Quality

Despite calls for board-certified intensivists to manage all critically ill patients, only a third of hospitalized ICU patients currently are seen by such a specialist—mostly because there are not enough of them to go around.^1,2 More and more hospitalists, especially those in community hospitals, are working in ICUs (see “The Critical-Care Debate,”). With the proper training, that can be a good thing for patients and hospitalists, according to a Research, Innovations, and Clinical Vignettes (RIV) abstract presented at HM12 in San Diego.³

Lead author and hospitalist Mark Krivopal, MD, SFHM, formerly with TeamHealth in California and now vice president and medical director of clinical integration and hospital medicine at Steward Health Care in Boston, outlined a program at California’s Lodi Memorial Hospital that identified a group of hospitalists who had experience in caring for critically ill patients and credentials to perform such procedures as central-line placements, intubations, and ventilator management. The select group of TeamHealth hospitalists completed a two-day “Fundamentals of Critical Care Support” course offered by the Society of Critical Care Medicine (www.sccm.org), then began covering the ICU in shifts from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. The program was so successful early on that hospital administration requested that it expand to a 24-hour service.

An ICU hospitalist program needs to be a partnership, Dr. Krivopal says. Essential oversight at Lodi Memorial is provided by the hospital’s sole pulmonologist.

Preliminary data showed a 35% reduction in ventilator days and 22% reduction in ICU stays, Dr. Krivopal says. The hospital also reports high satisfaction from nurses and other staff. Additional metrics, such as cost savings and patient satisfaction, are under review.

“So long as the level of training is sufficient, this is an approach that definitely should be explored,” he says, adding that young internists have many of the skills needed for ICU work. “But if you don’t keep those skills up [with practice] after residency, you lose them.”

References

1. The Leapfrog Group. ICU physician staffing fact sheet. The Leapfrog Group website. Available at: http://www.leapfroggroup.org/media/file/Leapfrog-ICU_Physician_Staffing_Fact_Sheet.pdf. Accessed Aug. 29, 2012.
2. Health Resources & Services Administration. Report to Congress: The critical care workforce: a study of the supply and demand for critical care physicians. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services website. Available at: http://bhpr.hrsa.gov/healthworkforce/reports/studycriticalcarephys.pdf. Accessed Aug. 29, 2012.
3. Krivopal M, Hlaing M, Felber R, Himebaugh R. ICU hospitalist: a novel method of care for the critically ill patients in economically lean times. J Hosp Med. 2012;7(Suppl 2):192.

Despite calls for board-certified intensivists to manage all critically ill patients, only a third of hospitalized ICU patients currently are seen by such a specialist—mostly because there are not enough of them to go around.^1,2 More and more hospitalists, especially those in community hospitals, are working in ICUs (see “The Critical-Care Debate,”). With the proper training, that can be a good thing for patients and hospitalists, according to a Research, Innovations, and Clinical Vignettes (RIV) abstract presented at HM12 in San Diego.³

Lead author and hospitalist Mark Krivopal, MD, SFHM, formerly with TeamHealth in California and now vice president and medical director of clinical integration and hospital medicine at Steward Health Care in Boston, outlined a program at California’s Lodi Memorial Hospital that identified a group of hospitalists who had experience in caring for critically ill patients and credentials to perform such procedures as central-line placements, intubations, and ventilator management. The select group of TeamHealth hospitalists completed a two-day “Fundamentals of Critical Care Support” course offered by the Society of Critical Care Medicine (www.sccm.org), then began covering the ICU in shifts from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. The program was so successful early on that hospital administration requested that it expand to a 24-hour service.

An ICU hospitalist program needs to be a partnership, Dr. Krivopal says. Essential oversight at Lodi Memorial is provided by the hospital’s sole pulmonologist.

Preliminary data showed a 35% reduction in ventilator days and 22% reduction in ICU stays, Dr. Krivopal says. The hospital also reports high satisfaction from nurses and other staff. Additional metrics, such as cost savings and patient satisfaction, are under review.

“So long as the level of training is sufficient, this is an approach that definitely should be explored,” he says, adding that young internists have many of the skills needed for ICU work. “But if you don’t keep those skills up [with practice] after residency, you lose them.”

References

1. The Leapfrog Group. ICU physician staffing fact sheet. The Leapfrog Group website. Available at: http://www.leapfroggroup.org/media/file/Leapfrog-ICU_Physician_Staffing_Fact_Sheet.pdf. Accessed Aug. 29, 2012.
2. Health Resources & Services Administration. Report to Congress: The critical care workforce: a study of the supply and demand for critical care physicians. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services website. Available at: http://bhpr.hrsa.gov/healthworkforce/reports/studycriticalcarephys.pdf. Accessed Aug. 29, 2012.
3. Krivopal M, Hlaing M, Felber R, Himebaugh R. ICU hospitalist: a novel method of care for the critically ill patients in economically lean times. J Hosp Med. 2012;7(Suppl 2):192.

Despite calls for board-certified intensivists to manage all critically ill patients, only a third of hospitalized ICU patients currently are seen by such a specialist—mostly because there are not enough of them to go around.^1,2 More and more hospitalists, especially those in community hospitals, are working in ICUs (see “The Critical-Care Debate,”). With the proper training, that can be a good thing for patients and hospitalists, according to a Research, Innovations, and Clinical Vignettes (RIV) abstract presented at HM12 in San Diego.³

Lead author and hospitalist Mark Krivopal, MD, SFHM, formerly with TeamHealth in California and now vice president and medical director of clinical integration and hospital medicine at Steward Health Care in Boston, outlined a program at California’s Lodi Memorial Hospital that identified a group of hospitalists who had experience in caring for critically ill patients and credentials to perform such procedures as central-line placements, intubations, and ventilator management. The select group of TeamHealth hospitalists completed a two-day “Fundamentals of Critical Care Support” course offered by the Society of Critical Care Medicine (www.sccm.org), then began covering the ICU in shifts from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. The program was so successful early on that hospital administration requested that it expand to a 24-hour service.

An ICU hospitalist program needs to be a partnership, Dr. Krivopal says. Essential oversight at Lodi Memorial is provided by the hospital’s sole pulmonologist.

Preliminary data showed a 35% reduction in ventilator days and 22% reduction in ICU stays, Dr. Krivopal says. The hospital also reports high satisfaction from nurses and other staff. Additional metrics, such as cost savings and patient satisfaction, are under review.

“So long as the level of training is sufficient, this is an approach that definitely should be explored,” he says, adding that young internists have many of the skills needed for ICU work. “But if you don’t keep those skills up [with practice] after residency, you lose them.”

References

1. The Leapfrog Group. ICU physician staffing fact sheet. The Leapfrog Group website. Available at: http://www.leapfroggroup.org/media/file/Leapfrog-ICU_Physician_Staffing_Fact_Sheet.pdf. Accessed Aug. 29, 2012.
2. Health Resources & Services Administration. Report to Congress: The critical care workforce: a study of the supply and demand for critical care physicians. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services website. Available at: http://bhpr.hrsa.gov/healthworkforce/reports/studycriticalcarephys.pdf. Accessed Aug. 29, 2012.
3. Krivopal M, Hlaing M, Felber R, Himebaugh R. ICU hospitalist: a novel method of care for the critically ill patients in economically lean times. J Hosp Med. 2012;7(Suppl 2):192.

Only about a third of ideal candidates with heart failure are currently treated with [aldosterone antagonists], even though it markedly improves outcome and is Class I-recommended in the guidelines.

—Gregg Fonarow, MD, co-chief, University of California at Los Angeles division of cardiology, chair, American Heart Association’s Get With The Guidelines program steering committee

You might not have done a fellowship in cardiology, but quite often you probably feel like a cardiologist. Hospitalists frequently attend to patients on observation for heart problems and help manage even the most complex patients.

Often, you are working alongside the cardiologist. But other times, you’re on your own. Hospitalists are expected to carry an increasingly heavy load when it comes to heart-failure patients and many other kinds of patients with specialized disorders. It can be hard to keep up with what you need to know.

Top Twelve

1. Recognize the new importance of beta-blockers for heart failure, and go with the best of them.
2. It’s not readmissions that are the problem—it’s avoidable readmissions.
3. New interventional technologies will mean more complex patients, so be ready.
4. Aldosterone antagonists, though probably underutilized, can be very effective but require caution.
5. Switching from IV diuretics to an oral regimen calls for careful monitoring.
6. Patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction have outcomes over the longer haul similar to those with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. And in preserved ejection fraction cases, the contributing illnesses must be addressed.
7. Inotropic agents can do more harm than good.
8. Pay attention to the ins and outs of new antiplatelet therapies.
9. Bridging anticoagulant therapy in patients going for electrophysiology procedures should be done only some, not most, of the time.
10. Some non-STEMI patients might benefit from getting to the catheterization lab quickly.
11. Beware the idiosyncrasies of new anticoagulants.
12. Be cognizant of stent thrombosis and how to manage it.

The Hospitalist spoke to several cardiologists about the latest in treatments, technologies, and HM’s role in the system of care. The following are their suggestions for what you really need to know about treating patients with heart conditions.

1) Recognize the new importance of beta-blockers for heart failure, and go with the best of them.

Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensive receptor blockers have been part of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS) core measures for heart failure for a long time, but beta-blockers at hospital discharge only recently have been added as American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/American Medical Association–Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement measures for heart failure.¹

“For those with heart failure and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, very old and outdated concepts would have talked about potentially holding the beta-blocker during hospitalization for heart failure—or not initiating until the patient was an outpatient,” says Gregg Fonarow, MD, co-chief of the University of California at Los Angeles’ division of cardiology and chair of the steering committee for the American Heart Association’s Get With The Guidelines program. “[But] the guidelines and evidence, and often performance measures, linked to them are now explicit about initiating or maintaining beta-blockers during the heart-failure hospitalization.”

Beta-blockers should be initiated as patients are stabilized before discharge. Dr. Fonarow suggests hospitalists use only one of the three evidence-based therapies: carvedilol, metoprolol succinate, or bisoprolol.

“Many physicians have been using metoprolol tartrate or atenolol in heart-failure patients,” Dr. Fonarow says. “These are not known to improve clinical outcomes. So here’s an example where the specific medication is absolutely, critically important.”

2) It’s not readmissions that are the problem—it’s avoidable readmissions.

“The modifier is very important,” says Clyde Yancy, MD, chief of the division of cardiology at the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago. “Heart failure continues to be a problematic disease. Many patients now do really well, but some do not. Those patients are symptomatic and may require frequent hospitalizations for stabilization. We should not disallow or misdirect those patients who need inpatient care from receiving such because of an arbitrary incentive to reduce rehospitalizations out of fear of punitive financial damages. The unforeseen risks here are real.”

Dr. Yancy says studies based on CMS data have found that institutions with higher readmission rates have lower 30-day mortality rates.² He cautions hospitalists to be “very thoughtful about an overzealous embrace of reducing all readmissions for heart failure.” Instead, the goal should be to limit the “avoidable readmissions.”

“And for the patient that clearly has advanced disease,” he says, “rather than triaging them away from the hospital, we really should be very respectful of their disease. Keep those patients where disease-modifying interventions can be deployed, and we can work to achieve the best possible outcome for those that have the most advanced disease.”

3) New interventional technologies will mean more complex patients, so be ready.

Advances in interventional procedures, including transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and endoscopic mitral valve repair, will translate into a new population of highly complex patients. Many of these patients will be in their 80s or 90s.

“It’s a whole new paradigm shift of technology,” says John Harold, MD, president-elect of the American College of Cardiology and past chief of staff and department of medicine clinical chief of staff at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. “Very often, the hospitalist is at the front dealing with all of these issues.”

Many of these patients have other problems, including renal insufficiency, diabetes, and the like.

“They have all sorts of other things going on simultaneously, so very often the hospitalist becomes … the point person in dealing with all of these issues,” Dr. Harold says.

4) Aldosterone antagonists, though probably underutilized, can be very effective but require caution.

Aldosterone antagonists can greatly improve outcomes and reduce hospitalization in heart-failure patients, but they have to be used with very careful dosing and patient selection, Dr. Fonarow says. And they require early follow-up once patients are discharged.

“Only about a third of ideal candidates with heart failure are currently treated with this agent, even though it markedly improves outcome and is Class I-recommended in the guidelines,” Dr. Fonarow says. “But this is one where it needs to be started at appropriate low doses, with meticulous monitoring in both the inpatient and the outpatient setting, early follow-up, and early laboratory checks.”

5) Switching from IV diuretics to an oral regimen calls for careful monitoring.

Transitioning patients from IV diuretics to oral regimens is an area rife with mistakes, Dr. Fonarow says. It requires a lot of “meticulous attention to proper potassium supplementation and monitoring of renal function and electrolyte levels,” he says.

Medication reconciliation—“med rec”—is especially important during the transition from inpatient to outpatient.

“There are common medication errors that are made during this transition,” Dr. Fonarow says. “Hospitalists, along with other [care team] members, can really play a critically important role in trying to reduce that risk.”

6) Patients with heart failure with preserved ejection

fraction have outcomes over the longer haul similar to those with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. And in preserved ejection fraction cases, the contributing illnesses must be addressed.

“We really can’t exercise a thought economy that just says, ‘Extrapolate the evidence-based therapies for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction to heart failure with preserved ejection fraction’ and expect good outcomes,” Dr. Yancy says. “That’s not the case. We don’t have an evidence base to substantiate that.”

He says one or more common comorbidities (e.g. atrial fibrillation, hypertension, obesity, diabetes, renal insufficiency) are present in 90% of patients with preserved ejection fraction. Treatment of those comorbidities—for example, rate control in afib patients, lowering the blood pressure in hypertension patients—has to be done with care.

“We should recognize that the therapy for this condition, albeit absent any specifically indicated interventions that will change its natural history, can still be skillfully constructed,” Dr. Yancy says. “But that construct needs to reflect the recommended, guideline-driven interventions for the concomitant other comorbidities.”

7) Inotropic agents can do more harm than good.

For patients who aren’t in cardiogenic shock, using inotropic agents doesn’t help. In fact, it might actually hurt. Dr. Fonarow says studies have shown these agents can “prolong length of stay, cause complications, and increase mortality risk.”

He notes that the use of inotropes should be avoided, or if it’s being considered, a cardiologist with knowledge and experience in heart failure should be involved in the treatment and care.

Statements about avoiding inotropes in heart failure, except under very specific circumstances, have been “incredibly strengthened” recently in the American College of Cardiology and Heart Failure Society of America guidelines.³

8) Pay attention to the ins and outs of new antiplatelet therapies.

For the majority of these, there’s no specific way to reverse the anticoagulant effect in the event of a major bleeding event. There’s no simple antidote.

—John Harold, MD, president-elect, American College of Cardiology, former chief of staff, department of medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles

Hospitalists caring for acute coronary syndrome patients need to familiarize themselves with updated guidelines and additional therapies that are now available, Dr. Fonarow says. New antiplatelet therapies (e.g. prasugrel and ticagrelor) are available as part of the armamentarium, along with the mainstay clopidogrel.

“These therapies lower the risk of recurrent events, lowered the risk of stent thrombosis,” he says. “In the case of ticagrelor, it actually lowered all-cause mortality. These are important new therapies, with new guideline recommendations, that all hospitalists should be aware of.”

9) Bridging anticoagulant therapy in patients going for electrophysiology procedures should be done only some, not most, of the time.

“Patients getting such devices as pacemakers or implantable cardioverter defribrillators (ICD) installed tend not to need bridging,” says Joaquin Cigarroa, MD, clinical chief of cardiology at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland.

He says it’s actually “safer” to do the procedure when patients “are on oral antithrombotics than switching them from an oral agent, and bridging with low- molecular-weight- or unfractionated heparin.”

“It’s a big deal,” Dr. Cigarroa adds, because it is risky to have elderly and frail patients on multiple antithrombotics. “Hemorrhagic complications in cardiology patients still occurs very frequently, so really be attuned to estimating bleeding risk and making sure that we’re dosing antithrombotics appropriately. Bridging should be the minority of patients, not the majority of patients.”

10) Some non-STEMI patients might benefit from getting to the catheterization lab quickly.

Door-to-balloon time is recognized as critical for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients, but more recent work—such as in the TIMACS trial—finds benefits of early revascularization for some non-STEMI patients as well.²

“This trial showed that among higher-risk patients, using a validated risk score, that those patients did benefit from an early approach, meaning going to the cath lab in the first 12 hours of hospitalization,” Dr. Fonarow says. “We now have more information about the optimal timing of coronary angiography and potential revascularization of higher-risk patients with non-ST-segment elevation MI.”

11) Beware the idiosyncrasies of new anticoagulants.

The introduction of dabigatran and rivaroxaban (and, perhaps soon, apixaban) to the array of anticoagulant therapies brings a new slate of considerations for hospitalists, Dr. Harold says.

“For the majority of these, there’s no specific way to reverse the anticoagulant effect in the event of a major bleeding event,” he says. “There’s no simple antidote. And the effect can last up to 12 to 24 hours, depending on the renal function. This is what the hospitalist will be called to deal with: bleeding complications in patients who have these newer anticoagulants on board.”

Dr. Fonarow says that the new CHA2DS2-VASc score has been found to do a better job than the traditional CHADS2 score in assessing afib stroke risk.⁴

12) Be cognizant of stent thrombosis and how to manage it.

Dr. Harold says that most hospitalists probably are up to date on drug-eluting stents and the risk of stopping dual antiplatelet therapy within several months of implant, but that doesn’t mean they won’t treat patients whose primary-care physicians (PCPs) aren’t up to date. He recommends working on these cases with hematologists.

“That knowledge is not widespread in terms of the internal-medicine community,” he says. “I’ve seen situations where patients have had their Plavix stopped for colonoscopies and they’ve had stent thrombosis. It’s this knowledge of cardiac patients who come in with recent deployment of drug-eluting stents who may end up having other issues.”

Tom Collins is a freelance writer in South Florida.

References

1. 2009 Focused Update: ACCF/AHA Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Heart Failure in Adults. Circulation. 2009;119:1977-2016 an HFSA 2010 Comprehensive Heart Failure Practice Guideline. J Cardiac Failure. 2010;16(6):475-539.
2. Gorodeski EZ, Starling RC, Blackstone EH. Are all readmissions bad readmissions? N Engl J Med. 2010;363:297-298.
3. Mehta SR, Granger CB, Boden WE, et al. Early versus delayed invasive intervention in acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(21):2165-2175.
4. Olesen JB, Torp-Pedersen C, Hansen ML, Lip GY. The value of the CHA2DS2-VASc score for refining stroke risk stratification in patients with atrial fibrillation with a CHADS2 score 0-1: a nationwide cohort study. Thromb Haemost. 2012;107(6):1172-1179.
5. Associations between outpatient heart failure process-of-care measures and mortality. Circulation. 2011;123(15):1601-1610.

Only about a third of ideal candidates with heart failure are currently treated with [aldosterone antagonists], even though it markedly improves outcome and is Class I-recommended in the guidelines.

—Gregg Fonarow, MD, co-chief, University of California at Los Angeles division of cardiology, chair, American Heart Association’s Get With The Guidelines program steering committee

You might not have done a fellowship in cardiology, but quite often you probably feel like a cardiologist. Hospitalists frequently attend to patients on observation for heart problems and help manage even the most complex patients.

Often, you are working alongside the cardiologist. But other times, you’re on your own. Hospitalists are expected to carry an increasingly heavy load when it comes to heart-failure patients and many other kinds of patients with specialized disorders. It can be hard to keep up with what you need to know.

Top Twelve

1. Recognize the new importance of beta-blockers for heart failure, and go with the best of them.
2. It’s not readmissions that are the problem—it’s avoidable readmissions.
3. New interventional technologies will mean more complex patients, so be ready.
4. Aldosterone antagonists, though probably underutilized, can be very effective but require caution.
5. Switching from IV diuretics to an oral regimen calls for careful monitoring.
6. Patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction have outcomes over the longer haul similar to those with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. And in preserved ejection fraction cases, the contributing illnesses must be addressed.
7. Inotropic agents can do more harm than good.
8. Pay attention to the ins and outs of new antiplatelet therapies.
9. Bridging anticoagulant therapy in patients going for electrophysiology procedures should be done only some, not most, of the time.
10. Some non-STEMI patients might benefit from getting to the catheterization lab quickly.
11. Beware the idiosyncrasies of new anticoagulants.
12. Be cognizant of stent thrombosis and how to manage it.

The Hospitalist spoke to several cardiologists about the latest in treatments, technologies, and HM’s role in the system of care. The following are their suggestions for what you really need to know about treating patients with heart conditions.

1) Recognize the new importance of beta-blockers for heart failure, and go with the best of them.

Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensive receptor blockers have been part of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS) core measures for heart failure for a long time, but beta-blockers at hospital discharge only recently have been added as American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/American Medical Association–Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement measures for heart failure.¹

“For those with heart failure and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, very old and outdated concepts would have talked about potentially holding the beta-blocker during hospitalization for heart failure—or not initiating until the patient was an outpatient,” says Gregg Fonarow, MD, co-chief of the University of California at Los Angeles’ division of cardiology and chair of the steering committee for the American Heart Association’s Get With The Guidelines program. “[But] the guidelines and evidence, and often performance measures, linked to them are now explicit about initiating or maintaining beta-blockers during the heart-failure hospitalization.”

Beta-blockers should be initiated as patients are stabilized before discharge. Dr. Fonarow suggests hospitalists use only one of the three evidence-based therapies: carvedilol, metoprolol succinate, or bisoprolol.

“Many physicians have been using metoprolol tartrate or atenolol in heart-failure patients,” Dr. Fonarow says. “These are not known to improve clinical outcomes. So here’s an example where the specific medication is absolutely, critically important.”

2) It’s not readmissions that are the problem—it’s avoidable readmissions.

“The modifier is very important,” says Clyde Yancy, MD, chief of the division of cardiology at the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago. “Heart failure continues to be a problematic disease. Many patients now do really well, but some do not. Those patients are symptomatic and may require frequent hospitalizations for stabilization. We should not disallow or misdirect those patients who need inpatient care from receiving such because of an arbitrary incentive to reduce rehospitalizations out of fear of punitive financial damages. The unforeseen risks here are real.”

Dr. Yancy says studies based on CMS data have found that institutions with higher readmission rates have lower 30-day mortality rates.² He cautions hospitalists to be “very thoughtful about an overzealous embrace of reducing all readmissions for heart failure.” Instead, the goal should be to limit the “avoidable readmissions.”

“And for the patient that clearly has advanced disease,” he says, “rather than triaging them away from the hospital, we really should be very respectful of their disease. Keep those patients where disease-modifying interventions can be deployed, and we can work to achieve the best possible outcome for those that have the most advanced disease.”

3) New interventional technologies will mean more complex patients, so be ready.

Advances in interventional procedures, including transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and endoscopic mitral valve repair, will translate into a new population of highly complex patients. Many of these patients will be in their 80s or 90s.

“It’s a whole new paradigm shift of technology,” says John Harold, MD, president-elect of the American College of Cardiology and past chief of staff and department of medicine clinical chief of staff at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. “Very often, the hospitalist is at the front dealing with all of these issues.”

Many of these patients have other problems, including renal insufficiency, diabetes, and the like.

“They have all sorts of other things going on simultaneously, so very often the hospitalist becomes … the point person in dealing with all of these issues,” Dr. Harold says.

4) Aldosterone antagonists, though probably underutilized, can be very effective but require caution.

Aldosterone antagonists can greatly improve outcomes and reduce hospitalization in heart-failure patients, but they have to be used with very careful dosing and patient selection, Dr. Fonarow says. And they require early follow-up once patients are discharged.

“Only about a third of ideal candidates with heart failure are currently treated with this agent, even though it markedly improves outcome and is Class I-recommended in the guidelines,” Dr. Fonarow says. “But this is one where it needs to be started at appropriate low doses, with meticulous monitoring in both the inpatient and the outpatient setting, early follow-up, and early laboratory checks.”

5) Switching from IV diuretics to an oral regimen calls for careful monitoring.

Transitioning patients from IV diuretics to oral regimens is an area rife with mistakes, Dr. Fonarow says. It requires a lot of “meticulous attention to proper potassium supplementation and monitoring of renal function and electrolyte levels,” he says.

Medication reconciliation—“med rec”—is especially important during the transition from inpatient to outpatient.

“There are common medication errors that are made during this transition,” Dr. Fonarow says. “Hospitalists, along with other [care team] members, can really play a critically important role in trying to reduce that risk.”

6) Patients with heart failure with preserved ejection

fraction have outcomes over the longer haul similar to those with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. And in preserved ejection fraction cases, the contributing illnesses must be addressed.

“We really can’t exercise a thought economy that just says, ‘Extrapolate the evidence-based therapies for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction to heart failure with preserved ejection fraction’ and expect good outcomes,” Dr. Yancy says. “That’s not the case. We don’t have an evidence base to substantiate that.”

He says one or more common comorbidities (e.g. atrial fibrillation, hypertension, obesity, diabetes, renal insufficiency) are present in 90% of patients with preserved ejection fraction. Treatment of those comorbidities—for example, rate control in afib patients, lowering the blood pressure in hypertension patients—has to be done with care.

“We should recognize that the therapy for this condition, albeit absent any specifically indicated interventions that will change its natural history, can still be skillfully constructed,” Dr. Yancy says. “But that construct needs to reflect the recommended, guideline-driven interventions for the concomitant other comorbidities.”

7) Inotropic agents can do more harm than good.

For patients who aren’t in cardiogenic shock, using inotropic agents doesn’t help. In fact, it might actually hurt. Dr. Fonarow says studies have shown these agents can “prolong length of stay, cause complications, and increase mortality risk.”

He notes that the use of inotropes should be avoided, or if it’s being considered, a cardiologist with knowledge and experience in heart failure should be involved in the treatment and care.

Statements about avoiding inotropes in heart failure, except under very specific circumstances, have been “incredibly strengthened” recently in the American College of Cardiology and Heart Failure Society of America guidelines.³

8) Pay attention to the ins and outs of new antiplatelet therapies.

For the majority of these, there’s no specific way to reverse the anticoagulant effect in the event of a major bleeding event. There’s no simple antidote.

—John Harold, MD, president-elect, American College of Cardiology, former chief of staff, department of medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles

Hospitalists caring for acute coronary syndrome patients need to familiarize themselves with updated guidelines and additional therapies that are now available, Dr. Fonarow says. New antiplatelet therapies (e.g. prasugrel and ticagrelor) are available as part of the armamentarium, along with the mainstay clopidogrel.

“These therapies lower the risk of recurrent events, lowered the risk of stent thrombosis,” he says. “In the case of ticagrelor, it actually lowered all-cause mortality. These are important new therapies, with new guideline recommendations, that all hospitalists should be aware of.”

9) Bridging anticoagulant therapy in patients going for electrophysiology procedures should be done only some, not most, of the time.

“Patients getting such devices as pacemakers or implantable cardioverter defribrillators (ICD) installed tend not to need bridging,” says Joaquin Cigarroa, MD, clinical chief of cardiology at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland.

He says it’s actually “safer” to do the procedure when patients “are on oral antithrombotics than switching them from an oral agent, and bridging with low- molecular-weight- or unfractionated heparin.”

“It’s a big deal,” Dr. Cigarroa adds, because it is risky to have elderly and frail patients on multiple antithrombotics. “Hemorrhagic complications in cardiology patients still occurs very frequently, so really be attuned to estimating bleeding risk and making sure that we’re dosing antithrombotics appropriately. Bridging should be the minority of patients, not the majority of patients.”

10) Some non-STEMI patients might benefit from getting to the catheterization lab quickly.

Door-to-balloon time is recognized as critical for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients, but more recent work—such as in the TIMACS trial—finds benefits of early revascularization for some non-STEMI patients as well.²

“This trial showed that among higher-risk patients, using a validated risk score, that those patients did benefit from an early approach, meaning going to the cath lab in the first 12 hours of hospitalization,” Dr. Fonarow says. “We now have more information about the optimal timing of coronary angiography and potential revascularization of higher-risk patients with non-ST-segment elevation MI.”

11) Beware the idiosyncrasies of new anticoagulants.

The introduction of dabigatran and rivaroxaban (and, perhaps soon, apixaban) to the array of anticoagulant therapies brings a new slate of considerations for hospitalists, Dr. Harold says.

“For the majority of these, there’s no specific way to reverse the anticoagulant effect in the event of a major bleeding event,” he says. “There’s no simple antidote. And the effect can last up to 12 to 24 hours, depending on the renal function. This is what the hospitalist will be called to deal with: bleeding complications in patients who have these newer anticoagulants on board.”

Dr. Fonarow says that the new CHA2DS2-VASc score has been found to do a better job than the traditional CHADS2 score in assessing afib stroke risk.⁴

12) Be cognizant of stent thrombosis and how to manage it.

Dr. Harold says that most hospitalists probably are up to date on drug-eluting stents and the risk of stopping dual antiplatelet therapy within several months of implant, but that doesn’t mean they won’t treat patients whose primary-care physicians (PCPs) aren’t up to date. He recommends working on these cases with hematologists.

“That knowledge is not widespread in terms of the internal-medicine community,” he says. “I’ve seen situations where patients have had their Plavix stopped for colonoscopies and they’ve had stent thrombosis. It’s this knowledge of cardiac patients who come in with recent deployment of drug-eluting stents who may end up having other issues.”

Tom Collins is a freelance writer in South Florida.

References

1. 2009 Focused Update: ACCF/AHA Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Heart Failure in Adults. Circulation. 2009;119:1977-2016 an HFSA 2010 Comprehensive Heart Failure Practice Guideline. J Cardiac Failure. 2010;16(6):475-539.
2. Gorodeski EZ, Starling RC, Blackstone EH. Are all readmissions bad readmissions? N Engl J Med. 2010;363:297-298.
3. Mehta SR, Granger CB, Boden WE, et al. Early versus delayed invasive intervention in acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(21):2165-2175.
4. Olesen JB, Torp-Pedersen C, Hansen ML, Lip GY. The value of the CHA2DS2-VASc score for refining stroke risk stratification in patients with atrial fibrillation with a CHADS2 score 0-1: a nationwide cohort study. Thromb Haemost. 2012;107(6):1172-1179.
5. Associations between outpatient heart failure process-of-care measures and mortality. Circulation. 2011;123(15):1601-1610.

Only about a third of ideal candidates with heart failure are currently treated with [aldosterone antagonists], even though it markedly improves outcome and is Class I-recommended in the guidelines.

—Gregg Fonarow, MD, co-chief, University of California at Los Angeles division of cardiology, chair, American Heart Association’s Get With The Guidelines program steering committee

You might not have done a fellowship in cardiology, but quite often you probably feel like a cardiologist. Hospitalists frequently attend to patients on observation for heart problems and help manage even the most complex patients.

Often, you are working alongside the cardiologist. But other times, you’re on your own. Hospitalists are expected to carry an increasingly heavy load when it comes to heart-failure patients and many other kinds of patients with specialized disorders. It can be hard to keep up with what you need to know.

Top Twelve

1. Recognize the new importance of beta-blockers for heart failure, and go with the best of them.
2. It’s not readmissions that are the problem—it’s avoidable readmissions.
3. New interventional technologies will mean more complex patients, so be ready.
4. Aldosterone antagonists, though probably underutilized, can be very effective but require caution.
5. Switching from IV diuretics to an oral regimen calls for careful monitoring.
6. Patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction have outcomes over the longer haul similar to those with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. And in preserved ejection fraction cases, the contributing illnesses must be addressed.
7. Inotropic agents can do more harm than good.
8. Pay attention to the ins and outs of new antiplatelet therapies.
9. Bridging anticoagulant therapy in patients going for electrophysiology procedures should be done only some, not most, of the time.
10. Some non-STEMI patients might benefit from getting to the catheterization lab quickly.
11. Beware the idiosyncrasies of new anticoagulants.
12. Be cognizant of stent thrombosis and how to manage it.

The Hospitalist spoke to several cardiologists about the latest in treatments, technologies, and HM’s role in the system of care. The following are their suggestions for what you really need to know about treating patients with heart conditions.

1) Recognize the new importance of beta-blockers for heart failure, and go with the best of them.

Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensive receptor blockers have been part of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS) core measures for heart failure for a long time, but beta-blockers at hospital discharge only recently have been added as American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/American Medical Association–Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement measures for heart failure.¹

“For those with heart failure and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, very old and outdated concepts would have talked about potentially holding the beta-blocker during hospitalization for heart failure—or not initiating until the patient was an outpatient,” says Gregg Fonarow, MD, co-chief of the University of California at Los Angeles’ division of cardiology and chair of the steering committee for the American Heart Association’s Get With The Guidelines program. “[But] the guidelines and evidence, and often performance measures, linked to them are now explicit about initiating or maintaining beta-blockers during the heart-failure hospitalization.”

Beta-blockers should be initiated as patients are stabilized before discharge. Dr. Fonarow suggests hospitalists use only one of the three evidence-based therapies: carvedilol, metoprolol succinate, or bisoprolol.

“Many physicians have been using metoprolol tartrate or atenolol in heart-failure patients,” Dr. Fonarow says. “These are not known to improve clinical outcomes. So here’s an example where the specific medication is absolutely, critically important.”

2) It’s not readmissions that are the problem—it’s avoidable readmissions.

“The modifier is very important,” says Clyde Yancy, MD, chief of the division of cardiology at the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago. “Heart failure continues to be a problematic disease. Many patients now do really well, but some do not. Those patients are symptomatic and may require frequent hospitalizations for stabilization. We should not disallow or misdirect those patients who need inpatient care from receiving such because of an arbitrary incentive to reduce rehospitalizations out of fear of punitive financial damages. The unforeseen risks here are real.”

Dr. Yancy says studies based on CMS data have found that institutions with higher readmission rates have lower 30-day mortality rates.² He cautions hospitalists to be “very thoughtful about an overzealous embrace of reducing all readmissions for heart failure.” Instead, the goal should be to limit the “avoidable readmissions.”

“And for the patient that clearly has advanced disease,” he says, “rather than triaging them away from the hospital, we really should be very respectful of their disease. Keep those patients where disease-modifying interventions can be deployed, and we can work to achieve the best possible outcome for those that have the most advanced disease.”

3) New interventional technologies will mean more complex patients, so be ready.

Advances in interventional procedures, including transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and endoscopic mitral valve repair, will translate into a new population of highly complex patients. Many of these patients will be in their 80s or 90s.

“It’s a whole new paradigm shift of technology,” says John Harold, MD, president-elect of the American College of Cardiology and past chief of staff and department of medicine clinical chief of staff at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. “Very often, the hospitalist is at the front dealing with all of these issues.”

Many of these patients have other problems, including renal insufficiency, diabetes, and the like.

“They have all sorts of other things going on simultaneously, so very often the hospitalist becomes … the point person in dealing with all of these issues,” Dr. Harold says.

4) Aldosterone antagonists, though probably underutilized, can be very effective but require caution.

Aldosterone antagonists can greatly improve outcomes and reduce hospitalization in heart-failure patients, but they have to be used with very careful dosing and patient selection, Dr. Fonarow says. And they require early follow-up once patients are discharged.

“Only about a third of ideal candidates with heart failure are currently treated with this agent, even though it markedly improves outcome and is Class I-recommended in the guidelines,” Dr. Fonarow says. “But this is one where it needs to be started at appropriate low doses, with meticulous monitoring in both the inpatient and the outpatient setting, early follow-up, and early laboratory checks.”

5) Switching from IV diuretics to an oral regimen calls for careful monitoring.

Transitioning patients from IV diuretics to oral regimens is an area rife with mistakes, Dr. Fonarow says. It requires a lot of “meticulous attention to proper potassium supplementation and monitoring of renal function and electrolyte levels,” he says.

Medication reconciliation—“med rec”—is especially important during the transition from inpatient to outpatient.

“There are common medication errors that are made during this transition,” Dr. Fonarow says. “Hospitalists, along with other [care team] members, can really play a critically important role in trying to reduce that risk.”

6) Patients with heart failure with preserved ejection

fraction have outcomes over the longer haul similar to those with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. And in preserved ejection fraction cases, the contributing illnesses must be addressed.

“We really can’t exercise a thought economy that just says, ‘Extrapolate the evidence-based therapies for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction to heart failure with preserved ejection fraction’ and expect good outcomes,” Dr. Yancy says. “That’s not the case. We don’t have an evidence base to substantiate that.”

He says one or more common comorbidities (e.g. atrial fibrillation, hypertension, obesity, diabetes, renal insufficiency) are present in 90% of patients with preserved ejection fraction. Treatment of those comorbidities—for example, rate control in afib patients, lowering the blood pressure in hypertension patients—has to be done with care.

“We should recognize that the therapy for this condition, albeit absent any specifically indicated interventions that will change its natural history, can still be skillfully constructed,” Dr. Yancy says. “But that construct needs to reflect the recommended, guideline-driven interventions for the concomitant other comorbidities.”

7) Inotropic agents can do more harm than good.

For patients who aren’t in cardiogenic shock, using inotropic agents doesn’t help. In fact, it might actually hurt. Dr. Fonarow says studies have shown these agents can “prolong length of stay, cause complications, and increase mortality risk.”

He notes that the use of inotropes should be avoided, or if it’s being considered, a cardiologist with knowledge and experience in heart failure should be involved in the treatment and care.

Statements about avoiding inotropes in heart failure, except under very specific circumstances, have been “incredibly strengthened” recently in the American College of Cardiology and Heart Failure Society of America guidelines.³

8) Pay attention to the ins and outs of new antiplatelet therapies.

For the majority of these, there’s no specific way to reverse the anticoagulant effect in the event of a major bleeding event. There’s no simple antidote.

—John Harold, MD, president-elect, American College of Cardiology, former chief of staff, department of medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles

Hospitalists caring for acute coronary syndrome patients need to familiarize themselves with updated guidelines and additional therapies that are now available, Dr. Fonarow says. New antiplatelet therapies (e.g. prasugrel and ticagrelor) are available as part of the armamentarium, along with the mainstay clopidogrel.

“These therapies lower the risk of recurrent events, lowered the risk of stent thrombosis,” he says. “In the case of ticagrelor, it actually lowered all-cause mortality. These are important new therapies, with new guideline recommendations, that all hospitalists should be aware of.”

9) Bridging anticoagulant therapy in patients going for electrophysiology procedures should be done only some, not most, of the time.

“Patients getting such devices as pacemakers or implantable cardioverter defribrillators (ICD) installed tend not to need bridging,” says Joaquin Cigarroa, MD, clinical chief of cardiology at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland.

He says it’s actually “safer” to do the procedure when patients “are on oral antithrombotics than switching them from an oral agent, and bridging with low- molecular-weight- or unfractionated heparin.”

“It’s a big deal,” Dr. Cigarroa adds, because it is risky to have elderly and frail patients on multiple antithrombotics. “Hemorrhagic complications in cardiology patients still occurs very frequently, so really be attuned to estimating bleeding risk and making sure that we’re dosing antithrombotics appropriately. Bridging should be the minority of patients, not the majority of patients.”

10) Some non-STEMI patients might benefit from getting to the catheterization lab quickly.

Door-to-balloon time is recognized as critical for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients, but more recent work—such as in the TIMACS trial—finds benefits of early revascularization for some non-STEMI patients as well.²

“This trial showed that among higher-risk patients, using a validated risk score, that those patients did benefit from an early approach, meaning going to the cath lab in the first 12 hours of hospitalization,” Dr. Fonarow says. “We now have more information about the optimal timing of coronary angiography and potential revascularization of higher-risk patients with non-ST-segment elevation MI.”

11) Beware the idiosyncrasies of new anticoagulants.

The introduction of dabigatran and rivaroxaban (and, perhaps soon, apixaban) to the array of anticoagulant therapies brings a new slate of considerations for hospitalists, Dr. Harold says.

“For the majority of these, there’s no specific way to reverse the anticoagulant effect in the event of a major bleeding event,” he says. “There’s no simple antidote. And the effect can last up to 12 to 24 hours, depending on the renal function. This is what the hospitalist will be called to deal with: bleeding complications in patients who have these newer anticoagulants on board.”

Dr. Fonarow says that the new CHA2DS2-VASc score has been found to do a better job than the traditional CHADS2 score in assessing afib stroke risk.⁴

12) Be cognizant of stent thrombosis and how to manage it.

Dr. Harold says that most hospitalists probably are up to date on drug-eluting stents and the risk of stopping dual antiplatelet therapy within several months of implant, but that doesn’t mean they won’t treat patients whose primary-care physicians (PCPs) aren’t up to date. He recommends working on these cases with hematologists.

“That knowledge is not widespread in terms of the internal-medicine community,” he says. “I’ve seen situations where patients have had their Plavix stopped for colonoscopies and they’ve had stent thrombosis. It’s this knowledge of cardiac patients who come in with recent deployment of drug-eluting stents who may end up having other issues.”

Tom Collins is a freelance writer in South Florida.

References

1. 2009 Focused Update: ACCF/AHA Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Heart Failure in Adults. Circulation. 2009;119:1977-2016 an HFSA 2010 Comprehensive Heart Failure Practice Guideline. J Cardiac Failure. 2010;16(6):475-539.
2. Gorodeski EZ, Starling RC, Blackstone EH. Are all readmissions bad readmissions? N Engl J Med. 2010;363:297-298.
3. Mehta SR, Granger CB, Boden WE, et al. Early versus delayed invasive intervention in acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(21):2165-2175.
4. Olesen JB, Torp-Pedersen C, Hansen ML, Lip GY. The value of the CHA2DS2-VASc score for refining stroke risk stratification in patients with atrial fibrillation with a CHADS2 score 0-1: a nationwide cohort study. Thromb Haemost. 2012;107(6):1172-1179.
5. Associations between outpatient heart failure process-of-care measures and mortality. Circulation. 2011;123(15):1601-1610.

Larry Wellikson, MD, SFHM

I needed an oil change, so I took my car to Jiffy Lube. I had just pulled into the entrance to one of the service bays when a smiling man whose nametag read “Tony” approached me. “Welcome back, Mr. Wellikson. What can we help you with today?” Well, that was nice and so unexpected, as I had not remembered ever going to that Jiffy Lube. As it turns out, they have a video camera that shows incoming cars in their control room. They can read my license plate and call up my car on their computer system, access my record, and create a personal greeting. They also used my car’s past history as a starting point for this encounter. We were off to a good start.

Once I indicated I just wanted a routine oil change, Tony indicated he would be back in five to 10 minutes. He told me I should wait in the waiting room where they had wireless Internet, TV, magazines, and comfortable chairs.

In less than 10 minutes, Tony was back, clipboard in hand, with an assessment of my car’s status, including previous work and manufacturer’s recommendations, based on my car’s age and mileage. Once we negotiated not replacing all of the fluids and filters, Tony smiled and said the work should be completed in 10 minutes.

Soon, Tony came back to lead me out to my car, which had been wheeled out to the front of the garage bay with an open driver’s door waiting for me. After helping me into my seat, Tony came around and sat in the passenger seat and, once again with his ready clipboard, walked me through the 29 steps of inspections and fluid changes that had been made on my visit, reviewed the frequency of future needs for my vehicle, put a sticker on my inside windshield as a reminder, included $5 off for my next service, then patiently asked me if I had any questions.

Total time at Jiffy Lube: less than 30 minutes. Total cost: $29.99. Total customer experience: exceptional. Considering it was the third Jiffy Lube location I had used in the past three years, I can tell you the experience and system is the same throughout the company, whether the uniform name is Tony or Jose or Gladys.

Can such experiences offer hospitalists lessons about how we manage the customer experience in hospital care?

Scalable Innovation

In August 2012, Atul Gawande, MD, wrote a thought-provoking article in The New Yorker in which he coupled his detailed observation of how the restaurant chain The Cheesecake Factory manages to deliver 8 million meals annually nationwide with high quality at a reasonable cost and strong corporate profits with the emerging trend of healthcare delivery innovations being sought by large hospital chains and such innovations as ICU telemedicine.¹

He noted that, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, less than 25% of physicians are currently self-employed, and the growing trend is hospitals being acquired or merged into larger and larger hospital chains. He observed that recent and future financial changes are moving toward payment for results and efficiencies and further away from just rewarding transactions and supplying services, whether of measureable value or with proven results. Cheesecake Factory has built its success on large-scale production-line processes that produce consistent results across hundreds of locations and millions of meals. It may now be time for healthcare, especially hospital care, to come into the 21st century, too.

How did Cheesecake Factory get to where they are? They studied what the best people were doing, figured out a way to standardize it, then looked for ways to bring it to everyone. Although we could look at research as medicine’s way of bringing new concepts forward, where we have fallen down as an industry and culture is our ability to deliver on this at the bedside. Why aren’t most myocardial infarction patients on beta-blockers? Why isn’t DVT prophylaxis universal? Why can’t we all wash our hands on a regular basis?

Medical care, especially the physician portion, has always placed an overwhelming bias on autonomy. We all know that even at the same hospital or within the same physician group of cardiologists or orthopedists (or even hospitalists) that there can be multiple ways to treat chest pain, replace a joint, or manage pneumonia. Dr. Gawande postulates that “customization should be 5%, not 95%, of what we do.” He is not suggesting cookbook medicine—rather, that we bring all of the current proven and consensus medical knowledge together and allow local professionals to agree to narrow their choices down to a consistent and reproducible process for managing care.

Hoag, a health network near my home in Orange County, Calif., has brought this approach to orthopedic care. Hoag purchased a smaller hospital near its main campus and is emphasizing state-of-the-art orthopedic care at the new facility. They aligned the incentives—clinically and financially—with a large but select group of orthopedists, and they have chosen just a few prosthetic choices for hip and knee replacements. They have narrowed their protocols for pre- and post-op care, and now do same-day joint replacements with lower complication rates and better return-to-activity results at lower costs. And trust me, the orthopedists at Hoag were as independent as any physicians you might run into. The demands of the new payor models and competition to provide consumers (i.e. patients) with a 21st-century experience pushed, pulled, and prodded these orthopedists, and an enlightened hospital leadership, to rise to the challenges.

HM Takeaway

So where do hospitalists fit into this emerging world of customer service, standardization, accountability for results, and payment change? As you might imagine, we are right in the middle of all of this. High-functioning HM groups have understood that we must help shape a better system for us to work in. We cannot perpetuate the old paradigm in which the hospital was simply a swap meet where each physician had a booth and performed a procedure with little regard to how efficient or effective the entire enterprise might be.

Hospitalists have always performed in a group setting and worked across the professional disciplines of medicine, surgery, and subspecialties, and with nurses, pharmacists, and therapists. In the best of breed, hospitalists are enculturated to think systemwide yet deliver to an individual patient.

As hospital chains look to standardize and deliver the best results and the most efficient use of resources, hospitalists can be positioned in a variety of ways. You can be an innovative partner, working with other professionals and the administration to seek new ways of doing things. You can be the manager or coordinator of other professionals and the rest of the team. But you also could evolve to be line workers and cogs in a larger machine, replaceable and commoditized. In the end, hospitalists will not only need to create value, but also position themselves to be professionally rewarded and respected for the value they create.

Dr. Gawande considers the perspectives of healthcare providers and patients as he looks to the future. “Patients won’t just look for the best specialist anymore; they’ll look for the best system,” he says. “Nurses and doctors will have to get used to delivering care in which our own convenience counts for less and the patients’ experience counts for more.”

The changes ahead will be rapid and disruptive; some hospitals will be driven out of business, while some will be consolidated. Physicians will aggregate and become employees (although many will still think they are free agents). Standardization will be pushed, and customization and one-offs will be tolerated less and less.

In this new world, hospitalists have the opportunity to be at the leading edge, not just for other physicians but the entire healthcare team. We need to prepare for this challenge, not just with clinical skills, but with a culture and a mindset to adapt and evolve. We need to decide if we will be cogs in a machine or the innovators and managers of change. The time is now; the choice is ours.

Dr. Wellikson is CEO of SHM.

Reference

1. Gawande A. The New Yorker. “Big Med.” The New Yorker website. Available at: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/08/13/120813fa_fact_gawande. Accessed Aug. 20, 2012.

Larry Wellikson, MD, SFHM

I needed an oil change, so I took my car to Jiffy Lube. I had just pulled into the entrance to one of the service bays when a smiling man whose nametag read “Tony” approached me. “Welcome back, Mr. Wellikson. What can we help you with today?” Well, that was nice and so unexpected, as I had not remembered ever going to that Jiffy Lube. As it turns out, they have a video camera that shows incoming cars in their control room. They can read my license plate and call up my car on their computer system, access my record, and create a personal greeting. They also used my car’s past history as a starting point for this encounter. We were off to a good start.

Once I indicated I just wanted a routine oil change, Tony indicated he would be back in five to 10 minutes. He told me I should wait in the waiting room where they had wireless Internet, TV, magazines, and comfortable chairs.

In less than 10 minutes, Tony was back, clipboard in hand, with an assessment of my car’s status, including previous work and manufacturer’s recommendations, based on my car’s age and mileage. Once we negotiated not replacing all of the fluids and filters, Tony smiled and said the work should be completed in 10 minutes.

Soon, Tony came back to lead me out to my car, which had been wheeled out to the front of the garage bay with an open driver’s door waiting for me. After helping me into my seat, Tony came around and sat in the passenger seat and, once again with his ready clipboard, walked me through the 29 steps of inspections and fluid changes that had been made on my visit, reviewed the frequency of future needs for my vehicle, put a sticker on my inside windshield as a reminder, included $5 off for my next service, then patiently asked me if I had any questions.

Total time at Jiffy Lube: less than 30 minutes. Total cost: $29.99. Total customer experience: exceptional. Considering it was the third Jiffy Lube location I had used in the past three years, I can tell you the experience and system is the same throughout the company, whether the uniform name is Tony or Jose or Gladys.

Can such experiences offer hospitalists lessons about how we manage the customer experience in hospital care?

Scalable Innovation

In August 2012, Atul Gawande, MD, wrote a thought-provoking article in The New Yorker in which he coupled his detailed observation of how the restaurant chain The Cheesecake Factory manages to deliver 8 million meals annually nationwide with high quality at a reasonable cost and strong corporate profits with the emerging trend of healthcare delivery innovations being sought by large hospital chains and such innovations as ICU telemedicine.¹

He noted that, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, less than 25% of physicians are currently self-employed, and the growing trend is hospitals being acquired or merged into larger and larger hospital chains. He observed that recent and future financial changes are moving toward payment for results and efficiencies and further away from just rewarding transactions and supplying services, whether of measureable value or with proven results. Cheesecake Factory has built its success on large-scale production-line processes that produce consistent results across hundreds of locations and millions of meals. It may now be time for healthcare, especially hospital care, to come into the 21st century, too.

How did Cheesecake Factory get to where they are? They studied what the best people were doing, figured out a way to standardize it, then looked for ways to bring it to everyone. Although we could look at research as medicine’s way of bringing new concepts forward, where we have fallen down as an industry and culture is our ability to deliver on this at the bedside. Why aren’t most myocardial infarction patients on beta-blockers? Why isn’t DVT prophylaxis universal? Why can’t we all wash our hands on a regular basis?

Medical care, especially the physician portion, has always placed an overwhelming bias on autonomy. We all know that even at the same hospital or within the same physician group of cardiologists or orthopedists (or even hospitalists) that there can be multiple ways to treat chest pain, replace a joint, or manage pneumonia. Dr. Gawande postulates that “customization should be 5%, not 95%, of what we do.” He is not suggesting cookbook medicine—rather, that we bring all of the current proven and consensus medical knowledge together and allow local professionals to agree to narrow their choices down to a consistent and reproducible process for managing care.

Hoag, a health network near my home in Orange County, Calif., has brought this approach to orthopedic care. Hoag purchased a smaller hospital near its main campus and is emphasizing state-of-the-art orthopedic care at the new facility. They aligned the incentives—clinically and financially—with a large but select group of orthopedists, and they have chosen just a few prosthetic choices for hip and knee replacements. They have narrowed their protocols for pre- and post-op care, and now do same-day joint replacements with lower complication rates and better return-to-activity results at lower costs. And trust me, the orthopedists at Hoag were as independent as any physicians you might run into. The demands of the new payor models and competition to provide consumers (i.e. patients) with a 21st-century experience pushed, pulled, and prodded these orthopedists, and an enlightened hospital leadership, to rise to the challenges.

HM Takeaway

So where do hospitalists fit into this emerging world of customer service, standardization, accountability for results, and payment change? As you might imagine, we are right in the middle of all of this. High-functioning HM groups have understood that we must help shape a better system for us to work in. We cannot perpetuate the old paradigm in which the hospital was simply a swap meet where each physician had a booth and performed a procedure with little regard to how efficient or effective the entire enterprise might be.

Hospitalists have always performed in a group setting and worked across the professional disciplines of medicine, surgery, and subspecialties, and with nurses, pharmacists, and therapists. In the best of breed, hospitalists are enculturated to think systemwide yet deliver to an individual patient.

As hospital chains look to standardize and deliver the best results and the most efficient use of resources, hospitalists can be positioned in a variety of ways. You can be an innovative partner, working with other professionals and the administration to seek new ways of doing things. You can be the manager or coordinator of other professionals and the rest of the team. But you also could evolve to be line workers and cogs in a larger machine, replaceable and commoditized. In the end, hospitalists will not only need to create value, but also position themselves to be professionally rewarded and respected for the value they create.

Dr. Gawande considers the perspectives of healthcare providers and patients as he looks to the future. “Patients won’t just look for the best specialist anymore; they’ll look for the best system,” he says. “Nurses and doctors will have to get used to delivering care in which our own convenience counts for less and the patients’ experience counts for more.”

The changes ahead will be rapid and disruptive; some hospitals will be driven out of business, while some will be consolidated. Physicians will aggregate and become employees (although many will still think they are free agents). Standardization will be pushed, and customization and one-offs will be tolerated less and less.

In this new world, hospitalists have the opportunity to be at the leading edge, not just for other physicians but the entire healthcare team. We need to prepare for this challenge, not just with clinical skills, but with a culture and a mindset to adapt and evolve. We need to decide if we will be cogs in a machine or the innovators and managers of change. The time is now; the choice is ours.

Dr. Wellikson is CEO of SHM.

Reference

1. Gawande A. The New Yorker. “Big Med.” The New Yorker website. Available at: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/08/13/120813fa_fact_gawande. Accessed Aug. 20, 2012.

Larry Wellikson, MD, SFHM

I needed an oil change, so I took my car to Jiffy Lube. I had just pulled into the entrance to one of the service bays when a smiling man whose nametag read “Tony” approached me. “Welcome back, Mr. Wellikson. What can we help you with today?” Well, that was nice and so unexpected, as I had not remembered ever going to that Jiffy Lube. As it turns out, they have a video camera that shows incoming cars in their control room. They can read my license plate and call up my car on their computer system, access my record, and create a personal greeting. They also used my car’s past history as a starting point for this encounter. We were off to a good start.

Once I indicated I just wanted a routine oil change, Tony indicated he would be back in five to 10 minutes. He told me I should wait in the waiting room where they had wireless Internet, TV, magazines, and comfortable chairs.

In less than 10 minutes, Tony was back, clipboard in hand, with an assessment of my car’s status, including previous work and manufacturer’s recommendations, based on my car’s age and mileage. Once we negotiated not replacing all of the fluids and filters, Tony smiled and said the work should be completed in 10 minutes.

Soon, Tony came back to lead me out to my car, which had been wheeled out to the front of the garage bay with an open driver’s door waiting for me. After helping me into my seat, Tony came around and sat in the passenger seat and, once again with his ready clipboard, walked me through the 29 steps of inspections and fluid changes that had been made on my visit, reviewed the frequency of future needs for my vehicle, put a sticker on my inside windshield as a reminder, included $5 off for my next service, then patiently asked me if I had any questions.

Total time at Jiffy Lube: less than 30 minutes. Total cost: $29.99. Total customer experience: exceptional. Considering it was the third Jiffy Lube location I had used in the past three years, I can tell you the experience and system is the same throughout the company, whether the uniform name is Tony or Jose or Gladys.

Can such experiences offer hospitalists lessons about how we manage the customer experience in hospital care?

Scalable Innovation

In August 2012, Atul Gawande, MD, wrote a thought-provoking article in The New Yorker in which he coupled his detailed observation of how the restaurant chain The Cheesecake Factory manages to deliver 8 million meals annually nationwide with high quality at a reasonable cost and strong corporate profits with the emerging trend of healthcare delivery innovations being sought by large hospital chains and such innovations as ICU telemedicine.¹

He noted that, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, less than 25% of physicians are currently self-employed, and the growing trend is hospitals being acquired or merged into larger and larger hospital chains. He observed that recent and future financial changes are moving toward payment for results and efficiencies and further away from just rewarding transactions and supplying services, whether of measureable value or with proven results. Cheesecake Factory has built its success on large-scale production-line processes that produce consistent results across hundreds of locations and millions of meals. It may now be time for healthcare, especially hospital care, to come into the 21st century, too.

How did Cheesecake Factory get to where they are? They studied what the best people were doing, figured out a way to standardize it, then looked for ways to bring it to everyone. Although we could look at research as medicine’s way of bringing new concepts forward, where we have fallen down as an industry and culture is our ability to deliver on this at the bedside. Why aren’t most myocardial infarction patients on beta-blockers? Why isn’t DVT prophylaxis universal? Why can’t we all wash our hands on a regular basis?

Medical care, especially the physician portion, has always placed an overwhelming bias on autonomy. We all know that even at the same hospital or within the same physician group of cardiologists or orthopedists (or even hospitalists) that there can be multiple ways to treat chest pain, replace a joint, or manage pneumonia. Dr. Gawande postulates that “customization should be 5%, not 95%, of what we do.” He is not suggesting cookbook medicine—rather, that we bring all of the current proven and consensus medical knowledge together and allow local professionals to agree to narrow their choices down to a consistent and reproducible process for managing care.

Hoag, a health network near my home in Orange County, Calif., has brought this approach to orthopedic care. Hoag purchased a smaller hospital near its main campus and is emphasizing state-of-the-art orthopedic care at the new facility. They aligned the incentives—clinically and financially—with a large but select group of orthopedists, and they have chosen just a few prosthetic choices for hip and knee replacements. They have narrowed their protocols for pre- and post-op care, and now do same-day joint replacements with lower complication rates and better return-to-activity results at lower costs. And trust me, the orthopedists at Hoag were as independent as any physicians you might run into. The demands of the new payor models and competition to provide consumers (i.e. patients) with a 21st-century experience pushed, pulled, and prodded these orthopedists, and an enlightened hospital leadership, to rise to the challenges.

HM Takeaway

So where do hospitalists fit into this emerging world of customer service, standardization, accountability for results, and payment change? As you might imagine, we are right in the middle of all of this. High-functioning HM groups have understood that we must help shape a better system for us to work in. We cannot perpetuate the old paradigm in which the hospital was simply a swap meet where each physician had a booth and performed a procedure with little regard to how efficient or effective the entire enterprise might be.

Hospitalists have always performed in a group setting and worked across the professional disciplines of medicine, surgery, and subspecialties, and with nurses, pharmacists, and therapists. In the best of breed, hospitalists are enculturated to think systemwide yet deliver to an individual patient.

As hospital chains look to standardize and deliver the best results and the most efficient use of resources, hospitalists can be positioned in a variety of ways. You can be an innovative partner, working with other professionals and the administration to seek new ways of doing things. You can be the manager or coordinator of other professionals and the rest of the team. But you also could evolve to be line workers and cogs in a larger machine, replaceable and commoditized. In the end, hospitalists will not only need to create value, but also position themselves to be professionally rewarded and respected for the value they create.

Dr. Gawande considers the perspectives of healthcare providers and patients as he looks to the future. “Patients won’t just look for the best specialist anymore; they’ll look for the best system,” he says. “Nurses and doctors will have to get used to delivering care in which our own convenience counts for less and the patients’ experience counts for more.”

The changes ahead will be rapid and disruptive; some hospitals will be driven out of business, while some will be consolidated. Physicians will aggregate and become employees (although many will still think they are free agents). Standardization will be pushed, and customization and one-offs will be tolerated less and less.

In this new world, hospitalists have the opportunity to be at the leading edge, not just for other physicians but the entire healthcare team. We need to prepare for this challenge, not just with clinical skills, but with a culture and a mindset to adapt and evolve. We need to decide if we will be cogs in a machine or the innovators and managers of change. The time is now; the choice is ours.

Dr. Wellikson is CEO of SHM.

Reference

1. Gawande A. The New Yorker. “Big Med.” The New Yorker website. Available at: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/08/13/120813fa_fact_gawande. Accessed Aug. 20, 2012.

Hospitalist-led teams in the ED help reduce diversions, improve patient flow, and provide more timely care to boarded patients, according to a study in the Journal of Hospital Medicine (JHM).

The single-center study, "Hospitalist-Led Medicine Emergency Department Team: Associations with Throughput, Timeliness of Patient Care, and Satisfaction," found a reduction in diversions due to medicine bed capacity of 27% (4.5% to 3%, P=<0.01). Boarded patients were rounded a mean of 2 hours and 9 minutes earlier with hospitalist-led teams; length of stay (LOS) in the ED, LOS in the hospital, and 48-hour returns were unchanged. The study, which took place at 477-bed Denver Health Medical Center (DHMC), assigned a hospitalist and an allied health provider to the ED during dayshifts. At night, ED coverage was rolled into the existing hospitalist duties.

Lead author Smitha R. Chadaga, MD, who works in DHMC's Department of Medicine, believes the study could spur more HM groups to consider dedicating a staffer to the ED. The team in Denver was created to care for medicine patients in the ED awaiting inpatient beds, and to work with nursing supervisors to improve bed management.

"There are numerous places that hospitalists can impact hospital flow, whether it's helping with bed management, providing consultative services to the ED, or caring for boarded patients," Dr. Chadaga says. "Knowing the ins and outs of inpatient medicine really lends itself well to some areas that hospitalists might not have thought about before."

Dr. Chadaga says the research is broadly applicable because HM groups can implement its different features. For example, adding a consultative phone service can help ED physicians determine whether a patient needs to be admitted and could improve patient flow.

Hospitalist-led teams in the ED help reduce diversions, improve patient flow, and provide more timely care to boarded patients, according to a study in the Journal of Hospital Medicine (JHM).

The single-center study, "Hospitalist-Led Medicine Emergency Department Team: Associations with Throughput, Timeliness of Patient Care, and Satisfaction," found a reduction in diversions due to medicine bed capacity of 27% (4.5% to 3%, P=<0.01). Boarded patients were rounded a mean of 2 hours and 9 minutes earlier with hospitalist-led teams; length of stay (LOS) in the ED, LOS in the hospital, and 48-hour returns were unchanged. The study, which took place at 477-bed Denver Health Medical Center (DHMC), assigned a hospitalist and an allied health provider to the ED during dayshifts. At night, ED coverage was rolled into the existing hospitalist duties.

Lead author Smitha R. Chadaga, MD, who works in DHMC's Department of Medicine, believes the study could spur more HM groups to consider dedicating a staffer to the ED. The team in Denver was created to care for medicine patients in the ED awaiting inpatient beds, and to work with nursing supervisors to improve bed management.

"There are numerous places that hospitalists can impact hospital flow, whether it's helping with bed management, providing consultative services to the ED, or caring for boarded patients," Dr. Chadaga says. "Knowing the ins and outs of inpatient medicine really lends itself well to some areas that hospitalists might not have thought about before."

Dr. Chadaga says the research is broadly applicable because HM groups can implement its different features. For example, adding a consultative phone service can help ED physicians determine whether a patient needs to be admitted and could improve patient flow.

Hospitalist-led teams in the ED help reduce diversions, improve patient flow, and provide more timely care to boarded patients, according to a study in the Journal of Hospital Medicine (JHM).

The single-center study, "Hospitalist-Led Medicine Emergency Department Team: Associations with Throughput, Timeliness of Patient Care, and Satisfaction," found a reduction in diversions due to medicine bed capacity of 27% (4.5% to 3%, P=<0.01). Boarded patients were rounded a mean of 2 hours and 9 minutes earlier with hospitalist-led teams; length of stay (LOS) in the ED, LOS in the hospital, and 48-hour returns were unchanged. The study, which took place at 477-bed Denver Health Medical Center (DHMC), assigned a hospitalist and an allied health provider to the ED during dayshifts. At night, ED coverage was rolled into the existing hospitalist duties.

Lead author Smitha R. Chadaga, MD, who works in DHMC's Department of Medicine, believes the study could spur more HM groups to consider dedicating a staffer to the ED. The team in Denver was created to care for medicine patients in the ED awaiting inpatient beds, and to work with nursing supervisors to improve bed management.

"There are numerous places that hospitalists can impact hospital flow, whether it's helping with bed management, providing consultative services to the ED, or caring for boarded patients," Dr. Chadaga says. "Knowing the ins and outs of inpatient medicine really lends itself well to some areas that hospitalists might not have thought about before."

Dr. Chadaga says the research is broadly applicable because HM groups can implement its different features. For example, adding a consultative phone service can help ED physicians determine whether a patient needs to be admitted and could improve patient flow.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' (CMS) recently announced final rule [PDF] on Stage 2 compliance for "meaningful use" of electronic health records (EHR) has been met with mixed reactions among most providers and trade groups, including SHM which voiced its concerns back in July.

"It's the classic government mixed bag," says Brenda Pawlak, director of Manatt Health Solutions, a division of New York City law firm Manatt, Phelps & Phillips.

Physician groups, including SHM and the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA), have lauded CMS for pushing back the implementation of Stage 2 meaningful-use requirements to 2014 from 2013. They also praised the agency for halving to 5% the percentage of a practice's patients who interact with an online portal. But for some providers, even the 5% threshold will be difficult to meet. And because physicians have to meet all requirements to qualify for incentive bonuses, the issue could loom large for specific groups.

"I don't think the 10% to 5% is a substantive change," Pawlak says.

Although most hospitalists are not directly subject to "meaningful use" requirements, many are heavily involved with assisting their institutions with implementation. SHM, which voiced its concerns in a July letter to CMS, is following this topic closely.

Some physician groups also lamented that the deadline for Stage 1 compliance remains unchanged at 2015. As physicians and provider groups attempt to comply with myriad rules, Pawlak says, meeting the 5% threshold will emerge as more burdensome as the deadline approaches. Still, CMS and federal officials say, the final rule will help nudge the healthcare system further into the digital age.

"The big message here is the push on standards-based interoperability of information," says Farzad Mostashari, MD, ScM, of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. "We are staying on course with the road map that we set in Stage 1."

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' (CMS) recently announced final rule [PDF] on Stage 2 compliance for "meaningful use" of electronic health records (EHR) has been met with mixed reactions among most providers and trade groups, including SHM which voiced its concerns back in July.

"It's the classic government mixed bag," says Brenda Pawlak, director of Manatt Health Solutions, a division of New York City law firm Manatt, Phelps & Phillips.

Physician groups, including SHM and the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA), have lauded CMS for pushing back the implementation of Stage 2 meaningful-use requirements to 2014 from 2013. They also praised the agency for halving to 5% the percentage of a practice's patients who interact with an online portal. But for some providers, even the 5% threshold will be difficult to meet. And because physicians have to meet all requirements to qualify for incentive bonuses, the issue could loom large for specific groups.

"I don't think the 10% to 5% is a substantive change," Pawlak says.

Although most hospitalists are not directly subject to "meaningful use" requirements, many are heavily involved with assisting their institutions with implementation. SHM, which voiced its concerns in a July letter to CMS, is following this topic closely.

Some physician groups also lamented that the deadline for Stage 1 compliance remains unchanged at 2015. As physicians and provider groups attempt to comply with myriad rules, Pawlak says, meeting the 5% threshold will emerge as more burdensome as the deadline approaches. Still, CMS and federal officials say, the final rule will help nudge the healthcare system further into the digital age.

"The big message here is the push on standards-based interoperability of information," says Farzad Mostashari, MD, ScM, of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. "We are staying on course with the road map that we set in Stage 1."

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' (CMS) recently announced final rule [PDF] on Stage 2 compliance for "meaningful use" of electronic health records (EHR) has been met with mixed reactions among most providers and trade groups, including SHM which voiced its concerns back in July.

"It's the classic government mixed bag," says Brenda Pawlak, director of Manatt Health Solutions, a division of New York City law firm Manatt, Phelps & Phillips.

Physician groups, including SHM and the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA), have lauded CMS for pushing back the implementation of Stage 2 meaningful-use requirements to 2014 from 2013. They also praised the agency for halving to 5% the percentage of a practice's patients who interact with an online portal. But for some providers, even the 5% threshold will be difficult to meet. And because physicians have to meet all requirements to qualify for incentive bonuses, the issue could loom large for specific groups.

"I don't think the 10% to 5% is a substantive change," Pawlak says.

Although most hospitalists are not directly subject to "meaningful use" requirements, many are heavily involved with assisting their institutions with implementation. SHM, which voiced its concerns in a July letter to CMS, is following this topic closely.

Some physician groups also lamented that the deadline for Stage 1 compliance remains unchanged at 2015. As physicians and provider groups attempt to comply with myriad rules, Pawlak says, meeting the 5% threshold will emerge as more burdensome as the deadline approaches. Still, CMS and federal officials say, the final rule will help nudge the healthcare system further into the digital age.

"The big message here is the push on standards-based interoperability of information," says Farzad Mostashari, MD, ScM, of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. "We are staying on course with the road map that we set in Stage 1."

Sometimes a hospitalist is put in the difficult position of communicating information that involves bad news—for instance, a poor prognosis to a patient or clarifying treatment options and goals for care to a family member of a patient with an advanced illness. A workshop at HM12 offered a technique that hospitalists can use to convey such difficult messages.

“Ask-Tell-Ask” is a back-and-forth cycle between the patient and health professional that addresses four essential components: the patient’s perspective, information that needs to be delivered, response to the patient’s emotions, and recommendations by the professional.

“In the setting of an advanced illness, the patient’s perspective needs to be more fully explored so that we can figure out what information they need and want,” says Kristen Schaefer, MD, a palliative-care physician and director of residency education at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston who spoke at an HM12 workshop. “That communication needs to be multidirectional to promote shared decision-making. All of these communication techniques are based on a better understanding of the patient’s perspective, but with Ask-Tell-Ask, you are clarifying their emotional response to illness, their values and personal goals in life, and how they cope with setbacks.”

Physicians should always start in an open-ended way, asking questions and listening to the response, Dr. Schaefer explains. “Then you can tailor the information you provide to what they have told you. There’s always emotional content around these issues, and you need to clarify that emotion,” she says. “If there is a big emotion in the room, and it hasn’t been addressed, it doesn’t matter what you teach the patient. You’ll never get to the underlying problems.”

Another effective technique, Dr. Schaefer says, is the judicious use of silence. She says healthcare providers can learn to listen more, talk less, and always start with the patient’s perspective as the basis for communication.

“It makes for more satisfying work—and it’s also more effective,” she says.

Larry Beresford is a freelance writer in Oakland, Calif.

Sometimes a hospitalist is put in the difficult position of communicating information that involves bad news—for instance, a poor prognosis to a patient or clarifying treatment options and goals for care to a family member of a patient with an advanced illness. A workshop at HM12 offered a technique that hospitalists can use to convey such difficult messages.

“Ask-Tell-Ask” is a back-and-forth cycle between the patient and health professional that addresses four essential components: the patient’s perspective, information that needs to be delivered, response to the patient’s emotions, and recommendations by the professional.

“In the setting of an advanced illness, the patient’s perspective needs to be more fully explored so that we can figure out what information they need and want,” says Kristen Schaefer, MD, a palliative-care physician and director of residency education at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston who spoke at an HM12 workshop. “That communication needs to be multidirectional to promote shared decision-making. All of these communication techniques are based on a better understanding of the patient’s perspective, but with Ask-Tell-Ask, you are clarifying their emotional response to illness, their values and personal goals in life, and how they cope with setbacks.”

Physicians should always start in an open-ended way, asking questions and listening to the response, Dr. Schaefer explains. “Then you can tailor the information you provide to what they have told you. There’s always emotional content around these issues, and you need to clarify that emotion,” she says. “If there is a big emotion in the room, and it hasn’t been addressed, it doesn’t matter what you teach the patient. You’ll never get to the underlying problems.”

Another effective technique, Dr. Schaefer says, is the judicious use of silence. She says healthcare providers can learn to listen more, talk less, and always start with the patient’s perspective as the basis for communication.

“It makes for more satisfying work—and it’s also more effective,” she says.

Larry Beresford is a freelance writer in Oakland, Calif.

Sometimes a hospitalist is put in the difficult position of communicating information that involves bad news—for instance, a poor prognosis to a patient or clarifying treatment options and goals for care to a family member of a patient with an advanced illness. A workshop at HM12 offered a technique that hospitalists can use to convey such difficult messages.

“Ask-Tell-Ask” is a back-and-forth cycle between the patient and health professional that addresses four essential components: the patient’s perspective, information that needs to be delivered, response to the patient’s emotions, and recommendations by the professional.

“In the setting of an advanced illness, the patient’s perspective needs to be more fully explored so that we can figure out what information they need and want,” says Kristen Schaefer, MD, a palliative-care physician and director of residency education at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston who spoke at an HM12 workshop. “That communication needs to be multidirectional to promote shared decision-making. All of these communication techniques are based on a better understanding of the patient’s perspective, but with Ask-Tell-Ask, you are clarifying their emotional response to illness, their values and personal goals in life, and how they cope with setbacks.”

Physicians should always start in an open-ended way, asking questions and listening to the response, Dr. Schaefer explains. “Then you can tailor the information you provide to what they have told you. There’s always emotional content around these issues, and you need to clarify that emotion,” she says. “If there is a big emotion in the room, and it hasn’t been addressed, it doesn’t matter what you teach the patient. You’ll never get to the underlying problems.”

Another effective technique, Dr. Schaefer says, is the judicious use of silence. She says healthcare providers can learn to listen more, talk less, and always start with the patient’s perspective as the basis for communication.

“It makes for more satisfying work—and it’s also more effective,” she says.

Larry Beresford is a freelance writer in Oakland, Calif.

In May and June, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius in May and June announced 107 healthcare innovations grants to improve coordination of care and reduce costs. The grants, a provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), range from $1 million to $30 million. HHS anticipates that the projects will reduce healthcare spending by $254 million over the next three years and provide "new ideas on how to deliver better health, improved care, and lower costs to people enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid and [the] Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP)."

Hospitalists played key roles in planning and developing several of the projects. Common themes include coordination and integration of services, promotion of community collaborations, integrating behavioral and physical care, and the use of telemedicine—many of the same approaches utilized by SHM's Project BOOST and other national initiatives for preventing unnecessary readmissions.

In Atlanta, Emory University's Center for Critical Care received a $10.7 million grant to deploy 40 nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) trained in critical care to underserved and rural ICUs in Georgia. In many of the targeted hospitals, hospitalists manage patients in the ICU, but this program brings an additional layer of staffing and expertise to the care, allowing patients to stay in their beds rather than having to be transferred, says Daniel Owens, MBA, the center’s director of operations and senior administrator of the division of hospital medicine at Emory.

The project will bring NPs and PAs from participating hospitals to Emory for an intensive, six-month, critical-care residency. "If they don't have these folks, we'll help to identify staff for the jobs," he adds.

At Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., a $2.4 million project to reduce rehospitalizations for a high-risk geriatric patients aims to close the gaps in care transitions between hospital, outpatient, post-acute, and extended-care settings, says Vanderbilt hospitalist Eduard Vasilevskis, MD. The project will employ transition advocates or coordinators in the hospital to improve communication at both ends, with evidence-based protocols to improve discharge planning. Long-term care providers will be offered Web-based training and video conferencing.

"The goal is to break the cycle of rehospitalization," says Dr. Vasilevskis, "but if patients need to come back to the hospital, there will be someone involved in their care who is familiar with the settings where they’ve come from."

Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) in Boston received $4.9 million for its Post-Acute Care Transitions program (PACT), which links the hospital to six affiliated primary care practices using a bundle of post-acute care interventions, care-transition specialists, and dedicated clinical pharmacists. Nurses remain in contact with patients by telephone for 30 days post-hospital discharge and coordinate the services of extended-care facilities and visiting nurses. Pharmacists perform in-hospital medication reconciliation and patient education, says hospitalist Lauren Doctoroff, MD, FHM. She and Julius Yang, MD, BIDMC medical director of inpatient quality, helped develop the pilot program, which began in August 2011.

"These care-transitions specialists offer us an added level of patient support and a different level of integration focused on risk assessment of such issues as social supports and problems with medical compliance, which can be used by the inpatient team to come up with the most rational and ideal discharge plan," Dr. Doctoroff says. "One of my colleagues said to me, ‘I feel so much better knowing there is this added level of support for patients after discharge.'"

The HHS grants reflect an important recognition that what happens to patients following discharge partly reflects what happens in the hospital but also depends on collaborations with post-acute providers, Dr. Doctoroff says.

"Hospitalists can't do everything, but they need their eye out of the hospital on post-acute providers in order to deliver the best care," she adds.

In May and June, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius in May and June announced 107 healthcare innovations grants to improve coordination of care and reduce costs. The grants, a provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), range from $1 million to $30 million. HHS anticipates that the projects will reduce healthcare spending by $254 million over the next three years and provide "new ideas on how to deliver better health, improved care, and lower costs to people enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid and [the] Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP)."

Hospitalists played key roles in planning and developing several of the projects. Common themes include coordination and integration of services, promotion of community collaborations, integrating behavioral and physical care, and the use of telemedicine—many of the same approaches utilized by SHM's Project BOOST and other national initiatives for preventing unnecessary readmissions.

In Atlanta, Emory University's Center for Critical Care received a $10.7 million grant to deploy 40 nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) trained in critical care to underserved and rural ICUs in Georgia. In many of the targeted hospitals, hospitalists manage patients in the ICU, but this program brings an additional layer of staffing and expertise to the care, allowing patients to stay in their beds rather than having to be transferred, says Daniel Owens, MBA, the center’s director of operations and senior administrator of the division of hospital medicine at Emory.

The project will bring NPs and PAs from participating hospitals to Emory for an intensive, six-month, critical-care residency. "If they don't have these folks, we'll help to identify staff for the jobs," he adds.

At Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., a $2.4 million project to reduce rehospitalizations for a high-risk geriatric patients aims to close the gaps in care transitions between hospital, outpatient, post-acute, and extended-care settings, says Vanderbilt hospitalist Eduard Vasilevskis, MD. The project will employ transition advocates or coordinators in the hospital to improve communication at both ends, with evidence-based protocols to improve discharge planning. Long-term care providers will be offered Web-based training and video conferencing.

"The goal is to break the cycle of rehospitalization," says Dr. Vasilevskis, "but if patients need to come back to the hospital, there will be someone involved in their care who is familiar with the settings where they’ve come from."

Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) in Boston received $4.9 million for its Post-Acute Care Transitions program (PACT), which links the hospital to six affiliated primary care practices using a bundle of post-acute care interventions, care-transition specialists, and dedicated clinical pharmacists. Nurses remain in contact with patients by telephone for 30 days post-hospital discharge and coordinate the services of extended-care facilities and visiting nurses. Pharmacists perform in-hospital medication reconciliation and patient education, says hospitalist Lauren Doctoroff, MD, FHM. She and Julius Yang, MD, BIDMC medical director of inpatient quality, helped develop the pilot program, which began in August 2011.

"These care-transitions specialists offer us an added level of patient support and a different level of integration focused on risk assessment of such issues as social supports and problems with medical compliance, which can be used by the inpatient team to come up with the most rational and ideal discharge plan," Dr. Doctoroff says. "One of my colleagues said to me, ‘I feel so much better knowing there is this added level of support for patients after discharge.'"

The HHS grants reflect an important recognition that what happens to patients following discharge partly reflects what happens in the hospital but also depends on collaborations with post-acute providers, Dr. Doctoroff says.

"Hospitalists can't do everything, but they need their eye out of the hospital on post-acute providers in order to deliver the best care," she adds.

In May and June, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius in May and June announced 107 healthcare innovations grants to improve coordination of care and reduce costs. The grants, a provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), range from $1 million to $30 million. HHS anticipates that the projects will reduce healthcare spending by $254 million over the next three years and provide "new ideas on how to deliver better health, improved care, and lower costs to people enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid and [the] Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP)."

Hospitalists played key roles in planning and developing several of the projects. Common themes include coordination and integration of services, promotion of community collaborations, integrating behavioral and physical care, and the use of telemedicine—many of the same approaches utilized by SHM's Project BOOST and other national initiatives for preventing unnecessary readmissions.

In Atlanta, Emory University's Center for Critical Care received a $10.7 million grant to deploy 40 nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) trained in critical care to underserved and rural ICUs in Georgia. In many of the targeted hospitals, hospitalists manage patients in the ICU, but this program brings an additional layer of staffing and expertise to the care, allowing patients to stay in their beds rather than having to be transferred, says Daniel Owens, MBA, the center’s director of operations and senior administrator of the division of hospital medicine at Emory.

The project will bring NPs and PAs from participating hospitals to Emory for an intensive, six-month, critical-care residency. "If they don't have these folks, we'll help to identify staff for the jobs," he adds.

At Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., a $2.4 million project to reduce rehospitalizations for a high-risk geriatric patients aims to close the gaps in care transitions between hospital, outpatient, post-acute, and extended-care settings, says Vanderbilt hospitalist Eduard Vasilevskis, MD. The project will employ transition advocates or coordinators in the hospital to improve communication at both ends, with evidence-based protocols to improve discharge planning. Long-term care providers will be offered Web-based training and video conferencing.

"The goal is to break the cycle of rehospitalization," says Dr. Vasilevskis, "but if patients need to come back to the hospital, there will be someone involved in their care who is familiar with the settings where they’ve come from."

Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) in Boston received $4.9 million for its Post-Acute Care Transitions program (PACT), which links the hospital to six affiliated primary care practices using a bundle of post-acute care interventions, care-transition specialists, and dedicated clinical pharmacists. Nurses remain in contact with patients by telephone for 30 days post-hospital discharge and coordinate the services of extended-care facilities and visiting nurses. Pharmacists perform in-hospital medication reconciliation and patient education, says hospitalist Lauren Doctoroff, MD, FHM. She and Julius Yang, MD, BIDMC medical director of inpatient quality, helped develop the pilot program, which began in August 2011.

"These care-transitions specialists offer us an added level of patient support and a different level of integration focused on risk assessment of such issues as social supports and problems with medical compliance, which can be used by the inpatient team to come up with the most rational and ideal discharge plan," Dr. Doctoroff says. "One of my colleagues said to me, ‘I feel so much better knowing there is this added level of support for patients after discharge.'"

The HHS grants reflect an important recognition that what happens to patients following discharge partly reflects what happens in the hospital but also depends on collaborations with post-acute providers, Dr. Doctoroff says.

"Hospitalists can't do everything, but they need their eye out of the hospital on post-acute providers in order to deliver the best care," she adds.

Earlier this month CMS announced 17 additional awards under its Community-Based Care Transitions Program (CCTP), which now encompasses 200 acute-care hospitals and their hospitalists partnering with community agencies and coalitions to improve transitions of care in advance of the Oct. 1 start for excessive readmissions penalties. Innovative solutions to the readmissions dilemma are being tested at the local level by a variety of partnerships with hospitals and hospitalists.

For example, William C. Cook, DO, chief of hospital medicine for the Ohio Permanente Medical Group in Cleveland, is part of a community-wide quality coalition called Better Health Greater Cleveland, one of 17 such groups in the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Aligning Forces for Quality collaborative. The program includes 150 quality teams in 100 hospitals posting readmissions reductions and other quality metrics. Dr. Cook, who co-chairs Better Health's Steering Committee for Transitions of Care, is spearheading a transitions pilot with two local nursing homes.

"From the hospitalist perspective, our role is to make care transitions safe and predictable," Dr. Cook says. "The way I can contribute most to these transitions is by thinking ahead about what's going to happen next—and how do I prepare the patient and the next provider." One key step is taking time to complete the real-time discharge summary for each patient, he adds.

The idea, Dr. Cook explains, is to identify and communicate with collaborators across care settings so that the "coaching baton" can be passed in a manner that appears seamless to the patient.

Nearly a third of the 17 new CCTP sites participate in SHM's Project BOOST, including three hospitals in California and one each in Illinois and Pennsylvania. Project BOOST is accepting applications for its next round of sites through September.

Earlier this month CMS announced 17 additional awards under its Community-Based Care Transitions Program (CCTP), which now encompasses 200 acute-care hospitals and their hospitalists partnering with community agencies and coalitions to improve transitions of care in advance of the Oct. 1 start for excessive readmissions penalties. Innovative solutions to the readmissions dilemma are being tested at the local level by a variety of partnerships with hospitals and hospitalists.

For example, William C. Cook, DO, chief of hospital medicine for the Ohio Permanente Medical Group in Cleveland, is part of a community-wide quality coalition called Better Health Greater Cleveland, one of 17 such groups in the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Aligning Forces for Quality collaborative. The program includes 150 quality teams in 100 hospitals posting readmissions reductions and other quality metrics. Dr. Cook, who co-chairs Better Health's Steering Committee for Transitions of Care, is spearheading a transitions pilot with two local nursing homes.

"From the hospitalist perspective, our role is to make care transitions safe and predictable," Dr. Cook says. "The way I can contribute most to these transitions is by thinking ahead about what's going to happen next—and how do I prepare the patient and the next provider." One key step is taking time to complete the real-time discharge summary for each patient, he adds.

The idea, Dr. Cook explains, is to identify and communicate with collaborators across care settings so that the "coaching baton" can be passed in a manner that appears seamless to the patient.

Nearly a third of the 17 new CCTP sites participate in SHM's Project BOOST, including three hospitals in California and one each in Illinois and Pennsylvania. Project BOOST is accepting applications for its next round of sites through September.

Earlier this month CMS announced 17 additional awards under its Community-Based Care Transitions Program (CCTP), which now encompasses 200 acute-care hospitals and their hospitalists partnering with community agencies and coalitions to improve transitions of care in advance of the Oct. 1 start for excessive readmissions penalties. Innovative solutions to the readmissions dilemma are being tested at the local level by a variety of partnerships with hospitals and hospitalists.

For example, William C. Cook, DO, chief of hospital medicine for the Ohio Permanente Medical Group in Cleveland, is part of a community-wide quality coalition called Better Health Greater Cleveland, one of 17 such groups in the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Aligning Forces for Quality collaborative. The program includes 150 quality teams in 100 hospitals posting readmissions reductions and other quality metrics. Dr. Cook, who co-chairs Better Health's Steering Committee for Transitions of Care, is spearheading a transitions pilot with two local nursing homes.

"From the hospitalist perspective, our role is to make care transitions safe and predictable," Dr. Cook says. "The way I can contribute most to these transitions is by thinking ahead about what's going to happen next—and how do I prepare the patient and the next provider." One key step is taking time to complete the real-time discharge summary for each patient, he adds.

The idea, Dr. Cook explains, is to identify and communicate with collaborators across care settings so that the "coaching baton" can be passed in a manner that appears seamless to the patient.

Nearly a third of the 17 new CCTP sites participate in SHM's Project BOOST, including three hospitals in California and one each in Illinois and Pennsylvania. Project BOOST is accepting applications for its next round of sites through September.

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) issued the report Health IT and Patient Safety: Building Safer Systems for Better Care in November 2011. SHM considers this a landmark report that serves as a call to action to improve the health information technology (HIT) systems used daily to deliver on the promise of safer, more efficient care. SHM’s IT Committee and IT Policy Committee carefully reviewed this report and have released a letter in support of its findings. SHM encourages its members to read the IOM report (www.iom.edu) or the summary of the report.

In support of the report, SHM highlighted the following:

• SHM specifically supports a call for safety transparency; a mandatory reporting mechanism for vendors; a voluntary reporting mechanism for providers to report unsafe conditions in electronic health records (EHRs) and adverse events; and the elimination of nondisclosure clauses.
• SHM supports the need for additional research to guide the design and implementation of EHR, computerized physician order entry (CPOE) systems, and clinical-decision-support (CDS) systems, including usability and expanded functionality.
• SHM supports the need for HIT education at all levels of the healthcare system from providers to vendors to include quality/safety science and process improvement.
• SHM echoes the need for interoperability, not only for data exchange, but also for CDS tools and for liquidity of data to allow new product incomers into the market and the ability to move between vendors.
• SHM believes in dual accountability between vendors and providers in HIT products to help motivate the industry to more quickly improve the safety and usability of products.
• SHM is moving ahead on these areas independently and believes that hospitalists are well positioned to be involved in achieving these goals. To assist members in their efforts, the IT Education Committee is working on in-person and online HIT educational venues for SHM members. SHM’s Health IT Quality Committee is organizing collaboratives around CDS and quality innovation sharing. The Health Quality and Patient Safety Committee continues to discuss the safety of IT systems and methods to improve them. SHM’s mentored implementation programs are engaging directly with vendors to try to build products and the functionality needed around glycemic control, care transitions, and VTE prophylaxis.
• SHM believes that its members can be involved in the research to answer many of the important questions that are unresolved in HIT. Please contact SHM to ensure that the organization is representing your needs in this important area. The current situation is a long way from the full potential HIT can provide, and SHM is committed to helping its members and the industry in moving to the next level.

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) issued the report Health IT and Patient Safety: Building Safer Systems for Better Care in November 2011. SHM considers this a landmark report that serves as a call to action to improve the health information technology (HIT) systems used daily to deliver on the promise of safer, more efficient care. SHM’s IT Committee and IT Policy Committee carefully reviewed this report and have released a letter in support of its findings. SHM encourages its members to read the IOM report (www.iom.edu) or the summary of the report.

In support of the report, SHM highlighted the following:

• SHM specifically supports a call for safety transparency; a mandatory reporting mechanism for vendors; a voluntary reporting mechanism for providers to report unsafe conditions in electronic health records (EHRs) and adverse events; and the elimination of nondisclosure clauses.
• SHM supports the need for additional research to guide the design and implementation of EHR, computerized physician order entry (CPOE) systems, and clinical-decision-support (CDS) systems, including usability and expanded functionality.
• SHM supports the need for HIT education at all levels of the healthcare system from providers to vendors to include quality/safety science and process improvement.
• SHM echoes the need for interoperability, not only for data exchange, but also for CDS tools and for liquidity of data to allow new product incomers into the market and the ability to move between vendors.
• SHM believes in dual accountability between vendors and providers in HIT products to help motivate the industry to more quickly improve the safety and usability of products.
• SHM is moving ahead on these areas independently and believes that hospitalists are well positioned to be involved in achieving these goals. To assist members in their efforts, the IT Education Committee is working on in-person and online HIT educational venues for SHM members. SHM’s Health IT Quality Committee is organizing collaboratives around CDS and quality innovation sharing. The Health Quality and Patient Safety Committee continues to discuss the safety of IT systems and methods to improve them. SHM’s mentored implementation programs are engaging directly with vendors to try to build products and the functionality needed around glycemic control, care transitions, and VTE prophylaxis.
• SHM believes that its members can be involved in the research to answer many of the important questions that are unresolved in HIT. Please contact SHM to ensure that the organization is representing your needs in this important area. The current situation is a long way from the full potential HIT can provide, and SHM is committed to helping its members and the industry in moving to the next level.

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) issued the report Health IT and Patient Safety: Building Safer Systems for Better Care in November 2011. SHM considers this a landmark report that serves as a call to action to improve the health information technology (HIT) systems used daily to deliver on the promise of safer, more efficient care. SHM’s IT Committee and IT Policy Committee carefully reviewed this report and have released a letter in support of its findings. SHM encourages its members to read the IOM report (www.iom.edu) or the summary of the report.

In support of the report, SHM highlighted the following:

• SHM specifically supports a call for safety transparency; a mandatory reporting mechanism for vendors; a voluntary reporting mechanism for providers to report unsafe conditions in electronic health records (EHRs) and adverse events; and the elimination of nondisclosure clauses.
• SHM supports the need for additional research to guide the design and implementation of EHR, computerized physician order entry (CPOE) systems, and clinical-decision-support (CDS) systems, including usability and expanded functionality.
• SHM supports the need for HIT education at all levels of the healthcare system from providers to vendors to include quality/safety science and process improvement.
• SHM echoes the need for interoperability, not only for data exchange, but also for CDS tools and for liquidity of data to allow new product incomers into the market and the ability to move between vendors.
• SHM believes in dual accountability between vendors and providers in HIT products to help motivate the industry to more quickly improve the safety and usability of products.
• SHM is moving ahead on these areas independently and believes that hospitalists are well positioned to be involved in achieving these goals. To assist members in their efforts, the IT Education Committee is working on in-person and online HIT educational venues for SHM members. SHM’s Health IT Quality Committee is organizing collaboratives around CDS and quality innovation sharing. The Health Quality and Patient Safety Committee continues to discuss the safety of IT systems and methods to improve them. SHM’s mentored implementation programs are engaging directly with vendors to try to build products and the functionality needed around glycemic control, care transitions, and VTE prophylaxis.
• SHM believes that its members can be involved in the research to answer many of the important questions that are unresolved in HIT. Please contact SHM to ensure that the organization is representing your needs in this important area. The current situation is a long way from the full potential HIT can provide, and SHM is committed to helping its members and the industry in moving to the next level.

Earlier this summer, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced that more than 100,000 healthcare providers and 48% of all eligible hospitals are using electronic health records (EHRs) that meet federal standards, and they have benefited from federal incentive programs to do so.¹

According to CMS acting administrator Marilyn Tavenner, meeting that provider goal makes 2012 the “Year of Meaningful Use.” She also says healthcare providers have recognized the potential of EHRs to cut down on paperwork, eliminate duplicate screenings and tests, and facilitate better, safer, patient-centered care.²

Belying CMS’ celebratory declarations, however, are concerns among experts that health information technology’s (HIT) actual use falls short of its promise—and might even endanger patients—due to shortcomings in system interoperability, safety, accountability, and other issues.

“Federal funding of IT was a step in the right direction, but it has also created a guaranteed customer base for electronic medical records, so vendors have less incentive to improve their products to meet clinicians needs,” says Kendall M. Rogers, MD, CPE, FACP, SFHM, chair of SHsM’s IT Executive Committee and chief of hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center School of Medicine in Albuquerque. “We want systems that help us make better clinical decisions and allow us to work more efficiently. Unfortunately, many hospitalists are frustrated with existing HIT systems, knowing how much better they need to be. It can be a dangerous gamble to push rapid adoption of potentially unsafe systems in hospitals.”

Questioning HIT Safety

Health IT experts affirm that potential danger. Jerry Osheroff, MD, FACP, FACMI, principal and founder of TMIT Consulting LLC and former chief clinical informatics officer for Thomson Reuters Healthcare, says HIT “is most effective when it gets the right information to the right people, through the right channels, in the right format, at the right point in the workflow. The danger comes when it gets one of those five ‘rights’ wrong; that can lead to distraction, confusion, wasted time, missed improvement opportunities, and safety concerns.”

Last November, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) released a scathing critique of HIT’s current ability to ensure patient safety.3 As the federal government invests billions of dollars to encourage hospitals and healthcare providers to adopt HIT, the IOM report said, improvements in care and safety are not yet established, and little evidence exists that quantifies the magnitude of the risk associated with HIT problems—partly because many HIT vendors discourage providers from sharing patient-safety concerns with nondisclosure and “hold harmless” provisions in contracts that shift the liability of unsafe HIT features to care providers.³

The report also cautioned that serious errors involving these technologies—including medication dosing errors, failure to detect fatal illnesses, and treatment delays due to complex data interfaces and poor human-computer interactions or loss of data—have led to several reported patient deaths and injuries. Furthermore, there is no way to publicly track adverse outcomes because there is no systematic regulation or authority to collect, analyze, and disseminate such information.

The report concluded that the current state of safety and health IT is not acceptable and that regulation of the industry might be necessary because the private sector to date has not taken sufficient action on its own to improve HIT safety.

SHM applauds the IOM report as an overdue and direly needed call to action, Dr. Rogers says. SHM sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services underscoring the importance of the IOM report.

“In our practices, we have experienced the threats to patient safety outlined in the report: poor user-interface design, poor workflow, complex data interfaces, lack of system interoperability, and lack of sufficient vendor action to build safer products,” Dr. Rogers says.

“Lack of interoperability—preventing access to patient data from previous physician or other hospital visits—makes a mockery of a coordinated, patient-centered healthcare system,” says HIT researcher Ross Koppel, PhD, faculty member of University of Pennsylvania’s Sociology Department and School of Medicine.

Although Dr. Rogers acknowledges that HIT has the potential to revolutionize healthcare systems, boost quality and safety, and lower cost, he maintains that current HIT products fall short of those ambitious goals. “Vendors typically regard usability of their products as a convenience request by clinicians; any errors are regarded as training issues for physicians,” Dr. Rogers says. “But the way that data is presented on a screen matters—if it is difficult to input or retrieve data and leads to cognitive or process errors, that’s a product redesign issue for which vendors should be held accountable.”

Dr. Koppel says many HIT systems originated from billing system applications “and were not initially designed with the clinical perspective in mind. Hospitalists have to be particularly focused on usability of HIT systems when it comes to patient-safety impacts. They’re not the canary in the coal mine, they’re the miners—often the teachers guiding other clinicians on HIT use.”

Improvement Agenda

SHM fully supports many of the IOM’s recommendations to improve the safety and functionality of HIT systems, including these as stated in an email to its members:

• Remove contractual restrictions, promote public reporting of safety issues, and put a system in place for independent investigations that drive patient-safety improvement.
• Establish standards and a common infrastructure for “interoperable” data exchange across systems.
• Create dual accountability between vendors and providers to address safety concerns that might require
• changes in an IT product’s functionality or design.
• Promote research on usability and human-factors design, safer implementation, and sociotechnical systems associated with HIT.
• Promote education of safety, quality, and reliability principles in design and implementation of HIT among all levels of the workforce, including frontline clinicians and staff, hospital IT, and quality teams—as well as IT vendors themselves.

There also are ongoing efforts in the private sector to improve HIT system functionality. For example, the HIMSS CDS Guidebook Series, of which Dr. Osheroff is lead editor and author and Dr. Rogers is a contributing author, is a respected repository of information synthesizing and vetting critical guidance for the effective implementation of clinical decision support (CDS).

“We’re also working with Greg Maynard [senior vice president of SHM’s Center for Hospital Innovation & Improvement] to use the collaborative’s tools to disseminate clinical-decision-support best practices for improving VTE prophylaxis rates,” Dr. Osheroff notes.

Hospitalists, as central players in quality improvement (QI), standardization, and care coordination, are natural choices as HIT champions, with valuable insight into how HIT systems should be customized to accommodate workflows and order sets in an optimal fashion, Dr. Rogers says.

“As critical as we are about the status of current HIT systems, we believe that systems can be designed more effectively to meet our needs,” he says. “By adopting many of the improvements enumerated in the IOM report, hospitalists are uniquely positioned to advance HIT to help achieve the goals of safer, higher-quality, and more efficient care.”

Christopher Guadagnino is a freelance writer based in Philadelphia.

References

1. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. More than 100,000 health care providers paid for using electronic health records. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services website. Available at: http://www.cms.gov/apps/media/press/release.asp?Counter=4383&intNumPerPage=10&checkDate=&checkKey=&srchType=1&numDays=3500&sr. Accessed July 31, 2012.
2. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. 2012: the year of meaningful use. The CMS Blog website. Available at: http://blog.cms.gov/2012/03/23/2012-the-year-of-meaningful-use. Accessed July 18, 2012.
3. Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. Health IT and patient safety: building safer systems for better care. Institute of Medicine of the National Academies website. Available at: http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2011/Health-IT-and-Patient-Safety-Building-Safer-Systems-for-Better-Care.aspx. Accessed July 14, 2012.

Earlier this summer, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced that more than 100,000 healthcare providers and 48% of all eligible hospitals are using electronic health records (EHRs) that meet federal standards, and they have benefited from federal incentive programs to do so.¹

According to CMS acting administrator Marilyn Tavenner, meeting that provider goal makes 2012 the “Year of Meaningful Use.” She also says healthcare providers have recognized the potential of EHRs to cut down on paperwork, eliminate duplicate screenings and tests, and facilitate better, safer, patient-centered care.²

Belying CMS’ celebratory declarations, however, are concerns among experts that health information technology’s (HIT) actual use falls short of its promise—and might even endanger patients—due to shortcomings in system interoperability, safety, accountability, and other issues.

“Federal funding of IT was a step in the right direction, but it has also created a guaranteed customer base for electronic medical records, so vendors have less incentive to improve their products to meet clinicians needs,” says Kendall M. Rogers, MD, CPE, FACP, SFHM, chair of SHsM’s IT Executive Committee and chief of hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center School of Medicine in Albuquerque. “We want systems that help us make better clinical decisions and allow us to work more efficiently. Unfortunately, many hospitalists are frustrated with existing HIT systems, knowing how much better they need to be. It can be a dangerous gamble to push rapid adoption of potentially unsafe systems in hospitals.”

Questioning HIT Safety

Health IT experts affirm that potential danger. Jerry Osheroff, MD, FACP, FACMI, principal and founder of TMIT Consulting LLC and former chief clinical informatics officer for Thomson Reuters Healthcare, says HIT “is most effective when it gets the right information to the right people, through the right channels, in the right format, at the right point in the workflow. The danger comes when it gets one of those five ‘rights’ wrong; that can lead to distraction, confusion, wasted time, missed improvement opportunities, and safety concerns.”

Last November, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) released a scathing critique of HIT’s current ability to ensure patient safety.3 As the federal government invests billions of dollars to encourage hospitals and healthcare providers to adopt HIT, the IOM report said, improvements in care and safety are not yet established, and little evidence exists that quantifies the magnitude of the risk associated with HIT problems—partly because many HIT vendors discourage providers from sharing patient-safety concerns with nondisclosure and “hold harmless” provisions in contracts that shift the liability of unsafe HIT features to care providers.³

The report also cautioned that serious errors involving these technologies—including medication dosing errors, failure to detect fatal illnesses, and treatment delays due to complex data interfaces and poor human-computer interactions or loss of data—have led to several reported patient deaths and injuries. Furthermore, there is no way to publicly track adverse outcomes because there is no systematic regulation or authority to collect, analyze, and disseminate such information.

The report concluded that the current state of safety and health IT is not acceptable and that regulation of the industry might be necessary because the private sector to date has not taken sufficient action on its own to improve HIT safety.

SHM applauds the IOM report as an overdue and direly needed call to action, Dr. Rogers says. SHM sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services underscoring the importance of the IOM report.

“In our practices, we have experienced the threats to patient safety outlined in the report: poor user-interface design, poor workflow, complex data interfaces, lack of system interoperability, and lack of sufficient vendor action to build safer products,” Dr. Rogers says.

“Lack of interoperability—preventing access to patient data from previous physician or other hospital visits—makes a mockery of a coordinated, patient-centered healthcare system,” says HIT researcher Ross Koppel, PhD, faculty member of University of Pennsylvania’s Sociology Department and School of Medicine.

Although Dr. Rogers acknowledges that HIT has the potential to revolutionize healthcare systems, boost quality and safety, and lower cost, he maintains that current HIT products fall short of those ambitious goals. “Vendors typically regard usability of their products as a convenience request by clinicians; any errors are regarded as training issues for physicians,” Dr. Rogers says. “But the way that data is presented on a screen matters—if it is difficult to input or retrieve data and leads to cognitive or process errors, that’s a product redesign issue for which vendors should be held accountable.”

Dr. Koppel says many HIT systems originated from billing system applications “and were not initially designed with the clinical perspective in mind. Hospitalists have to be particularly focused on usability of HIT systems when it comes to patient-safety impacts. They’re not the canary in the coal mine, they’re the miners—often the teachers guiding other clinicians on HIT use.”

Improvement Agenda

SHM fully supports many of the IOM’s recommendations to improve the safety and functionality of HIT systems, including these as stated in an email to its members:

• Remove contractual restrictions, promote public reporting of safety issues, and put a system in place for independent investigations that drive patient-safety improvement.
• Establish standards and a common infrastructure for “interoperable” data exchange across systems.
• Create dual accountability between vendors and providers to address safety concerns that might require
• changes in an IT product’s functionality or design.
• Promote research on usability and human-factors design, safer implementation, and sociotechnical systems associated with HIT.
• Promote education of safety, quality, and reliability principles in design and implementation of HIT among all levels of the workforce, including frontline clinicians and staff, hospital IT, and quality teams—as well as IT vendors themselves.

There also are ongoing efforts in the private sector to improve HIT system functionality. For example, the HIMSS CDS Guidebook Series, of which Dr. Osheroff is lead editor and author and Dr. Rogers is a contributing author, is a respected repository of information synthesizing and vetting critical guidance for the effective implementation of clinical decision support (CDS).

“We’re also working with Greg Maynard [senior vice president of SHM’s Center for Hospital Innovation & Improvement] to use the collaborative’s tools to disseminate clinical-decision-support best practices for improving VTE prophylaxis rates,” Dr. Osheroff notes.

Hospitalists, as central players in quality improvement (QI), standardization, and care coordination, are natural choices as HIT champions, with valuable insight into how HIT systems should be customized to accommodate workflows and order sets in an optimal fashion, Dr. Rogers says.

“As critical as we are about the status of current HIT systems, we believe that systems can be designed more effectively to meet our needs,” he says. “By adopting many of the improvements enumerated in the IOM report, hospitalists are uniquely positioned to advance HIT to help achieve the goals of safer, higher-quality, and more efficient care.”

Christopher Guadagnino is a freelance writer based in Philadelphia.

References

1. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. More than 100,000 health care providers paid for using electronic health records. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services website. Available at: http://www.cms.gov/apps/media/press/release.asp?Counter=4383&intNumPerPage=10&checkDate=&checkKey=&srchType=1&numDays=3500&sr. Accessed July 31, 2012.
2. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. 2012: the year of meaningful use. The CMS Blog website. Available at: http://blog.cms.gov/2012/03/23/2012-the-year-of-meaningful-use. Accessed July 18, 2012.
3. Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. Health IT and patient safety: building safer systems for better care. Institute of Medicine of the National Academies website. Available at: http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2011/Health-IT-and-Patient-Safety-Building-Safer-Systems-for-Better-Care.aspx. Accessed July 14, 2012.

Earlier this summer, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced that more than 100,000 healthcare providers and 48% of all eligible hospitals are using electronic health records (EHRs) that meet federal standards, and they have benefited from federal incentive programs to do so.¹

According to CMS acting administrator Marilyn Tavenner, meeting that provider goal makes 2012 the “Year of Meaningful Use.” She also says healthcare providers have recognized the potential of EHRs to cut down on paperwork, eliminate duplicate screenings and tests, and facilitate better, safer, patient-centered care.²

Belying CMS’ celebratory declarations, however, are concerns among experts that health information technology’s (HIT) actual use falls short of its promise—and might even endanger patients—due to shortcomings in system interoperability, safety, accountability, and other issues.

“Federal funding of IT was a step in the right direction, but it has also created a guaranteed customer base for electronic medical records, so vendors have less incentive to improve their products to meet clinicians needs,” says Kendall M. Rogers, MD, CPE, FACP, SFHM, chair of SHsM’s IT Executive Committee and chief of hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center School of Medicine in Albuquerque. “We want systems that help us make better clinical decisions and allow us to work more efficiently. Unfortunately, many hospitalists are frustrated with existing HIT systems, knowing how much better they need to be. It can be a dangerous gamble to push rapid adoption of potentially unsafe systems in hospitals.”

Questioning HIT Safety

Health IT experts affirm that potential danger. Jerry Osheroff, MD, FACP, FACMI, principal and founder of TMIT Consulting LLC and former chief clinical informatics officer for Thomson Reuters Healthcare, says HIT “is most effective when it gets the right information to the right people, through the right channels, in the right format, at the right point in the workflow. The danger comes when it gets one of those five ‘rights’ wrong; that can lead to distraction, confusion, wasted time, missed improvement opportunities, and safety concerns.”

Last November, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) released a scathing critique of HIT’s current ability to ensure patient safety.3 As the federal government invests billions of dollars to encourage hospitals and healthcare providers to adopt HIT, the IOM report said, improvements in care and safety are not yet established, and little evidence exists that quantifies the magnitude of the risk associated with HIT problems—partly because many HIT vendors discourage providers from sharing patient-safety concerns with nondisclosure and “hold harmless” provisions in contracts that shift the liability of unsafe HIT features to care providers.³

The report also cautioned that serious errors involving these technologies—including medication dosing errors, failure to detect fatal illnesses, and treatment delays due to complex data interfaces and poor human-computer interactions or loss of data—have led to several reported patient deaths and injuries. Furthermore, there is no way to publicly track adverse outcomes because there is no systematic regulation or authority to collect, analyze, and disseminate such information.

The report concluded that the current state of safety and health IT is not acceptable and that regulation of the industry might be necessary because the private sector to date has not taken sufficient action on its own to improve HIT safety.

SHM applauds the IOM report as an overdue and direly needed call to action, Dr. Rogers says. SHM sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services underscoring the importance of the IOM report.

“In our practices, we have experienced the threats to patient safety outlined in the report: poor user-interface design, poor workflow, complex data interfaces, lack of system interoperability, and lack of sufficient vendor action to build safer products,” Dr. Rogers says.

“Lack of interoperability—preventing access to patient data from previous physician or other hospital visits—makes a mockery of a coordinated, patient-centered healthcare system,” says HIT researcher Ross Koppel, PhD, faculty member of University of Pennsylvania’s Sociology Department and School of Medicine.

Although Dr. Rogers acknowledges that HIT has the potential to revolutionize healthcare systems, boost quality and safety, and lower cost, he maintains that current HIT products fall short of those ambitious goals. “Vendors typically regard usability of their products as a convenience request by clinicians; any errors are regarded as training issues for physicians,” Dr. Rogers says. “But the way that data is presented on a screen matters—if it is difficult to input or retrieve data and leads to cognitive or process errors, that’s a product redesign issue for which vendors should be held accountable.”

Dr. Koppel says many HIT systems originated from billing system applications “and were not initially designed with the clinical perspective in mind. Hospitalists have to be particularly focused on usability of HIT systems when it comes to patient-safety impacts. They’re not the canary in the coal mine, they’re the miners—often the teachers guiding other clinicians on HIT use.”

Improvement Agenda

SHM fully supports many of the IOM’s recommendations to improve the safety and functionality of HIT systems, including these as stated in an email to its members:

• Remove contractual restrictions, promote public reporting of safety issues, and put a system in place for independent investigations that drive patient-safety improvement.
• Establish standards and a common infrastructure for “interoperable” data exchange across systems.
• Create dual accountability between vendors and providers to address safety concerns that might require
• changes in an IT product’s functionality or design.
• Promote research on usability and human-factors design, safer implementation, and sociotechnical systems associated with HIT.
• Promote education of safety, quality, and reliability principles in design and implementation of HIT among all levels of the workforce, including frontline clinicians and staff, hospital IT, and quality teams—as well as IT vendors themselves.

There also are ongoing efforts in the private sector to improve HIT system functionality. For example, the HIMSS CDS Guidebook Series, of which Dr. Osheroff is lead editor and author and Dr. Rogers is a contributing author, is a respected repository of information synthesizing and vetting critical guidance for the effective implementation of clinical decision support (CDS).

“We’re also working with Greg Maynard [senior vice president of SHM’s Center for Hospital Innovation & Improvement] to use the collaborative’s tools to disseminate clinical-decision-support best practices for improving VTE prophylaxis rates,” Dr. Osheroff notes.

Hospitalists, as central players in quality improvement (QI), standardization, and care coordination, are natural choices as HIT champions, with valuable insight into how HIT systems should be customized to accommodate workflows and order sets in an optimal fashion, Dr. Rogers says.

“As critical as we are about the status of current HIT systems, we believe that systems can be designed more effectively to meet our needs,” he says. “By adopting many of the improvements enumerated in the IOM report, hospitalists are uniquely positioned to advance HIT to help achieve the goals of safer, higher-quality, and more efficient care.”

Christopher Guadagnino is a freelance writer based in Philadelphia.

References

1. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. More than 100,000 health care providers paid for using electronic health records. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services website. Available at: http://www.cms.gov/apps/media/press/release.asp?Counter=4383&intNumPerPage=10&checkDate=&checkKey=&srchType=1&numDays=3500&sr. Accessed July 31, 2012.
2. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. 2012: the year of meaningful use. The CMS Blog website. Available at: http://blog.cms.gov/2012/03/23/2012-the-year-of-meaningful-use. Accessed July 18, 2012.
3. Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. Health IT and patient safety: building safer systems for better care. Institute of Medicine of the National Academies website. Available at: http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2011/Health-IT-and-Patient-Safety-Building-Safer-Systems-for-Better-Care.aspx. Accessed July 14, 2012.