). In adjusted analyses, direct communication between the inpatient and outpatient providers was not associated with 30-day readmissions (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.92-1.26).

There were several limitations in this study. Only the primary team was surveyed; thus, it is not known if consulting providers might have contacted the outpatient providers. Only readmissions to the same medical center were studied, and therefore it is not known if patients were readmitted to other facilities. Additionally, information regarding discharge communication was self-reported, which might have introduced bias.

Bottom line: Self-reported direct communication between inpatient and outpatient providers occurred infrequently and was not associated with 30-day same-hospital readmission.

Citation: Oduyebo I, Lehmann C, Pollack C, et al. Association of self-reported hospital discharge handoffs with 30-day readmissions. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173:624-629.

Clinical question: Can a prediction model based on administrative and clinical data identify potentially avoidable 30-day readmissions in medical patients prior to discharge?

Background: An estimated 18% of Medicare beneficiaries are readmitted to the hospital within 30 days of discharge, costing nearly $17 billion per year. Interventions to reduce readmission rates are costly and should be focused on high-risk patients. To date, using models to predict 30-day readmission has been problematic and unreliable.

Study design: Retrospective cohort.

Setting: Academic medical center in Boston.

Synopsis: Using consecutive discharges from all medical services of Brigham and Women’s Hospital occurring over one year, this study derived and internally validated a prediction model for potentially avoidable 30-day readmissions. Of 10,731 discharges, there were 2,399 (22%) 30-day readmissions, and 879 (8.5%) were deemed potentially avoidable. Seven independent predictors for readmission were identified and used to create a predictor score referred to as the HOSPITAL score. Predictors included hemoglobin and sodium levels at discharge, number of hospitalizations in the past year, and four features of the index hospitalization, including type, discharge from an oncology service, presence of procedures, and length of stay. The score was internally validated and found to predict potentially avoidable 30-day readmission in medical patients with fair discriminatory power and good calibration.

This study is unique in that none of the classic comorbidities (e.g. congestive heart failure) were associated with a higher risk of 30-day readmission. Previously unrecognized predictors, including hemoglobin, sodium, and number of procedures performed, were incorporated. This suggests that comorbidities are not as important as illness severity or clinical instability. Hospitalists should await studies that externally validate the HOSPITAL score before incorporating it into practice.

Bottom line: A unique and simple seven-item prediction model identifies potentially avoidable 30-day readmissions but needs to be externally validated before being widely utilized.

Citation: Donze J, Drahomir A, Williams D, Schnipper JL. Potentially avoidable 30-day hospital readmissions in medical patients. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;137(8):632-638.

Clinical question: Can a prediction model based on administrative and clinical data identify potentially avoidable 30-day readmissions in medical patients prior to discharge?

Background: An estimated 18% of Medicare beneficiaries are readmitted to the hospital within 30 days of discharge, costing nearly $17 billion per year. Interventions to reduce readmission rates are costly and should be focused on high-risk patients. To date, using models to predict 30-day readmission has been problematic and unreliable.

Study design: Retrospective cohort.

Setting: Academic medical center in Boston.

Synopsis: Using consecutive discharges from all medical services of Brigham and Women’s Hospital occurring over one year, this study derived and internally validated a prediction model for potentially avoidable 30-day readmissions. Of 10,731 discharges, there were 2,399 (22%) 30-day readmissions, and 879 (8.5%) were deemed potentially avoidable. Seven independent predictors for readmission were identified and used to create a predictor score referred to as the HOSPITAL score. Predictors included hemoglobin and sodium levels at discharge, number of hospitalizations in the past year, and four features of the index hospitalization, including type, discharge from an oncology service, presence of procedures, and length of stay. The score was internally validated and found to predict potentially avoidable 30-day readmission in medical patients with fair discriminatory power and good calibration.

This study is unique in that none of the classic comorbidities (e.g. congestive heart failure) were associated with a higher risk of 30-day readmission. Previously unrecognized predictors, including hemoglobin, sodium, and number of procedures performed, were incorporated. This suggests that comorbidities are not as important as illness severity or clinical instability. Hospitalists should await studies that externally validate the HOSPITAL score before incorporating it into practice.

Bottom line: A unique and simple seven-item prediction model identifies potentially avoidable 30-day readmissions but needs to be externally validated before being widely utilized.

Citation: Donze J, Drahomir A, Williams D, Schnipper JL. Potentially avoidable 30-day hospital readmissions in medical patients. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;137(8):632-638.

Clinical question: Can a prediction model based on administrative and clinical data identify potentially avoidable 30-day readmissions in medical patients prior to discharge?

Background: An estimated 18% of Medicare beneficiaries are readmitted to the hospital within 30 days of discharge, costing nearly $17 billion per year. Interventions to reduce readmission rates are costly and should be focused on high-risk patients. To date, using models to predict 30-day readmission has been problematic and unreliable.

Study design: Retrospective cohort.

Setting: Academic medical center in Boston.

Synopsis: Using consecutive discharges from all medical services of Brigham and Women’s Hospital occurring over one year, this study derived and internally validated a prediction model for potentially avoidable 30-day readmissions. Of 10,731 discharges, there were 2,399 (22%) 30-day readmissions, and 879 (8.5%) were deemed potentially avoidable. Seven independent predictors for readmission were identified and used to create a predictor score referred to as the HOSPITAL score. Predictors included hemoglobin and sodium levels at discharge, number of hospitalizations in the past year, and four features of the index hospitalization, including type, discharge from an oncology service, presence of procedures, and length of stay. The score was internally validated and found to predict potentially avoidable 30-day readmission in medical patients with fair discriminatory power and good calibration.

This study is unique in that none of the classic comorbidities (e.g. congestive heart failure) were associated with a higher risk of 30-day readmission. Previously unrecognized predictors, including hemoglobin, sodium, and number of procedures performed, were incorporated. This suggests that comorbidities are not as important as illness severity or clinical instability. Hospitalists should await studies that externally validate the HOSPITAL score before incorporating it into practice.

Bottom line: A unique and simple seven-item prediction model identifies potentially avoidable 30-day readmissions but needs to be externally validated before being widely utilized.

Citation: Donze J, Drahomir A, Williams D, Schnipper JL. Potentially avoidable 30-day hospital readmissions in medical patients. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;137(8):632-638.

Clinical question: How does timing of surgical antibiotic prophylaxis affect risk of postoperative surgical-site infections (SSIs)?

Background: Antibiotic prophylaxis for major surgical procedures has been proven in clinical trials to reduce rates of SSI. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS) Surgical Care Improvement Project (SCIP) has implemented quality metrics to ensure antibiotics are administered within 60 minutes of incision; however, studies have failed to show that a 60-minute pre-incision window is advantageous.

Study design: Retrospective cohort.

Setting: Veterans Affairs hospitals.

Synopsis: Using SCIP and VA Surgical Quality Improvement Program data from 112 VA hospitals, 32,459 cases of hip or knee arthroplasty, colorectal surgery, arterial vascular surgery, and hysterectomy from 2005-2009 were reviewed. A postoperative SSI occurred in 1,497 cases (4.6%). Using several statistical methods, the relationship between timing of prophylactic antibiotic administration and postoperative SSI within 30 days was evaluated. In unadjusted models, higher SSI rates were observed with antibiotic administration more than 60 minutes prior to incision (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.08-1.66) but not after incision (OR 1.26, 95% CI 0.92-1.72), compared with procedures with antibiotics administered within 60 minutes pre-incision. However, after adjustment for patient, procedure, and antibiotic variables, no significant relationship between timing and SSI was observed (P=0.50 for all specialties).

The study sample was comprised primarily of older men and did not include patients who underwent cardiac procedures, limiting the generalizability of the findings. Nonetheless, the study is the largest of its kind and confirms previous studies that suggest there is no significant relationship between timing of antibiotics and SSI. Prophylactic antibiotics should still be used when indicated; however, using timing of prophylactic antibiotics as a quality measure is unlikely to improve outcomes.

Bottom line: Adherence to the empiric 60-minute window metric for timing of prophylactic antibiotics is not significantly associated with risk of SSI.

Citation: Hawn MT, Richman JS, Vick CC, et al. Timing of surgical antibiotic prophylaxis and the risk of surgical site infection. JAMA Surg. 2013 March 20:1-8. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2013.134 [Epub ahead of print].

Clinical question: How does timing of surgical antibiotic prophylaxis affect risk of postoperative surgical-site infections (SSIs)?

Background: Antibiotic prophylaxis for major surgical procedures has been proven in clinical trials to reduce rates of SSI. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS) Surgical Care Improvement Project (SCIP) has implemented quality metrics to ensure antibiotics are administered within 60 minutes of incision; however, studies have failed to show that a 60-minute pre-incision window is advantageous.

Study design: Retrospective cohort.

Setting: Veterans Affairs hospitals.

Synopsis: Using SCIP and VA Surgical Quality Improvement Program data from 112 VA hospitals, 32,459 cases of hip or knee arthroplasty, colorectal surgery, arterial vascular surgery, and hysterectomy from 2005-2009 were reviewed. A postoperative SSI occurred in 1,497 cases (4.6%). Using several statistical methods, the relationship between timing of prophylactic antibiotic administration and postoperative SSI within 30 days was evaluated. In unadjusted models, higher SSI rates were observed with antibiotic administration more than 60 minutes prior to incision (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.08-1.66) but not after incision (OR 1.26, 95% CI 0.92-1.72), compared with procedures with antibiotics administered within 60 minutes pre-incision. However, after adjustment for patient, procedure, and antibiotic variables, no significant relationship between timing and SSI was observed (P=0.50 for all specialties).

The study sample was comprised primarily of older men and did not include patients who underwent cardiac procedures, limiting the generalizability of the findings. Nonetheless, the study is the largest of its kind and confirms previous studies that suggest there is no significant relationship between timing of antibiotics and SSI. Prophylactic antibiotics should still be used when indicated; however, using timing of prophylactic antibiotics as a quality measure is unlikely to improve outcomes.

Bottom line: Adherence to the empiric 60-minute window metric for timing of prophylactic antibiotics is not significantly associated with risk of SSI.

Citation: Hawn MT, Richman JS, Vick CC, et al. Timing of surgical antibiotic prophylaxis and the risk of surgical site infection. JAMA Surg. 2013 March 20:1-8. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2013.134 [Epub ahead of print].

Clinical question: How does timing of surgical antibiotic prophylaxis affect risk of postoperative surgical-site infections (SSIs)?

Background: Antibiotic prophylaxis for major surgical procedures has been proven in clinical trials to reduce rates of SSI. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS) Surgical Care Improvement Project (SCIP) has implemented quality metrics to ensure antibiotics are administered within 60 minutes of incision; however, studies have failed to show that a 60-minute pre-incision window is advantageous.

Study design: Retrospective cohort.

Setting: Veterans Affairs hospitals.

Synopsis: Using SCIP and VA Surgical Quality Improvement Program data from 112 VA hospitals, 32,459 cases of hip or knee arthroplasty, colorectal surgery, arterial vascular surgery, and hysterectomy from 2005-2009 were reviewed. A postoperative SSI occurred in 1,497 cases (4.6%). Using several statistical methods, the relationship between timing of prophylactic antibiotic administration and postoperative SSI within 30 days was evaluated. In unadjusted models, higher SSI rates were observed with antibiotic administration more than 60 minutes prior to incision (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.08-1.66) but not after incision (OR 1.26, 95% CI 0.92-1.72), compared with procedures with antibiotics administered within 60 minutes pre-incision. However, after adjustment for patient, procedure, and antibiotic variables, no significant relationship between timing and SSI was observed (P=0.50 for all specialties).

The study sample was comprised primarily of older men and did not include patients who underwent cardiac procedures, limiting the generalizability of the findings. Nonetheless, the study is the largest of its kind and confirms previous studies that suggest there is no significant relationship between timing of antibiotics and SSI. Prophylactic antibiotics should still be used when indicated; however, using timing of prophylactic antibiotics as a quality measure is unlikely to improve outcomes.

Bottom line: Adherence to the empiric 60-minute window metric for timing of prophylactic antibiotics is not significantly associated with risk of SSI.

Citation: Hawn MT, Richman JS, Vick CC, et al. Timing of surgical antibiotic prophylaxis and the risk of surgical site infection. JAMA Surg. 2013 March 20:1-8. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2013.134 [Epub ahead of print].

Click here to listen to excerpts of Dr. Parkhurst's interview with The Hospitalist

Click here to listen to excerpts of Dr. Parkhurst's interview with The Hospitalist

Click here to listen to excerpts of Dr. Parkhurst's interview with The Hospitalist

Many health-care-reform initiatives are so new that few data are available to assess whether they are working as intended. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), however, has touted the early numbers from its Hospital Readmission Reduction Program to suggest that the policy is making a difference in curbing bounce-backs. The overall impact, however, might be decidedly more nuanced and provides a telling example of the challenges that such programs can present to hospitalists and other health-care providers.

At a Senate Finance Committee Hearing in February, Jonathan Blum, deputy administrator and director for the Center of Medicare at CMS, released data suggesting that 30-day readmission rates for all causes dropped to 17.8% of hospitalizations near the end of 2012 after remaining at roughly 19% in each of the five previous years. The difference translates into 70,000 fewer readmissions annually.

During the first round of penalties, CMS dinged 2,213 hospitals for an estimated $280 million, or an average of about $126,500 per hospital, for excessive readmissions linked to heart attack, heart failure, and pneumonia care. Blum made the case that the penalties—or the threat thereof—are helping to improve rates.

Those arguing that the policy could disproportionately impact institutions caring for more vulnerable, high-risk patients also found new support in a recent New England Journal of Medicine perspective suggesting that academic medical centers and safety-net hospitals were more likely to be penalized.¹ Among their suggestions, the perspective’s co-authors, from Harvard’s School of Public Health, suggested that the policy take patient socioeconomic status into account to provide a fairer basis of comparison.

A second recent study suggested that even the reduced readmission rates might not be telling the whole story. An analysis of patients released in 2010 from safety-net hospital Boston Medical Center showed that nearly 1 in 4 returned to the ED within a month of discharge.2 But more than half of those patients weren’t readmitted as inpatients, meaning that they wouldn’t show up under Medicare’s readmissions statistics.

Along with the mixed early reviews of EHR rollouts and the HCAHPS portion of the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing program, it’s another reminder that CMS metrics and incentives might not always add up as envisioned. In the near future, it seems, hospitals and health-care providers might have to contend with some imperfect numbers. TH

Bryn Nelson is a freelance medical writer in Seattle.

References

1. Joynt KE, Jha AK. Thirty-day readmissions–truth and consequences. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:1366-1369.

2. Rising KL, White LF, Fernandez WG, Boutwell, AE. Emergency department visits after hospital discharge: a missing part of the equation. Ann Emerg Med. 2013; in press.

Many health-care-reform initiatives are so new that few data are available to assess whether they are working as intended. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), however, has touted the early numbers from its Hospital Readmission Reduction Program to suggest that the policy is making a difference in curbing bounce-backs. The overall impact, however, might be decidedly more nuanced and provides a telling example of the challenges that such programs can present to hospitalists and other health-care providers.

At a Senate Finance Committee Hearing in February, Jonathan Blum, deputy administrator and director for the Center of Medicare at CMS, released data suggesting that 30-day readmission rates for all causes dropped to 17.8% of hospitalizations near the end of 2012 after remaining at roughly 19% in each of the five previous years. The difference translates into 70,000 fewer readmissions annually.

During the first round of penalties, CMS dinged 2,213 hospitals for an estimated $280 million, or an average of about $126,500 per hospital, for excessive readmissions linked to heart attack, heart failure, and pneumonia care. Blum made the case that the penalties—or the threat thereof—are helping to improve rates.

Those arguing that the policy could disproportionately impact institutions caring for more vulnerable, high-risk patients also found new support in a recent New England Journal of Medicine perspective suggesting that academic medical centers and safety-net hospitals were more likely to be penalized.¹ Among their suggestions, the perspective’s co-authors, from Harvard’s School of Public Health, suggested that the policy take patient socioeconomic status into account to provide a fairer basis of comparison.

A second recent study suggested that even the reduced readmission rates might not be telling the whole story. An analysis of patients released in 2010 from safety-net hospital Boston Medical Center showed that nearly 1 in 4 returned to the ED within a month of discharge.2 But more than half of those patients weren’t readmitted as inpatients, meaning that they wouldn’t show up under Medicare’s readmissions statistics.

Along with the mixed early reviews of EHR rollouts and the HCAHPS portion of the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing program, it’s another reminder that CMS metrics and incentives might not always add up as envisioned. In the near future, it seems, hospitals and health-care providers might have to contend with some imperfect numbers. TH

Bryn Nelson is a freelance medical writer in Seattle.

References

1. Joynt KE, Jha AK. Thirty-day readmissions–truth and consequences. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:1366-1369.

2. Rising KL, White LF, Fernandez WG, Boutwell, AE. Emergency department visits after hospital discharge: a missing part of the equation. Ann Emerg Med. 2013; in press.

Many health-care-reform initiatives are so new that few data are available to assess whether they are working as intended. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), however, has touted the early numbers from its Hospital Readmission Reduction Program to suggest that the policy is making a difference in curbing bounce-backs. The overall impact, however, might be decidedly more nuanced and provides a telling example of the challenges that such programs can present to hospitalists and other health-care providers.

At a Senate Finance Committee Hearing in February, Jonathan Blum, deputy administrator and director for the Center of Medicare at CMS, released data suggesting that 30-day readmission rates for all causes dropped to 17.8% of hospitalizations near the end of 2012 after remaining at roughly 19% in each of the five previous years. The difference translates into 70,000 fewer readmissions annually.

During the first round of penalties, CMS dinged 2,213 hospitals for an estimated $280 million, or an average of about $126,500 per hospital, for excessive readmissions linked to heart attack, heart failure, and pneumonia care. Blum made the case that the penalties—or the threat thereof—are helping to improve rates.

Those arguing that the policy could disproportionately impact institutions caring for more vulnerable, high-risk patients also found new support in a recent New England Journal of Medicine perspective suggesting that academic medical centers and safety-net hospitals were more likely to be penalized.¹ Among their suggestions, the perspective’s co-authors, from Harvard’s School of Public Health, suggested that the policy take patient socioeconomic status into account to provide a fairer basis of comparison.

A second recent study suggested that even the reduced readmission rates might not be telling the whole story. An analysis of patients released in 2010 from safety-net hospital Boston Medical Center showed that nearly 1 in 4 returned to the ED within a month of discharge.2 But more than half of those patients weren’t readmitted as inpatients, meaning that they wouldn’t show up under Medicare’s readmissions statistics.

Along with the mixed early reviews of EHR rollouts and the HCAHPS portion of the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing program, it’s another reminder that CMS metrics and incentives might not always add up as envisioned. In the near future, it seems, hospitals and health-care providers might have to contend with some imperfect numbers. TH

Bryn Nelson is a freelance medical writer in Seattle.

References

1. Joynt KE, Jha AK. Thirty-day readmissions–truth and consequences. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:1366-1369.

2. Rising KL, White LF, Fernandez WG, Boutwell, AE. Emergency department visits after hospital discharge: a missing part of the equation. Ann Emerg Med. 2013; in press.

Dr. Tierza

VBP. ACO. HAC. EHR. Suddenly, Medicare-derived acronyms are everywhere, and many of them are attached to a growing set of programs aimed at boosting efficiency and quality. Some are optional; others are mandatory. Some have carrots as incentives; others have sticks. Some seem well-designed; others seemingly work at cross-purposes.

Love or hate these initiatives, the combined time, money, and resources needed to address all of them could put hospitals and hospitalists under considerable duress.

“It can either prove or dismantle the whole hospitalist movement,” says Brian Hazen, MD, medical director of the hospitalist division at Inova Fairfax Hospital in Falls Church, Va. “Hospitals expect us to be agile and adapt to the pressures to keep them alive. If we cannot adapt and provide that, then why give us a job?”

Whether or not the focus is on lowering readmission rates, decreasing the incidence of hospital-acquired conditions, or improving efficiencies, Dr. Hazen tends to lump most of the sticks and carrots together. “I throw them all into one basket because for the most part, they’re all reflective of good care,” he says.

The basket is growing, however, and the bundle of sticks could deliver a financial beating to the unwary.

It’s possible that some low-margin hospitals that are facing big penalties could actually have their solvency threatened. If hospitals that are a vital part of the community are threatened with insolvency because of these programs, we may need to take a second look at how we structure the penalties.

—Win Whitcomb, MD, MHM, medical director of healthcare quality, Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, Mass.; SHM Performance and Measurement Reporting Committee member; co-founder and past president of SHM; author of The Hospitalist’s “On the Horizon” column

At What Cost?

For the lowest-performing hospitals, the top readmission penalties will grow to 2% of Medicare reimbursements in fiscal year 2014 and 3% in 2015. Meanwhile, CMS’ Hospital-Acquired Conditions (HAC) program will begin assessing a 1% penalty on the worst performing hospitals in 2015, and the amount withheld under the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) program will reach 2% in 2017 (top-performing hospitals can recoup the withhold and more, depending on performance). By that year, the three programs alone could result in a 6% loss of reimbursements.

Win Whitcomb, MD, MHM, medical director of healthcare quality at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass., and a member of SHM’s Performance and Measurement Reporting Committee, estimates that by 2017, the total at-risk payments could reach about $10 million for a 650-bed academic medical center. The tally for a 90-bed community hospital, he estimates, might run a bit less than $1 million. Although the combined penalty is probably enough to get the attention of most hospitals, very few institutions are likely to be dinged for the entire amount.

Nevertheless, the cumulative loss of reimbursements could be a tipping point for hospitals already in dire straits. “It’s possible that some low-margin hospitals that are facing big penalties could actually have their solvency threatened,” Dr. Whitcomb says. “If hospitals that are a vital part of the community are threatened with insolvency because of these programs, we may need to take a second look at how we structure the penalties.”

The necessary investment in infrastructure, he says, could prove to be a far bigger concern—at least initially.

“What is more expensive is just putting out the effort to do the work to improve and perform well under these programs,” says Dr. Whitcomb, co-founder and past president of SHM and author of The Hospitalist’s “On the Horizon” column. “That’s a big unreported hidden expense of all of these programs.”

With the fairly rapid implementation of multiple measures mandated by the Accountable Care Act, Medicare may be disinclined to dramatically ramp up the programs in play until it has a better sense of what’s working well. Then again, analysts like Laurence Baker, PhD, professor of health research and policy at Stanford University, say it’s doubtful that the agency will scale back its efforts given the widely held perception that plenty of waste can yet be wrung from the system.

“If I was a hospitalist, I would expect more of this coming,” Dr. Baker says.

Of course, rolling out new incentive programs is always a difficult balancing act in which the creators must be careful not to focus too much attention on the wrong measure or create unintended disincentives.

“That’s one of the great challenges: making a program that’s going to be successful when we know that people will do what’s measured and maybe even, without thinking about it, do less of what’s not measured. So we have to be careful about that,” Dr. Baker says.

We’re getting a lot of traction to get physicians to work together to improve care, where before there wasn’t an incentive to do this. So we see this as a good thing, and I think it has potential to reduce expenses in high-cost areas.

—Monty Duke, MD, chief physician executive, Lancaster General Hospital, Lancaster, Pa.

Out of Alignment

Beyond cost and infrastructure, the proliferation of new measures also presents challenges for alignment. Monty Duke, MD, chief physician executive at Lancaster General Hospital in Lancaster, Pa., says the targets are changing so rapidly that tension can arise between hospitals and hospitalists in aligning expectations about priorities and considering how much time, resources, and staffing will be required to address them.

Likewise, the impetus to install new infrastructure can sometimes have unintended consequences, as Dr. Duke has seen firsthand with his hospital’s recent implementation of electronic health records (EHRs).

“In many ways, the electronic health record has changed the dynamic of rounding between physicians and nurses, and it’s really challenging communication,” he says. How so? “Because people spend more time communicating with the computer than they do talking to one another,” he says. The discordant communication, in turn, can conspire against a clear plan of care and overall goals as well as challenge efforts that emphasize a team-based approach.

Despite federal meaningful-use incentives, a recent survey also suggested that a majority of healthcare practices still may not achieve a positive return on investment for EHRs unless they can figure out how to use the systems to increase revenue.¹ A minority of providers have succeeded by seeing more patients every day or by improving their billing process so the codes are more accurate and fewer claims are rejected.

Similarly, hospitalists like Dr. Hazen contend that some patient-satisfaction measures in the HCAHPS section of the VBP program can work against good clinical care. “That one drives me crazy because we’re not waiters or waitresses in a five-star restaurant,” he says. “Health care is complicated; it’s not like sending back a bowl of cold soup the way you can in a restaurant.”

Increasing satisfaction by keeping patients in the hospital longer than warranted or leaving in a Foley catheter for patient convenience, for example, can negatively impact actual outcomes.

“Physicians and nurses get put in this catch-22 where we have to choose between patient satisfaction and by-the-book clinical care,” Dr. Hazen says. “And our job is to try to mitigate that, but you’re kind of damned if you do and damned if you don’t.”

A new study, on the other hand, suggests that HCAHPS scores reflecting lower staff responsiveness are associated with an increased risk of HACs like central line–associated bloodstream infections and that lower scores may be a symptom of hospitals “with a multitude of problems.”²

A 10-Step Program

As existing rules and metrics are revised, new ones added, and others merged or discontinued, hospitalists are likely to encounter more hiccups and headaches. So what’s the solution? Beyond establishing good personal habits like hand-washing when entering and leaving a patient’s room, hospitalist leaders and healthcare analysts point to 10 strategies that may help keep HM providers from getting squeezed by all the demands:

1) Keep everyone on the same page. Because hospitals and health systems often take a subset of CMS core measures and make them strategic priorities, Dr. Whitcomb says hospitalists must thoroughly understand their own institutions’ internal system-level quality and safety goals. He stresses the need for hospitalists to develop and maintain close working connections with their organization’s safety- and quality-improvement (QI) teams “to understand exactly what the rules of the road are.”

Dr. Whitcomb says hospitals should compensate hospitalists for time spent working with these teams on feasible solutions. Hospitalist representatives can then champion specific safety or quality issues and keep them foremost in the minds of their colleagues. “I’m a big believer in paying people to do that work,” he says.

2) Take a wider view. It’s clear that most providers wouldn’t have chosen some of the performance indicators that Medicare and other third-party payors are asking them to meet, and many physicians have been more focused on outcomes than on clinical measures. Like it or not, however, thriving in the new era of health care means accepting more benchmarks. “We’ve had to broaden our scope to say, ‘OK, these other things matter, too,’” Dr. Duke says.

3) Use visual cues. Hospitalists can’t rely on memory to keep track of the dozens of measures for which they are being held accountable. “Every hospitalist program should have a dashboard of priority measures that they’re paying attention to and that’s out in front of them on a regular basis,” Dr. Whitcomb says. “It could be presented to them at monthly meetings, or it could be in a prominent place in their office, but there needs to be a set of cues.”

4) Use bonuses for alignment. Dr. Hazen says hospitals also may find success in using bonuses as a positive reinforcement for well-aligned care. Inova Fairfax’s bonuses include a clinical component that aligns with many of CMS’s core measures, and the financial incentives ensure that discharge summaries are completed and distributed in a timely manner.

5) Emphasize a team approach. Espousing a multidisciplinary approach to care can give patients the confidence that all providers are on the same page, thereby aiding patient-satisfaction scores and easing throughput. And as Dr. Hazen points out, avoiding a silo mentality can pay dividends for improving patient safety.

Dr. Tierza

6) Offer the right information. Tierza Stephan, MD, regional hospitalist medical director for Allina Health in Minneapolis and the incoming chair of SHM’s Practice Analysis Committee, says Allina has worked hard to ensure that hospitalists complete their discharge summaries within 24 hours of a patient’s release from the hospital. Beyond timeliness, the health system is emphasizing content that informs without overwhelming the patient, caregiver, or follow-up provider with unnecessary details.

The discharge summary, for example, includes a section called “Recommendations for the Outpatient Provider,” which provides a checklist of sorts so those providers don’t miss the forest for the trees. The same is true for patients. “The hospital is probably not the best place to be educating patients, so we really focus more on patient instruction at discharge and then timely follow-up,” Dr. Stephan says.

In addition to allowing better care coordination between inpatient and outpatient providers, she says, “it cuts across patient experience and readmissions, and it helps patients to be engaged because they have very clear, easy-to-read information.” Paying attention to such details may have outsized impacts: In a recent study, researchers found that patients who are actively engaged in their own health care are significantly less costly to treat, on average.³

7) Follow through after discharge. Inova Fairfax is setting up an outpatient follow-up clinic as a safety net for patients at the highest risk of being readmitted. Many of these target patients are uninsured or underinsured and battling complex medical problems like heart failure or pneumonia. Establishing a physical location for follow-ups and direct communication with primary-care providers, the hospital hopes, might reduce noncompliance among these outpatients and thereby curtail subsequent readmissions.

8) Optimize EHR. When optimized, experts say, electronic medical records can help hospitals ensure that their providers are following core measures and preventing hospital-acquired conditions while leaving channels of communication open and keeping revenue streams flowing.

“Luckily, we just switched to electronic medical records so we can monitor who has a Foley catheter in, who does or doesn’t have DVT prophylaxis, because even really good docs sometimes make these knucklehead mistakes every once in a while,” Dr. Hazen says. “So we try to use systems to back ourselves up. But for the most part, there’s just no substitute for having good docs do the right thing and documenting that.”

9) Bundle up. Although bundled payments represent yet another CMS initiative, Dr. Duke says the model has the potential to reduce waste, standardize care, and monitor outcomes. Lancaster General has been working on the approach for the past few years, with an initial focus on cardiovascular medicine, orthopedics, and neurosurgery. “We’re getting a lot of traction to get physicians to work together to improve care, where before there wasn’t an incentive to do this,” Dr. Duke says. “So we see this as a good thing, and I think it has potential to reduce expenses in high-cost areas.”

10) Connect the dots. Joane Goodroe, an independent healthcare consultant based in Atlanta, says CMS expects providers to connect the dots and combine their efforts in the separate incentive programs to maximize their resources. By providing consistent care coordination and setting patients on the right track, then, she says hospitalists might help boost savings across the board—a benefit that wouldn’t necessarily be apparent based solely on improved quality metrics in specific programs.

Even here, though, the current fee-for-service model can create awkward side effects. For example, Goodroe recommends following the path that many care groups delving into accountable care and bundled payment systems are already taking: connecting those models to efforts aimed at reducing hospital readmissions. Without the proper financial incentives, however, those efforts may be constrained due to a significant increase in expended resources and a potential decrease in overall revenues.

Some of the kinks may work themselves out of the system over time, but experts say the era of multiple metrics—and additional pressure—is just beginning. Combined, they will require providers to be much better at working as a system and coordinating care across multiple environments beyond the hospital, Dr. Stephan says.

One main question boils down to this, she says: “How do we get more efficient as a system and eliminate waste? I think the hospitalists really play a vital role, and it’s mainly through communication and transfer of information. Hospitalists have to be really well-connected with the different physicians and venues that send the patients into the hospital so that we’re not duplicating services and so that we can get right to the crux of the problem.”

Doing so, regardless of which CMS program is on tap, may be the very best way to avoid getting squeezed.

Bryn Nelson is a freelance medical writer in Seattle.

References

1. Adler-Milstein J, Green CE, Bates DW. A survey analysis suggests that electronic health records will yield revenue gains for some practices and losses for many. Health Affairs. 2013;32(3):562-570.
2. Saman DM, Kavanagh KT, Johnson B, Lutfiyya MN. Can inpatient hospital experiences predict central line-associated bloodstream infections? PLoS ONE. 2013;8(4):e61097.
3. Hibbard JH, Greene J, Overton V. Patients with lower activation associated with higher costs; delivery systems should know their patients’ ‘scores.’ Health Affairs. 2013; 32(2):216-222.

Dr. Tierza

VBP. ACO. HAC. EHR. Suddenly, Medicare-derived acronyms are everywhere, and many of them are attached to a growing set of programs aimed at boosting efficiency and quality. Some are optional; others are mandatory. Some have carrots as incentives; others have sticks. Some seem well-designed; others seemingly work at cross-purposes.

Love or hate these initiatives, the combined time, money, and resources needed to address all of them could put hospitals and hospitalists under considerable duress.

“It can either prove or dismantle the whole hospitalist movement,” says Brian Hazen, MD, medical director of the hospitalist division at Inova Fairfax Hospital in Falls Church, Va. “Hospitals expect us to be agile and adapt to the pressures to keep them alive. If we cannot adapt and provide that, then why give us a job?”

Whether or not the focus is on lowering readmission rates, decreasing the incidence of hospital-acquired conditions, or improving efficiencies, Dr. Hazen tends to lump most of the sticks and carrots together. “I throw them all into one basket because for the most part, they’re all reflective of good care,” he says.

The basket is growing, however, and the bundle of sticks could deliver a financial beating to the unwary.

It’s possible that some low-margin hospitals that are facing big penalties could actually have their solvency threatened. If hospitals that are a vital part of the community are threatened with insolvency because of these programs, we may need to take a second look at how we structure the penalties.

—Win Whitcomb, MD, MHM, medical director of healthcare quality, Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, Mass.; SHM Performance and Measurement Reporting Committee member; co-founder and past president of SHM; author of The Hospitalist’s “On the Horizon” column

At What Cost?

For the lowest-performing hospitals, the top readmission penalties will grow to 2% of Medicare reimbursements in fiscal year 2014 and 3% in 2015. Meanwhile, CMS’ Hospital-Acquired Conditions (HAC) program will begin assessing a 1% penalty on the worst performing hospitals in 2015, and the amount withheld under the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) program will reach 2% in 2017 (top-performing hospitals can recoup the withhold and more, depending on performance). By that year, the three programs alone could result in a 6% loss of reimbursements.

Win Whitcomb, MD, MHM, medical director of healthcare quality at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass., and a member of SHM’s Performance and Measurement Reporting Committee, estimates that by 2017, the total at-risk payments could reach about $10 million for a 650-bed academic medical center. The tally for a 90-bed community hospital, he estimates, might run a bit less than $1 million. Although the combined penalty is probably enough to get the attention of most hospitals, very few institutions are likely to be dinged for the entire amount.

Nevertheless, the cumulative loss of reimbursements could be a tipping point for hospitals already in dire straits. “It’s possible that some low-margin hospitals that are facing big penalties could actually have their solvency threatened,” Dr. Whitcomb says. “If hospitals that are a vital part of the community are threatened with insolvency because of these programs, we may need to take a second look at how we structure the penalties.”

The necessary investment in infrastructure, he says, could prove to be a far bigger concern—at least initially.

“What is more expensive is just putting out the effort to do the work to improve and perform well under these programs,” says Dr. Whitcomb, co-founder and past president of SHM and author of The Hospitalist’s “On the Horizon” column. “That’s a big unreported hidden expense of all of these programs.”

With the fairly rapid implementation of multiple measures mandated by the Accountable Care Act, Medicare may be disinclined to dramatically ramp up the programs in play until it has a better sense of what’s working well. Then again, analysts like Laurence Baker, PhD, professor of health research and policy at Stanford University, say it’s doubtful that the agency will scale back its efforts given the widely held perception that plenty of waste can yet be wrung from the system.

“If I was a hospitalist, I would expect more of this coming,” Dr. Baker says.

Of course, rolling out new incentive programs is always a difficult balancing act in which the creators must be careful not to focus too much attention on the wrong measure or create unintended disincentives.

“That’s one of the great challenges: making a program that’s going to be successful when we know that people will do what’s measured and maybe even, without thinking about it, do less of what’s not measured. So we have to be careful about that,” Dr. Baker says.

We’re getting a lot of traction to get physicians to work together to improve care, where before there wasn’t an incentive to do this. So we see this as a good thing, and I think it has potential to reduce expenses in high-cost areas.

—Monty Duke, MD, chief physician executive, Lancaster General Hospital, Lancaster, Pa.

Out of Alignment

Beyond cost and infrastructure, the proliferation of new measures also presents challenges for alignment. Monty Duke, MD, chief physician executive at Lancaster General Hospital in Lancaster, Pa., says the targets are changing so rapidly that tension can arise between hospitals and hospitalists in aligning expectations about priorities and considering how much time, resources, and staffing will be required to address them.

Likewise, the impetus to install new infrastructure can sometimes have unintended consequences, as Dr. Duke has seen firsthand with his hospital’s recent implementation of electronic health records (EHRs).

“In many ways, the electronic health record has changed the dynamic of rounding between physicians and nurses, and it’s really challenging communication,” he says. How so? “Because people spend more time communicating with the computer than they do talking to one another,” he says. The discordant communication, in turn, can conspire against a clear plan of care and overall goals as well as challenge efforts that emphasize a team-based approach.

Despite federal meaningful-use incentives, a recent survey also suggested that a majority of healthcare practices still may not achieve a positive return on investment for EHRs unless they can figure out how to use the systems to increase revenue.¹ A minority of providers have succeeded by seeing more patients every day or by improving their billing process so the codes are more accurate and fewer claims are rejected.

Similarly, hospitalists like Dr. Hazen contend that some patient-satisfaction measures in the HCAHPS section of the VBP program can work against good clinical care. “That one drives me crazy because we’re not waiters or waitresses in a five-star restaurant,” he says. “Health care is complicated; it’s not like sending back a bowl of cold soup the way you can in a restaurant.”

Increasing satisfaction by keeping patients in the hospital longer than warranted or leaving in a Foley catheter for patient convenience, for example, can negatively impact actual outcomes.

“Physicians and nurses get put in this catch-22 where we have to choose between patient satisfaction and by-the-book clinical care,” Dr. Hazen says. “And our job is to try to mitigate that, but you’re kind of damned if you do and damned if you don’t.”

A new study, on the other hand, suggests that HCAHPS scores reflecting lower staff responsiveness are associated with an increased risk of HACs like central line–associated bloodstream infections and that lower scores may be a symptom of hospitals “with a multitude of problems.”²

A 10-Step Program

As existing rules and metrics are revised, new ones added, and others merged or discontinued, hospitalists are likely to encounter more hiccups and headaches. So what’s the solution? Beyond establishing good personal habits like hand-washing when entering and leaving a patient’s room, hospitalist leaders and healthcare analysts point to 10 strategies that may help keep HM providers from getting squeezed by all the demands:

1) Keep everyone on the same page. Because hospitals and health systems often take a subset of CMS core measures and make them strategic priorities, Dr. Whitcomb says hospitalists must thoroughly understand their own institutions’ internal system-level quality and safety goals. He stresses the need for hospitalists to develop and maintain close working connections with their organization’s safety- and quality-improvement (QI) teams “to understand exactly what the rules of the road are.”

Dr. Whitcomb says hospitals should compensate hospitalists for time spent working with these teams on feasible solutions. Hospitalist representatives can then champion specific safety or quality issues and keep them foremost in the minds of their colleagues. “I’m a big believer in paying people to do that work,” he says.

2) Take a wider view. It’s clear that most providers wouldn’t have chosen some of the performance indicators that Medicare and other third-party payors are asking them to meet, and many physicians have been more focused on outcomes than on clinical measures. Like it or not, however, thriving in the new era of health care means accepting more benchmarks. “We’ve had to broaden our scope to say, ‘OK, these other things matter, too,’” Dr. Duke says.

3) Use visual cues. Hospitalists can’t rely on memory to keep track of the dozens of measures for which they are being held accountable. “Every hospitalist program should have a dashboard of priority measures that they’re paying attention to and that’s out in front of them on a regular basis,” Dr. Whitcomb says. “It could be presented to them at monthly meetings, or it could be in a prominent place in their office, but there needs to be a set of cues.”

4) Use bonuses for alignment. Dr. Hazen says hospitals also may find success in using bonuses as a positive reinforcement for well-aligned care. Inova Fairfax’s bonuses include a clinical component that aligns with many of CMS’s core measures, and the financial incentives ensure that discharge summaries are completed and distributed in a timely manner.

5) Emphasize a team approach. Espousing a multidisciplinary approach to care can give patients the confidence that all providers are on the same page, thereby aiding patient-satisfaction scores and easing throughput. And as Dr. Hazen points out, avoiding a silo mentality can pay dividends for improving patient safety.

Dr. Tierza

6) Offer the right information. Tierza Stephan, MD, regional hospitalist medical director for Allina Health in Minneapolis and the incoming chair of SHM’s Practice Analysis Committee, says Allina has worked hard to ensure that hospitalists complete their discharge summaries within 24 hours of a patient’s release from the hospital. Beyond timeliness, the health system is emphasizing content that informs without overwhelming the patient, caregiver, or follow-up provider with unnecessary details.

The discharge summary, for example, includes a section called “Recommendations for the Outpatient Provider,” which provides a checklist of sorts so those providers don’t miss the forest for the trees. The same is true for patients. “The hospital is probably not the best place to be educating patients, so we really focus more on patient instruction at discharge and then timely follow-up,” Dr. Stephan says.

In addition to allowing better care coordination between inpatient and outpatient providers, she says, “it cuts across patient experience and readmissions, and it helps patients to be engaged because they have very clear, easy-to-read information.” Paying attention to such details may have outsized impacts: In a recent study, researchers found that patients who are actively engaged in their own health care are significantly less costly to treat, on average.³

7) Follow through after discharge. Inova Fairfax is setting up an outpatient follow-up clinic as a safety net for patients at the highest risk of being readmitted. Many of these target patients are uninsured or underinsured and battling complex medical problems like heart failure or pneumonia. Establishing a physical location for follow-ups and direct communication with primary-care providers, the hospital hopes, might reduce noncompliance among these outpatients and thereby curtail subsequent readmissions.

8) Optimize EHR. When optimized, experts say, electronic medical records can help hospitals ensure that their providers are following core measures and preventing hospital-acquired conditions while leaving channels of communication open and keeping revenue streams flowing.

“Luckily, we just switched to electronic medical records so we can monitor who has a Foley catheter in, who does or doesn’t have DVT prophylaxis, because even really good docs sometimes make these knucklehead mistakes every once in a while,” Dr. Hazen says. “So we try to use systems to back ourselves up. But for the most part, there’s just no substitute for having good docs do the right thing and documenting that.”

9) Bundle up. Although bundled payments represent yet another CMS initiative, Dr. Duke says the model has the potential to reduce waste, standardize care, and monitor outcomes. Lancaster General has been working on the approach for the past few years, with an initial focus on cardiovascular medicine, orthopedics, and neurosurgery. “We’re getting a lot of traction to get physicians to work together to improve care, where before there wasn’t an incentive to do this,” Dr. Duke says. “So we see this as a good thing, and I think it has potential to reduce expenses in high-cost areas.”

10) Connect the dots. Joane Goodroe, an independent healthcare consultant based in Atlanta, says CMS expects providers to connect the dots and combine their efforts in the separate incentive programs to maximize their resources. By providing consistent care coordination and setting patients on the right track, then, she says hospitalists might help boost savings across the board—a benefit that wouldn’t necessarily be apparent based solely on improved quality metrics in specific programs.

Even here, though, the current fee-for-service model can create awkward side effects. For example, Goodroe recommends following the path that many care groups delving into accountable care and bundled payment systems are already taking: connecting those models to efforts aimed at reducing hospital readmissions. Without the proper financial incentives, however, those efforts may be constrained due to a significant increase in expended resources and a potential decrease in overall revenues.

Some of the kinks may work themselves out of the system over time, but experts say the era of multiple metrics—and additional pressure—is just beginning. Combined, they will require providers to be much better at working as a system and coordinating care across multiple environments beyond the hospital, Dr. Stephan says.

One main question boils down to this, she says: “How do we get more efficient as a system and eliminate waste? I think the hospitalists really play a vital role, and it’s mainly through communication and transfer of information. Hospitalists have to be really well-connected with the different physicians and venues that send the patients into the hospital so that we’re not duplicating services and so that we can get right to the crux of the problem.”

Doing so, regardless of which CMS program is on tap, may be the very best way to avoid getting squeezed.

Bryn Nelson is a freelance medical writer in Seattle.

References

1. Adler-Milstein J, Green CE, Bates DW. A survey analysis suggests that electronic health records will yield revenue gains for some practices and losses for many. Health Affairs. 2013;32(3):562-570.
2. Saman DM, Kavanagh KT, Johnson B, Lutfiyya MN. Can inpatient hospital experiences predict central line-associated bloodstream infections? PLoS ONE. 2013;8(4):e61097.
3. Hibbard JH, Greene J, Overton V. Patients with lower activation associated with higher costs; delivery systems should know their patients’ ‘scores.’ Health Affairs. 2013; 32(2):216-222.

Dr. Tierza

VBP. ACO. HAC. EHR. Suddenly, Medicare-derived acronyms are everywhere, and many of them are attached to a growing set of programs aimed at boosting efficiency and quality. Some are optional; others are mandatory. Some have carrots as incentives; others have sticks. Some seem well-designed; others seemingly work at cross-purposes.

Love or hate these initiatives, the combined time, money, and resources needed to address all of them could put hospitals and hospitalists under considerable duress.

“It can either prove or dismantle the whole hospitalist movement,” says Brian Hazen, MD, medical director of the hospitalist division at Inova Fairfax Hospital in Falls Church, Va. “Hospitals expect us to be agile and adapt to the pressures to keep them alive. If we cannot adapt and provide that, then why give us a job?”

Whether or not the focus is on lowering readmission rates, decreasing the incidence of hospital-acquired conditions, or improving efficiencies, Dr. Hazen tends to lump most of the sticks and carrots together. “I throw them all into one basket because for the most part, they’re all reflective of good care,” he says.

The basket is growing, however, and the bundle of sticks could deliver a financial beating to the unwary.

It’s possible that some low-margin hospitals that are facing big penalties could actually have their solvency threatened. If hospitals that are a vital part of the community are threatened with insolvency because of these programs, we may need to take a second look at how we structure the penalties.

—Win Whitcomb, MD, MHM, medical director of healthcare quality, Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, Mass.; SHM Performance and Measurement Reporting Committee member; co-founder and past president of SHM; author of The Hospitalist’s “On the Horizon” column

At What Cost?

For the lowest-performing hospitals, the top readmission penalties will grow to 2% of Medicare reimbursements in fiscal year 2014 and 3% in 2015. Meanwhile, CMS’ Hospital-Acquired Conditions (HAC) program will begin assessing a 1% penalty on the worst performing hospitals in 2015, and the amount withheld under the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) program will reach 2% in 2017 (top-performing hospitals can recoup the withhold and more, depending on performance). By that year, the three programs alone could result in a 6% loss of reimbursements.

Win Whitcomb, MD, MHM, medical director of healthcare quality at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass., and a member of SHM’s Performance and Measurement Reporting Committee, estimates that by 2017, the total at-risk payments could reach about $10 million for a 650-bed academic medical center. The tally for a 90-bed community hospital, he estimates, might run a bit less than $1 million. Although the combined penalty is probably enough to get the attention of most hospitals, very few institutions are likely to be dinged for the entire amount.

Nevertheless, the cumulative loss of reimbursements could be a tipping point for hospitals already in dire straits. “It’s possible that some low-margin hospitals that are facing big penalties could actually have their solvency threatened,” Dr. Whitcomb says. “If hospitals that are a vital part of the community are threatened with insolvency because of these programs, we may need to take a second look at how we structure the penalties.”

The necessary investment in infrastructure, he says, could prove to be a far bigger concern—at least initially.

“What is more expensive is just putting out the effort to do the work to improve and perform well under these programs,” says Dr. Whitcomb, co-founder and past president of SHM and author of The Hospitalist’s “On the Horizon” column. “That’s a big unreported hidden expense of all of these programs.”

With the fairly rapid implementation of multiple measures mandated by the Accountable Care Act, Medicare may be disinclined to dramatically ramp up the programs in play until it has a better sense of what’s working well. Then again, analysts like Laurence Baker, PhD, professor of health research and policy at Stanford University, say it’s doubtful that the agency will scale back its efforts given the widely held perception that plenty of waste can yet be wrung from the system.

“If I was a hospitalist, I would expect more of this coming,” Dr. Baker says.

Of course, rolling out new incentive programs is always a difficult balancing act in which the creators must be careful not to focus too much attention on the wrong measure or create unintended disincentives.

“That’s one of the great challenges: making a program that’s going to be successful when we know that people will do what’s measured and maybe even, without thinking about it, do less of what’s not measured. So we have to be careful about that,” Dr. Baker says.

We’re getting a lot of traction to get physicians to work together to improve care, where before there wasn’t an incentive to do this. So we see this as a good thing, and I think it has potential to reduce expenses in high-cost areas.

—Monty Duke, MD, chief physician executive, Lancaster General Hospital, Lancaster, Pa.

Out of Alignment

Beyond cost and infrastructure, the proliferation of new measures also presents challenges for alignment. Monty Duke, MD, chief physician executive at Lancaster General Hospital in Lancaster, Pa., says the targets are changing so rapidly that tension can arise between hospitals and hospitalists in aligning expectations about priorities and considering how much time, resources, and staffing will be required to address them.

Likewise, the impetus to install new infrastructure can sometimes have unintended consequences, as Dr. Duke has seen firsthand with his hospital’s recent implementation of electronic health records (EHRs).

“In many ways, the electronic health record has changed the dynamic of rounding between physicians and nurses, and it’s really challenging communication,” he says. How so? “Because people spend more time communicating with the computer than they do talking to one another,” he says. The discordant communication, in turn, can conspire against a clear plan of care and overall goals as well as challenge efforts that emphasize a team-based approach.

Despite federal meaningful-use incentives, a recent survey also suggested that a majority of healthcare practices still may not achieve a positive return on investment for EHRs unless they can figure out how to use the systems to increase revenue.¹ A minority of providers have succeeded by seeing more patients every day or by improving their billing process so the codes are more accurate and fewer claims are rejected.

Similarly, hospitalists like Dr. Hazen contend that some patient-satisfaction measures in the HCAHPS section of the VBP program can work against good clinical care. “That one drives me crazy because we’re not waiters or waitresses in a five-star restaurant,” he says. “Health care is complicated; it’s not like sending back a bowl of cold soup the way you can in a restaurant.”

Increasing satisfaction by keeping patients in the hospital longer than warranted or leaving in a Foley catheter for patient convenience, for example, can negatively impact actual outcomes.

“Physicians and nurses get put in this catch-22 where we have to choose between patient satisfaction and by-the-book clinical care,” Dr. Hazen says. “And our job is to try to mitigate that, but you’re kind of damned if you do and damned if you don’t.”

A new study, on the other hand, suggests that HCAHPS scores reflecting lower staff responsiveness are associated with an increased risk of HACs like central line–associated bloodstream infections and that lower scores may be a symptom of hospitals “with a multitude of problems.”²

A 10-Step Program

As existing rules and metrics are revised, new ones added, and others merged or discontinued, hospitalists are likely to encounter more hiccups and headaches. So what’s the solution? Beyond establishing good personal habits like hand-washing when entering and leaving a patient’s room, hospitalist leaders and healthcare analysts point to 10 strategies that may help keep HM providers from getting squeezed by all the demands:

1) Keep everyone on the same page. Because hospitals and health systems often take a subset of CMS core measures and make them strategic priorities, Dr. Whitcomb says hospitalists must thoroughly understand their own institutions’ internal system-level quality and safety goals. He stresses the need for hospitalists to develop and maintain close working connections with their organization’s safety- and quality-improvement (QI) teams “to understand exactly what the rules of the road are.”

Dr. Whitcomb says hospitals should compensate hospitalists for time spent working with these teams on feasible solutions. Hospitalist representatives can then champion specific safety or quality issues and keep them foremost in the minds of their colleagues. “I’m a big believer in paying people to do that work,” he says.

2) Take a wider view. It’s clear that most providers wouldn’t have chosen some of the performance indicators that Medicare and other third-party payors are asking them to meet, and many physicians have been more focused on outcomes than on clinical measures. Like it or not, however, thriving in the new era of health care means accepting more benchmarks. “We’ve had to broaden our scope to say, ‘OK, these other things matter, too,’” Dr. Duke says.

3) Use visual cues. Hospitalists can’t rely on memory to keep track of the dozens of measures for which they are being held accountable. “Every hospitalist program should have a dashboard of priority measures that they’re paying attention to and that’s out in front of them on a regular basis,” Dr. Whitcomb says. “It could be presented to them at monthly meetings, or it could be in a prominent place in their office, but there needs to be a set of cues.”

4) Use bonuses for alignment. Dr. Hazen says hospitals also may find success in using bonuses as a positive reinforcement for well-aligned care. Inova Fairfax’s bonuses include a clinical component that aligns with many of CMS’s core measures, and the financial incentives ensure that discharge summaries are completed and distributed in a timely manner.

5) Emphasize a team approach. Espousing a multidisciplinary approach to care can give patients the confidence that all providers are on the same page, thereby aiding patient-satisfaction scores and easing throughput. And as Dr. Hazen points out, avoiding a silo mentality can pay dividends for improving patient safety.

Dr. Tierza

6) Offer the right information. Tierza Stephan, MD, regional hospitalist medical director for Allina Health in Minneapolis and the incoming chair of SHM’s Practice Analysis Committee, says Allina has worked hard to ensure that hospitalists complete their discharge summaries within 24 hours of a patient’s release from the hospital. Beyond timeliness, the health system is emphasizing content that informs without overwhelming the patient, caregiver, or follow-up provider with unnecessary details.

The discharge summary, for example, includes a section called “Recommendations for the Outpatient Provider,” which provides a checklist of sorts so those providers don’t miss the forest for the trees. The same is true for patients. “The hospital is probably not the best place to be educating patients, so we really focus more on patient instruction at discharge and then timely follow-up,” Dr. Stephan says.

In addition to allowing better care coordination between inpatient and outpatient providers, she says, “it cuts across patient experience and readmissions, and it helps patients to be engaged because they have very clear, easy-to-read information.” Paying attention to such details may have outsized impacts: In a recent study, researchers found that patients who are actively engaged in their own health care are significantly less costly to treat, on average.³

7) Follow through after discharge. Inova Fairfax is setting up an outpatient follow-up clinic as a safety net for patients at the highest risk of being readmitted. Many of these target patients are uninsured or underinsured and battling complex medical problems like heart failure or pneumonia. Establishing a physical location for follow-ups and direct communication with primary-care providers, the hospital hopes, might reduce noncompliance among these outpatients and thereby curtail subsequent readmissions.

8) Optimize EHR. When optimized, experts say, electronic medical records can help hospitals ensure that their providers are following core measures and preventing hospital-acquired conditions while leaving channels of communication open and keeping revenue streams flowing.

“Luckily, we just switched to electronic medical records so we can monitor who has a Foley catheter in, who does or doesn’t have DVT prophylaxis, because even really good docs sometimes make these knucklehead mistakes every once in a while,” Dr. Hazen says. “So we try to use systems to back ourselves up. But for the most part, there’s just no substitute for having good docs do the right thing and documenting that.”

9) Bundle up. Although bundled payments represent yet another CMS initiative, Dr. Duke says the model has the potential to reduce waste, standardize care, and monitor outcomes. Lancaster General has been working on the approach for the past few years, with an initial focus on cardiovascular medicine, orthopedics, and neurosurgery. “We’re getting a lot of traction to get physicians to work together to improve care, where before there wasn’t an incentive to do this,” Dr. Duke says. “So we see this as a good thing, and I think it has potential to reduce expenses in high-cost areas.”

10) Connect the dots. Joane Goodroe, an independent healthcare consultant based in Atlanta, says CMS expects providers to connect the dots and combine their efforts in the separate incentive programs to maximize their resources. By providing consistent care coordination and setting patients on the right track, then, she says hospitalists might help boost savings across the board—a benefit that wouldn’t necessarily be apparent based solely on improved quality metrics in specific programs.

Even here, though, the current fee-for-service model can create awkward side effects. For example, Goodroe recommends following the path that many care groups delving into accountable care and bundled payment systems are already taking: connecting those models to efforts aimed at reducing hospital readmissions. Without the proper financial incentives, however, those efforts may be constrained due to a significant increase in expended resources and a potential decrease in overall revenues.

Some of the kinks may work themselves out of the system over time, but experts say the era of multiple metrics—and additional pressure—is just beginning. Combined, they will require providers to be much better at working as a system and coordinating care across multiple environments beyond the hospital, Dr. Stephan says.

One main question boils down to this, she says: “How do we get more efficient as a system and eliminate waste? I think the hospitalists really play a vital role, and it’s mainly through communication and transfer of information. Hospitalists have to be really well-connected with the different physicians and venues that send the patients into the hospital so that we’re not duplicating services and so that we can get right to the crux of the problem.”

Doing so, regardless of which CMS program is on tap, may be the very best way to avoid getting squeezed.

Bryn Nelson is a freelance medical writer in Seattle.

References

1. Adler-Milstein J, Green CE, Bates DW. A survey analysis suggests that electronic health records will yield revenue gains for some practices and losses for many. Health Affairs. 2013;32(3):562-570.
2. Saman DM, Kavanagh KT, Johnson B, Lutfiyya MN. Can inpatient hospital experiences predict central line-associated bloodstream infections? PLoS ONE. 2013;8(4):e61097.
3. Hibbard JH, Greene J, Overton V. Patients with lower activation associated with higher costs; delivery systems should know their patients’ ‘scores.’ Health Affairs. 2013; 32(2):216-222.