User login
McLean Hospital No. 1 for psychiatric care
McLean Hospital claimed the top spot this year from Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, which held the top spot in last year’s psychiatry ranking and now holds the No. 2 spot for psychiatry care.
Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston is ranked No. 3, and NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital – Columbia and Cornell in New York City is ranked No. 4 for psychiatry care this year, with no change from last year.
This year, UCSF Health–UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco, grabbed the No. 5 spot on the list of best psychiatry hospitals, beating out Resnick Neuropsychiatric Hospital at UCLA, Los Angeles, which held the No. 5 spot last year. Resnick is now No. 6 on the list.
Rounding out the top 10 psychiatry hospitals (in order) are Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.; Yale–New Haven Hospital, New Haven, Conn.; Sheppard Pratt Hospital, Baltimore; and Menninger Clinic, Houston, and NYU Langone Hospitals, New York (tied for number 10).
“For patients considering their options for where to get care, the Best Hospitals rankings are designed to help them and their medical professionals identify hospitals that excel in the kind of care they may need,” Ben Harder, chief of health analysis and managing editor at U.S. News & World Report, said in a news release.
Mayo Clinic tops overall
In the overall 2022-2023 rankings and ratings, U.S. News & World Report compared more than 4,500 hospitals across 15 specialties and 20 procedures and conditions.
As reported by this news organization, in the overall rankings of best hospitals, the Mayo Clinic claimed the top spot on the honor roll for the seventh consecutive year, followed by Cedars-Sinai Medical Center at No. 2, and NYU Langone Hospitals at No. 3.
Cleveland Clinic in Ohio holds the No. 4 spot in the overall rankings, and Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, and UCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles are tied for fifth place.
This year marks the 33rd edition of the magazine’s best hospitals rankings or hospitals overall and by key specialties.
According to a news release from U.S. News & World Report, the Best Hospitals rankings consider a variety of data provided by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, American Hospital Association, professional organizations, and medical specialists.
The full report for best hospitals, best specialty hospitals and methodology is available online.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
McLean Hospital claimed the top spot this year from Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, which held the top spot in last year’s psychiatry ranking and now holds the No. 2 spot for psychiatry care.
Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston is ranked No. 3, and NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital – Columbia and Cornell in New York City is ranked No. 4 for psychiatry care this year, with no change from last year.
This year, UCSF Health–UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco, grabbed the No. 5 spot on the list of best psychiatry hospitals, beating out Resnick Neuropsychiatric Hospital at UCLA, Los Angeles, which held the No. 5 spot last year. Resnick is now No. 6 on the list.
Rounding out the top 10 psychiatry hospitals (in order) are Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.; Yale–New Haven Hospital, New Haven, Conn.; Sheppard Pratt Hospital, Baltimore; and Menninger Clinic, Houston, and NYU Langone Hospitals, New York (tied for number 10).
“For patients considering their options for where to get care, the Best Hospitals rankings are designed to help them and their medical professionals identify hospitals that excel in the kind of care they may need,” Ben Harder, chief of health analysis and managing editor at U.S. News & World Report, said in a news release.
Mayo Clinic tops overall
In the overall 2022-2023 rankings and ratings, U.S. News & World Report compared more than 4,500 hospitals across 15 specialties and 20 procedures and conditions.
As reported by this news organization, in the overall rankings of best hospitals, the Mayo Clinic claimed the top spot on the honor roll for the seventh consecutive year, followed by Cedars-Sinai Medical Center at No. 2, and NYU Langone Hospitals at No. 3.
Cleveland Clinic in Ohio holds the No. 4 spot in the overall rankings, and Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, and UCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles are tied for fifth place.
This year marks the 33rd edition of the magazine’s best hospitals rankings or hospitals overall and by key specialties.
According to a news release from U.S. News & World Report, the Best Hospitals rankings consider a variety of data provided by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, American Hospital Association, professional organizations, and medical specialists.
The full report for best hospitals, best specialty hospitals and methodology is available online.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
McLean Hospital claimed the top spot this year from Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, which held the top spot in last year’s psychiatry ranking and now holds the No. 2 spot for psychiatry care.
Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston is ranked No. 3, and NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital – Columbia and Cornell in New York City is ranked No. 4 for psychiatry care this year, with no change from last year.
This year, UCSF Health–UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco, grabbed the No. 5 spot on the list of best psychiatry hospitals, beating out Resnick Neuropsychiatric Hospital at UCLA, Los Angeles, which held the No. 5 spot last year. Resnick is now No. 6 on the list.
Rounding out the top 10 psychiatry hospitals (in order) are Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.; Yale–New Haven Hospital, New Haven, Conn.; Sheppard Pratt Hospital, Baltimore; and Menninger Clinic, Houston, and NYU Langone Hospitals, New York (tied for number 10).
“For patients considering their options for where to get care, the Best Hospitals rankings are designed to help them and their medical professionals identify hospitals that excel in the kind of care they may need,” Ben Harder, chief of health analysis and managing editor at U.S. News & World Report, said in a news release.
Mayo Clinic tops overall
In the overall 2022-2023 rankings and ratings, U.S. News & World Report compared more than 4,500 hospitals across 15 specialties and 20 procedures and conditions.
As reported by this news organization, in the overall rankings of best hospitals, the Mayo Clinic claimed the top spot on the honor roll for the seventh consecutive year, followed by Cedars-Sinai Medical Center at No. 2, and NYU Langone Hospitals at No. 3.
Cleveland Clinic in Ohio holds the No. 4 spot in the overall rankings, and Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, and UCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles are tied for fifth place.
This year marks the 33rd edition of the magazine’s best hospitals rankings or hospitals overall and by key specialties.
According to a news release from U.S. News & World Report, the Best Hospitals rankings consider a variety of data provided by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, American Hospital Association, professional organizations, and medical specialists.
The full report for best hospitals, best specialty hospitals and methodology is available online.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Ontario MD, Charles Godfrey, who worked until 102, dies
He was 104 and died at his home in Madoc, Ont., just weeks shy of his 105th birthday.
“He had been quite vigorous up until that point,” his son, Mark Godfrey, told CTV News.
If it wasn’t for the pandemic, his father would have probably continued practicing for a little while longer, he added. “He was the smartest guy in the room, all my life, any room we were in.”
Charles Morris Godfrey was born Sept. 24, 1917, in Philadelphia, according to Wikipedia, but his family moved to Toronto when he was 7 years old. His father, a physiotherapist, encouraged him to study medicine.
Dr. Godfrey served in the Canadian military for 5½ years during World War II and qualified as a physiotherapist while serving.
After the war, he enrolled in the faculty of medicine at the University of Toronto and earned his degree in 1953. He paid for his tuition by working as a janitor and scrapyard worker.
In 1956, he studied neurology at Oxford (England) University on a McLaughlin fellowship and became a fellow of the Royal College of Physicians in 1958. He also earned a bachelor of arts degree in 1962 and his master of arts degree in 1975. He was studying for his PhD in the late 1980s, when he was in his 70s.
Upon his return from England in the late 1950s, Godfrey became director of the department of physical medicine and rehabilitation at Toronto East General Hospital. He subsequently worked at Toronto General Hospital, Sunnybrook Hospital, and the Toronto Rehab Hospital before joining Wellesley Hospital’s rheumatic disease unit, ultimately becoming head of the hospital’s rehabilitation clinic.
Dr. Godfrey was a professor in the department of rehabilitative medicine at the University of Toronto for over 2 decades. He was working 13-hour days teaching and maintaining his own practice well into his 70s. He would spend weekends at his country home in Madoc.
For over 20 years, he and his wife Margaret, a nurse, would spend 6 weeks each year as volunteers traveling to developing countries, such as Afghanistan and Pakistan, on lecture tours on behalf of CARE. Dr. Godfrey chaired CARE/MEDICO from 1983 to 1985 and subsequently served as chairman of CARE’s International Health Advisory Committee. In 1986, he was awarded the organization’s Distinguished Service Award.
In 1989, Dr. Godfrey was invested as a Member of the Order of Canada. His citation reads as follows:
“Deeply committed to humankind and the elimination of human suffering, and although of retirement age, he continues to be involved in an exhausting round of activity. Professor Emeritus of Rehabilitation Medicine at the University of Toronto, an environmentalist who was instrumental in the ‘People or Planes’ campaign opposing construction of the Pickering airport and a director of CARE/MEDICO, each year he takes his heart-felt concern for the welfare of the global community to Third World countries as a visiting volunteer doctor.”
Dr. Godfrey was also a political activist. When he learned about plans to build an international airport near his home in Uxbridge, Ont., he organized People or Planes, a group that successfully opposed the proposed airport. He was elected to the Ontario legislature as the Ontario New Democratic Party’s candidate for Durham West and served for 2 years as the NDP’s environment critic.
In 2020, grandson Frazey Ford posted a clip of his “immortal grandfather” being interviewed by David Suzuki as part of a CBC documentary on aging well.
Dr. Godfrey shared his secret to a long life: “The main thing is to keep interested in life,” he told Mr. Suzuki.
“That’s the secret, of course. If you stick in front of your television, you lose your interest in life. That’ll kill you next week. Certainly, the quality of stuff that’s being peddled on television these days is enough to make you wanna die pretty soon.”
A spokesperson for the University of Toronto’s department of medicine told CTV News that Dr. Godfrey was still working at four medical clinics in Toronto 4 days a week, even at age 102.
“He possessed a remarkable longevity in his practice, supported by his enduring love for medicine and incredible care for his patients,” the university said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
He was 104 and died at his home in Madoc, Ont., just weeks shy of his 105th birthday.
“He had been quite vigorous up until that point,” his son, Mark Godfrey, told CTV News.
If it wasn’t for the pandemic, his father would have probably continued practicing for a little while longer, he added. “He was the smartest guy in the room, all my life, any room we were in.”
Charles Morris Godfrey was born Sept. 24, 1917, in Philadelphia, according to Wikipedia, but his family moved to Toronto when he was 7 years old. His father, a physiotherapist, encouraged him to study medicine.
Dr. Godfrey served in the Canadian military for 5½ years during World War II and qualified as a physiotherapist while serving.
After the war, he enrolled in the faculty of medicine at the University of Toronto and earned his degree in 1953. He paid for his tuition by working as a janitor and scrapyard worker.
In 1956, he studied neurology at Oxford (England) University on a McLaughlin fellowship and became a fellow of the Royal College of Physicians in 1958. He also earned a bachelor of arts degree in 1962 and his master of arts degree in 1975. He was studying for his PhD in the late 1980s, when he was in his 70s.
Upon his return from England in the late 1950s, Godfrey became director of the department of physical medicine and rehabilitation at Toronto East General Hospital. He subsequently worked at Toronto General Hospital, Sunnybrook Hospital, and the Toronto Rehab Hospital before joining Wellesley Hospital’s rheumatic disease unit, ultimately becoming head of the hospital’s rehabilitation clinic.
Dr. Godfrey was a professor in the department of rehabilitative medicine at the University of Toronto for over 2 decades. He was working 13-hour days teaching and maintaining his own practice well into his 70s. He would spend weekends at his country home in Madoc.
For over 20 years, he and his wife Margaret, a nurse, would spend 6 weeks each year as volunteers traveling to developing countries, such as Afghanistan and Pakistan, on lecture tours on behalf of CARE. Dr. Godfrey chaired CARE/MEDICO from 1983 to 1985 and subsequently served as chairman of CARE’s International Health Advisory Committee. In 1986, he was awarded the organization’s Distinguished Service Award.
In 1989, Dr. Godfrey was invested as a Member of the Order of Canada. His citation reads as follows:
“Deeply committed to humankind and the elimination of human suffering, and although of retirement age, he continues to be involved in an exhausting round of activity. Professor Emeritus of Rehabilitation Medicine at the University of Toronto, an environmentalist who was instrumental in the ‘People or Planes’ campaign opposing construction of the Pickering airport and a director of CARE/MEDICO, each year he takes his heart-felt concern for the welfare of the global community to Third World countries as a visiting volunteer doctor.”
Dr. Godfrey was also a political activist. When he learned about plans to build an international airport near his home in Uxbridge, Ont., he organized People or Planes, a group that successfully opposed the proposed airport. He was elected to the Ontario legislature as the Ontario New Democratic Party’s candidate for Durham West and served for 2 years as the NDP’s environment critic.
In 2020, grandson Frazey Ford posted a clip of his “immortal grandfather” being interviewed by David Suzuki as part of a CBC documentary on aging well.
Dr. Godfrey shared his secret to a long life: “The main thing is to keep interested in life,” he told Mr. Suzuki.
“That’s the secret, of course. If you stick in front of your television, you lose your interest in life. That’ll kill you next week. Certainly, the quality of stuff that’s being peddled on television these days is enough to make you wanna die pretty soon.”
A spokesperson for the University of Toronto’s department of medicine told CTV News that Dr. Godfrey was still working at four medical clinics in Toronto 4 days a week, even at age 102.
“He possessed a remarkable longevity in his practice, supported by his enduring love for medicine and incredible care for his patients,” the university said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
He was 104 and died at his home in Madoc, Ont., just weeks shy of his 105th birthday.
“He had been quite vigorous up until that point,” his son, Mark Godfrey, told CTV News.
If it wasn’t for the pandemic, his father would have probably continued practicing for a little while longer, he added. “He was the smartest guy in the room, all my life, any room we were in.”
Charles Morris Godfrey was born Sept. 24, 1917, in Philadelphia, according to Wikipedia, but his family moved to Toronto when he was 7 years old. His father, a physiotherapist, encouraged him to study medicine.
Dr. Godfrey served in the Canadian military for 5½ years during World War II and qualified as a physiotherapist while serving.
After the war, he enrolled in the faculty of medicine at the University of Toronto and earned his degree in 1953. He paid for his tuition by working as a janitor and scrapyard worker.
In 1956, he studied neurology at Oxford (England) University on a McLaughlin fellowship and became a fellow of the Royal College of Physicians in 1958. He also earned a bachelor of arts degree in 1962 and his master of arts degree in 1975. He was studying for his PhD in the late 1980s, when he was in his 70s.
Upon his return from England in the late 1950s, Godfrey became director of the department of physical medicine and rehabilitation at Toronto East General Hospital. He subsequently worked at Toronto General Hospital, Sunnybrook Hospital, and the Toronto Rehab Hospital before joining Wellesley Hospital’s rheumatic disease unit, ultimately becoming head of the hospital’s rehabilitation clinic.
Dr. Godfrey was a professor in the department of rehabilitative medicine at the University of Toronto for over 2 decades. He was working 13-hour days teaching and maintaining his own practice well into his 70s. He would spend weekends at his country home in Madoc.
For over 20 years, he and his wife Margaret, a nurse, would spend 6 weeks each year as volunteers traveling to developing countries, such as Afghanistan and Pakistan, on lecture tours on behalf of CARE. Dr. Godfrey chaired CARE/MEDICO from 1983 to 1985 and subsequently served as chairman of CARE’s International Health Advisory Committee. In 1986, he was awarded the organization’s Distinguished Service Award.
In 1989, Dr. Godfrey was invested as a Member of the Order of Canada. His citation reads as follows:
“Deeply committed to humankind and the elimination of human suffering, and although of retirement age, he continues to be involved in an exhausting round of activity. Professor Emeritus of Rehabilitation Medicine at the University of Toronto, an environmentalist who was instrumental in the ‘People or Planes’ campaign opposing construction of the Pickering airport and a director of CARE/MEDICO, each year he takes his heart-felt concern for the welfare of the global community to Third World countries as a visiting volunteer doctor.”
Dr. Godfrey was also a political activist. When he learned about plans to build an international airport near his home in Uxbridge, Ont., he organized People or Planes, a group that successfully opposed the proposed airport. He was elected to the Ontario legislature as the Ontario New Democratic Party’s candidate for Durham West and served for 2 years as the NDP’s environment critic.
In 2020, grandson Frazey Ford posted a clip of his “immortal grandfather” being interviewed by David Suzuki as part of a CBC documentary on aging well.
Dr. Godfrey shared his secret to a long life: “The main thing is to keep interested in life,” he told Mr. Suzuki.
“That’s the secret, of course. If you stick in front of your television, you lose your interest in life. That’ll kill you next week. Certainly, the quality of stuff that’s being peddled on television these days is enough to make you wanna die pretty soon.”
A spokesperson for the University of Toronto’s department of medicine told CTV News that Dr. Godfrey was still working at four medical clinics in Toronto 4 days a week, even at age 102.
“He possessed a remarkable longevity in his practice, supported by his enduring love for medicine and incredible care for his patients,” the university said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Fraud
News reports this week indicate that the U.S. Department of Justice is investigating Cassava Sciences over the investigational Alzheimer’s disease agent simufilam. An article in Science alleged that the company’s research included altered or duplicated brain images.
Cassava, not surprisingly, denies this. And I’m not going to take sides. Maybe they’ll be exonerated, maybe not.
But the bigger point here is the importance of checking such things. Alzheimer’s disease, beyond being a horrible neurological disease, is also big money. REALLY big money. If a company were to develop a truly effective treatment for it, they’d be poised to reap a worldwide financial windfall.
I’m not criticizing that, either. If such a drug were to be developed, with all of the time and money that goes into such things, they’d have earned every penny.
But the financial incentives certainly do increase the risk of less-than-ethical behavior. This isn’t just in Alzheimer’s disease, but across the board in medicine. The main plot line of the 1993 Harrison Ford flick “The Fugitive” was based on a drug company using falsified data, bribes, and other criminal activities (like murder) to bring a potentially dangerous (but high-profit) drug to market.
Less-than-ethical behavior is not new in research either. In 1926 Paul Kammerer’s attempt to prove Lamarckian evolution was shown to be a fraud. Cover-ups of potentially dangerous drugs have also occurred, or been alleged, and resulted in some being withdrawn from the market.
I’m not sure this is any worse than the multitude of over-the-counter products I see in the store saying they promote brain health, joint health, immune health, whatever ... then, in tiny letters, adding “these statements have not been authorized by the FDA. This drug is not intended to cure, prevent, or treat any disease.” This is no different than guys selling snake oil and other worthless elixirs out of a horse-drawn wagon. Why they aren’t regulated in the same way Pfizer or Lilly are is beyond me.
Even beyond the old method of making up figures, data can still be iffy. We use the phrase “numbers don’t lie” – and generally they don’t – but the ability to “spin” them to suit any narrative has become an art form. If you can’t change the data, make them fit into a better scenario. Somehow.
Which brings me back to why it’s critically important that such studies be open to review by people who don’t have a conflict of interest in the success or failure of the drugs. And there are many: from shareholders, from executives, even from the knowledge that a bad outcome may mean they’re out of a job.
Fraud is nothing new in medicine. I also don’t see it going away anytime in the future. It’s not the nature of medicine, but it is the nature of some people. And a few of them increase the need for legitimacy in everyone else.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
News reports this week indicate that the U.S. Department of Justice is investigating Cassava Sciences over the investigational Alzheimer’s disease agent simufilam. An article in Science alleged that the company’s research included altered or duplicated brain images.
Cassava, not surprisingly, denies this. And I’m not going to take sides. Maybe they’ll be exonerated, maybe not.
But the bigger point here is the importance of checking such things. Alzheimer’s disease, beyond being a horrible neurological disease, is also big money. REALLY big money. If a company were to develop a truly effective treatment for it, they’d be poised to reap a worldwide financial windfall.
I’m not criticizing that, either. If such a drug were to be developed, with all of the time and money that goes into such things, they’d have earned every penny.
But the financial incentives certainly do increase the risk of less-than-ethical behavior. This isn’t just in Alzheimer’s disease, but across the board in medicine. The main plot line of the 1993 Harrison Ford flick “The Fugitive” was based on a drug company using falsified data, bribes, and other criminal activities (like murder) to bring a potentially dangerous (but high-profit) drug to market.
Less-than-ethical behavior is not new in research either. In 1926 Paul Kammerer’s attempt to prove Lamarckian evolution was shown to be a fraud. Cover-ups of potentially dangerous drugs have also occurred, or been alleged, and resulted in some being withdrawn from the market.
I’m not sure this is any worse than the multitude of over-the-counter products I see in the store saying they promote brain health, joint health, immune health, whatever ... then, in tiny letters, adding “these statements have not been authorized by the FDA. This drug is not intended to cure, prevent, or treat any disease.” This is no different than guys selling snake oil and other worthless elixirs out of a horse-drawn wagon. Why they aren’t regulated in the same way Pfizer or Lilly are is beyond me.
Even beyond the old method of making up figures, data can still be iffy. We use the phrase “numbers don’t lie” – and generally they don’t – but the ability to “spin” them to suit any narrative has become an art form. If you can’t change the data, make them fit into a better scenario. Somehow.
Which brings me back to why it’s critically important that such studies be open to review by people who don’t have a conflict of interest in the success or failure of the drugs. And there are many: from shareholders, from executives, even from the knowledge that a bad outcome may mean they’re out of a job.
Fraud is nothing new in medicine. I also don’t see it going away anytime in the future. It’s not the nature of medicine, but it is the nature of some people. And a few of them increase the need for legitimacy in everyone else.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
News reports this week indicate that the U.S. Department of Justice is investigating Cassava Sciences over the investigational Alzheimer’s disease agent simufilam. An article in Science alleged that the company’s research included altered or duplicated brain images.
Cassava, not surprisingly, denies this. And I’m not going to take sides. Maybe they’ll be exonerated, maybe not.
But the bigger point here is the importance of checking such things. Alzheimer’s disease, beyond being a horrible neurological disease, is also big money. REALLY big money. If a company were to develop a truly effective treatment for it, they’d be poised to reap a worldwide financial windfall.
I’m not criticizing that, either. If such a drug were to be developed, with all of the time and money that goes into such things, they’d have earned every penny.
But the financial incentives certainly do increase the risk of less-than-ethical behavior. This isn’t just in Alzheimer’s disease, but across the board in medicine. The main plot line of the 1993 Harrison Ford flick “The Fugitive” was based on a drug company using falsified data, bribes, and other criminal activities (like murder) to bring a potentially dangerous (but high-profit) drug to market.
Less-than-ethical behavior is not new in research either. In 1926 Paul Kammerer’s attempt to prove Lamarckian evolution was shown to be a fraud. Cover-ups of potentially dangerous drugs have also occurred, or been alleged, and resulted in some being withdrawn from the market.
I’m not sure this is any worse than the multitude of over-the-counter products I see in the store saying they promote brain health, joint health, immune health, whatever ... then, in tiny letters, adding “these statements have not been authorized by the FDA. This drug is not intended to cure, prevent, or treat any disease.” This is no different than guys selling snake oil and other worthless elixirs out of a horse-drawn wagon. Why they aren’t regulated in the same way Pfizer or Lilly are is beyond me.
Even beyond the old method of making up figures, data can still be iffy. We use the phrase “numbers don’t lie” – and generally they don’t – but the ability to “spin” them to suit any narrative has become an art form. If you can’t change the data, make them fit into a better scenario. Somehow.
Which brings me back to why it’s critically important that such studies be open to review by people who don’t have a conflict of interest in the success or failure of the drugs. And there are many: from shareholders, from executives, even from the knowledge that a bad outcome may mean they’re out of a job.
Fraud is nothing new in medicine. I also don’t see it going away anytime in the future. It’s not the nature of medicine, but it is the nature of some people. And a few of them increase the need for legitimacy in everyone else.
Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.
Burnout and stress of today: How do we cope?
Interestingly, the group that seems to be least impacted by this was health care administrators (with 12% of them planning on leaving their jobs).
I couldn’t stop thinking about these percentages.
I am reminded every day of the commitment and excellence of my colleagues in the health care field, and I do not want to lose them. I am hoping the following information and my thoughts on this topic will be helpful for those thinking about leaving health care.
Surgeon general’s burnout report
The surgeon general recently released a report on addressing health care worker burnout.2 It includes several very interesting and appropriate observations. I will summarize the most important ones here:
1. Our health depends on the well-being of our health workforce.
2. Direct harm to health care workers can lead to anxiety, depression, insomnia, and interpersonal and relationship struggles.
3. Health care workers experience exhaustion from providing overwhelming care and empathy.
4. Health care workers spend less time with patients and too much time with EHRs.
5. There are health workforce shortages.
The report is comprehensive, and everything in it is correct. The real issue is how does it go from being a report to true actionable items that we as health care professionals benefit from? I think in regards to exhaustion from overwhelming care responsibilities, and empathy fatigue, we need better boundaries.
Those who go into medicine, and especially those who go into primary care, always put the patients’ needs first. When operating in a broken system, it stays broken when individuals cover for the deficiencies in the system. Adding four extra patients every day because there is no one to refer them to with availability is injurious to the health care provider, and those providers who accept these additional patients will eventually be part of the 23% who want to leave their jobs. It feels awful to say no, but until the system stops accommodating there will not be substantial change.
The empathy drain
One of the unreported stresses of open access for patients through EHR communications is the empathy drain on physicians. When I see a patient in clinic with chronic symptoms or issues, I spend important time making sure we have a plan and an agreed upon time frame.
With the EHR, patients frequently send multiple messages for the same symptoms between visits. It is okay to redirect the patient and share that these issues will be discussed at length at appointments. My reasoning on this is that I think it is better for me to better care for myself and stay as the doctor for my patients, than always say yes to limitless needs and soon be looking for the off ramp.
The following statistic in the surgeon general’s report really hit home. For every hour of direct patient care, physicians currently spend 2 hours on the EHR system. Most practices allow 10%-20% of time for catch up, where with statistics like this it should be 50%. This concept is fully lost on administrators, or ignored.
It is only when we refuse to continue to accept and follow a broken system that it will change. A minority of internal medicine and family doctors (4.5% in 2018) practice in direct primary care models, where these issues are addressed. Unfortunately, this model as it is currently available is not an option for lower income patients.
A major theme in the surgeon general’s report was that administrative burdens need to be reduced by 75% by 2025. When I look at the report, I see the suggestions, I just don’t see how it will be achieved. Despite almost all clinics moving to the EHR, paperwork in the form of faxes and forms has increased.
A sweeping reform would be needed to eliminate daily faxes from PT offices, visiting nurse services, prior authorization, patients reminders from insurance companies, and disability forms from patients. I am glad that there is acknowledgment of the problem, but this change will take more than 3 years.
Takeaways
So what do we do?
Be good to yourself, and your colleagues. The pandemic has isolated us, which accelerates burnout.
Reach out to people you care about.
We are all feeling this. Set boundaries that allow you to care for yourself, and accept that you are doing your best, even if you can’t meet the needs of all your patients all the time.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at imnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Sinsky CA et al. Covid-related stress and work intentions in a sample of US health care workers. Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes. 2021 Dec;5(6):1165-73.
2. Addressing health worker burnout. The U.S. Surgeon General’s advisory on building a thriving health workforce.
Interestingly, the group that seems to be least impacted by this was health care administrators (with 12% of them planning on leaving their jobs).
I couldn’t stop thinking about these percentages.
I am reminded every day of the commitment and excellence of my colleagues in the health care field, and I do not want to lose them. I am hoping the following information and my thoughts on this topic will be helpful for those thinking about leaving health care.
Surgeon general’s burnout report
The surgeon general recently released a report on addressing health care worker burnout.2 It includes several very interesting and appropriate observations. I will summarize the most important ones here:
1. Our health depends on the well-being of our health workforce.
2. Direct harm to health care workers can lead to anxiety, depression, insomnia, and interpersonal and relationship struggles.
3. Health care workers experience exhaustion from providing overwhelming care and empathy.
4. Health care workers spend less time with patients and too much time with EHRs.
5. There are health workforce shortages.
The report is comprehensive, and everything in it is correct. The real issue is how does it go from being a report to true actionable items that we as health care professionals benefit from? I think in regards to exhaustion from overwhelming care responsibilities, and empathy fatigue, we need better boundaries.
Those who go into medicine, and especially those who go into primary care, always put the patients’ needs first. When operating in a broken system, it stays broken when individuals cover for the deficiencies in the system. Adding four extra patients every day because there is no one to refer them to with availability is injurious to the health care provider, and those providers who accept these additional patients will eventually be part of the 23% who want to leave their jobs. It feels awful to say no, but until the system stops accommodating there will not be substantial change.
The empathy drain
One of the unreported stresses of open access for patients through EHR communications is the empathy drain on physicians. When I see a patient in clinic with chronic symptoms or issues, I spend important time making sure we have a plan and an agreed upon time frame.
With the EHR, patients frequently send multiple messages for the same symptoms between visits. It is okay to redirect the patient and share that these issues will be discussed at length at appointments. My reasoning on this is that I think it is better for me to better care for myself and stay as the doctor for my patients, than always say yes to limitless needs and soon be looking for the off ramp.
The following statistic in the surgeon general’s report really hit home. For every hour of direct patient care, physicians currently spend 2 hours on the EHR system. Most practices allow 10%-20% of time for catch up, where with statistics like this it should be 50%. This concept is fully lost on administrators, or ignored.
It is only when we refuse to continue to accept and follow a broken system that it will change. A minority of internal medicine and family doctors (4.5% in 2018) practice in direct primary care models, where these issues are addressed. Unfortunately, this model as it is currently available is not an option for lower income patients.
A major theme in the surgeon general’s report was that administrative burdens need to be reduced by 75% by 2025. When I look at the report, I see the suggestions, I just don’t see how it will be achieved. Despite almost all clinics moving to the EHR, paperwork in the form of faxes and forms has increased.
A sweeping reform would be needed to eliminate daily faxes from PT offices, visiting nurse services, prior authorization, patients reminders from insurance companies, and disability forms from patients. I am glad that there is acknowledgment of the problem, but this change will take more than 3 years.
Takeaways
So what do we do?
Be good to yourself, and your colleagues. The pandemic has isolated us, which accelerates burnout.
Reach out to people you care about.
We are all feeling this. Set boundaries that allow you to care for yourself, and accept that you are doing your best, even if you can’t meet the needs of all your patients all the time.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at imnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Sinsky CA et al. Covid-related stress and work intentions in a sample of US health care workers. Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes. 2021 Dec;5(6):1165-73.
2. Addressing health worker burnout. The U.S. Surgeon General’s advisory on building a thriving health workforce.
Interestingly, the group that seems to be least impacted by this was health care administrators (with 12% of them planning on leaving their jobs).
I couldn’t stop thinking about these percentages.
I am reminded every day of the commitment and excellence of my colleagues in the health care field, and I do not want to lose them. I am hoping the following information and my thoughts on this topic will be helpful for those thinking about leaving health care.
Surgeon general’s burnout report
The surgeon general recently released a report on addressing health care worker burnout.2 It includes several very interesting and appropriate observations. I will summarize the most important ones here:
1. Our health depends on the well-being of our health workforce.
2. Direct harm to health care workers can lead to anxiety, depression, insomnia, and interpersonal and relationship struggles.
3. Health care workers experience exhaustion from providing overwhelming care and empathy.
4. Health care workers spend less time with patients and too much time with EHRs.
5. There are health workforce shortages.
The report is comprehensive, and everything in it is correct. The real issue is how does it go from being a report to true actionable items that we as health care professionals benefit from? I think in regards to exhaustion from overwhelming care responsibilities, and empathy fatigue, we need better boundaries.
Those who go into medicine, and especially those who go into primary care, always put the patients’ needs first. When operating in a broken system, it stays broken when individuals cover for the deficiencies in the system. Adding four extra patients every day because there is no one to refer them to with availability is injurious to the health care provider, and those providers who accept these additional patients will eventually be part of the 23% who want to leave their jobs. It feels awful to say no, but until the system stops accommodating there will not be substantial change.
The empathy drain
One of the unreported stresses of open access for patients through EHR communications is the empathy drain on physicians. When I see a patient in clinic with chronic symptoms or issues, I spend important time making sure we have a plan and an agreed upon time frame.
With the EHR, patients frequently send multiple messages for the same symptoms between visits. It is okay to redirect the patient and share that these issues will be discussed at length at appointments. My reasoning on this is that I think it is better for me to better care for myself and stay as the doctor for my patients, than always say yes to limitless needs and soon be looking for the off ramp.
The following statistic in the surgeon general’s report really hit home. For every hour of direct patient care, physicians currently spend 2 hours on the EHR system. Most practices allow 10%-20% of time for catch up, where with statistics like this it should be 50%. This concept is fully lost on administrators, or ignored.
It is only when we refuse to continue to accept and follow a broken system that it will change. A minority of internal medicine and family doctors (4.5% in 2018) practice in direct primary care models, where these issues are addressed. Unfortunately, this model as it is currently available is not an option for lower income patients.
A major theme in the surgeon general’s report was that administrative burdens need to be reduced by 75% by 2025. When I look at the report, I see the suggestions, I just don’t see how it will be achieved. Despite almost all clinics moving to the EHR, paperwork in the form of faxes and forms has increased.
A sweeping reform would be needed to eliminate daily faxes from PT offices, visiting nurse services, prior authorization, patients reminders from insurance companies, and disability forms from patients. I am glad that there is acknowledgment of the problem, but this change will take more than 3 years.
Takeaways
So what do we do?
Be good to yourself, and your colleagues. The pandemic has isolated us, which accelerates burnout.
Reach out to people you care about.
We are all feeling this. Set boundaries that allow you to care for yourself, and accept that you are doing your best, even if you can’t meet the needs of all your patients all the time.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at imnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Sinsky CA et al. Covid-related stress and work intentions in a sample of US health care workers. Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes. 2021 Dec;5(6):1165-73.
2. Addressing health worker burnout. The U.S. Surgeon General’s advisory on building a thriving health workforce.
Six specialties attracting the highest private equity acquisitions
While tracking the extent of physician practice acquisition by private equity firms may be difficult, new research highlights what specialties and U.S. regions are most affected by such purchases.
The study, supported by the National Institute for Health Care Management (NIHCM), examined 97,094 physicians practicing in six specialties, 4,738 of whom worked in private equity–acquired practices. Of these specialties, 
“These specialties offer private equity firms diverse revenue streams. You have a mix of commercially insured individuals with Medicare insurance and self-pay,” said Yashaswini Singh, MPA, a doctoral student at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, and coauthor of the study, which was published in JAMA Health Forum as a research letter.
“In dermatology, you have a mix of surgical procedures that are covered under insurance, but also a lot of cosmetic procedures that are most likely to be self-pay procedures. This offers private equity several mechanisms to which they can increase their revenues.”
Ms. Singh’s coauthors were part of a previous study looking at private practice penetration by private equity firms. That research found such deals surged from 59 deals in 2013 representing 843 physicians, to 136 private equity acquisition deals representing 1,882 physicians in 2016.
The most recent study notes limited data and use of nondisclosure agreements during early negotiations as part of the difficulty in truly pinpointing private equity’s presence in health care. Monitoring private equity activity has become necessary across all industries, noted the authors of the study. If continued at this rate, long-term private equity acquisition has a multitude of potential pros and cons.
Ms. Singh explained that such specialties are highly fragmented and they allow for economies of scale and scope. In particular, an aging population increases demand for dermatology, ophthalmology, and gastroenterology services such as skin biopsies, cataracts, and colonoscopies. This makes these specialties very attractive to private equity firms. The same can be said for obstetrics and gynecology, as fertility clinics have attracted many private equity investments.
“This is another area where understanding changes to physician practice patterns and patient outcomes is critical as women continue to delay motherhood,” said Ms. Singh.
Reducing competition, increasing focus on patient care
Researchers found significant geographical trends for private equity penetration, as it varies across the country. It is highest in the Northeast, Florida, and Arizona in hospital referral regions. Researchers are still analyzing the cause of this occurrence.
Geographic concentration of private equity penetration likely reflects strategic selection of investment opportunities by private equity funds as the decision to invest in a practice does not happen at random, Ms. Singh noted.
Ms. Singh said she hopes that by documenting a variation and geographic concentration that the NIHCM is providing the first foundational step to tackle questions related to incentives and regulations that facilitate investment.
“Understanding the regulatory and economic environments that facilitate private equity activity is an interesting and important question to explore further,” she said in an interview. “This can include supply-side factors that can shape the business environment, e.g., taxation environment, regulatory burden to complete acquisitions, as well as demand-side factors that facilitate growth.”
Researchers found that continued growth of private equity penetration may lead to consolidation among independent practices facing financial pressures, as well as reduced competition and increased prices within each local health care market.
“Localized consolidation in certain markets has the potential for competition to reduce, [and] reduced competition has been shown in a variety of settings to be associated with increases in prices and reduced access for patients,” said Ms. Singh.
Conversely, Ms. Singh addressed several benefits of growing private equity presence. Companies can exploit their full potential through the addition of private equity expertise and contacts. Specifically, health care development of technological infrastructure is likely, along with reduced patient wait times and the expansion of business hours. It could also be a way for practices to offload administrative responsibilities and for physicians to focus more on the care delivery process.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
While tracking the extent of physician practice acquisition by private equity firms may be difficult, new research highlights what specialties and U.S. regions are most affected by such purchases.
The study, supported by the National Institute for Health Care Management (NIHCM), examined 97,094 physicians practicing in six specialties, 4,738 of whom worked in private equity–acquired practices. Of these specialties,
“These specialties offer private equity firms diverse revenue streams. You have a mix of commercially insured individuals with Medicare insurance and self-pay,” said Yashaswini Singh, MPA, a doctoral student at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, and coauthor of the study, which was published in JAMA Health Forum as a research letter.
“In dermatology, you have a mix of surgical procedures that are covered under insurance, but also a lot of cosmetic procedures that are most likely to be self-pay procedures. This offers private equity several mechanisms to which they can increase their revenues.”
Ms. Singh’s coauthors were part of a previous study looking at private practice penetration by private equity firms. That research found such deals surged from 59 deals in 2013 representing 843 physicians, to 136 private equity acquisition deals representing 1,882 physicians in 2016.
The most recent study notes limited data and use of nondisclosure agreements during early negotiations as part of the difficulty in truly pinpointing private equity’s presence in health care. Monitoring private equity activity has become necessary across all industries, noted the authors of the study. If continued at this rate, long-term private equity acquisition has a multitude of potential pros and cons.
Ms. Singh explained that such specialties are highly fragmented and they allow for economies of scale and scope. In particular, an aging population increases demand for dermatology, ophthalmology, and gastroenterology services such as skin biopsies, cataracts, and colonoscopies. This makes these specialties very attractive to private equity firms. The same can be said for obstetrics and gynecology, as fertility clinics have attracted many private equity investments.
“This is another area where understanding changes to physician practice patterns and patient outcomes is critical as women continue to delay motherhood,” said Ms. Singh.
Reducing competition, increasing focus on patient care
Researchers found significant geographical trends for private equity penetration, as it varies across the country. It is highest in the Northeast, Florida, and Arizona in hospital referral regions. Researchers are still analyzing the cause of this occurrence.
Geographic concentration of private equity penetration likely reflects strategic selection of investment opportunities by private equity funds as the decision to invest in a practice does not happen at random, Ms. Singh noted.
Ms. Singh said she hopes that by documenting a variation and geographic concentration that the NIHCM is providing the first foundational step to tackle questions related to incentives and regulations that facilitate investment.
“Understanding the regulatory and economic environments that facilitate private equity activity is an interesting and important question to explore further,” she said in an interview. “This can include supply-side factors that can shape the business environment, e.g., taxation environment, regulatory burden to complete acquisitions, as well as demand-side factors that facilitate growth.”
Researchers found that continued growth of private equity penetration may lead to consolidation among independent practices facing financial pressures, as well as reduced competition and increased prices within each local health care market.
“Localized consolidation in certain markets has the potential for competition to reduce, [and] reduced competition has been shown in a variety of settings to be associated with increases in prices and reduced access for patients,” said Ms. Singh.
Conversely, Ms. Singh addressed several benefits of growing private equity presence. Companies can exploit their full potential through the addition of private equity expertise and contacts. Specifically, health care development of technological infrastructure is likely, along with reduced patient wait times and the expansion of business hours. It could also be a way for practices to offload administrative responsibilities and for physicians to focus more on the care delivery process.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
While tracking the extent of physician practice acquisition by private equity firms may be difficult, new research highlights what specialties and U.S. regions are most affected by such purchases.
The study, supported by the National Institute for Health Care Management (NIHCM), examined 97,094 physicians practicing in six specialties, 4,738 of whom worked in private equity–acquired practices. Of these specialties,
“These specialties offer private equity firms diverse revenue streams. You have a mix of commercially insured individuals with Medicare insurance and self-pay,” said Yashaswini Singh, MPA, a doctoral student at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, and coauthor of the study, which was published in JAMA Health Forum as a research letter.
“In dermatology, you have a mix of surgical procedures that are covered under insurance, but also a lot of cosmetic procedures that are most likely to be self-pay procedures. This offers private equity several mechanisms to which they can increase their revenues.”
Ms. Singh’s coauthors were part of a previous study looking at private practice penetration by private equity firms. That research found such deals surged from 59 deals in 2013 representing 843 physicians, to 136 private equity acquisition deals representing 1,882 physicians in 2016.
The most recent study notes limited data and use of nondisclosure agreements during early negotiations as part of the difficulty in truly pinpointing private equity’s presence in health care. Monitoring private equity activity has become necessary across all industries, noted the authors of the study. If continued at this rate, long-term private equity acquisition has a multitude of potential pros and cons.
Ms. Singh explained that such specialties are highly fragmented and they allow for economies of scale and scope. In particular, an aging population increases demand for dermatology, ophthalmology, and gastroenterology services such as skin biopsies, cataracts, and colonoscopies. This makes these specialties very attractive to private equity firms. The same can be said for obstetrics and gynecology, as fertility clinics have attracted many private equity investments.
“This is another area where understanding changes to physician practice patterns and patient outcomes is critical as women continue to delay motherhood,” said Ms. Singh.
Reducing competition, increasing focus on patient care
Researchers found significant geographical trends for private equity penetration, as it varies across the country. It is highest in the Northeast, Florida, and Arizona in hospital referral regions. Researchers are still analyzing the cause of this occurrence.
Geographic concentration of private equity penetration likely reflects strategic selection of investment opportunities by private equity funds as the decision to invest in a practice does not happen at random, Ms. Singh noted.
Ms. Singh said she hopes that by documenting a variation and geographic concentration that the NIHCM is providing the first foundational step to tackle questions related to incentives and regulations that facilitate investment.
“Understanding the regulatory and economic environments that facilitate private equity activity is an interesting and important question to explore further,” she said in an interview. “This can include supply-side factors that can shape the business environment, e.g., taxation environment, regulatory burden to complete acquisitions, as well as demand-side factors that facilitate growth.”
Researchers found that continued growth of private equity penetration may lead to consolidation among independent practices facing financial pressures, as well as reduced competition and increased prices within each local health care market.
“Localized consolidation in certain markets has the potential for competition to reduce, [and] reduced competition has been shown in a variety of settings to be associated with increases in prices and reduced access for patients,” said Ms. Singh.
Conversely, Ms. Singh addressed several benefits of growing private equity presence. Companies can exploit their full potential through the addition of private equity expertise and contacts. Specifically, health care development of technological infrastructure is likely, along with reduced patient wait times and the expansion of business hours. It could also be a way for practices to offload administrative responsibilities and for physicians to focus more on the care delivery process.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA HEALTH FORUM
Author Q&A: Intravenous Immunoglobulin for Treatment of COVID-19 in Select Patients
Dr. George Sakoulas is an infectious diseases clinician at Sharp Memorial Hospital in San Diego and professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine. He was the lead investigator in a study published in the May/June 2022 issue of JCOM that found that, when allocated to the appropriate patient type, intravenous immunoglobulin can reduce hospital costs for COVID-19 care. 1 He joined JCOM’s Editor-in-Chief, Dr. Ebrahim Barkoudah, to discuss the study’s background and highlight its main findings.
The following has been edited for length and clarity.
Dr. Barkoudah Dr. Sakoulas is an investigator and a clinician, bridging both worlds to bring the best evidence to our patients. We’re discussing his new article regarding intravenous immunoglobulin in treating nonventilated COVID-19 patients with moderate-to-severe hypoxia. Dr. Sakoulas, could you please share with our readers the clinical question your study addressed and what your work around COVID-19 management means for clinical practice?
Dr. Sakoulas Thank you. I’m an infectious disease physician. I’ve been treating patients with viral acute respiratory distress syndrome for almost 20 years as an ID doctor. Most of these cases are due to influenza or other viruses. And from time to time, anecdotally and supported by some literature, we’ve been using IVIG, or intravenous immunoglobulin, in some of these cases. And again, I can report anecdotal success with that over the years.
So when COVID emerged in March of 2020, we deployed IVIG in a couple of patients early who were heading downhill. Remember, in March of 2020, we didn’t have the knowledge of steroids helping, patients being ventilated very promptly, and we saw some patients who made a turnaround after treatment with IVIG. We were able to get some support from an industry sponsor and perform and publish a pilot study, enrolling patients early in the pandemic. That study actually showed benefits, which then led the sponsor to fund a phase 3 multicenter clinical trial. Unfortunately, a couple of things happened. First, the trial was designed with the knowledge we had in April of 2020, and again, this is before steroids, before we incorporated proning patients in the ICU, or started ventilating people early. So there were some management changes and evolutions and improvements that happened. And second, the trial was enrolling a very broad repertoire of patients. There were no age limitations, and the trial, ultimately a phase 3 multicenter trial, failed to meet its endpoint.
There were some trends for benefit in younger patients, and as the trial was ongoing, we continued to evolve our knowledge, and we really honed it down to seeing a benefit of using IVIG in patients with COVID with specific criteria in mind. They had to be relatively younger patients, under 65, and not have any major comorbidities. In other words, they weren’t dialysis patients or end-stage disease patients, heart failure patients, cancer or malignancy patients. So, you know, we’re looking at the patients under 65 with obesity, diabetes, and hypertension, who are rapidly declining, going from room air to BiPAP or high-flow oxygen in a short amount of time. And we learned that when using IVIG early, we actually saw patients improve and turn around.
What this article in JCOM highlighted was, number one, incorporating that outcome or that patient type and then looking at the cost of hospitalization of patients who received IVIG versus those that did not. There were 2 groups that were studied. One was the group of patients in that original pilot trial that I discussed who were randomized to receive 1 or the other prospectively; it was an unblinded randomized study. And the second group was a matched case-control study where we had patients treated with IVIG matched by age and comorbidity status and level of hypoxia to patients that did not receive IVIG. We saw a financial benefit in shortening or reducing hospitalizations, really coming down to getting rid of that 20% tail of patients that wound up going to the ICU, getting intubated, and using a high amount of hospital resources that would ramp up the cost of hospitalization. We saw great mitigation of that with IVIG, and even with a small subset of patients, we were able to show a benefit.
Dr. Barkoudah Any thoughts on where we can implement the new findings from your article in our practice at the moment, knowing we now have practice guidelines and protocols to treat COVID-19? There was a tangible benefit in treating the patients the way you approached it in your important work. Could you share with us what would be implementable at the moment?
Dr. Sakoulas I think, fortunately, with the increasing host immunity in the population and decreased virulence of the virus, perhaps we won’t see as many patients of the type that were in these trials going forward, but I suspect we will perhaps in the unvaccinated patients that remain. I believe one-third of the United States is not vaccinated. So there is certainly a vulnerable group of people out there. Potentially, an unvaccinated patient who winds up getting very sick, the patient who is relatively young—what I’m looking at is the 30- to 65-year-old obese, hypertensive, or diabetic patient who comes in and, despite the steroids and the antivirals, rapidly deteriorates into requiring high-flow oxygen. I think implementing IVIG in that patient type would be helpful. I don’t think it’s going to be as helpful in patients who are very elderly, because I think the mechanism of the disease is different in an 80-year-old versus a 50-year-old patient. So again, hopefully, it will not amount to a lot of patients, but I still suspect hospitals are going to see, perhaps in the fall, when they’re expecting a greater number of cases, a trickling of patients that do meet the criteria that I described.
Dr. Barkoudah JCOM’s audience are the QI implementers and hospital leadership. And what caught my eye in your article is your perspective on the pharmacoeconomics of treating COVID-19, and I really appreciate your looking at the cost aspect. Would you talk about the economics of inpatient care, the total care that we provide now that we’re in the age of tocilizumab, and the current state of multiple layers of therapy?
Dr. Sakoulas The reason to look at the economics of it is because IVIG—which is actually not a drug, it’s a blood product—is very expensive. So, we received a considerable amount of administrative pushback implementing this treatment at the beginning outside of the clinical trial setting because it hadn’t been studied on a large scale and because the cost was so high, even though, as a clinician at the bedside, I was seeing a benefit in patients. This study came out of my trying to demonstrate to the folks that are keeping the economics of medicine in mind that, in fact, investing several thousand dollars of treatment in IVIG will save you cost of care, the cost of an ICU bed, the cost of a ventilator, and the cost even of ECMO, which is hugely expensive.
If you look at the numbers in the study, for two-thirds or three-quarters of the patients, your cost of care is actually greater than the controls because you’re giving them IVIG, and it’s increasing the cost of their care, even though three-quarters of the patients are going to do just as well without it. It’s that 20% to 25% of patients that really are going to benefit from it, where you’re reducing your cost of care so much, and you’re getting rid of that very, very expensive 20%, that there’s a cost savings across the board per patient. So, it’s hard to understand when you say you’re losing money on three-quarters of the patients, you’re only saving money on a quarter of the patients, but that cost of saving on that small subset is so substantial it’s really impacting all numbers.
Also, abandoning the outlier principle is sort of an underlying theme in how we think of things. We tend to ignore outliers, not consider them, but I think we really have to pay attention to the more extreme cases because those patients are the ones that drive not just the financial cost of care. Remember, if you’re down to 1 ventilator and you can cut down the use of scarce ICU resources, the cost is sort of even beyond the cost of money. It’s the cost of resources that may become scarce in some settings. So, I think it speaks to that as well.
A lot of the drugs that we use, for example, tocilizumab, were able to be studied in thousands of patients. If you look at the absolute numbers, the benefit of tocilizumab from a magnitude standpoint—low to mid twenties to high twenties—you know, reducing mortality from 29% to 24%. I mean, just take a step back and think about that. Even though it’s statistically significant, try telling a patient, “Well, I’m going to give you this treatment that’s going to reduce mortality from 29% to 24%.” You know, that doesn’t really change anything from a clinical significance standpoint. But they have a P value less than .05, which is our standard, and they were able to do a study with thousands of patients. We didn’t have that luxury with IVIG. No one studied thousands of patients, only retrospectively, and those retrospective studies don’t get the attention because they’re considered biased with all their limitations. But I think one of the difficulties we have here is the balance between statistical and clinical significance. For example, in our pilot study, our ventilation rate was 58% with the non-IVIG patients versus 14% for IVIG patients. So you might say, magnitude-wise, that’s a big number, but the statistical significance of it is borderline because of small numbers.
Anyway, that’s a challenge that we have as clinicians trying to incorporate what’s published—the balancing of statistics, absolute numbers, and practicalities of delivering care. And I think this study highlights some of the nuances that go into that incorporation and those clinical decisions.
Dr. Barkoudah Would you mind sharing with our audience how we can make the connection between the medical outcomes and pharmacoeconomics findings from your article and link it to the bedside and treatment of our patients?
Dr. Sakoulas One of the points this article brings out is the importance of bringing together not just level 1A data, but also small studies with data such as this, where the magnitude of the effect is pretty big but you lose the statistics because of the small numbers. And then also the patients’ aspects of things. I think, as a bedside clinician, you appreciate things, the nuances, much sooner than what percolates out from a level 1A study. Case in point, in the sponsored phase 3 study that we did, and in some other studies that were prospectively done as well, these studies of IVIG simply had an enrollment of patients that was very broad, and not every patient benefits from the same therapy. A great example of this is the sepsis trials with Xigris and those types of agents that failed. You know, there are clinicians to this day who believe that there is a subset of patients that benefit from agents like this. The IVIG story falls a little bit into that category. It comes down to trying to identify the subset of patients that might benefit. And I think we’ve outlined this subset pretty well in our study: the younger, obese diabetic or hypertensive patient who’s rapidly declining.
It really brings together the need to not necessarily toss out these smaller studies, but kind of summarize everything together, and clinicians who are bedside, who are more in tune with the nuances of individual decisions at the individual patient level, might better appreciate these kinds of data. But I think we all have to put it together. IVIG does not make treatment guidelines at national levels and so forth. It’s not even listed in many of them. But there are patients out there who, if you ask them specifically how they felt, including a friend of mine who received the medication, there’s no question from their end, how they felt about this treatment option. Now, some people will get it and will not benefit. We just have to be really tuned into the fact that the same drug does not have the same result for every patient. And just to consider this in the high-risk patients that we talked about in our study.
Dr. Barkoudah While we were prepping for this interview, you made an analogy regarding clinical evidence along the lines of, “Do we need randomized clinical trials to do a parachute-type of experiment,” and we chatted about clinical wisdom. Would you mind sharing with our readers your thoughts on that?
Dr. Sakoulas Sometimes, we try a treatment and it’s very obvious for that particular patient that it helped them. Then you study the treatment in a large trial setting and it doesn’t work. For us bedside clinicians, there are some interventions sometimes that do appear as beneficial as a parachute would be, but yet, there has never been a randomized clinical trial proving that parachutes work. Again, a part of the challenge we have is patients are so different, their immunology is different, the pathogen infecting them is different, the time they present is different. Some present early, some present late. There are just so many moving parts to treating an infection that only a subset of people are going to benefit. And sometimes as clinicians, we’re so nuanced, that we identify a specific subset of patients where we know we can help them. And it’s so obvious for us, like a parachute would be, but to people who are looking at the world from 30,000 feet, they don’t necessarily grasp that because, when you look at all comers, it doesn’t show a benefit.
So the problem is that now those treatments that might help a subset of patients are being denied, and the subset of patients that are going to benefit never get the treatment. Now we have to balance that with a lot of stuff that went on during the pandemic with, you know, ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, and people pushing those things. Someone asked me once what I thought about hydroxychloroquine, and I said, “Well, somebody in the lab probably showed that it was beneficial, analogous to lighting tissue paper on fire on a plate and taking a cup of water and putting the fire out. Well, now, if you take that cup of water to the Caldor fire that’s burning in California on thousands of acres, you’re not going to be able to put the fire out with that cup of water.” So while it might work in the lab, it’s truly not going to work in a clinical setting. We have to balance individualizing care for patients with some information people are pushing out there that may not be necessarily translatable to the clinical setting.
I think there’s nothing better than being at the bedside, though, and being able to implement something and seeing what works. And really, experience goes a long way in being able to individually treat a patient optimally.
Dr. Barkoudah Thank you for everything you do at the bedside and your work on improving the treatment we have and how we can leverage knowledge to treat our patients. Thank you very much for your time and your scholarly contribution. We appreciate it and I hope the work will continue. We will keep working on treating COVID-19 patients with the best knowledge we have.
Q&A participants: George Sakoulas, MD, Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Group, La Jolla, CA, and University of California San Diego School of Medicine, San Diego, CA; and Ebrahim Barkoudah, MD, MPH, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA.
Disclosures: None reported.
1. Poremba M, Dehner M, Perreiter A, et al. Intravenous immunoglobulin in treating nonventilated COVID-19 patients with moderate-to-severe hypoxia: a pharmacoeconomic analysis. J Clin Outcomes Manage. 2022;29(3):123-129. doi:10.12788/jcom.0094
Dr. George Sakoulas is an infectious diseases clinician at Sharp Memorial Hospital in San Diego and professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine. He was the lead investigator in a study published in the May/June 2022 issue of JCOM that found that, when allocated to the appropriate patient type, intravenous immunoglobulin can reduce hospital costs for COVID-19 care. 1 He joined JCOM’s Editor-in-Chief, Dr. Ebrahim Barkoudah, to discuss the study’s background and highlight its main findings.
The following has been edited for length and clarity.
Dr. Barkoudah Dr. Sakoulas is an investigator and a clinician, bridging both worlds to bring the best evidence to our patients. We’re discussing his new article regarding intravenous immunoglobulin in treating nonventilated COVID-19 patients with moderate-to-severe hypoxia. Dr. Sakoulas, could you please share with our readers the clinical question your study addressed and what your work around COVID-19 management means for clinical practice?
Dr. Sakoulas Thank you. I’m an infectious disease physician. I’ve been treating patients with viral acute respiratory distress syndrome for almost 20 years as an ID doctor. Most of these cases are due to influenza or other viruses. And from time to time, anecdotally and supported by some literature, we’ve been using IVIG, or intravenous immunoglobulin, in some of these cases. And again, I can report anecdotal success with that over the years.
So when COVID emerged in March of 2020, we deployed IVIG in a couple of patients early who were heading downhill. Remember, in March of 2020, we didn’t have the knowledge of steroids helping, patients being ventilated very promptly, and we saw some patients who made a turnaround after treatment with IVIG. We were able to get some support from an industry sponsor and perform and publish a pilot study, enrolling patients early in the pandemic. That study actually showed benefits, which then led the sponsor to fund a phase 3 multicenter clinical trial. Unfortunately, a couple of things happened. First, the trial was designed with the knowledge we had in April of 2020, and again, this is before steroids, before we incorporated proning patients in the ICU, or started ventilating people early. So there were some management changes and evolutions and improvements that happened. And second, the trial was enrolling a very broad repertoire of patients. There were no age limitations, and the trial, ultimately a phase 3 multicenter trial, failed to meet its endpoint.
There were some trends for benefit in younger patients, and as the trial was ongoing, we continued to evolve our knowledge, and we really honed it down to seeing a benefit of using IVIG in patients with COVID with specific criteria in mind. They had to be relatively younger patients, under 65, and not have any major comorbidities. In other words, they weren’t dialysis patients or end-stage disease patients, heart failure patients, cancer or malignancy patients. So, you know, we’re looking at the patients under 65 with obesity, diabetes, and hypertension, who are rapidly declining, going from room air to BiPAP or high-flow oxygen in a short amount of time. And we learned that when using IVIG early, we actually saw patients improve and turn around.
What this article in JCOM highlighted was, number one, incorporating that outcome or that patient type and then looking at the cost of hospitalization of patients who received IVIG versus those that did not. There were 2 groups that were studied. One was the group of patients in that original pilot trial that I discussed who were randomized to receive 1 or the other prospectively; it was an unblinded randomized study. And the second group was a matched case-control study where we had patients treated with IVIG matched by age and comorbidity status and level of hypoxia to patients that did not receive IVIG. We saw a financial benefit in shortening or reducing hospitalizations, really coming down to getting rid of that 20% tail of patients that wound up going to the ICU, getting intubated, and using a high amount of hospital resources that would ramp up the cost of hospitalization. We saw great mitigation of that with IVIG, and even with a small subset of patients, we were able to show a benefit.
Dr. Barkoudah Any thoughts on where we can implement the new findings from your article in our practice at the moment, knowing we now have practice guidelines and protocols to treat COVID-19? There was a tangible benefit in treating the patients the way you approached it in your important work. Could you share with us what would be implementable at the moment?
Dr. Sakoulas I think, fortunately, with the increasing host immunity in the population and decreased virulence of the virus, perhaps we won’t see as many patients of the type that were in these trials going forward, but I suspect we will perhaps in the unvaccinated patients that remain. I believe one-third of the United States is not vaccinated. So there is certainly a vulnerable group of people out there. Potentially, an unvaccinated patient who winds up getting very sick, the patient who is relatively young—what I’m looking at is the 30- to 65-year-old obese, hypertensive, or diabetic patient who comes in and, despite the steroids and the antivirals, rapidly deteriorates into requiring high-flow oxygen. I think implementing IVIG in that patient type would be helpful. I don’t think it’s going to be as helpful in patients who are very elderly, because I think the mechanism of the disease is different in an 80-year-old versus a 50-year-old patient. So again, hopefully, it will not amount to a lot of patients, but I still suspect hospitals are going to see, perhaps in the fall, when they’re expecting a greater number of cases, a trickling of patients that do meet the criteria that I described.
Dr. Barkoudah JCOM’s audience are the QI implementers and hospital leadership. And what caught my eye in your article is your perspective on the pharmacoeconomics of treating COVID-19, and I really appreciate your looking at the cost aspect. Would you talk about the economics of inpatient care, the total care that we provide now that we’re in the age of tocilizumab, and the current state of multiple layers of therapy?
Dr. Sakoulas The reason to look at the economics of it is because IVIG—which is actually not a drug, it’s a blood product—is very expensive. So, we received a considerable amount of administrative pushback implementing this treatment at the beginning outside of the clinical trial setting because it hadn’t been studied on a large scale and because the cost was so high, even though, as a clinician at the bedside, I was seeing a benefit in patients. This study came out of my trying to demonstrate to the folks that are keeping the economics of medicine in mind that, in fact, investing several thousand dollars of treatment in IVIG will save you cost of care, the cost of an ICU bed, the cost of a ventilator, and the cost even of ECMO, which is hugely expensive.
If you look at the numbers in the study, for two-thirds or three-quarters of the patients, your cost of care is actually greater than the controls because you’re giving them IVIG, and it’s increasing the cost of their care, even though three-quarters of the patients are going to do just as well without it. It’s that 20% to 25% of patients that really are going to benefit from it, where you’re reducing your cost of care so much, and you’re getting rid of that very, very expensive 20%, that there’s a cost savings across the board per patient. So, it’s hard to understand when you say you’re losing money on three-quarters of the patients, you’re only saving money on a quarter of the patients, but that cost of saving on that small subset is so substantial it’s really impacting all numbers.
Also, abandoning the outlier principle is sort of an underlying theme in how we think of things. We tend to ignore outliers, not consider them, but I think we really have to pay attention to the more extreme cases because those patients are the ones that drive not just the financial cost of care. Remember, if you’re down to 1 ventilator and you can cut down the use of scarce ICU resources, the cost is sort of even beyond the cost of money. It’s the cost of resources that may become scarce in some settings. So, I think it speaks to that as well.
A lot of the drugs that we use, for example, tocilizumab, were able to be studied in thousands of patients. If you look at the absolute numbers, the benefit of tocilizumab from a magnitude standpoint—low to mid twenties to high twenties—you know, reducing mortality from 29% to 24%. I mean, just take a step back and think about that. Even though it’s statistically significant, try telling a patient, “Well, I’m going to give you this treatment that’s going to reduce mortality from 29% to 24%.” You know, that doesn’t really change anything from a clinical significance standpoint. But they have a P value less than .05, which is our standard, and they were able to do a study with thousands of patients. We didn’t have that luxury with IVIG. No one studied thousands of patients, only retrospectively, and those retrospective studies don’t get the attention because they’re considered biased with all their limitations. But I think one of the difficulties we have here is the balance between statistical and clinical significance. For example, in our pilot study, our ventilation rate was 58% with the non-IVIG patients versus 14% for IVIG patients. So you might say, magnitude-wise, that’s a big number, but the statistical significance of it is borderline because of small numbers.
Anyway, that’s a challenge that we have as clinicians trying to incorporate what’s published—the balancing of statistics, absolute numbers, and practicalities of delivering care. And I think this study highlights some of the nuances that go into that incorporation and those clinical decisions.
Dr. Barkoudah Would you mind sharing with our audience how we can make the connection between the medical outcomes and pharmacoeconomics findings from your article and link it to the bedside and treatment of our patients?
Dr. Sakoulas One of the points this article brings out is the importance of bringing together not just level 1A data, but also small studies with data such as this, where the magnitude of the effect is pretty big but you lose the statistics because of the small numbers. And then also the patients’ aspects of things. I think, as a bedside clinician, you appreciate things, the nuances, much sooner than what percolates out from a level 1A study. Case in point, in the sponsored phase 3 study that we did, and in some other studies that were prospectively done as well, these studies of IVIG simply had an enrollment of patients that was very broad, and not every patient benefits from the same therapy. A great example of this is the sepsis trials with Xigris and those types of agents that failed. You know, there are clinicians to this day who believe that there is a subset of patients that benefit from agents like this. The IVIG story falls a little bit into that category. It comes down to trying to identify the subset of patients that might benefit. And I think we’ve outlined this subset pretty well in our study: the younger, obese diabetic or hypertensive patient who’s rapidly declining.
It really brings together the need to not necessarily toss out these smaller studies, but kind of summarize everything together, and clinicians who are bedside, who are more in tune with the nuances of individual decisions at the individual patient level, might better appreciate these kinds of data. But I think we all have to put it together. IVIG does not make treatment guidelines at national levels and so forth. It’s not even listed in many of them. But there are patients out there who, if you ask them specifically how they felt, including a friend of mine who received the medication, there’s no question from their end, how they felt about this treatment option. Now, some people will get it and will not benefit. We just have to be really tuned into the fact that the same drug does not have the same result for every patient. And just to consider this in the high-risk patients that we talked about in our study.
Dr. Barkoudah While we were prepping for this interview, you made an analogy regarding clinical evidence along the lines of, “Do we need randomized clinical trials to do a parachute-type of experiment,” and we chatted about clinical wisdom. Would you mind sharing with our readers your thoughts on that?
Dr. Sakoulas Sometimes, we try a treatment and it’s very obvious for that particular patient that it helped them. Then you study the treatment in a large trial setting and it doesn’t work. For us bedside clinicians, there are some interventions sometimes that do appear as beneficial as a parachute would be, but yet, there has never been a randomized clinical trial proving that parachutes work. Again, a part of the challenge we have is patients are so different, their immunology is different, the pathogen infecting them is different, the time they present is different. Some present early, some present late. There are just so many moving parts to treating an infection that only a subset of people are going to benefit. And sometimes as clinicians, we’re so nuanced, that we identify a specific subset of patients where we know we can help them. And it’s so obvious for us, like a parachute would be, but to people who are looking at the world from 30,000 feet, they don’t necessarily grasp that because, when you look at all comers, it doesn’t show a benefit.
So the problem is that now those treatments that might help a subset of patients are being denied, and the subset of patients that are going to benefit never get the treatment. Now we have to balance that with a lot of stuff that went on during the pandemic with, you know, ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, and people pushing those things. Someone asked me once what I thought about hydroxychloroquine, and I said, “Well, somebody in the lab probably showed that it was beneficial, analogous to lighting tissue paper on fire on a plate and taking a cup of water and putting the fire out. Well, now, if you take that cup of water to the Caldor fire that’s burning in California on thousands of acres, you’re not going to be able to put the fire out with that cup of water.” So while it might work in the lab, it’s truly not going to work in a clinical setting. We have to balance individualizing care for patients with some information people are pushing out there that may not be necessarily translatable to the clinical setting.
I think there’s nothing better than being at the bedside, though, and being able to implement something and seeing what works. And really, experience goes a long way in being able to individually treat a patient optimally.
Dr. Barkoudah Thank you for everything you do at the bedside and your work on improving the treatment we have and how we can leverage knowledge to treat our patients. Thank you very much for your time and your scholarly contribution. We appreciate it and I hope the work will continue. We will keep working on treating COVID-19 patients with the best knowledge we have.
Q&A participants: George Sakoulas, MD, Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Group, La Jolla, CA, and University of California San Diego School of Medicine, San Diego, CA; and Ebrahim Barkoudah, MD, MPH, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA.
Disclosures: None reported.
Dr. George Sakoulas is an infectious diseases clinician at Sharp Memorial Hospital in San Diego and professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine. He was the lead investigator in a study published in the May/June 2022 issue of JCOM that found that, when allocated to the appropriate patient type, intravenous immunoglobulin can reduce hospital costs for COVID-19 care. 1 He joined JCOM’s Editor-in-Chief, Dr. Ebrahim Barkoudah, to discuss the study’s background and highlight its main findings.
The following has been edited for length and clarity.
Dr. Barkoudah Dr. Sakoulas is an investigator and a clinician, bridging both worlds to bring the best evidence to our patients. We’re discussing his new article regarding intravenous immunoglobulin in treating nonventilated COVID-19 patients with moderate-to-severe hypoxia. Dr. Sakoulas, could you please share with our readers the clinical question your study addressed and what your work around COVID-19 management means for clinical practice?
Dr. Sakoulas Thank you. I’m an infectious disease physician. I’ve been treating patients with viral acute respiratory distress syndrome for almost 20 years as an ID doctor. Most of these cases are due to influenza or other viruses. And from time to time, anecdotally and supported by some literature, we’ve been using IVIG, or intravenous immunoglobulin, in some of these cases. And again, I can report anecdotal success with that over the years.
So when COVID emerged in March of 2020, we deployed IVIG in a couple of patients early who were heading downhill. Remember, in March of 2020, we didn’t have the knowledge of steroids helping, patients being ventilated very promptly, and we saw some patients who made a turnaround after treatment with IVIG. We were able to get some support from an industry sponsor and perform and publish a pilot study, enrolling patients early in the pandemic. That study actually showed benefits, which then led the sponsor to fund a phase 3 multicenter clinical trial. Unfortunately, a couple of things happened. First, the trial was designed with the knowledge we had in April of 2020, and again, this is before steroids, before we incorporated proning patients in the ICU, or started ventilating people early. So there were some management changes and evolutions and improvements that happened. And second, the trial was enrolling a very broad repertoire of patients. There were no age limitations, and the trial, ultimately a phase 3 multicenter trial, failed to meet its endpoint.
There were some trends for benefit in younger patients, and as the trial was ongoing, we continued to evolve our knowledge, and we really honed it down to seeing a benefit of using IVIG in patients with COVID with specific criteria in mind. They had to be relatively younger patients, under 65, and not have any major comorbidities. In other words, they weren’t dialysis patients or end-stage disease patients, heart failure patients, cancer or malignancy patients. So, you know, we’re looking at the patients under 65 with obesity, diabetes, and hypertension, who are rapidly declining, going from room air to BiPAP or high-flow oxygen in a short amount of time. And we learned that when using IVIG early, we actually saw patients improve and turn around.
What this article in JCOM highlighted was, number one, incorporating that outcome or that patient type and then looking at the cost of hospitalization of patients who received IVIG versus those that did not. There were 2 groups that were studied. One was the group of patients in that original pilot trial that I discussed who were randomized to receive 1 or the other prospectively; it was an unblinded randomized study. And the second group was a matched case-control study where we had patients treated with IVIG matched by age and comorbidity status and level of hypoxia to patients that did not receive IVIG. We saw a financial benefit in shortening or reducing hospitalizations, really coming down to getting rid of that 20% tail of patients that wound up going to the ICU, getting intubated, and using a high amount of hospital resources that would ramp up the cost of hospitalization. We saw great mitigation of that with IVIG, and even with a small subset of patients, we were able to show a benefit.
Dr. Barkoudah Any thoughts on where we can implement the new findings from your article in our practice at the moment, knowing we now have practice guidelines and protocols to treat COVID-19? There was a tangible benefit in treating the patients the way you approached it in your important work. Could you share with us what would be implementable at the moment?
Dr. Sakoulas I think, fortunately, with the increasing host immunity in the population and decreased virulence of the virus, perhaps we won’t see as many patients of the type that were in these trials going forward, but I suspect we will perhaps in the unvaccinated patients that remain. I believe one-third of the United States is not vaccinated. So there is certainly a vulnerable group of people out there. Potentially, an unvaccinated patient who winds up getting very sick, the patient who is relatively young—what I’m looking at is the 30- to 65-year-old obese, hypertensive, or diabetic patient who comes in and, despite the steroids and the antivirals, rapidly deteriorates into requiring high-flow oxygen. I think implementing IVIG in that patient type would be helpful. I don’t think it’s going to be as helpful in patients who are very elderly, because I think the mechanism of the disease is different in an 80-year-old versus a 50-year-old patient. So again, hopefully, it will not amount to a lot of patients, but I still suspect hospitals are going to see, perhaps in the fall, when they’re expecting a greater number of cases, a trickling of patients that do meet the criteria that I described.
Dr. Barkoudah JCOM’s audience are the QI implementers and hospital leadership. And what caught my eye in your article is your perspective on the pharmacoeconomics of treating COVID-19, and I really appreciate your looking at the cost aspect. Would you talk about the economics of inpatient care, the total care that we provide now that we’re in the age of tocilizumab, and the current state of multiple layers of therapy?
Dr. Sakoulas The reason to look at the economics of it is because IVIG—which is actually not a drug, it’s a blood product—is very expensive. So, we received a considerable amount of administrative pushback implementing this treatment at the beginning outside of the clinical trial setting because it hadn’t been studied on a large scale and because the cost was so high, even though, as a clinician at the bedside, I was seeing a benefit in patients. This study came out of my trying to demonstrate to the folks that are keeping the economics of medicine in mind that, in fact, investing several thousand dollars of treatment in IVIG will save you cost of care, the cost of an ICU bed, the cost of a ventilator, and the cost even of ECMO, which is hugely expensive.
If you look at the numbers in the study, for two-thirds or three-quarters of the patients, your cost of care is actually greater than the controls because you’re giving them IVIG, and it’s increasing the cost of their care, even though three-quarters of the patients are going to do just as well without it. It’s that 20% to 25% of patients that really are going to benefit from it, where you’re reducing your cost of care so much, and you’re getting rid of that very, very expensive 20%, that there’s a cost savings across the board per patient. So, it’s hard to understand when you say you’re losing money on three-quarters of the patients, you’re only saving money on a quarter of the patients, but that cost of saving on that small subset is so substantial it’s really impacting all numbers.
Also, abandoning the outlier principle is sort of an underlying theme in how we think of things. We tend to ignore outliers, not consider them, but I think we really have to pay attention to the more extreme cases because those patients are the ones that drive not just the financial cost of care. Remember, if you’re down to 1 ventilator and you can cut down the use of scarce ICU resources, the cost is sort of even beyond the cost of money. It’s the cost of resources that may become scarce in some settings. So, I think it speaks to that as well.
A lot of the drugs that we use, for example, tocilizumab, were able to be studied in thousands of patients. If you look at the absolute numbers, the benefit of tocilizumab from a magnitude standpoint—low to mid twenties to high twenties—you know, reducing mortality from 29% to 24%. I mean, just take a step back and think about that. Even though it’s statistically significant, try telling a patient, “Well, I’m going to give you this treatment that’s going to reduce mortality from 29% to 24%.” You know, that doesn’t really change anything from a clinical significance standpoint. But they have a P value less than .05, which is our standard, and they were able to do a study with thousands of patients. We didn’t have that luxury with IVIG. No one studied thousands of patients, only retrospectively, and those retrospective studies don’t get the attention because they’re considered biased with all their limitations. But I think one of the difficulties we have here is the balance between statistical and clinical significance. For example, in our pilot study, our ventilation rate was 58% with the non-IVIG patients versus 14% for IVIG patients. So you might say, magnitude-wise, that’s a big number, but the statistical significance of it is borderline because of small numbers.
Anyway, that’s a challenge that we have as clinicians trying to incorporate what’s published—the balancing of statistics, absolute numbers, and practicalities of delivering care. And I think this study highlights some of the nuances that go into that incorporation and those clinical decisions.
Dr. Barkoudah Would you mind sharing with our audience how we can make the connection between the medical outcomes and pharmacoeconomics findings from your article and link it to the bedside and treatment of our patients?
Dr. Sakoulas One of the points this article brings out is the importance of bringing together not just level 1A data, but also small studies with data such as this, where the magnitude of the effect is pretty big but you lose the statistics because of the small numbers. And then also the patients’ aspects of things. I think, as a bedside clinician, you appreciate things, the nuances, much sooner than what percolates out from a level 1A study. Case in point, in the sponsored phase 3 study that we did, and in some other studies that were prospectively done as well, these studies of IVIG simply had an enrollment of patients that was very broad, and not every patient benefits from the same therapy. A great example of this is the sepsis trials with Xigris and those types of agents that failed. You know, there are clinicians to this day who believe that there is a subset of patients that benefit from agents like this. The IVIG story falls a little bit into that category. It comes down to trying to identify the subset of patients that might benefit. And I think we’ve outlined this subset pretty well in our study: the younger, obese diabetic or hypertensive patient who’s rapidly declining.
It really brings together the need to not necessarily toss out these smaller studies, but kind of summarize everything together, and clinicians who are bedside, who are more in tune with the nuances of individual decisions at the individual patient level, might better appreciate these kinds of data. But I think we all have to put it together. IVIG does not make treatment guidelines at national levels and so forth. It’s not even listed in many of them. But there are patients out there who, if you ask them specifically how they felt, including a friend of mine who received the medication, there’s no question from their end, how they felt about this treatment option. Now, some people will get it and will not benefit. We just have to be really tuned into the fact that the same drug does not have the same result for every patient. And just to consider this in the high-risk patients that we talked about in our study.
Dr. Barkoudah While we were prepping for this interview, you made an analogy regarding clinical evidence along the lines of, “Do we need randomized clinical trials to do a parachute-type of experiment,” and we chatted about clinical wisdom. Would you mind sharing with our readers your thoughts on that?
Dr. Sakoulas Sometimes, we try a treatment and it’s very obvious for that particular patient that it helped them. Then you study the treatment in a large trial setting and it doesn’t work. For us bedside clinicians, there are some interventions sometimes that do appear as beneficial as a parachute would be, but yet, there has never been a randomized clinical trial proving that parachutes work. Again, a part of the challenge we have is patients are so different, their immunology is different, the pathogen infecting them is different, the time they present is different. Some present early, some present late. There are just so many moving parts to treating an infection that only a subset of people are going to benefit. And sometimes as clinicians, we’re so nuanced, that we identify a specific subset of patients where we know we can help them. And it’s so obvious for us, like a parachute would be, but to people who are looking at the world from 30,000 feet, they don’t necessarily grasp that because, when you look at all comers, it doesn’t show a benefit.
So the problem is that now those treatments that might help a subset of patients are being denied, and the subset of patients that are going to benefit never get the treatment. Now we have to balance that with a lot of stuff that went on during the pandemic with, you know, ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, and people pushing those things. Someone asked me once what I thought about hydroxychloroquine, and I said, “Well, somebody in the lab probably showed that it was beneficial, analogous to lighting tissue paper on fire on a plate and taking a cup of water and putting the fire out. Well, now, if you take that cup of water to the Caldor fire that’s burning in California on thousands of acres, you’re not going to be able to put the fire out with that cup of water.” So while it might work in the lab, it’s truly not going to work in a clinical setting. We have to balance individualizing care for patients with some information people are pushing out there that may not be necessarily translatable to the clinical setting.
I think there’s nothing better than being at the bedside, though, and being able to implement something and seeing what works. And really, experience goes a long way in being able to individually treat a patient optimally.
Dr. Barkoudah Thank you for everything you do at the bedside and your work on improving the treatment we have and how we can leverage knowledge to treat our patients. Thank you very much for your time and your scholarly contribution. We appreciate it and I hope the work will continue. We will keep working on treating COVID-19 patients with the best knowledge we have.
Q&A participants: George Sakoulas, MD, Sharp Rees-Stealy Medical Group, La Jolla, CA, and University of California San Diego School of Medicine, San Diego, CA; and Ebrahim Barkoudah, MD, MPH, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA.
Disclosures: None reported.
1. Poremba M, Dehner M, Perreiter A, et al. Intravenous immunoglobulin in treating nonventilated COVID-19 patients with moderate-to-severe hypoxia: a pharmacoeconomic analysis. J Clin Outcomes Manage. 2022;29(3):123-129. doi:10.12788/jcom.0094
1. Poremba M, Dehner M, Perreiter A, et al. Intravenous immunoglobulin in treating nonventilated COVID-19 patients with moderate-to-severe hypoxia: a pharmacoeconomic analysis. J Clin Outcomes Manage. 2022;29(3):123-129. doi:10.12788/jcom.0094
Improving Epistaxis Knowledge and Management Among Nursing Staff
From the University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, IL.
Abstract
Background: Epistaxis is a common chief complaint addressed by otolaryngologists. A review of the literature showed that there is a deficit in epistaxis education within the nursing community. Conversations with our nursing colleagues confirmed this unmet demand.
Objective: This quality improvement project aimed to increase general epistaxis knowledge, perceived comfort level managing nosebleeds, and perceived ability to stop nosebleeds among our nursing staff.
Methods: Data were collected through a survey administered before and after our intervention. The survey tested general epistaxis knowledge and assessed comfort and confidence in stopping epistaxis. Our intervention was an educational session covering pertinent epistaxis etiology and management. Quality improvement principles were used to optimize delivery of the intervention.
Results: A total of 51 nurses participated in the project. After participating in the in-service educational session, nurses answered significantly more epistaxis general knowledge questions correctly (mean [SD] difference, 2.07 [1.10] questions; 95% CI, 1.74-2.39; P < .001). There was no statistically significant difference in additional correct questions when stratified by clinical experience or clinical setting (P = .128 and P = 0.446, respectively). Nurses also reported feeling significantly more comfortable and significantly more confident in managing nosebleeds after the in-service (P = .007 and P < 0.001, respectively); 74.46% of nurses had an improvement in comfort level in managing epistaxis and 43.90% of nurses had an improvement in confidence in stopping epistaxis. After we moved the educational session from mid-shift to shift change, the nursing staff reported more satisfaction while maintaining similar improvements in knowledge and confidence.
Conclusion: We were able to significantly increase epistaxis knowledge, improve comfort levels managing epistaxis, and improve confidence in successful epistaxis management. Nurses of varying clinical experience and different clinical settings benefitted equally from our intervention.
Keywords: nosebleed; in-service; quality improvement.
Epistaxis, or nosebleed, is estimated to be the chief complaint in 1 in 200 emergency department visits in the United States.1 Additionally, it represents up to one-third of otolaryngology-related emergency room admissions.2 There is no existing literature, to our best knowledge, specifically investigating the incidence of epistaxis after a patient is admitted. Anecdotally, inpatients who develop epistaxis account for an appreciable number of consults to otolaryngology (ENT). Epistaxis is a cross-disciplinary issue, occurring in a range of clinical settings. For example, patients with epistaxis can present to the emergency department or to an outpatient primary care clinic before being referred to ENT. Additionally, inpatients on many different services can develop spontaneous epistaxis due to a variety of environmental and iatrogenic factors, such as dry air, use of nasal cannula, and initiation of anticoagulation. Based on the experience of our ENT providers and discussions with our nursing colleagues, we concluded that there was an interest in epistaxis management training among our nursing workforce.
The presence of unmet demand for epistaxis education among our nursing colleagues was supported by our literature review. A study performed in England surveyed emergency department nurses on first aid measures for management of epistaxis, including ideal head positioning, location of pressure application, and duration of pressure application.3 Overall, only 12% to 14% of the nursing staff answered all 3 questions correctly.3 Additionally, 73% to 78% of the nursing staff felt that their training in epistaxis management was inadequate, and 88% desired further training in epistaxis management.3 If generalized, this study confirms the demand for further epistaxis education among nurses.
In-services have previously been shown to be effective educational tools within the nursing community. A study in Ethiopia that evaluated pain management knowledge and attitudes before and after an in-service found a significant improvement in mean rank score of nurses’ knowledge and attitudes regarding pain management after they participated in the in-service.4 Scores on the knowledge survey improved from 41.4% before the intervention to 63.0% post intervention.4 A study in Connecticut evaluated nurses’ confidence in discussing suicidal ideation with patients and knowledge surrounding suicide precautions.5 After participating in an in-service, nurses were significantly more confident in discussing suicidal ideation with patients; application of appropriate suicide precautions also increased after the in-service.5
Our aim was for nurses to have an improvement in overall epistaxis knowledge, perceived comfort level managing nosebleeds, and perceived ability to stop nosebleeds after attending our in-service. Additionally, an overarching priority was to provide high-quality epistaxis education based on the literature and best practice guidelines.
Methods
Setting
This study was carried out at an 811-bed quaternary care center located in Chicago, Illinois. In fiscal year 2021, there were 91 643 emergency department visits and 33 805 hospital admissions. At our flagship hospital, 2658 patients were diagnosed with epistaxis during fiscal year 2021. The emergency department saw 533 patients with epistaxis, with 342 requiring admission and 191 being discharged. Separately, 566 inpatients received a diagnosis of epistaxis during their admission. The remainder of the patients with epistaxis were seen on an outpatient basis.
Data Collection
Data were collected from nurses on 5 different inpatient units. An email with information about the in-service was sent to the nurse managers of the inpatient units. These 5 units were included because the nurse managers responded to the email and facilitated delivery of the in-service. Data collection took place from August to December 2020.
Intervention
A quality improvement team composed of a resident physician champion, nurse educators, and nurse managers was formed. The physician champion was a senior otolaryngology resident who was responsible for designing and administering the pre-test, in-service, and post test. The nurse educators and nurse managers helped coordinate times for the in-service and promoted the in-service for their staff.
Our intervention was an educational in-service, a technique that is commonly used at our institution for nurse education. In-services typically involve delivering a lecture on a clinically relevant topic to a group of nurses on a unit. In developing the in-service, a top priority was to present high-quality evidence-based material. There is an abundance of information in the literature surrounding epistaxis management. The clinical practice guideline published by the American Academy of Otolaryngology lists nasal compression, application of vasoconstrictors, nasal packing, and nasal cautery as first-line treatments for the management of epistaxis.6 Nasal packing and nasal cautery tend to be perceived as interventions that require a certain level of expertise and specialized supplies. As such, these interventions are not often performed by floor nurses. In contrast, nasal compression and application of vasoconstrictors require only a few easily accessible supplies, and the risks are relatively minimal. When performing nasal compression, the clinical practice guidelines recommend firm, sustained compression to the lower third of the nose for 5 minutes or longer.6 Topical vasoconstrictors are generally underutilized in epistaxis management. In a study looking at a random sample of all US emergency department visits from 1992 to 2001, only 18% of visits used an epistaxis-related medication.2 Oxymetazoline hydrochloride is a topical vasoconstrictor that is commonly used as a nasal decongestant. However, its vasoconstrictor properties also make it a useful tool for controlling epistaxis. In a study looking at emergency department visits at the University of Texas Health Science Center, 65% of patients had resolution of nosebleed with application of oxymetazoline hydrochloride as the only intervention, with another 18% experiencing resolution of nosebleed with a combination of oxymetazoline hydrochloride and silver nitrate cautery.7 Based on review of the literature, nasal compression and application of vasoconstrictors seemed to be low-resource interventions with minimal morbidity. Therefore, management centered around nasal compression and use of topical vasoconstrictors seemed appropriate for our nursing staff.
The in-service included information about the etiology and management of epistaxis. Particular emphasis was placed on addressing and debunking common misconceptions about nosebleed management. With regards to management, our presentation focused on the use of topical vasoconstrictors and firm pressure to the lower third of the nose for at least 5 minutes. Nasal packing and nasal cautery were presented as procedures that ENT would perform. After the in-service, questions from the nurses were answered as time permitted.
Testing and Outcomes
A pre-test was administered before each in-service. The pre-test components comprised a knowledge survey and a descriptive survey. The general epistaxis knowledge questions on the pre-test included the location of blood vessels most commonly responsible for nosebleeds, the ideal positioning of a patient during a nosebleed, the appropriate location to hold pressure during a nosebleed, and the appropriate duration to hold pressure during a nosebleed. The descriptive survey portion asked nurses to rate whether they felt “very comfortable,” “comfortable,” “uncomfortable,” or “very uncomfortable” managing nosebleeds. It also asked whether nurses thought they would be able to “always,” “usually,” “rarely,” or “never” stop nosebleeds on the floor. We collected demographic information, including gender identity, years of clinical experience, and primary clinical environment.
The post test asked the same questions as the pre-test and was administered immediately after the in-service in order to assess its impact. We also established an ongoing dialogue with our nursing colleagues to obtain feedback on the sessions.
Primary outcomes of interest were the difference in general epistaxis knowledge questions answered correctly between the pre-test and the post test; the difference in comfort level in managing epistaxis before and after the in-service; and the difference in confidence to stop nosebleeds before and after the in-service. A secondary outcome was determining the audience for the in-service. Specifically, we wanted to determine whether there were different outcomes based on clinical setting or years of clinical experience. If nurses in a certain clinical environment or beyond a certain experience level did not show significant improvement from pre-test to post test, we would not target them for the in-service. Another secondary outcome was determining optimal timing for delivery of the in-service. We wanted to determine if there was a nursing preference for delivering the in-service at mid-shift vs shift change.
Analysis
Statistical calculations were performed using Stata 15 (StataCorp LLC). A P value < .05 was considered to be statistically significant. Where applicable, 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. T-test was used to determine whether there was a statistically significant difference between pre-test and post-test epistaxis knowledge question scores. T-test was also used to determine whether there was a statistically significant difference in test scores between nurses receiving the in-service at mid-shift vs shift change. Pearson chi-squared tests were used to determine if there was a statistically significant difference between pre-test and post-test perceptions of epistaxis management, and to investigate outcomes between different subsets of nurses.
SQUIRE 2.0 guidelines were utilized to provide a framework for this project and to structure the manuscript.8 This study met criteria for exemption from institutional review board approval.
Results
Fifty-one nurses took part in this project (Table). The majority of participants identified as female (88.24%), and just over half worked on medical floors (52.94%), with most of the remainder working in intensive care (25.49%) and surgical (15.69%) settings. There was a wide range of clinical experience, with 1.96% reporting 0 to 1 years of experience, 29.41% reporting 2 to 5 years, 23.53% reporting 5 to 10 years, 25.49% reporting 10 to 20 years, and 17.65% reporting more than 20 years.
There were unanswered questions on both the pre-test and post test. There was no consistently unanswered question. Omitted answers on the epistaxis knowledge questions were recorded as an “incorrect” answer. Omitted answers on the perception questions were considered null values and not considered in final analysis.
Primary Measures
General epistaxis knowledge (Figure, part A) improved from the pre-test, where out of 4 questions, the mean (SD) score was 1.74 (1.02) correct questions, to the post-test, where out of 4 questions, the mean score was 3.80 (0.40) correct questions. After participating in the in-service, nurses answered significantly more questions about epistaxis general knowledge correctly (mean difference, 2.07 [1.10]; 95% CI, 1.74-2.39; P < .001), and 80.43% of them got a perfect score on the epistaxis knowledge questions.
The second primary measure was the difference in comfort level in managing nosebleed. After participating in the in-service, nurses felt significantly more comfortable in managing nosebleeds (Figure, part B; P = .007), with 74.46% of nurses having an improved comfort level managing nosebleeds. Before the in-service, 12.76% of nurses felt “very comfortable” in managing nosebleeds vs more than three-quarters (76.59%) after the in-service. Of those who answered that they felt “comfortable” managing nosebleeds on the pre-test, 82.35% improved to feeling “very comfortable” in managing nosebleeds. Before the in-service, 14.89% of nurses felt “uncomfortable” or “very uncomfortable” in managing nosebleeds, and this decreased to 0 post intervention. After the in-service, 100.00% of nurses felt “comfortable” or “very comfortable” in managing nosebleeds.
After receiving the in-service, nurses felt significantly more confident in stopping nosebleeds (Figure, part C; P < .001), with 43.90% of them having an improvement in confidence in stopping epistaxis. Before the in-service, 7.31% of nurses felt that they would “always” be able to stop a nose-bleed, and this increased to 41.46% after the in-service. Of those who answered that they felt that they would “usually” be able to stop a nosebleed on the pre-test, 36.67% changed their answer to state that they would “always” be able to stop a nosebleed on the post test. Before the in-service, 19.51% of nurses felt that they would “rarely” or “never” be able to stop a nosebleed, and this decreased to 2.44% after the in-service.
Secondary Measures
All of the nurses who participated either “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that they learned something new from the in-service. However, to determine whether there was a population who would benefit most from the in-service, we stratified the data by years of clinical experience. There was no statistically significant difference in whether nurses with varying clinical experience learned something new (P = .148): 100% of nurses with 0-1 years of experience, 80.00% of nurses with 2-5 years of experience, 100% of nurses with 5-10 years of experience, 69.23% of nurses with 10-20 years of experience, and 100% of nurses with >20 years of experience “strongly agreed” that they learned something new from this in-service. There was no statistically significant difference on the post test compared to the pre-test in additional correct questions when stratified by clinical experience (P = .128). Second, when we stratified by clinical setting, we did not find a statistically significant difference in whether nurses in different clinical settings learned something new (P = .929): 88.89% of nurses in the medical setting, 87.50% of nurses in the surgical setting, and 84.62% of nurses in the intensive care setting “strongly agreed” that they learned something new from this presentation. On investigating additional questions correct on the post test compared to the pre-test, there was no statistically significant difference in additional correct questions when stratified by clinical setting (P = .446).
Optimal timing of the in-service was another important outcome. Initially, the in-service was administered at mid-shift, with 9 nurses participating at mid-shift, but our nursing colleagues gave unanimous feedback that this was a suboptimal time for delivery of an in-service. We changed the timing of the in-service to shift change; 42 nurses received the in-service at shift-change. There was no statistically significant difference in scores on the epistaxis knowledge questions between these two groups (P = .123). This indicated to us that changing the timing of the delivery resulted in similarly improved outcomes while having the added benefit of being preferred by our nursing colleagues.
Discussion
In undertaking this project, our primary aims were to improve epistaxis knowledge and perceived management in our nursing staff. Among our nursing staff, we were able to significantly increase epistaxis knowledge, improve comfort levels managing epistaxis, and improve confidence in successful epistaxis management. We also found that nurses of varying clinical experience and different clinical settings benefited equally from our intervention. Using quality improvement principles, we optimized our delivery. Our in-service focused on educating nurses to use epistaxis management techniques that were resource-efficient and low risk.
After participating in the in-service, nurses answered significantly more questions about epistaxis general knowledge correctly (Figure, part A; mean difference, 2.07 questions [1.10]; 95% CI, 1.74-2.39; P < .001), felt significantly more comfortable in managing nosebleeds (Figure, part B; P = .007), and felt significantly more confident in stopping nosebleeds (Figure, part C; P < .001). Based on these results, we successfully achieved our primary aims.
Our secondary aim was to determine the audience that would benefit the most from the in-service. All of the nurses who participated either “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that they learned something new from the in-service. There was no statistically significant difference in whether nurses of varying clinical experience learned something new (P = .148) or in additional correct questions when stratified by clinical experience (P =.128). Also, there was no statistically significant difference in whether nurses in different clinical settings learned something new (P = .929) or in additional correct questions when stratified by clinical setting (P = .446). These results indicated to us that all participants learned something new and that there was no specific target audience, but rather that all participants benefitted from our session.
Our nursing colleagues gave us feedback that the timing of the in-service during mid-shift was not ideal. It was difficult to gather nurses mid-shift due to pressing patient-care duties. Nurses also found it difficult to give their full attention at this time. Nurses, nurse educators, and nurse managers suggested that we conduct the in-service at shift change in order to capture a larger population and take advantage of time relatively free of clinical duties. Giving the in-service at a time with relatively fewer clinical responsibilities allowed for a more robust question-and-answer session. It also allowed our nursing colleagues to pay full attention to the in-service. There was no statistically significant difference in epistaxis general knowledge questions answered correctly; this indicates that the quality of the education session did not vary greatly. However, our nursing colleagues strongly preferred the in-service at shift change. By making this modification to our intervention, we were able to optimize our intervention.
The previously mentioned study in England reported that only 12% to 14% of their nursing staff got a perfect score on epistaxis knowledge questions. Prior to our study, there was no literature investigating the impact of an in-service on epistaxis knowledge. After our intervention, 80.43% of our nurses got a perfect score on the epistaxis knowledge questions. We believe that this is a fair comparison because our post-test questions were identical to the survey questions used in the previously mentioned study in England, with the addition of one question.3 Further, the findings of our study are consistent with other studies regarding the positive effect of in-service education on knowledge and attitudes surrounding clinical topics. Similar to the study in Ethiopia investigating nurses’ knowledge surrounding pain management, our study noted a significant improvement in nurses’ knowledge after participating in the in-service.4 Also, when comparing our study to the study performed in Connecticut investigating nurses’ confidence surrounding suicide precautions, we found a similar significant improvement in confidence in management after participating in the in-service.5
Given our reliance on a survey as a tool to collect information, our study was subject to nonresponse bias. For each main outcome question, there was a handful of nonresponders. While this likely indicated either overlooking a question or deferring to answer due to clinical inexperience or nonapplicable clinical role, it is possible that this may have represented a respondent who did not benefit from the in-service. Another source of possible bias is sampling bias. Attempts were made to capture a wide range of nurses at the in-service. However, if a nurse was not interested in the topic material, whether due to abundant clinical experience or disinterest, it is possible that they may not have attended. Additionally, the cohort was selected purely based on responses from nursing managers to the initial email. It is possible that nonresponding units may have benefitted differently from this in-service.
There were several limitations within our analysis. We did not collect data assessing the long-term retention of epistaxis knowledge and management techniques. It is possible that epistaxis knowledge, comfort in managing nosebleeds, and perceived confidence in stopping nosebleeds decreased back to baseline several months after the in-service. Ideally, we would have been able to collect this data to assess retention of the in-service information. Unfortunately, a significant number of nurses who initially participated in the project became lost to follow-up, making such data collection impossible. Additionally, there was no assessment of actual ability to stop nosebleeds before vs after this in-service. Perceived management of epistaxis vs actual management of epistaxis are 2 vastly different things. However, this data would have been difficult to collect, and it likely would not have been in the best interest of patients, especially before the in-service was administered. As an improvement to this project, we could have assessed how many nosebleeds nurses had seen and successfully stopped after the in-service. As previously mentioned, this was not possible due to losing a significant number of nurses to follow-up. Finally, we did not collect objective data on preference for administration of in-service at mid-shift vs shift change. We relied on subjective data from conversations with our colleagues. By collecting objective data, we could have supported this change to our intervention with data.
The primary challenge to sustainability for this intervention is nursing turnover. With each wave of departing nurses and new nursing hires, the difficulty of ensuring a consistent knowledge base and management standards within our nursing workforce became clearer. After optimizing our intervention, our solution was to provide a hospital-wide in-service, which was recorded and uploaded to an institution-wide in-service library. In this way, a nurse with the desire to learn about epistaxis management could access the material at any point in time. Another solution would have been to appoint champions for epistaxis management within each major department to deliver the epistaxis in-service to new hires and new rotators within the department. However, given the turnover witnessed in our study cohort, this may not be sustainable long term.
Conclusion
Epistaxis is a chief complaint that can present in many different clinical settings and situations. Therefore, the ability to stop epistaxis in a timely and effective fashion is valuable. Our study demonstrated that in-services can improve epistaxis knowledge and improve perceived epistaxis management. Ideally, this intervention will lead to improved patient care. Given that epistaxis is a ubiquitous issue, this study may benefit other institutions who want to improve care for patients with epistaxis.
Next steps for this intervention include utilizing in-services for epistaxis education at other institutions and collecting long-term data within our own institution. Collecting long-term data would allow us to assess the retention of epistaxis knowledge from our in-service.
Acknowledgments: The author thanks the nurse managers, nurse educators, and staff nurses involved in this project, as well as Dr. Louis Portugal for providing mentorship throughout this process and Dr. Dara Adams for assisting with statistical analysis.
Corresponding author: Avery Nelson, MD, University of Chicago Medical Center, 5841 S Maryland Ave, MC 1035, Chicago, IL 60637; avery.nelson@uchospitals.edu
Disclosures: None reported.
1. Pallin DJ, Chng Y-M, McKay MP, et al. Epidemiology of epistaxis in US emergency departments, 1992 to 2001. Ann Emerg Med. 2005;46(1):77-81. doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2004.12.014
2. Walker TWM, Macfarlane TV, McGarry GW. The epidemiology and chronobiology of epistaxis: An investigation of Scottish hospital admissions 1995-2004. Clin Otolaryngol. 2007;32(5):361-365. doi:10.1111/j.1749-4486.2007.01530.x
3. Hakim N, Mummadi SM, Jolly K, et al. Nurse-led epistaxis management within the emergency department. Br J Nurs. 2018;27(1):41-46. doi:10.12968/bjon.2018.27.1.41
4. Germossa GN, Sjetne IS, Hellesø R. The impact of an in-service educational program on nurses’ knowledge and attitudes regarding pain management in an Ethiopian University Hospital. Front Public Health. 2018;6:229. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2018.00229
5. Manister NN, Murray S, Burke JM, Finegan M, McKiernan ME. Effectiveness of nursing education to prevent inpatient suicide. J Contin Educ Nurs. 2017;48(9):413-419. doi:10.3928/00220124-20170816-07
6. Tunkel DE, Anne S, Payne SC, et al. Clinical practice guideline: nosebleed (epistaxis) executive summary. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2020;162(1):S1-S38. doi:10.1177/0194599819890327
7. Krempl GA, Noorily AD. Use of oxymetazoline in the management of epistaxis. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1995;104(9 Part 1):704-706. doi:10.1177/000348949510400906
8. Ogrinc G, Davies L, Goodman D, et al. SQUIRE 2.0—standards for quality improvement reporting excellence—revised publication guidelines from a detailed consensus process. J Am Coll Surg. 2016;222(3):317-323. doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2015.07.456
From the University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, IL.
Abstract
Background: Epistaxis is a common chief complaint addressed by otolaryngologists. A review of the literature showed that there is a deficit in epistaxis education within the nursing community. Conversations with our nursing colleagues confirmed this unmet demand.
Objective: This quality improvement project aimed to increase general epistaxis knowledge, perceived comfort level managing nosebleeds, and perceived ability to stop nosebleeds among our nursing staff.
Methods: Data were collected through a survey administered before and after our intervention. The survey tested general epistaxis knowledge and assessed comfort and confidence in stopping epistaxis. Our intervention was an educational session covering pertinent epistaxis etiology and management. Quality improvement principles were used to optimize delivery of the intervention.
Results: A total of 51 nurses participated in the project. After participating in the in-service educational session, nurses answered significantly more epistaxis general knowledge questions correctly (mean [SD] difference, 2.07 [1.10] questions; 95% CI, 1.74-2.39; P < .001). There was no statistically significant difference in additional correct questions when stratified by clinical experience or clinical setting (P = .128 and P = 0.446, respectively). Nurses also reported feeling significantly more comfortable and significantly more confident in managing nosebleeds after the in-service (P = .007 and P < 0.001, respectively); 74.46% of nurses had an improvement in comfort level in managing epistaxis and 43.90% of nurses had an improvement in confidence in stopping epistaxis. After we moved the educational session from mid-shift to shift change, the nursing staff reported more satisfaction while maintaining similar improvements in knowledge and confidence.
Conclusion: We were able to significantly increase epistaxis knowledge, improve comfort levels managing epistaxis, and improve confidence in successful epistaxis management. Nurses of varying clinical experience and different clinical settings benefitted equally from our intervention.
Keywords: nosebleed; in-service; quality improvement.
Epistaxis, or nosebleed, is estimated to be the chief complaint in 1 in 200 emergency department visits in the United States.1 Additionally, it represents up to one-third of otolaryngology-related emergency room admissions.2 There is no existing literature, to our best knowledge, specifically investigating the incidence of epistaxis after a patient is admitted. Anecdotally, inpatients who develop epistaxis account for an appreciable number of consults to otolaryngology (ENT). Epistaxis is a cross-disciplinary issue, occurring in a range of clinical settings. For example, patients with epistaxis can present to the emergency department or to an outpatient primary care clinic before being referred to ENT. Additionally, inpatients on many different services can develop spontaneous epistaxis due to a variety of environmental and iatrogenic factors, such as dry air, use of nasal cannula, and initiation of anticoagulation. Based on the experience of our ENT providers and discussions with our nursing colleagues, we concluded that there was an interest in epistaxis management training among our nursing workforce.
The presence of unmet demand for epistaxis education among our nursing colleagues was supported by our literature review. A study performed in England surveyed emergency department nurses on first aid measures for management of epistaxis, including ideal head positioning, location of pressure application, and duration of pressure application.3 Overall, only 12% to 14% of the nursing staff answered all 3 questions correctly.3 Additionally, 73% to 78% of the nursing staff felt that their training in epistaxis management was inadequate, and 88% desired further training in epistaxis management.3 If generalized, this study confirms the demand for further epistaxis education among nurses.
In-services have previously been shown to be effective educational tools within the nursing community. A study in Ethiopia that evaluated pain management knowledge and attitudes before and after an in-service found a significant improvement in mean rank score of nurses’ knowledge and attitudes regarding pain management after they participated in the in-service.4 Scores on the knowledge survey improved from 41.4% before the intervention to 63.0% post intervention.4 A study in Connecticut evaluated nurses’ confidence in discussing suicidal ideation with patients and knowledge surrounding suicide precautions.5 After participating in an in-service, nurses were significantly more confident in discussing suicidal ideation with patients; application of appropriate suicide precautions also increased after the in-service.5
Our aim was for nurses to have an improvement in overall epistaxis knowledge, perceived comfort level managing nosebleeds, and perceived ability to stop nosebleeds after attending our in-service. Additionally, an overarching priority was to provide high-quality epistaxis education based on the literature and best practice guidelines.
Methods
Setting
This study was carried out at an 811-bed quaternary care center located in Chicago, Illinois. In fiscal year 2021, there were 91 643 emergency department visits and 33 805 hospital admissions. At our flagship hospital, 2658 patients were diagnosed with epistaxis during fiscal year 2021. The emergency department saw 533 patients with epistaxis, with 342 requiring admission and 191 being discharged. Separately, 566 inpatients received a diagnosis of epistaxis during their admission. The remainder of the patients with epistaxis were seen on an outpatient basis.
Data Collection
Data were collected from nurses on 5 different inpatient units. An email with information about the in-service was sent to the nurse managers of the inpatient units. These 5 units were included because the nurse managers responded to the email and facilitated delivery of the in-service. Data collection took place from August to December 2020.
Intervention
A quality improvement team composed of a resident physician champion, nurse educators, and nurse managers was formed. The physician champion was a senior otolaryngology resident who was responsible for designing and administering the pre-test, in-service, and post test. The nurse educators and nurse managers helped coordinate times for the in-service and promoted the in-service for their staff.
Our intervention was an educational in-service, a technique that is commonly used at our institution for nurse education. In-services typically involve delivering a lecture on a clinically relevant topic to a group of nurses on a unit. In developing the in-service, a top priority was to present high-quality evidence-based material. There is an abundance of information in the literature surrounding epistaxis management. The clinical practice guideline published by the American Academy of Otolaryngology lists nasal compression, application of vasoconstrictors, nasal packing, and nasal cautery as first-line treatments for the management of epistaxis.6 Nasal packing and nasal cautery tend to be perceived as interventions that require a certain level of expertise and specialized supplies. As such, these interventions are not often performed by floor nurses. In contrast, nasal compression and application of vasoconstrictors require only a few easily accessible supplies, and the risks are relatively minimal. When performing nasal compression, the clinical practice guidelines recommend firm, sustained compression to the lower third of the nose for 5 minutes or longer.6 Topical vasoconstrictors are generally underutilized in epistaxis management. In a study looking at a random sample of all US emergency department visits from 1992 to 2001, only 18% of visits used an epistaxis-related medication.2 Oxymetazoline hydrochloride is a topical vasoconstrictor that is commonly used as a nasal decongestant. However, its vasoconstrictor properties also make it a useful tool for controlling epistaxis. In a study looking at emergency department visits at the University of Texas Health Science Center, 65% of patients had resolution of nosebleed with application of oxymetazoline hydrochloride as the only intervention, with another 18% experiencing resolution of nosebleed with a combination of oxymetazoline hydrochloride and silver nitrate cautery.7 Based on review of the literature, nasal compression and application of vasoconstrictors seemed to be low-resource interventions with minimal morbidity. Therefore, management centered around nasal compression and use of topical vasoconstrictors seemed appropriate for our nursing staff.
The in-service included information about the etiology and management of epistaxis. Particular emphasis was placed on addressing and debunking common misconceptions about nosebleed management. With regards to management, our presentation focused on the use of topical vasoconstrictors and firm pressure to the lower third of the nose for at least 5 minutes. Nasal packing and nasal cautery were presented as procedures that ENT would perform. After the in-service, questions from the nurses were answered as time permitted.
Testing and Outcomes
A pre-test was administered before each in-service. The pre-test components comprised a knowledge survey and a descriptive survey. The general epistaxis knowledge questions on the pre-test included the location of blood vessels most commonly responsible for nosebleeds, the ideal positioning of a patient during a nosebleed, the appropriate location to hold pressure during a nosebleed, and the appropriate duration to hold pressure during a nosebleed. The descriptive survey portion asked nurses to rate whether they felt “very comfortable,” “comfortable,” “uncomfortable,” or “very uncomfortable” managing nosebleeds. It also asked whether nurses thought they would be able to “always,” “usually,” “rarely,” or “never” stop nosebleeds on the floor. We collected demographic information, including gender identity, years of clinical experience, and primary clinical environment.
The post test asked the same questions as the pre-test and was administered immediately after the in-service in order to assess its impact. We also established an ongoing dialogue with our nursing colleagues to obtain feedback on the sessions.
Primary outcomes of interest were the difference in general epistaxis knowledge questions answered correctly between the pre-test and the post test; the difference in comfort level in managing epistaxis before and after the in-service; and the difference in confidence to stop nosebleeds before and after the in-service. A secondary outcome was determining the audience for the in-service. Specifically, we wanted to determine whether there were different outcomes based on clinical setting or years of clinical experience. If nurses in a certain clinical environment or beyond a certain experience level did not show significant improvement from pre-test to post test, we would not target them for the in-service. Another secondary outcome was determining optimal timing for delivery of the in-service. We wanted to determine if there was a nursing preference for delivering the in-service at mid-shift vs shift change.
Analysis
Statistical calculations were performed using Stata 15 (StataCorp LLC). A P value < .05 was considered to be statistically significant. Where applicable, 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. T-test was used to determine whether there was a statistically significant difference between pre-test and post-test epistaxis knowledge question scores. T-test was also used to determine whether there was a statistically significant difference in test scores between nurses receiving the in-service at mid-shift vs shift change. Pearson chi-squared tests were used to determine if there was a statistically significant difference between pre-test and post-test perceptions of epistaxis management, and to investigate outcomes between different subsets of nurses.
SQUIRE 2.0 guidelines were utilized to provide a framework for this project and to structure the manuscript.8 This study met criteria for exemption from institutional review board approval.
Results
Fifty-one nurses took part in this project (Table). The majority of participants identified as female (88.24%), and just over half worked on medical floors (52.94%), with most of the remainder working in intensive care (25.49%) and surgical (15.69%) settings. There was a wide range of clinical experience, with 1.96% reporting 0 to 1 years of experience, 29.41% reporting 2 to 5 years, 23.53% reporting 5 to 10 years, 25.49% reporting 10 to 20 years, and 17.65% reporting more than 20 years.
There were unanswered questions on both the pre-test and post test. There was no consistently unanswered question. Omitted answers on the epistaxis knowledge questions were recorded as an “incorrect” answer. Omitted answers on the perception questions were considered null values and not considered in final analysis.
Primary Measures
General epistaxis knowledge (Figure, part A) improved from the pre-test, where out of 4 questions, the mean (SD) score was 1.74 (1.02) correct questions, to the post-test, where out of 4 questions, the mean score was 3.80 (0.40) correct questions. After participating in the in-service, nurses answered significantly more questions about epistaxis general knowledge correctly (mean difference, 2.07 [1.10]; 95% CI, 1.74-2.39; P < .001), and 80.43% of them got a perfect score on the epistaxis knowledge questions.
The second primary measure was the difference in comfort level in managing nosebleed. After participating in the in-service, nurses felt significantly more comfortable in managing nosebleeds (Figure, part B; P = .007), with 74.46% of nurses having an improved comfort level managing nosebleeds. Before the in-service, 12.76% of nurses felt “very comfortable” in managing nosebleeds vs more than three-quarters (76.59%) after the in-service. Of those who answered that they felt “comfortable” managing nosebleeds on the pre-test, 82.35% improved to feeling “very comfortable” in managing nosebleeds. Before the in-service, 14.89% of nurses felt “uncomfortable” or “very uncomfortable” in managing nosebleeds, and this decreased to 0 post intervention. After the in-service, 100.00% of nurses felt “comfortable” or “very comfortable” in managing nosebleeds.
After receiving the in-service, nurses felt significantly more confident in stopping nosebleeds (Figure, part C; P < .001), with 43.90% of them having an improvement in confidence in stopping epistaxis. Before the in-service, 7.31% of nurses felt that they would “always” be able to stop a nose-bleed, and this increased to 41.46% after the in-service. Of those who answered that they felt that they would “usually” be able to stop a nosebleed on the pre-test, 36.67% changed their answer to state that they would “always” be able to stop a nosebleed on the post test. Before the in-service, 19.51% of nurses felt that they would “rarely” or “never” be able to stop a nosebleed, and this decreased to 2.44% after the in-service.
Secondary Measures
All of the nurses who participated either “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that they learned something new from the in-service. However, to determine whether there was a population who would benefit most from the in-service, we stratified the data by years of clinical experience. There was no statistically significant difference in whether nurses with varying clinical experience learned something new (P = .148): 100% of nurses with 0-1 years of experience, 80.00% of nurses with 2-5 years of experience, 100% of nurses with 5-10 years of experience, 69.23% of nurses with 10-20 years of experience, and 100% of nurses with >20 years of experience “strongly agreed” that they learned something new from this in-service. There was no statistically significant difference on the post test compared to the pre-test in additional correct questions when stratified by clinical experience (P = .128). Second, when we stratified by clinical setting, we did not find a statistically significant difference in whether nurses in different clinical settings learned something new (P = .929): 88.89% of nurses in the medical setting, 87.50% of nurses in the surgical setting, and 84.62% of nurses in the intensive care setting “strongly agreed” that they learned something new from this presentation. On investigating additional questions correct on the post test compared to the pre-test, there was no statistically significant difference in additional correct questions when stratified by clinical setting (P = .446).
Optimal timing of the in-service was another important outcome. Initially, the in-service was administered at mid-shift, with 9 nurses participating at mid-shift, but our nursing colleagues gave unanimous feedback that this was a suboptimal time for delivery of an in-service. We changed the timing of the in-service to shift change; 42 nurses received the in-service at shift-change. There was no statistically significant difference in scores on the epistaxis knowledge questions between these two groups (P = .123). This indicated to us that changing the timing of the delivery resulted in similarly improved outcomes while having the added benefit of being preferred by our nursing colleagues.
Discussion
In undertaking this project, our primary aims were to improve epistaxis knowledge and perceived management in our nursing staff. Among our nursing staff, we were able to significantly increase epistaxis knowledge, improve comfort levels managing epistaxis, and improve confidence in successful epistaxis management. We also found that nurses of varying clinical experience and different clinical settings benefited equally from our intervention. Using quality improvement principles, we optimized our delivery. Our in-service focused on educating nurses to use epistaxis management techniques that were resource-efficient and low risk.
After participating in the in-service, nurses answered significantly more questions about epistaxis general knowledge correctly (Figure, part A; mean difference, 2.07 questions [1.10]; 95% CI, 1.74-2.39; P < .001), felt significantly more comfortable in managing nosebleeds (Figure, part B; P = .007), and felt significantly more confident in stopping nosebleeds (Figure, part C; P < .001). Based on these results, we successfully achieved our primary aims.
Our secondary aim was to determine the audience that would benefit the most from the in-service. All of the nurses who participated either “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that they learned something new from the in-service. There was no statistically significant difference in whether nurses of varying clinical experience learned something new (P = .148) or in additional correct questions when stratified by clinical experience (P =.128). Also, there was no statistically significant difference in whether nurses in different clinical settings learned something new (P = .929) or in additional correct questions when stratified by clinical setting (P = .446). These results indicated to us that all participants learned something new and that there was no specific target audience, but rather that all participants benefitted from our session.
Our nursing colleagues gave us feedback that the timing of the in-service during mid-shift was not ideal. It was difficult to gather nurses mid-shift due to pressing patient-care duties. Nurses also found it difficult to give their full attention at this time. Nurses, nurse educators, and nurse managers suggested that we conduct the in-service at shift change in order to capture a larger population and take advantage of time relatively free of clinical duties. Giving the in-service at a time with relatively fewer clinical responsibilities allowed for a more robust question-and-answer session. It also allowed our nursing colleagues to pay full attention to the in-service. There was no statistically significant difference in epistaxis general knowledge questions answered correctly; this indicates that the quality of the education session did not vary greatly. However, our nursing colleagues strongly preferred the in-service at shift change. By making this modification to our intervention, we were able to optimize our intervention.
The previously mentioned study in England reported that only 12% to 14% of their nursing staff got a perfect score on epistaxis knowledge questions. Prior to our study, there was no literature investigating the impact of an in-service on epistaxis knowledge. After our intervention, 80.43% of our nurses got a perfect score on the epistaxis knowledge questions. We believe that this is a fair comparison because our post-test questions were identical to the survey questions used in the previously mentioned study in England, with the addition of one question.3 Further, the findings of our study are consistent with other studies regarding the positive effect of in-service education on knowledge and attitudes surrounding clinical topics. Similar to the study in Ethiopia investigating nurses’ knowledge surrounding pain management, our study noted a significant improvement in nurses’ knowledge after participating in the in-service.4 Also, when comparing our study to the study performed in Connecticut investigating nurses’ confidence surrounding suicide precautions, we found a similar significant improvement in confidence in management after participating in the in-service.5
Given our reliance on a survey as a tool to collect information, our study was subject to nonresponse bias. For each main outcome question, there was a handful of nonresponders. While this likely indicated either overlooking a question or deferring to answer due to clinical inexperience or nonapplicable clinical role, it is possible that this may have represented a respondent who did not benefit from the in-service. Another source of possible bias is sampling bias. Attempts were made to capture a wide range of nurses at the in-service. However, if a nurse was not interested in the topic material, whether due to abundant clinical experience or disinterest, it is possible that they may not have attended. Additionally, the cohort was selected purely based on responses from nursing managers to the initial email. It is possible that nonresponding units may have benefitted differently from this in-service.
There were several limitations within our analysis. We did not collect data assessing the long-term retention of epistaxis knowledge and management techniques. It is possible that epistaxis knowledge, comfort in managing nosebleeds, and perceived confidence in stopping nosebleeds decreased back to baseline several months after the in-service. Ideally, we would have been able to collect this data to assess retention of the in-service information. Unfortunately, a significant number of nurses who initially participated in the project became lost to follow-up, making such data collection impossible. Additionally, there was no assessment of actual ability to stop nosebleeds before vs after this in-service. Perceived management of epistaxis vs actual management of epistaxis are 2 vastly different things. However, this data would have been difficult to collect, and it likely would not have been in the best interest of patients, especially before the in-service was administered. As an improvement to this project, we could have assessed how many nosebleeds nurses had seen and successfully stopped after the in-service. As previously mentioned, this was not possible due to losing a significant number of nurses to follow-up. Finally, we did not collect objective data on preference for administration of in-service at mid-shift vs shift change. We relied on subjective data from conversations with our colleagues. By collecting objective data, we could have supported this change to our intervention with data.
The primary challenge to sustainability for this intervention is nursing turnover. With each wave of departing nurses and new nursing hires, the difficulty of ensuring a consistent knowledge base and management standards within our nursing workforce became clearer. After optimizing our intervention, our solution was to provide a hospital-wide in-service, which was recorded and uploaded to an institution-wide in-service library. In this way, a nurse with the desire to learn about epistaxis management could access the material at any point in time. Another solution would have been to appoint champions for epistaxis management within each major department to deliver the epistaxis in-service to new hires and new rotators within the department. However, given the turnover witnessed in our study cohort, this may not be sustainable long term.
Conclusion
Epistaxis is a chief complaint that can present in many different clinical settings and situations. Therefore, the ability to stop epistaxis in a timely and effective fashion is valuable. Our study demonstrated that in-services can improve epistaxis knowledge and improve perceived epistaxis management. Ideally, this intervention will lead to improved patient care. Given that epistaxis is a ubiquitous issue, this study may benefit other institutions who want to improve care for patients with epistaxis.
Next steps for this intervention include utilizing in-services for epistaxis education at other institutions and collecting long-term data within our own institution. Collecting long-term data would allow us to assess the retention of epistaxis knowledge from our in-service.
Acknowledgments: The author thanks the nurse managers, nurse educators, and staff nurses involved in this project, as well as Dr. Louis Portugal for providing mentorship throughout this process and Dr. Dara Adams for assisting with statistical analysis.
Corresponding author: Avery Nelson, MD, University of Chicago Medical Center, 5841 S Maryland Ave, MC 1035, Chicago, IL 60637; avery.nelson@uchospitals.edu
Disclosures: None reported.
From the University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, IL.
Abstract
Background: Epistaxis is a common chief complaint addressed by otolaryngologists. A review of the literature showed that there is a deficit in epistaxis education within the nursing community. Conversations with our nursing colleagues confirmed this unmet demand.
Objective: This quality improvement project aimed to increase general epistaxis knowledge, perceived comfort level managing nosebleeds, and perceived ability to stop nosebleeds among our nursing staff.
Methods: Data were collected through a survey administered before and after our intervention. The survey tested general epistaxis knowledge and assessed comfort and confidence in stopping epistaxis. Our intervention was an educational session covering pertinent epistaxis etiology and management. Quality improvement principles were used to optimize delivery of the intervention.
Results: A total of 51 nurses participated in the project. After participating in the in-service educational session, nurses answered significantly more epistaxis general knowledge questions correctly (mean [SD] difference, 2.07 [1.10] questions; 95% CI, 1.74-2.39; P < .001). There was no statistically significant difference in additional correct questions when stratified by clinical experience or clinical setting (P = .128 and P = 0.446, respectively). Nurses also reported feeling significantly more comfortable and significantly more confident in managing nosebleeds after the in-service (P = .007 and P < 0.001, respectively); 74.46% of nurses had an improvement in comfort level in managing epistaxis and 43.90% of nurses had an improvement in confidence in stopping epistaxis. After we moved the educational session from mid-shift to shift change, the nursing staff reported more satisfaction while maintaining similar improvements in knowledge and confidence.
Conclusion: We were able to significantly increase epistaxis knowledge, improve comfort levels managing epistaxis, and improve confidence in successful epistaxis management. Nurses of varying clinical experience and different clinical settings benefitted equally from our intervention.
Keywords: nosebleed; in-service; quality improvement.
Epistaxis, or nosebleed, is estimated to be the chief complaint in 1 in 200 emergency department visits in the United States.1 Additionally, it represents up to one-third of otolaryngology-related emergency room admissions.2 There is no existing literature, to our best knowledge, specifically investigating the incidence of epistaxis after a patient is admitted. Anecdotally, inpatients who develop epistaxis account for an appreciable number of consults to otolaryngology (ENT). Epistaxis is a cross-disciplinary issue, occurring in a range of clinical settings. For example, patients with epistaxis can present to the emergency department or to an outpatient primary care clinic before being referred to ENT. Additionally, inpatients on many different services can develop spontaneous epistaxis due to a variety of environmental and iatrogenic factors, such as dry air, use of nasal cannula, and initiation of anticoagulation. Based on the experience of our ENT providers and discussions with our nursing colleagues, we concluded that there was an interest in epistaxis management training among our nursing workforce.
The presence of unmet demand for epistaxis education among our nursing colleagues was supported by our literature review. A study performed in England surveyed emergency department nurses on first aid measures for management of epistaxis, including ideal head positioning, location of pressure application, and duration of pressure application.3 Overall, only 12% to 14% of the nursing staff answered all 3 questions correctly.3 Additionally, 73% to 78% of the nursing staff felt that their training in epistaxis management was inadequate, and 88% desired further training in epistaxis management.3 If generalized, this study confirms the demand for further epistaxis education among nurses.
In-services have previously been shown to be effective educational tools within the nursing community. A study in Ethiopia that evaluated pain management knowledge and attitudes before and after an in-service found a significant improvement in mean rank score of nurses’ knowledge and attitudes regarding pain management after they participated in the in-service.4 Scores on the knowledge survey improved from 41.4% before the intervention to 63.0% post intervention.4 A study in Connecticut evaluated nurses’ confidence in discussing suicidal ideation with patients and knowledge surrounding suicide precautions.5 After participating in an in-service, nurses were significantly more confident in discussing suicidal ideation with patients; application of appropriate suicide precautions also increased after the in-service.5
Our aim was for nurses to have an improvement in overall epistaxis knowledge, perceived comfort level managing nosebleeds, and perceived ability to stop nosebleeds after attending our in-service. Additionally, an overarching priority was to provide high-quality epistaxis education based on the literature and best practice guidelines.
Methods
Setting
This study was carried out at an 811-bed quaternary care center located in Chicago, Illinois. In fiscal year 2021, there were 91 643 emergency department visits and 33 805 hospital admissions. At our flagship hospital, 2658 patients were diagnosed with epistaxis during fiscal year 2021. The emergency department saw 533 patients with epistaxis, with 342 requiring admission and 191 being discharged. Separately, 566 inpatients received a diagnosis of epistaxis during their admission. The remainder of the patients with epistaxis were seen on an outpatient basis.
Data Collection
Data were collected from nurses on 5 different inpatient units. An email with information about the in-service was sent to the nurse managers of the inpatient units. These 5 units were included because the nurse managers responded to the email and facilitated delivery of the in-service. Data collection took place from August to December 2020.
Intervention
A quality improvement team composed of a resident physician champion, nurse educators, and nurse managers was formed. The physician champion was a senior otolaryngology resident who was responsible for designing and administering the pre-test, in-service, and post test. The nurse educators and nurse managers helped coordinate times for the in-service and promoted the in-service for their staff.
Our intervention was an educational in-service, a technique that is commonly used at our institution for nurse education. In-services typically involve delivering a lecture on a clinically relevant topic to a group of nurses on a unit. In developing the in-service, a top priority was to present high-quality evidence-based material. There is an abundance of information in the literature surrounding epistaxis management. The clinical practice guideline published by the American Academy of Otolaryngology lists nasal compression, application of vasoconstrictors, nasal packing, and nasal cautery as first-line treatments for the management of epistaxis.6 Nasal packing and nasal cautery tend to be perceived as interventions that require a certain level of expertise and specialized supplies. As such, these interventions are not often performed by floor nurses. In contrast, nasal compression and application of vasoconstrictors require only a few easily accessible supplies, and the risks are relatively minimal. When performing nasal compression, the clinical practice guidelines recommend firm, sustained compression to the lower third of the nose for 5 minutes or longer.6 Topical vasoconstrictors are generally underutilized in epistaxis management. In a study looking at a random sample of all US emergency department visits from 1992 to 2001, only 18% of visits used an epistaxis-related medication.2 Oxymetazoline hydrochloride is a topical vasoconstrictor that is commonly used as a nasal decongestant. However, its vasoconstrictor properties also make it a useful tool for controlling epistaxis. In a study looking at emergency department visits at the University of Texas Health Science Center, 65% of patients had resolution of nosebleed with application of oxymetazoline hydrochloride as the only intervention, with another 18% experiencing resolution of nosebleed with a combination of oxymetazoline hydrochloride and silver nitrate cautery.7 Based on review of the literature, nasal compression and application of vasoconstrictors seemed to be low-resource interventions with minimal morbidity. Therefore, management centered around nasal compression and use of topical vasoconstrictors seemed appropriate for our nursing staff.
The in-service included information about the etiology and management of epistaxis. Particular emphasis was placed on addressing and debunking common misconceptions about nosebleed management. With regards to management, our presentation focused on the use of topical vasoconstrictors and firm pressure to the lower third of the nose for at least 5 minutes. Nasal packing and nasal cautery were presented as procedures that ENT would perform. After the in-service, questions from the nurses were answered as time permitted.
Testing and Outcomes
A pre-test was administered before each in-service. The pre-test components comprised a knowledge survey and a descriptive survey. The general epistaxis knowledge questions on the pre-test included the location of blood vessels most commonly responsible for nosebleeds, the ideal positioning of a patient during a nosebleed, the appropriate location to hold pressure during a nosebleed, and the appropriate duration to hold pressure during a nosebleed. The descriptive survey portion asked nurses to rate whether they felt “very comfortable,” “comfortable,” “uncomfortable,” or “very uncomfortable” managing nosebleeds. It also asked whether nurses thought they would be able to “always,” “usually,” “rarely,” or “never” stop nosebleeds on the floor. We collected demographic information, including gender identity, years of clinical experience, and primary clinical environment.
The post test asked the same questions as the pre-test and was administered immediately after the in-service in order to assess its impact. We also established an ongoing dialogue with our nursing colleagues to obtain feedback on the sessions.
Primary outcomes of interest were the difference in general epistaxis knowledge questions answered correctly between the pre-test and the post test; the difference in comfort level in managing epistaxis before and after the in-service; and the difference in confidence to stop nosebleeds before and after the in-service. A secondary outcome was determining the audience for the in-service. Specifically, we wanted to determine whether there were different outcomes based on clinical setting or years of clinical experience. If nurses in a certain clinical environment or beyond a certain experience level did not show significant improvement from pre-test to post test, we would not target them for the in-service. Another secondary outcome was determining optimal timing for delivery of the in-service. We wanted to determine if there was a nursing preference for delivering the in-service at mid-shift vs shift change.
Analysis
Statistical calculations were performed using Stata 15 (StataCorp LLC). A P value < .05 was considered to be statistically significant. Where applicable, 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. T-test was used to determine whether there was a statistically significant difference between pre-test and post-test epistaxis knowledge question scores. T-test was also used to determine whether there was a statistically significant difference in test scores between nurses receiving the in-service at mid-shift vs shift change. Pearson chi-squared tests were used to determine if there was a statistically significant difference between pre-test and post-test perceptions of epistaxis management, and to investigate outcomes between different subsets of nurses.
SQUIRE 2.0 guidelines were utilized to provide a framework for this project and to structure the manuscript.8 This study met criteria for exemption from institutional review board approval.
Results
Fifty-one nurses took part in this project (Table). The majority of participants identified as female (88.24%), and just over half worked on medical floors (52.94%), with most of the remainder working in intensive care (25.49%) and surgical (15.69%) settings. There was a wide range of clinical experience, with 1.96% reporting 0 to 1 years of experience, 29.41% reporting 2 to 5 years, 23.53% reporting 5 to 10 years, 25.49% reporting 10 to 20 years, and 17.65% reporting more than 20 years.
There were unanswered questions on both the pre-test and post test. There was no consistently unanswered question. Omitted answers on the epistaxis knowledge questions were recorded as an “incorrect” answer. Omitted answers on the perception questions were considered null values and not considered in final analysis.
Primary Measures
General epistaxis knowledge (Figure, part A) improved from the pre-test, where out of 4 questions, the mean (SD) score was 1.74 (1.02) correct questions, to the post-test, where out of 4 questions, the mean score was 3.80 (0.40) correct questions. After participating in the in-service, nurses answered significantly more questions about epistaxis general knowledge correctly (mean difference, 2.07 [1.10]; 95% CI, 1.74-2.39; P < .001), and 80.43% of them got a perfect score on the epistaxis knowledge questions.
The second primary measure was the difference in comfort level in managing nosebleed. After participating in the in-service, nurses felt significantly more comfortable in managing nosebleeds (Figure, part B; P = .007), with 74.46% of nurses having an improved comfort level managing nosebleeds. Before the in-service, 12.76% of nurses felt “very comfortable” in managing nosebleeds vs more than three-quarters (76.59%) after the in-service. Of those who answered that they felt “comfortable” managing nosebleeds on the pre-test, 82.35% improved to feeling “very comfortable” in managing nosebleeds. Before the in-service, 14.89% of nurses felt “uncomfortable” or “very uncomfortable” in managing nosebleeds, and this decreased to 0 post intervention. After the in-service, 100.00% of nurses felt “comfortable” or “very comfortable” in managing nosebleeds.
After receiving the in-service, nurses felt significantly more confident in stopping nosebleeds (Figure, part C; P < .001), with 43.90% of them having an improvement in confidence in stopping epistaxis. Before the in-service, 7.31% of nurses felt that they would “always” be able to stop a nose-bleed, and this increased to 41.46% after the in-service. Of those who answered that they felt that they would “usually” be able to stop a nosebleed on the pre-test, 36.67% changed their answer to state that they would “always” be able to stop a nosebleed on the post test. Before the in-service, 19.51% of nurses felt that they would “rarely” or “never” be able to stop a nosebleed, and this decreased to 2.44% after the in-service.
Secondary Measures
All of the nurses who participated either “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that they learned something new from the in-service. However, to determine whether there was a population who would benefit most from the in-service, we stratified the data by years of clinical experience. There was no statistically significant difference in whether nurses with varying clinical experience learned something new (P = .148): 100% of nurses with 0-1 years of experience, 80.00% of nurses with 2-5 years of experience, 100% of nurses with 5-10 years of experience, 69.23% of nurses with 10-20 years of experience, and 100% of nurses with >20 years of experience “strongly agreed” that they learned something new from this in-service. There was no statistically significant difference on the post test compared to the pre-test in additional correct questions when stratified by clinical experience (P = .128). Second, when we stratified by clinical setting, we did not find a statistically significant difference in whether nurses in different clinical settings learned something new (P = .929): 88.89% of nurses in the medical setting, 87.50% of nurses in the surgical setting, and 84.62% of nurses in the intensive care setting “strongly agreed” that they learned something new from this presentation. On investigating additional questions correct on the post test compared to the pre-test, there was no statistically significant difference in additional correct questions when stratified by clinical setting (P = .446).
Optimal timing of the in-service was another important outcome. Initially, the in-service was administered at mid-shift, with 9 nurses participating at mid-shift, but our nursing colleagues gave unanimous feedback that this was a suboptimal time for delivery of an in-service. We changed the timing of the in-service to shift change; 42 nurses received the in-service at shift-change. There was no statistically significant difference in scores on the epistaxis knowledge questions between these two groups (P = .123). This indicated to us that changing the timing of the delivery resulted in similarly improved outcomes while having the added benefit of being preferred by our nursing colleagues.
Discussion
In undertaking this project, our primary aims were to improve epistaxis knowledge and perceived management in our nursing staff. Among our nursing staff, we were able to significantly increase epistaxis knowledge, improve comfort levels managing epistaxis, and improve confidence in successful epistaxis management. We also found that nurses of varying clinical experience and different clinical settings benefited equally from our intervention. Using quality improvement principles, we optimized our delivery. Our in-service focused on educating nurses to use epistaxis management techniques that were resource-efficient and low risk.
After participating in the in-service, nurses answered significantly more questions about epistaxis general knowledge correctly (Figure, part A; mean difference, 2.07 questions [1.10]; 95% CI, 1.74-2.39; P < .001), felt significantly more comfortable in managing nosebleeds (Figure, part B; P = .007), and felt significantly more confident in stopping nosebleeds (Figure, part C; P < .001). Based on these results, we successfully achieved our primary aims.
Our secondary aim was to determine the audience that would benefit the most from the in-service. All of the nurses who participated either “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that they learned something new from the in-service. There was no statistically significant difference in whether nurses of varying clinical experience learned something new (P = .148) or in additional correct questions when stratified by clinical experience (P =.128). Also, there was no statistically significant difference in whether nurses in different clinical settings learned something new (P = .929) or in additional correct questions when stratified by clinical setting (P = .446). These results indicated to us that all participants learned something new and that there was no specific target audience, but rather that all participants benefitted from our session.
Our nursing colleagues gave us feedback that the timing of the in-service during mid-shift was not ideal. It was difficult to gather nurses mid-shift due to pressing patient-care duties. Nurses also found it difficult to give their full attention at this time. Nurses, nurse educators, and nurse managers suggested that we conduct the in-service at shift change in order to capture a larger population and take advantage of time relatively free of clinical duties. Giving the in-service at a time with relatively fewer clinical responsibilities allowed for a more robust question-and-answer session. It also allowed our nursing colleagues to pay full attention to the in-service. There was no statistically significant difference in epistaxis general knowledge questions answered correctly; this indicates that the quality of the education session did not vary greatly. However, our nursing colleagues strongly preferred the in-service at shift change. By making this modification to our intervention, we were able to optimize our intervention.
The previously mentioned study in England reported that only 12% to 14% of their nursing staff got a perfect score on epistaxis knowledge questions. Prior to our study, there was no literature investigating the impact of an in-service on epistaxis knowledge. After our intervention, 80.43% of our nurses got a perfect score on the epistaxis knowledge questions. We believe that this is a fair comparison because our post-test questions were identical to the survey questions used in the previously mentioned study in England, with the addition of one question.3 Further, the findings of our study are consistent with other studies regarding the positive effect of in-service education on knowledge and attitudes surrounding clinical topics. Similar to the study in Ethiopia investigating nurses’ knowledge surrounding pain management, our study noted a significant improvement in nurses’ knowledge after participating in the in-service.4 Also, when comparing our study to the study performed in Connecticut investigating nurses’ confidence surrounding suicide precautions, we found a similar significant improvement in confidence in management after participating in the in-service.5
Given our reliance on a survey as a tool to collect information, our study was subject to nonresponse bias. For each main outcome question, there was a handful of nonresponders. While this likely indicated either overlooking a question or deferring to answer due to clinical inexperience or nonapplicable clinical role, it is possible that this may have represented a respondent who did not benefit from the in-service. Another source of possible bias is sampling bias. Attempts were made to capture a wide range of nurses at the in-service. However, if a nurse was not interested in the topic material, whether due to abundant clinical experience or disinterest, it is possible that they may not have attended. Additionally, the cohort was selected purely based on responses from nursing managers to the initial email. It is possible that nonresponding units may have benefitted differently from this in-service.
There were several limitations within our analysis. We did not collect data assessing the long-term retention of epistaxis knowledge and management techniques. It is possible that epistaxis knowledge, comfort in managing nosebleeds, and perceived confidence in stopping nosebleeds decreased back to baseline several months after the in-service. Ideally, we would have been able to collect this data to assess retention of the in-service information. Unfortunately, a significant number of nurses who initially participated in the project became lost to follow-up, making such data collection impossible. Additionally, there was no assessment of actual ability to stop nosebleeds before vs after this in-service. Perceived management of epistaxis vs actual management of epistaxis are 2 vastly different things. However, this data would have been difficult to collect, and it likely would not have been in the best interest of patients, especially before the in-service was administered. As an improvement to this project, we could have assessed how many nosebleeds nurses had seen and successfully stopped after the in-service. As previously mentioned, this was not possible due to losing a significant number of nurses to follow-up. Finally, we did not collect objective data on preference for administration of in-service at mid-shift vs shift change. We relied on subjective data from conversations with our colleagues. By collecting objective data, we could have supported this change to our intervention with data.
The primary challenge to sustainability for this intervention is nursing turnover. With each wave of departing nurses and new nursing hires, the difficulty of ensuring a consistent knowledge base and management standards within our nursing workforce became clearer. After optimizing our intervention, our solution was to provide a hospital-wide in-service, which was recorded and uploaded to an institution-wide in-service library. In this way, a nurse with the desire to learn about epistaxis management could access the material at any point in time. Another solution would have been to appoint champions for epistaxis management within each major department to deliver the epistaxis in-service to new hires and new rotators within the department. However, given the turnover witnessed in our study cohort, this may not be sustainable long term.
Conclusion
Epistaxis is a chief complaint that can present in many different clinical settings and situations. Therefore, the ability to stop epistaxis in a timely and effective fashion is valuable. Our study demonstrated that in-services can improve epistaxis knowledge and improve perceived epistaxis management. Ideally, this intervention will lead to improved patient care. Given that epistaxis is a ubiquitous issue, this study may benefit other institutions who want to improve care for patients with epistaxis.
Next steps for this intervention include utilizing in-services for epistaxis education at other institutions and collecting long-term data within our own institution. Collecting long-term data would allow us to assess the retention of epistaxis knowledge from our in-service.
Acknowledgments: The author thanks the nurse managers, nurse educators, and staff nurses involved in this project, as well as Dr. Louis Portugal for providing mentorship throughout this process and Dr. Dara Adams for assisting with statistical analysis.
Corresponding author: Avery Nelson, MD, University of Chicago Medical Center, 5841 S Maryland Ave, MC 1035, Chicago, IL 60637; avery.nelson@uchospitals.edu
Disclosures: None reported.
1. Pallin DJ, Chng Y-M, McKay MP, et al. Epidemiology of epistaxis in US emergency departments, 1992 to 2001. Ann Emerg Med. 2005;46(1):77-81. doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2004.12.014
2. Walker TWM, Macfarlane TV, McGarry GW. The epidemiology and chronobiology of epistaxis: An investigation of Scottish hospital admissions 1995-2004. Clin Otolaryngol. 2007;32(5):361-365. doi:10.1111/j.1749-4486.2007.01530.x
3. Hakim N, Mummadi SM, Jolly K, et al. Nurse-led epistaxis management within the emergency department. Br J Nurs. 2018;27(1):41-46. doi:10.12968/bjon.2018.27.1.41
4. Germossa GN, Sjetne IS, Hellesø R. The impact of an in-service educational program on nurses’ knowledge and attitudes regarding pain management in an Ethiopian University Hospital. Front Public Health. 2018;6:229. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2018.00229
5. Manister NN, Murray S, Burke JM, Finegan M, McKiernan ME. Effectiveness of nursing education to prevent inpatient suicide. J Contin Educ Nurs. 2017;48(9):413-419. doi:10.3928/00220124-20170816-07
6. Tunkel DE, Anne S, Payne SC, et al. Clinical practice guideline: nosebleed (epistaxis) executive summary. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2020;162(1):S1-S38. doi:10.1177/0194599819890327
7. Krempl GA, Noorily AD. Use of oxymetazoline in the management of epistaxis. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1995;104(9 Part 1):704-706. doi:10.1177/000348949510400906
8. Ogrinc G, Davies L, Goodman D, et al. SQUIRE 2.0—standards for quality improvement reporting excellence—revised publication guidelines from a detailed consensus process. J Am Coll Surg. 2016;222(3):317-323. doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2015.07.456
1. Pallin DJ, Chng Y-M, McKay MP, et al. Epidemiology of epistaxis in US emergency departments, 1992 to 2001. Ann Emerg Med. 2005;46(1):77-81. doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2004.12.014
2. Walker TWM, Macfarlane TV, McGarry GW. The epidemiology and chronobiology of epistaxis: An investigation of Scottish hospital admissions 1995-2004. Clin Otolaryngol. 2007;32(5):361-365. doi:10.1111/j.1749-4486.2007.01530.x
3. Hakim N, Mummadi SM, Jolly K, et al. Nurse-led epistaxis management within the emergency department. Br J Nurs. 2018;27(1):41-46. doi:10.12968/bjon.2018.27.1.41
4. Germossa GN, Sjetne IS, Hellesø R. The impact of an in-service educational program on nurses’ knowledge and attitudes regarding pain management in an Ethiopian University Hospital. Front Public Health. 2018;6:229. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2018.00229
5. Manister NN, Murray S, Burke JM, Finegan M, McKiernan ME. Effectiveness of nursing education to prevent inpatient suicide. J Contin Educ Nurs. 2017;48(9):413-419. doi:10.3928/00220124-20170816-07
6. Tunkel DE, Anne S, Payne SC, et al. Clinical practice guideline: nosebleed (epistaxis) executive summary. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2020;162(1):S1-S38. doi:10.1177/0194599819890327
7. Krempl GA, Noorily AD. Use of oxymetazoline in the management of epistaxis. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1995;104(9 Part 1):704-706. doi:10.1177/000348949510400906
8. Ogrinc G, Davies L, Goodman D, et al. SQUIRE 2.0—standards for quality improvement reporting excellence—revised publication guidelines from a detailed consensus process. J Am Coll Surg. 2016;222(3):317-323. doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2015.07.456
Comorbidity Coding and Its Impact on Hospital Complexity: Reply
Authors' Response
We agree with the valid comments made by Dr. Kerguelen and will respond to each set of questions in order.
Regarding the first set of questions on how we knew that our CMI was low and our patient acuity was under- represented, the University of Miami Health System is a designated cancer center with a Prospective Payment System exempt model (PPS exempt), and is one of 11 hospitals in the United States excluded for payment under the Inpatient Prospective Payment System. We know, therefore, that we care for a very complex patient population. Additionally, we benchmark ourselves against other academic medical centers (AMCs) with similarly complex patients and had noted that our patients appeared “less complex.” Specifically, our baseline CMI was 1.77 in early 2018 compared with an overall higher CMI for the AMC cohort; also, the total number of diagnoses we captured was lower than that in other AMCs. These 2 facts together alerted us that we likely had coding and clinical documentation improvement (CDI) opportunities. We recognized that our complexity was not being captured both because the clinical information was not documented in a manner readily translatable to ICD-10 codes and codes were missed when the documentation did exist. To remedy these problems, we implemented multiple immediate “fixes,” which included revamping our CDI efforts, re-education, and enhancements to our electronic health record for providers, CDIs, and coders. Since publication of our article, our CMI has continued to increase month over month, up to 2.57 most recently in May 2022, as we have continued to focus on several additional initiatives to impact both better documentation and coding.
The second set of questions asked whether the perceived low CMI was causing problems with payers and about the risk of artificially increasing the CMI through overdiagnosis as well as audit mechanisms to avoid this, and changes in expected mortality and observed mortality. To our knowledge, the lower CMI did not cause any problems with payers, but this is something we are currently tracking. Coding and documentation are constantly audited both internally (by our quality department) and externally (using Inter-Rater Reliability audits and validation), with no noted trend or targeted opportunities. We only include comorbidities that are current, actively monitored/managed, and pertinent to the care of our patients. We have not noted a change in denials, which gives us confidence we are not now overdiagnosing.
Our observed mortality has also increased. We, like all institutions, experienced the confounding factor of the COVID-19 pandemic, which coincided with the higher observed mortality over the course of the past 2 years. While the observed mortality (indicating sicker patients assuming no worsening of care processes) may partly explain our increased coding complexity, our decreasing mortality index (observed:expected mortality) suggests that our efforts to improve documentation and coding likely reflect improved capture of missed complexity (Figure).
We understand the concerns raised by Dr. Kerguelen about potential mis(over)coding. As part of this quality initiative, therefore, we plan long-term evaluations of our processes and metrics to better determine and guide our understanding of the impact of what we have already implemented and future interventions. In fact, we are in the process of analyzing additional interventions and hope to share results from these evaluations soon.
Marie Anne Sosa, MD
Tanira Ferreira, MD
Hayley Gershengorn, MD
Melissa Soto
Estin Kelly
Ameena Shrestha
Julianne Burgos
Sandeep Devabhaktuni
Dipen Parekh, MD
Maritza Suarez, MD
University of Miami Hospital and Clinics, Miami, FL
mxs2157@med.miami.edu
Disclosures: None reported.
Authors' Response
We agree with the valid comments made by Dr. Kerguelen and will respond to each set of questions in order.
Regarding the first set of questions on how we knew that our CMI was low and our patient acuity was under- represented, the University of Miami Health System is a designated cancer center with a Prospective Payment System exempt model (PPS exempt), and is one of 11 hospitals in the United States excluded for payment under the Inpatient Prospective Payment System. We know, therefore, that we care for a very complex patient population. Additionally, we benchmark ourselves against other academic medical centers (AMCs) with similarly complex patients and had noted that our patients appeared “less complex.” Specifically, our baseline CMI was 1.77 in early 2018 compared with an overall higher CMI for the AMC cohort; also, the total number of diagnoses we captured was lower than that in other AMCs. These 2 facts together alerted us that we likely had coding and clinical documentation improvement (CDI) opportunities. We recognized that our complexity was not being captured both because the clinical information was not documented in a manner readily translatable to ICD-10 codes and codes were missed when the documentation did exist. To remedy these problems, we implemented multiple immediate “fixes,” which included revamping our CDI efforts, re-education, and enhancements to our electronic health record for providers, CDIs, and coders. Since publication of our article, our CMI has continued to increase month over month, up to 2.57 most recently in May 2022, as we have continued to focus on several additional initiatives to impact both better documentation and coding.
The second set of questions asked whether the perceived low CMI was causing problems with payers and about the risk of artificially increasing the CMI through overdiagnosis as well as audit mechanisms to avoid this, and changes in expected mortality and observed mortality. To our knowledge, the lower CMI did not cause any problems with payers, but this is something we are currently tracking. Coding and documentation are constantly audited both internally (by our quality department) and externally (using Inter-Rater Reliability audits and validation), with no noted trend or targeted opportunities. We only include comorbidities that are current, actively monitored/managed, and pertinent to the care of our patients. We have not noted a change in denials, which gives us confidence we are not now overdiagnosing.
Our observed mortality has also increased. We, like all institutions, experienced the confounding factor of the COVID-19 pandemic, which coincided with the higher observed mortality over the course of the past 2 years. While the observed mortality (indicating sicker patients assuming no worsening of care processes) may partly explain our increased coding complexity, our decreasing mortality index (observed:expected mortality) suggests that our efforts to improve documentation and coding likely reflect improved capture of missed complexity (Figure).
We understand the concerns raised by Dr. Kerguelen about potential mis(over)coding. As part of this quality initiative, therefore, we plan long-term evaluations of our processes and metrics to better determine and guide our understanding of the impact of what we have already implemented and future interventions. In fact, we are in the process of analyzing additional interventions and hope to share results from these evaluations soon.
Marie Anne Sosa, MD
Tanira Ferreira, MD
Hayley Gershengorn, MD
Melissa Soto
Estin Kelly
Ameena Shrestha
Julianne Burgos
Sandeep Devabhaktuni
Dipen Parekh, MD
Maritza Suarez, MD
University of Miami Hospital and Clinics, Miami, FL
mxs2157@med.miami.edu
Disclosures: None reported.
Authors' Response
We agree with the valid comments made by Dr. Kerguelen and will respond to each set of questions in order.
Regarding the first set of questions on how we knew that our CMI was low and our patient acuity was under- represented, the University of Miami Health System is a designated cancer center with a Prospective Payment System exempt model (PPS exempt), and is one of 11 hospitals in the United States excluded for payment under the Inpatient Prospective Payment System. We know, therefore, that we care for a very complex patient population. Additionally, we benchmark ourselves against other academic medical centers (AMCs) with similarly complex patients and had noted that our patients appeared “less complex.” Specifically, our baseline CMI was 1.77 in early 2018 compared with an overall higher CMI for the AMC cohort; also, the total number of diagnoses we captured was lower than that in other AMCs. These 2 facts together alerted us that we likely had coding and clinical documentation improvement (CDI) opportunities. We recognized that our complexity was not being captured both because the clinical information was not documented in a manner readily translatable to ICD-10 codes and codes were missed when the documentation did exist. To remedy these problems, we implemented multiple immediate “fixes,” which included revamping our CDI efforts, re-education, and enhancements to our electronic health record for providers, CDIs, and coders. Since publication of our article, our CMI has continued to increase month over month, up to 2.57 most recently in May 2022, as we have continued to focus on several additional initiatives to impact both better documentation and coding.
The second set of questions asked whether the perceived low CMI was causing problems with payers and about the risk of artificially increasing the CMI through overdiagnosis as well as audit mechanisms to avoid this, and changes in expected mortality and observed mortality. To our knowledge, the lower CMI did not cause any problems with payers, but this is something we are currently tracking. Coding and documentation are constantly audited both internally (by our quality department) and externally (using Inter-Rater Reliability audits and validation), with no noted trend or targeted opportunities. We only include comorbidities that are current, actively monitored/managed, and pertinent to the care of our patients. We have not noted a change in denials, which gives us confidence we are not now overdiagnosing.
Our observed mortality has also increased. We, like all institutions, experienced the confounding factor of the COVID-19 pandemic, which coincided with the higher observed mortality over the course of the past 2 years. While the observed mortality (indicating sicker patients assuming no worsening of care processes) may partly explain our increased coding complexity, our decreasing mortality index (observed:expected mortality) suggests that our efforts to improve documentation and coding likely reflect improved capture of missed complexity (Figure).
We understand the concerns raised by Dr. Kerguelen about potential mis(over)coding. As part of this quality initiative, therefore, we plan long-term evaluations of our processes and metrics to better determine and guide our understanding of the impact of what we have already implemented and future interventions. In fact, we are in the process of analyzing additional interventions and hope to share results from these evaluations soon.
Marie Anne Sosa, MD
Tanira Ferreira, MD
Hayley Gershengorn, MD
Melissa Soto
Estin Kelly
Ameena Shrestha
Julianne Burgos
Sandeep Devabhaktuni
Dipen Parekh, MD
Maritza Suarez, MD
University of Miami Hospital and Clinics, Miami, FL
mxs2157@med.miami.edu
Disclosures: None reported.
Comorbidity Coding and Its Impact on Hospital Complexity
To the Editor:
I read with interest the article by Sosa and colleagues1 in which they present some stimulating analyses pertaining to a topic that we have been discussing at my institution for several years. Part of this discussion deals with the complexity of our hospital and how complexity is affected by comorbidity coding.
In 2013, we implemented the International Refined-DRGs (IR-DRGs) system to measure complexity at our hospital in Bogotá, Colombia. Our perception at that time was that the case mix index (CMI) was very low (0.7566), even for a general hospital with a high volume of pathologies with low relative weight (RW). Two medical auditors were assigned to review the medical records in order to improve the quality, quantity, and order of diagnoses. Emphasis was placed on patients with stays longer than 5 days and with only 1 diagnosis coded at admission. Additionally, International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision (World Health Organization version) diagnoses from chapters R (Symptoms and Signs Not Elsewhere Classified) and V through Y (External Causes) were blocked in the electronic health record. With these measures, our CMI increased 74%, reaching 1.3151 by the end of 2021, with a maximum peak of 1.6743 in May 2021, which coincided with the third peak of COVID-19 in Colombia.
However, the article by Sosa and colleagues draws my attention to the following: why do the authors state that their CMI is low and the patient acuity was under-represented? Is this due to a comparison with similar hospitals, or to a recommendation from a regulatory agency? We have found our CMI remains low because of a high volume of nonsurgical care (60%), deliveries, and digestive, respiratory, and urinary pathologies of low RW.
Also, was the perceived low CMI causing problems with payers? And further, how did the authors avoid the risk of artificially increasing the CMI through overdiagnosis of patients, and were there audit mechanisms to avoid this? While there was a clear change in expected mortality, did the observed mortality also change with the strategies implemented? This last question is relevant because, if the observed mortality were maintained, this would provide evidence that a coding problem was the cause of their hospital’s low CMI.
I reiterate my congratulations to the authors for presenting analyses that are very useful to other providers and researchers worldwide interested in addressing management issues related to the correct identification and classification of patients.
Carlos Kerguelen, MD, MA
Fundacion Santa Fe de Bogotá, Bogotá, Colombia
carlos.kerguelen@fsfb.org.co
Disclosures: None reported.
1. Sosa M, Ferreira T, Gershengorn H, et al. Improving hospital metrics through the implementation of a comorbidity capture tool and other quality initiatives. J Clin Outcomes Manage. 2022;29(2):80-87. doi:10.12788/jcom.0088
To the Editor:
I read with interest the article by Sosa and colleagues1 in which they present some stimulating analyses pertaining to a topic that we have been discussing at my institution for several years. Part of this discussion deals with the complexity of our hospital and how complexity is affected by comorbidity coding.
In 2013, we implemented the International Refined-DRGs (IR-DRGs) system to measure complexity at our hospital in Bogotá, Colombia. Our perception at that time was that the case mix index (CMI) was very low (0.7566), even for a general hospital with a high volume of pathologies with low relative weight (RW). Two medical auditors were assigned to review the medical records in order to improve the quality, quantity, and order of diagnoses. Emphasis was placed on patients with stays longer than 5 days and with only 1 diagnosis coded at admission. Additionally, International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision (World Health Organization version) diagnoses from chapters R (Symptoms and Signs Not Elsewhere Classified) and V through Y (External Causes) were blocked in the electronic health record. With these measures, our CMI increased 74%, reaching 1.3151 by the end of 2021, with a maximum peak of 1.6743 in May 2021, which coincided with the third peak of COVID-19 in Colombia.
However, the article by Sosa and colleagues draws my attention to the following: why do the authors state that their CMI is low and the patient acuity was under-represented? Is this due to a comparison with similar hospitals, or to a recommendation from a regulatory agency? We have found our CMI remains low because of a high volume of nonsurgical care (60%), deliveries, and digestive, respiratory, and urinary pathologies of low RW.
Also, was the perceived low CMI causing problems with payers? And further, how did the authors avoid the risk of artificially increasing the CMI through overdiagnosis of patients, and were there audit mechanisms to avoid this? While there was a clear change in expected mortality, did the observed mortality also change with the strategies implemented? This last question is relevant because, if the observed mortality were maintained, this would provide evidence that a coding problem was the cause of their hospital’s low CMI.
I reiterate my congratulations to the authors for presenting analyses that are very useful to other providers and researchers worldwide interested in addressing management issues related to the correct identification and classification of patients.
Carlos Kerguelen, MD, MA
Fundacion Santa Fe de Bogotá, Bogotá, Colombia
carlos.kerguelen@fsfb.org.co
Disclosures: None reported.
To the Editor:
I read with interest the article by Sosa and colleagues1 in which they present some stimulating analyses pertaining to a topic that we have been discussing at my institution for several years. Part of this discussion deals with the complexity of our hospital and how complexity is affected by comorbidity coding.
In 2013, we implemented the International Refined-DRGs (IR-DRGs) system to measure complexity at our hospital in Bogotá, Colombia. Our perception at that time was that the case mix index (CMI) was very low (0.7566), even for a general hospital with a high volume of pathologies with low relative weight (RW). Two medical auditors were assigned to review the medical records in order to improve the quality, quantity, and order of diagnoses. Emphasis was placed on patients with stays longer than 5 days and with only 1 diagnosis coded at admission. Additionally, International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision (World Health Organization version) diagnoses from chapters R (Symptoms and Signs Not Elsewhere Classified) and V through Y (External Causes) were blocked in the electronic health record. With these measures, our CMI increased 74%, reaching 1.3151 by the end of 2021, with a maximum peak of 1.6743 in May 2021, which coincided with the third peak of COVID-19 in Colombia.
However, the article by Sosa and colleagues draws my attention to the following: why do the authors state that their CMI is low and the patient acuity was under-represented? Is this due to a comparison with similar hospitals, or to a recommendation from a regulatory agency? We have found our CMI remains low because of a high volume of nonsurgical care (60%), deliveries, and digestive, respiratory, and urinary pathologies of low RW.
Also, was the perceived low CMI causing problems with payers? And further, how did the authors avoid the risk of artificially increasing the CMI through overdiagnosis of patients, and were there audit mechanisms to avoid this? While there was a clear change in expected mortality, did the observed mortality also change with the strategies implemented? This last question is relevant because, if the observed mortality were maintained, this would provide evidence that a coding problem was the cause of their hospital’s low CMI.
I reiterate my congratulations to the authors for presenting analyses that are very useful to other providers and researchers worldwide interested in addressing management issues related to the correct identification and classification of patients.
Carlos Kerguelen, MD, MA
Fundacion Santa Fe de Bogotá, Bogotá, Colombia
carlos.kerguelen@fsfb.org.co
Disclosures: None reported.
1. Sosa M, Ferreira T, Gershengorn H, et al. Improving hospital metrics through the implementation of a comorbidity capture tool and other quality initiatives. J Clin Outcomes Manage. 2022;29(2):80-87. doi:10.12788/jcom.0088
1. Sosa M, Ferreira T, Gershengorn H, et al. Improving hospital metrics through the implementation of a comorbidity capture tool and other quality initiatives. J Clin Outcomes Manage. 2022;29(2):80-87. doi:10.12788/jcom.0088
Supporting Patients on Complex Care Journeys: How Technology Can Bridge the Gaps
From Memora Health (Dr. Flyckt and Dr. Colbert), San Francisco, CA; and Harvard Medical School (Dr. Colbert), Boston, MA.
A close relative was recently diagnosed with follicular lymphoma. He was cared for at a high-ranked cancer center by physicians with demonstrated expertise, and even had the support of a care navigator. Still, he was often left feeling overwhelmed and confused, holding an inch-thick stack of papers, instructions, and pamphlets. As he left his treatment planning visit, reeling from the emotional burden of his diagnosis and all the unfamiliar terminology, he didn’t know what to do or what to expect. Later, when he experienced early signs of tumor lysis syndrome, he struggled to reach his care team for triage and guidance. When he went to the emergency room, his oncologist was never informed.
This scenario is unfortunately common, and versions of this scenario play out thousands of times each day across the US health system. Within the clinic and hospital setting, patients receive excellent care from their providers, but a disconnect emerges once the patient leaves these medical settings: patients at home struggle to find guidance and support, while care teams lack the tools to engage patients between visits or monitor their health across care settings, providers, or episodes of care.
Leveraging Technology to Move From Episodes of Care to Complex Care Journeys
The use of automated messaging, artificial intelligence and natural language processing–driven chat experiences, and text-based support is becoming more common. However, health care lags behind other industries in the adoption of these technologies.1,2 The slow pace can be warranted, given that health care is more complicated and higher risk than inquiring about a lost package, ordering groceries, or applying for a mortgage. At the same time, many of the consumer engagement tools used to guide an applicant through the multiple steps and complexities of their home loan process or to prompt viewers to select new shows to binge have applications in health care.
Over the past few years, technologies have emerged that guide patients through complex care journeys and allow care teams to monitor and engage patients between visits. These solutions come in different formats, but generally patients can receive messages on their phones that contain disease-specific educational content, prompts to fill prescriptions and take medications, and reminders and guidance on how to prepare for appointments and procedures. These programs also collect relevant data from patients through survey and electronic patient-reported outcomes instruments, as well as connected patient monitoring devices, that help track patient progress and identify issues as they arise. Many programs also incorporate symptom triage pathways and use natural language processing to respond automatically to patient questions and concerns.3,4
These technology solutions can automate many tasks that in the past required a care team member to spend hours on the phone. Newly freed from such repetitive tasks, care teams can now focus on more in-depth interactions with those patients who are most in need—the types of interactions that are more satisfying and rewarding. Such assistance is particularly needed today with the staffing shortages faced by most health systems.5
In addition, technology allows teams to see the panel of patients they are caring for and to quickly identify and take action on any specific needs or issues. Care teams can focus on any patient and see where they are in their journey. When appropriate, some solutions also allow care teams to engage directly with patients through text-messaging, creating a seamless experience and unified communication channel. Ideally, these solutions should be linked or embedded within the electronic health record or other primary system of record, so that teams can easily access these tools through their existing workflows and avoid creating yet another interface to navigate.
The Impact of Low-Tech Solutions to Deliver High-Touch Support
There is evidence showing that digital patient navigation tools impact patient care. In the oncology setting, patients with a digital navigator have achieved over 95% adherence rates with complex oral chemotherapy regimens (Memora Health Unpublished Data. 2022.). In the postpartum setting, a text message–based program improved screening rates for postpartum depression and did so with very high patient satisfaction ratings.6 Particularly notable is the fact that this depression screening program achieved these results in a population that was predominantly low income, with more than half belonging to underrepresented minority populations.6
We believe these digital patient navigation technologies, specifically low-tech solutions that don’t require app downloads, portal log-ins, or high-speed internet, will transform care delivery over the next 5 to 10 years. Successful management of complex conditions like diabetes or cancer requires more than 3 hours of care each day,7 yet most patients spend only 1 or 2 hours per month directly interacting with their health care providers. However, most patients carry their phones with them at all times, and artificial intelligence–enabled text support is “always on” to provide support, monitoring, and guidance, wherever a patient happens to be when assistance is needed.
Shifting the Model to Support a Lifetime of Care
While still in the early stages of development, these tools have the potential to radically alter the practice of medicine, shifting the focus from episodic interactions to continuous journey-based care delivery. Outside of an acute event bringing a patient into the clinic or emergency room, many patients go a year or more without seeing their primary care providers.8 During that time, an immense amount of information is underreported or completely lost. Capturing this information in real-time and more holistically over a person’s lifetime of care could provide physicians better insight to both better manage and more fully evaluate the success of treatment plans by tracking patient symptoms, pain, and functional status over time. With this more longitudinal view of the patient, we see a pathway towards achieving the Quadruple Aim: patients who are more supported will achieve better outcomes at lower cost, they will have a better experience, and care teams will be empowered to focus their time on more satisfying activities rather than repetitive administrative tasks.
Corresponding author: James A. Colbert, MD, MBA; jamie@memorahealth.com
Disclosures: Dr. Flyckt and Dr. Colbert are employed by Memora Health, an organization that helps health care systems digitize and automate care journeys.
1. Hermes S, Riasanow T, Clemons EK, et al. The digital transformation of the healthcare industry: exploring the rise of emerging platform ecosystems and their influence on the role of patients. Bus Res. 2020;13:1033-1069. doi:10.1007/s40685-020-00125-x
2. Van Velthoven MH, Cordon C. Sustainable adoption of digital health innovations: perspectives from a stakeholder workshop. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21(3):e11922. doi:10.2196/11922
3. Campbell K, Louie P, Levine B, Gililland J. Using patient engagement platforms in the postoperative management of patients. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2020;13(4):479-484. doi:10.1007/s12178-020-09638-8
4. Xu L, Sanders L, Li K, Chow JCL. Chatbot for health care and oncology applications using artificial intelligence and machine learning: systematic review. JMIR Cancer. 2021;7(4):e27850. doi:10.2196/27850
5. Data brief: health care workforce challenges threaten hospitals’ ability to care for patients. American Hospital Association. Accessed July 24, 2022. www.aha.org/fact-sheets/2021-11-01-data-brief-health-care-workforce-challenges-threaten-hospitals-ability-care
6. Gaulton JS, Leitner K, Hahn L, et al. Healing at home: applying innovation principles to redesign and optimise postpartum care. BMJ Innovations. 2022;8:37-41.
7. Østbye T, Yarnall KS, Krause KM, et al. Is there time for management of patients with chronic diseases in primary care? Ann Fam Med. 2005;3(3):209-214. doi:10.1370/afm.310
8. Ganguli I, Shi Z, E. Orav J, et al. Declining use of primary care among commercially insured adults in the united states, 2008–2016. Ann Intern Med. 2020;172:240-247. doi:10.7326/M19-1834
From Memora Health (Dr. Flyckt and Dr. Colbert), San Francisco, CA; and Harvard Medical School (Dr. Colbert), Boston, MA.
A close relative was recently diagnosed with follicular lymphoma. He was cared for at a high-ranked cancer center by physicians with demonstrated expertise, and even had the support of a care navigator. Still, he was often left feeling overwhelmed and confused, holding an inch-thick stack of papers, instructions, and pamphlets. As he left his treatment planning visit, reeling from the emotional burden of his diagnosis and all the unfamiliar terminology, he didn’t know what to do or what to expect. Later, when he experienced early signs of tumor lysis syndrome, he struggled to reach his care team for triage and guidance. When he went to the emergency room, his oncologist was never informed.
This scenario is unfortunately common, and versions of this scenario play out thousands of times each day across the US health system. Within the clinic and hospital setting, patients receive excellent care from their providers, but a disconnect emerges once the patient leaves these medical settings: patients at home struggle to find guidance and support, while care teams lack the tools to engage patients between visits or monitor their health across care settings, providers, or episodes of care.
Leveraging Technology to Move From Episodes of Care to Complex Care Journeys
The use of automated messaging, artificial intelligence and natural language processing–driven chat experiences, and text-based support is becoming more common. However, health care lags behind other industries in the adoption of these technologies.1,2 The slow pace can be warranted, given that health care is more complicated and higher risk than inquiring about a lost package, ordering groceries, or applying for a mortgage. At the same time, many of the consumer engagement tools used to guide an applicant through the multiple steps and complexities of their home loan process or to prompt viewers to select new shows to binge have applications in health care.
Over the past few years, technologies have emerged that guide patients through complex care journeys and allow care teams to monitor and engage patients between visits. These solutions come in different formats, but generally patients can receive messages on their phones that contain disease-specific educational content, prompts to fill prescriptions and take medications, and reminders and guidance on how to prepare for appointments and procedures. These programs also collect relevant data from patients through survey and electronic patient-reported outcomes instruments, as well as connected patient monitoring devices, that help track patient progress and identify issues as they arise. Many programs also incorporate symptom triage pathways and use natural language processing to respond automatically to patient questions and concerns.3,4
These technology solutions can automate many tasks that in the past required a care team member to spend hours on the phone. Newly freed from such repetitive tasks, care teams can now focus on more in-depth interactions with those patients who are most in need—the types of interactions that are more satisfying and rewarding. Such assistance is particularly needed today with the staffing shortages faced by most health systems.5
In addition, technology allows teams to see the panel of patients they are caring for and to quickly identify and take action on any specific needs or issues. Care teams can focus on any patient and see where they are in their journey. When appropriate, some solutions also allow care teams to engage directly with patients through text-messaging, creating a seamless experience and unified communication channel. Ideally, these solutions should be linked or embedded within the electronic health record or other primary system of record, so that teams can easily access these tools through their existing workflows and avoid creating yet another interface to navigate.
The Impact of Low-Tech Solutions to Deliver High-Touch Support
There is evidence showing that digital patient navigation tools impact patient care. In the oncology setting, patients with a digital navigator have achieved over 95% adherence rates with complex oral chemotherapy regimens (Memora Health Unpublished Data. 2022.). In the postpartum setting, a text message–based program improved screening rates for postpartum depression and did so with very high patient satisfaction ratings.6 Particularly notable is the fact that this depression screening program achieved these results in a population that was predominantly low income, with more than half belonging to underrepresented minority populations.6
We believe these digital patient navigation technologies, specifically low-tech solutions that don’t require app downloads, portal log-ins, or high-speed internet, will transform care delivery over the next 5 to 10 years. Successful management of complex conditions like diabetes or cancer requires more than 3 hours of care each day,7 yet most patients spend only 1 or 2 hours per month directly interacting with their health care providers. However, most patients carry their phones with them at all times, and artificial intelligence–enabled text support is “always on” to provide support, monitoring, and guidance, wherever a patient happens to be when assistance is needed.
Shifting the Model to Support a Lifetime of Care
While still in the early stages of development, these tools have the potential to radically alter the practice of medicine, shifting the focus from episodic interactions to continuous journey-based care delivery. Outside of an acute event bringing a patient into the clinic or emergency room, many patients go a year or more without seeing their primary care providers.8 During that time, an immense amount of information is underreported or completely lost. Capturing this information in real-time and more holistically over a person’s lifetime of care could provide physicians better insight to both better manage and more fully evaluate the success of treatment plans by tracking patient symptoms, pain, and functional status over time. With this more longitudinal view of the patient, we see a pathway towards achieving the Quadruple Aim: patients who are more supported will achieve better outcomes at lower cost, they will have a better experience, and care teams will be empowered to focus their time on more satisfying activities rather than repetitive administrative tasks.
Corresponding author: James A. Colbert, MD, MBA; jamie@memorahealth.com
Disclosures: Dr. Flyckt and Dr. Colbert are employed by Memora Health, an organization that helps health care systems digitize and automate care journeys.
From Memora Health (Dr. Flyckt and Dr. Colbert), San Francisco, CA; and Harvard Medical School (Dr. Colbert), Boston, MA.
A close relative was recently diagnosed with follicular lymphoma. He was cared for at a high-ranked cancer center by physicians with demonstrated expertise, and even had the support of a care navigator. Still, he was often left feeling overwhelmed and confused, holding an inch-thick stack of papers, instructions, and pamphlets. As he left his treatment planning visit, reeling from the emotional burden of his diagnosis and all the unfamiliar terminology, he didn’t know what to do or what to expect. Later, when he experienced early signs of tumor lysis syndrome, he struggled to reach his care team for triage and guidance. When he went to the emergency room, his oncologist was never informed.
This scenario is unfortunately common, and versions of this scenario play out thousands of times each day across the US health system. Within the clinic and hospital setting, patients receive excellent care from their providers, but a disconnect emerges once the patient leaves these medical settings: patients at home struggle to find guidance and support, while care teams lack the tools to engage patients between visits or monitor their health across care settings, providers, or episodes of care.
Leveraging Technology to Move From Episodes of Care to Complex Care Journeys
The use of automated messaging, artificial intelligence and natural language processing–driven chat experiences, and text-based support is becoming more common. However, health care lags behind other industries in the adoption of these technologies.1,2 The slow pace can be warranted, given that health care is more complicated and higher risk than inquiring about a lost package, ordering groceries, or applying for a mortgage. At the same time, many of the consumer engagement tools used to guide an applicant through the multiple steps and complexities of their home loan process or to prompt viewers to select new shows to binge have applications in health care.
Over the past few years, technologies have emerged that guide patients through complex care journeys and allow care teams to monitor and engage patients between visits. These solutions come in different formats, but generally patients can receive messages on their phones that contain disease-specific educational content, prompts to fill prescriptions and take medications, and reminders and guidance on how to prepare for appointments and procedures. These programs also collect relevant data from patients through survey and electronic patient-reported outcomes instruments, as well as connected patient monitoring devices, that help track patient progress and identify issues as they arise. Many programs also incorporate symptom triage pathways and use natural language processing to respond automatically to patient questions and concerns.3,4
These technology solutions can automate many tasks that in the past required a care team member to spend hours on the phone. Newly freed from such repetitive tasks, care teams can now focus on more in-depth interactions with those patients who are most in need—the types of interactions that are more satisfying and rewarding. Such assistance is particularly needed today with the staffing shortages faced by most health systems.5
In addition, technology allows teams to see the panel of patients they are caring for and to quickly identify and take action on any specific needs or issues. Care teams can focus on any patient and see where they are in their journey. When appropriate, some solutions also allow care teams to engage directly with patients through text-messaging, creating a seamless experience and unified communication channel. Ideally, these solutions should be linked or embedded within the electronic health record or other primary system of record, so that teams can easily access these tools through their existing workflows and avoid creating yet another interface to navigate.
The Impact of Low-Tech Solutions to Deliver High-Touch Support
There is evidence showing that digital patient navigation tools impact patient care. In the oncology setting, patients with a digital navigator have achieved over 95% adherence rates with complex oral chemotherapy regimens (Memora Health Unpublished Data. 2022.). In the postpartum setting, a text message–based program improved screening rates for postpartum depression and did so with very high patient satisfaction ratings.6 Particularly notable is the fact that this depression screening program achieved these results in a population that was predominantly low income, with more than half belonging to underrepresented minority populations.6
We believe these digital patient navigation technologies, specifically low-tech solutions that don’t require app downloads, portal log-ins, or high-speed internet, will transform care delivery over the next 5 to 10 years. Successful management of complex conditions like diabetes or cancer requires more than 3 hours of care each day,7 yet most patients spend only 1 or 2 hours per month directly interacting with their health care providers. However, most patients carry their phones with them at all times, and artificial intelligence–enabled text support is “always on” to provide support, monitoring, and guidance, wherever a patient happens to be when assistance is needed.
Shifting the Model to Support a Lifetime of Care
While still in the early stages of development, these tools have the potential to radically alter the practice of medicine, shifting the focus from episodic interactions to continuous journey-based care delivery. Outside of an acute event bringing a patient into the clinic or emergency room, many patients go a year or more without seeing their primary care providers.8 During that time, an immense amount of information is underreported or completely lost. Capturing this information in real-time and more holistically over a person’s lifetime of care could provide physicians better insight to both better manage and more fully evaluate the success of treatment plans by tracking patient symptoms, pain, and functional status over time. With this more longitudinal view of the patient, we see a pathway towards achieving the Quadruple Aim: patients who are more supported will achieve better outcomes at lower cost, they will have a better experience, and care teams will be empowered to focus their time on more satisfying activities rather than repetitive administrative tasks.
Corresponding author: James A. Colbert, MD, MBA; jamie@memorahealth.com
Disclosures: Dr. Flyckt and Dr. Colbert are employed by Memora Health, an organization that helps health care systems digitize and automate care journeys.
1. Hermes S, Riasanow T, Clemons EK, et al. The digital transformation of the healthcare industry: exploring the rise of emerging platform ecosystems and their influence on the role of patients. Bus Res. 2020;13:1033-1069. doi:10.1007/s40685-020-00125-x
2. Van Velthoven MH, Cordon C. Sustainable adoption of digital health innovations: perspectives from a stakeholder workshop. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21(3):e11922. doi:10.2196/11922
3. Campbell K, Louie P, Levine B, Gililland J. Using patient engagement platforms in the postoperative management of patients. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2020;13(4):479-484. doi:10.1007/s12178-020-09638-8
4. Xu L, Sanders L, Li K, Chow JCL. Chatbot for health care and oncology applications using artificial intelligence and machine learning: systematic review. JMIR Cancer. 2021;7(4):e27850. doi:10.2196/27850
5. Data brief: health care workforce challenges threaten hospitals’ ability to care for patients. American Hospital Association. Accessed July 24, 2022. www.aha.org/fact-sheets/2021-11-01-data-brief-health-care-workforce-challenges-threaten-hospitals-ability-care
6. Gaulton JS, Leitner K, Hahn L, et al. Healing at home: applying innovation principles to redesign and optimise postpartum care. BMJ Innovations. 2022;8:37-41.
7. Østbye T, Yarnall KS, Krause KM, et al. Is there time for management of patients with chronic diseases in primary care? Ann Fam Med. 2005;3(3):209-214. doi:10.1370/afm.310
8. Ganguli I, Shi Z, E. Orav J, et al. Declining use of primary care among commercially insured adults in the united states, 2008–2016. Ann Intern Med. 2020;172:240-247. doi:10.7326/M19-1834
1. Hermes S, Riasanow T, Clemons EK, et al. The digital transformation of the healthcare industry: exploring the rise of emerging platform ecosystems and their influence on the role of patients. Bus Res. 2020;13:1033-1069. doi:10.1007/s40685-020-00125-x
2. Van Velthoven MH, Cordon C. Sustainable adoption of digital health innovations: perspectives from a stakeholder workshop. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21(3):e11922. doi:10.2196/11922
3. Campbell K, Louie P, Levine B, Gililland J. Using patient engagement platforms in the postoperative management of patients. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2020;13(4):479-484. doi:10.1007/s12178-020-09638-8
4. Xu L, Sanders L, Li K, Chow JCL. Chatbot for health care and oncology applications using artificial intelligence and machine learning: systematic review. JMIR Cancer. 2021;7(4):e27850. doi:10.2196/27850
5. Data brief: health care workforce challenges threaten hospitals’ ability to care for patients. American Hospital Association. Accessed July 24, 2022. www.aha.org/fact-sheets/2021-11-01-data-brief-health-care-workforce-challenges-threaten-hospitals-ability-care
6. Gaulton JS, Leitner K, Hahn L, et al. Healing at home: applying innovation principles to redesign and optimise postpartum care. BMJ Innovations. 2022;8:37-41.
7. Østbye T, Yarnall KS, Krause KM, et al. Is there time for management of patients with chronic diseases in primary care? Ann Fam Med. 2005;3(3):209-214. doi:10.1370/afm.310
8. Ganguli I, Shi Z, E. Orav J, et al. Declining use of primary care among commercially insured adults in the united states, 2008–2016. Ann Intern Med. 2020;172:240-247. doi:10.7326/M19-1834