Clinical question: What is the effect of fluid resuscitation on mortality in children with shock in resource-limited settings?

Background: Rapid fluid resuscitation is typically recommended for children who present with shock. In resource-limited settings, particularly in Africa, this practice is not commonplace. The exact role of early fluid resuscitation, in addition to the optimal type of fluid (saline or albumin), is unknown.

Study design: Multicenter, randomized, controlled trial.

Setting: Six clinical centers in Africa.

Synopsis: This study was stopped after data for 3,141 of a projected 3,600 enrolled children demonstrated increased mortality in the bolus groups vs. control. Children aged 60 days to 12 years who presented with a severe febrile illness and impaired perfusion without severe hypotension were randomized openly to three groups: saline bolus, albumin bolus, or no bolus (control). Baseline characteristics of the groups were similar. After 48 hours, mortality in the albumin, saline, and control groups was 10.6%, 10.5%, and 7.3% respectively. The relative risk for any bolus vs. control was 1.45 (95% CI, 1.13-1.86; P=.003).

The results of this study are strengthened by the large number of children enrolled and the solid study design. However, it is difficult to immediately generalize the findings due to the unique nature of the study population and environment, which included a high proportion of patients with malaria and notable constraints on resources. Nonetheless, questions are raised regarding the routine practice of rapid and early fluid resuscitation in patients with shock and without clear hypovolemia.

Bottom line: Fluid resuscitation is not beneficial in resource-limited settings for children in shock who are not hypotensive.

Citation: Matiland K, Kiguli S, Opoka RO, et. al. Mortality after fluid bolus in African children with severe infection. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:2483-2495.

Reviewed by Pediatric Editor Mark Shen, MD, FHM, medical director of hospital medicine at Dell Children’s Medical Center, Austin, Texas.

Clinical question: What is the effect of fluid resuscitation on mortality in children with shock in resource-limited settings?

Background: Rapid fluid resuscitation is typically recommended for children who present with shock. In resource-limited settings, particularly in Africa, this practice is not commonplace. The exact role of early fluid resuscitation, in addition to the optimal type of fluid (saline or albumin), is unknown.

Study design: Multicenter, randomized, controlled trial.

Setting: Six clinical centers in Africa.

Synopsis: This study was stopped after data for 3,141 of a projected 3,600 enrolled children demonstrated increased mortality in the bolus groups vs. control. Children aged 60 days to 12 years who presented with a severe febrile illness and impaired perfusion without severe hypotension were randomized openly to three groups: saline bolus, albumin bolus, or no bolus (control). Baseline characteristics of the groups were similar. After 48 hours, mortality in the albumin, saline, and control groups was 10.6%, 10.5%, and 7.3% respectively. The relative risk for any bolus vs. control was 1.45 (95% CI, 1.13-1.86; P=.003).

The results of this study are strengthened by the large number of children enrolled and the solid study design. However, it is difficult to immediately generalize the findings due to the unique nature of the study population and environment, which included a high proportion of patients with malaria and notable constraints on resources. Nonetheless, questions are raised regarding the routine practice of rapid and early fluid resuscitation in patients with shock and without clear hypovolemia.

Bottom line: Fluid resuscitation is not beneficial in resource-limited settings for children in shock who are not hypotensive.

Citation: Matiland K, Kiguli S, Opoka RO, et. al. Mortality after fluid bolus in African children with severe infection. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:2483-2495.

Reviewed by Pediatric Editor Mark Shen, MD, FHM, medical director of hospital medicine at Dell Children’s Medical Center, Austin, Texas.

Clinical question: What is the effect of fluid resuscitation on mortality in children with shock in resource-limited settings?

Background: Rapid fluid resuscitation is typically recommended for children who present with shock. In resource-limited settings, particularly in Africa, this practice is not commonplace. The exact role of early fluid resuscitation, in addition to the optimal type of fluid (saline or albumin), is unknown.

Study design: Multicenter, randomized, controlled trial.

Setting: Six clinical centers in Africa.

Synopsis: This study was stopped after data for 3,141 of a projected 3,600 enrolled children demonstrated increased mortality in the bolus groups vs. control. Children aged 60 days to 12 years who presented with a severe febrile illness and impaired perfusion without severe hypotension were randomized openly to three groups: saline bolus, albumin bolus, or no bolus (control). Baseline characteristics of the groups were similar. After 48 hours, mortality in the albumin, saline, and control groups was 10.6%, 10.5%, and 7.3% respectively. The relative risk for any bolus vs. control was 1.45 (95% CI, 1.13-1.86; P=.003).

The results of this study are strengthened by the large number of children enrolled and the solid study design. However, it is difficult to immediately generalize the findings due to the unique nature of the study population and environment, which included a high proportion of patients with malaria and notable constraints on resources. Nonetheless, questions are raised regarding the routine practice of rapid and early fluid resuscitation in patients with shock and without clear hypovolemia.

Bottom line: Fluid resuscitation is not beneficial in resource-limited settings for children in shock who are not hypotensive.

Citation: Matiland K, Kiguli S, Opoka RO, et. al. Mortality after fluid bolus in African children with severe infection. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:2483-2495.

Reviewed by Pediatric Editor Mark Shen, MD, FHM, medical director of hospital medicine at Dell Children’s Medical Center, Austin, Texas.

With much of the national discussion on healthcare policy still dominated by the Affordable Care Act, which was signed into law March 23, 2010, it’s easy to forget that the healthcare industry received a big influx of money through 2009’s federal stimulus. In all, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act gave the go-ahead for roughly $160 billion in new health-related spending. So where has that money gone, and did it achieve the Obama administration’s overall goal of stimulating the economy?

As with all economic matters, there’s no simple answer, and economists may never reach consensus. Nor has all the money yet been spent, although the vast majority is now spoken for. Nevertheless, several reports and policy experts have provided at least a glimpse of whether certain monies were indeed well spent. Here’s a look at some of the main areas of interest to HM, including funding meant to expand access to care, boost research funding, and increase medical infrastructure.

$98 Billion for Medicaid

By far the biggest chunk of healthcare money went to states to help shore up their Medicaid programs, in exchange for assurances that they would not tighten eligibility requirements. Another sizable fraction went to help unemployed people maintain their health insurance coverage through the government’s COBRA program by subsidizing 65% of their premiums. Those subsidies eventually increased to $34.3 billion through subsequent legislation, according to the U.S. Congress Joint Committee on Taxation.

Both types of spending provide assistance for lower-income people, and studies have broadly concluded that stimulus spending is more effective when directed at poorer people who are more likely to spend than save additional income. James Feyrer, PhD, associate professor of economics at Dartmouth College and a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research, says the stimulus’ support for low-income households yielded more than two dollars for every dollar spent.

The key question, Dr. Feyrer says, is whether government spending changes behavior. “Any money that you spend that doesn’t change anybody’s behavior isn’t going to have any stimulus effect,” he says. Because the extra Medicaid funds were contingent on states maintaining their eligibility rules, they had no choice but to spend the new money. That infusion theoretically put more cash into the pockets of the poor, increasing their own propensity to spend and delivering a boost to the economy.

But this funding model comes with a major caveat: Now that the stimulus money has run out, Dr. Feyrer says a reverse effect could take place. “The hope is that the economy will come roaring back in such a fashion that when you pull the stimulus away, it will be less painful,” he says.

That hasn’t happened, however, meaning that the loss of stimulus funds is proving particularly painful for cash-strapped states. Looming budget gaps in Medicaid and other programs for the poor could result in economic contraction. A similar effect could be in play now that COBRA subsidies have lapsed.

$22.6 Billion for Health IT

A meta-analysis by the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology concludes that HIT has had a predominantly positive effect on healthcare, mainly on quality and efficiency. In principle, most observers agree that electronic health records (EHRs) are good for medicine. In reality, however, critics say the stimulus’ huge cash incentive to get doctors and hospitals to demonstrate “meaningful use” of the technology has exposed a major weakness.

Maggie Mahar, a healthcare fellow at the Century Foundation in Washington, D.C., contends the funds should have been kept in reserve until experts could better advise doctors and hospitals about which systems would work best for their specific practices, with an eye toward ensuring that the records could be linked.

“Instead, you’ve got this sort of laissez-faire chaos of people out there selling stuff, some of which is good, some of which isn’t, to people who don’t know much about what they’re buying. And that has created real problems,” Mahar says. “Some places have very good EHR in place, up and running. Other places have bought stuff that they’d now like to throw out the window and have to replace.”

$2.8 Billion for Community Healthcare Services

SHM has long supported efforts to address the nation’s PCP shortage. In October, federal officials announced that they had made some headway on that front by nearly tripling the size of the National Health Service Corps. The loan-repayment and scholarship program grants $60,000 awards to providers in exchange for two-year commitments to medically underserved communities. In 2008, about 3,600 clinicians, mainly PCPs, were enrolled in the corps. This year, the number surpassed 10,000, boosted by $300 million in stimulus money and $1.5 billion from the ACA.

As a matter of healthcare policy, then, the program has arguably been a big success. From a purely economics angle, however, Dr. Feyrer suggests the program’s effect is likely to be more modest, because the award acts like a two-year salary boost for doctors who would likely still be employed, just somewhere else.

Conversely, infrastructure projects like the building of hospitals and community centers could have generated a fairly robust economic boost if they wouldn’t have been completed in the absence of stimulus money. A May 27 report by the Connecticut General Assembly’s Office of Legislature Research, “Health Care Centers and Providers as Economic Drivers,” attempted to quantify the return on stimulus-funded investments in the state.

Among its conclusions, the report found that roughly $11.4 million in improvement grants yielded an estimated economic impact of $18.6 million. Similarly, $16.2 million in funds to renovate existing health centers or increase space through construction of new or expanded services sites yielded an impact of $26.3 million.

$10 Billion to the NIH

A big chunk of the National Institutes of Health’s monies went toward highly rated research projects stuck in backlog. As Dr. Feyrer points out, such funding is less likely to have a short-term stimulus effect. For a quick economic shot in the arm, the main question is whether funds will help create jobs that otherwise would not have existed. Over the long haul, however, Feyrer agrees that increased medical research can yield economic rewards.

Similarly, Mahar says comparative effectiveness research (CER) could provide sizable long-term returns. “Every penny we’re spending on comparative effectiveness research should, down the road, pay off in a big way,” she says. Already, stimulus-funded studies are beginning to emerge from such efforts as a Seattle-based research consortium focused on objectively analyzing cancer diagnostic tools, screening tests, and treatments.

Such research is not without its detractors, who have criticized what they view as government intrusion into personal healthcare decisions. CER also produces winners and losers, making it more politically vulnerable. “No one wants to see their revenue stream cut, even if their overpriced device is no better than other devices,” Mahar says.

Bottom Line

So has healthcare-related stimulus spending really paid off? If early indicators seem mixed, future economic studies may provide more clarity—to a point. After all, Feyrer says, no economist can know what a world without a stimulus would have looked like, meaning the arguments won’t end anytime soon.

Bryn Nelson is a freelance medical writer based in Seattle.

With much of the national discussion on healthcare policy still dominated by the Affordable Care Act, which was signed into law March 23, 2010, it’s easy to forget that the healthcare industry received a big influx of money through 2009’s federal stimulus. In all, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act gave the go-ahead for roughly $160 billion in new health-related spending. So where has that money gone, and did it achieve the Obama administration’s overall goal of stimulating the economy?

As with all economic matters, there’s no simple answer, and economists may never reach consensus. Nor has all the money yet been spent, although the vast majority is now spoken for. Nevertheless, several reports and policy experts have provided at least a glimpse of whether certain monies were indeed well spent. Here’s a look at some of the main areas of interest to HM, including funding meant to expand access to care, boost research funding, and increase medical infrastructure.

$98 Billion for Medicaid

By far the biggest chunk of healthcare money went to states to help shore up their Medicaid programs, in exchange for assurances that they would not tighten eligibility requirements. Another sizable fraction went to help unemployed people maintain their health insurance coverage through the government’s COBRA program by subsidizing 65% of their premiums. Those subsidies eventually increased to $34.3 billion through subsequent legislation, according to the U.S. Congress Joint Committee on Taxation.

Both types of spending provide assistance for lower-income people, and studies have broadly concluded that stimulus spending is more effective when directed at poorer people who are more likely to spend than save additional income. James Feyrer, PhD, associate professor of economics at Dartmouth College and a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research, says the stimulus’ support for low-income households yielded more than two dollars for every dollar spent.

The key question, Dr. Feyrer says, is whether government spending changes behavior. “Any money that you spend that doesn’t change anybody’s behavior isn’t going to have any stimulus effect,” he says. Because the extra Medicaid funds were contingent on states maintaining their eligibility rules, they had no choice but to spend the new money. That infusion theoretically put more cash into the pockets of the poor, increasing their own propensity to spend and delivering a boost to the economy.

But this funding model comes with a major caveat: Now that the stimulus money has run out, Dr. Feyrer says a reverse effect could take place. “The hope is that the economy will come roaring back in such a fashion that when you pull the stimulus away, it will be less painful,” he says.

That hasn’t happened, however, meaning that the loss of stimulus funds is proving particularly painful for cash-strapped states. Looming budget gaps in Medicaid and other programs for the poor could result in economic contraction. A similar effect could be in play now that COBRA subsidies have lapsed.

$22.6 Billion for Health IT

A meta-analysis by the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology concludes that HIT has had a predominantly positive effect on healthcare, mainly on quality and efficiency. In principle, most observers agree that electronic health records (EHRs) are good for medicine. In reality, however, critics say the stimulus’ huge cash incentive to get doctors and hospitals to demonstrate “meaningful use” of the technology has exposed a major weakness.

Maggie Mahar, a healthcare fellow at the Century Foundation in Washington, D.C., contends the funds should have been kept in reserve until experts could better advise doctors and hospitals about which systems would work best for their specific practices, with an eye toward ensuring that the records could be linked.

“Instead, you’ve got this sort of laissez-faire chaos of people out there selling stuff, some of which is good, some of which isn’t, to people who don’t know much about what they’re buying. And that has created real problems,” Mahar says. “Some places have very good EHR in place, up and running. Other places have bought stuff that they’d now like to throw out the window and have to replace.”

$2.8 Billion for Community Healthcare Services

SHM has long supported efforts to address the nation’s PCP shortage. In October, federal officials announced that they had made some headway on that front by nearly tripling the size of the National Health Service Corps. The loan-repayment and scholarship program grants $60,000 awards to providers in exchange for two-year commitments to medically underserved communities. In 2008, about 3,600 clinicians, mainly PCPs, were enrolled in the corps. This year, the number surpassed 10,000, boosted by $300 million in stimulus money and $1.5 billion from the ACA.

As a matter of healthcare policy, then, the program has arguably been a big success. From a purely economics angle, however, Dr. Feyrer suggests the program’s effect is likely to be more modest, because the award acts like a two-year salary boost for doctors who would likely still be employed, just somewhere else.

Conversely, infrastructure projects like the building of hospitals and community centers could have generated a fairly robust economic boost if they wouldn’t have been completed in the absence of stimulus money. A May 27 report by the Connecticut General Assembly’s Office of Legislature Research, “Health Care Centers and Providers as Economic Drivers,” attempted to quantify the return on stimulus-funded investments in the state.

Among its conclusions, the report found that roughly $11.4 million in improvement grants yielded an estimated economic impact of $18.6 million. Similarly, $16.2 million in funds to renovate existing health centers or increase space through construction of new or expanded services sites yielded an impact of $26.3 million.

$10 Billion to the NIH

A big chunk of the National Institutes of Health’s monies went toward highly rated research projects stuck in backlog. As Dr. Feyrer points out, such funding is less likely to have a short-term stimulus effect. For a quick economic shot in the arm, the main question is whether funds will help create jobs that otherwise would not have existed. Over the long haul, however, Feyrer agrees that increased medical research can yield economic rewards.

Similarly, Mahar says comparative effectiveness research (CER) could provide sizable long-term returns. “Every penny we’re spending on comparative effectiveness research should, down the road, pay off in a big way,” she says. Already, stimulus-funded studies are beginning to emerge from such efforts as a Seattle-based research consortium focused on objectively analyzing cancer diagnostic tools, screening tests, and treatments.

Such research is not without its detractors, who have criticized what they view as government intrusion into personal healthcare decisions. CER also produces winners and losers, making it more politically vulnerable. “No one wants to see their revenue stream cut, even if their overpriced device is no better than other devices,” Mahar says.

Bottom Line

So has healthcare-related stimulus spending really paid off? If early indicators seem mixed, future economic studies may provide more clarity—to a point. After all, Feyrer says, no economist can know what a world without a stimulus would have looked like, meaning the arguments won’t end anytime soon.

Bryn Nelson is a freelance medical writer based in Seattle.

With much of the national discussion on healthcare policy still dominated by the Affordable Care Act, which was signed into law March 23, 2010, it’s easy to forget that the healthcare industry received a big influx of money through 2009’s federal stimulus. In all, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act gave the go-ahead for roughly $160 billion in new health-related spending. So where has that money gone, and did it achieve the Obama administration’s overall goal of stimulating the economy?

As with all economic matters, there’s no simple answer, and economists may never reach consensus. Nor has all the money yet been spent, although the vast majority is now spoken for. Nevertheless, several reports and policy experts have provided at least a glimpse of whether certain monies were indeed well spent. Here’s a look at some of the main areas of interest to HM, including funding meant to expand access to care, boost research funding, and increase medical infrastructure.

$98 Billion for Medicaid

By far the biggest chunk of healthcare money went to states to help shore up their Medicaid programs, in exchange for assurances that they would not tighten eligibility requirements. Another sizable fraction went to help unemployed people maintain their health insurance coverage through the government’s COBRA program by subsidizing 65% of their premiums. Those subsidies eventually increased to $34.3 billion through subsequent legislation, according to the U.S. Congress Joint Committee on Taxation.

Both types of spending provide assistance for lower-income people, and studies have broadly concluded that stimulus spending is more effective when directed at poorer people who are more likely to spend than save additional income. James Feyrer, PhD, associate professor of economics at Dartmouth College and a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research, says the stimulus’ support for low-income households yielded more than two dollars for every dollar spent.

The key question, Dr. Feyrer says, is whether government spending changes behavior. “Any money that you spend that doesn’t change anybody’s behavior isn’t going to have any stimulus effect,” he says. Because the extra Medicaid funds were contingent on states maintaining their eligibility rules, they had no choice but to spend the new money. That infusion theoretically put more cash into the pockets of the poor, increasing their own propensity to spend and delivering a boost to the economy.

But this funding model comes with a major caveat: Now that the stimulus money has run out, Dr. Feyrer says a reverse effect could take place. “The hope is that the economy will come roaring back in such a fashion that when you pull the stimulus away, it will be less painful,” he says.

That hasn’t happened, however, meaning that the loss of stimulus funds is proving particularly painful for cash-strapped states. Looming budget gaps in Medicaid and other programs for the poor could result in economic contraction. A similar effect could be in play now that COBRA subsidies have lapsed.

$22.6 Billion for Health IT

A meta-analysis by the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology concludes that HIT has had a predominantly positive effect on healthcare, mainly on quality and efficiency. In principle, most observers agree that electronic health records (EHRs) are good for medicine. In reality, however, critics say the stimulus’ huge cash incentive to get doctors and hospitals to demonstrate “meaningful use” of the technology has exposed a major weakness.

Maggie Mahar, a healthcare fellow at the Century Foundation in Washington, D.C., contends the funds should have been kept in reserve until experts could better advise doctors and hospitals about which systems would work best for their specific practices, with an eye toward ensuring that the records could be linked.

“Instead, you’ve got this sort of laissez-faire chaos of people out there selling stuff, some of which is good, some of which isn’t, to people who don’t know much about what they’re buying. And that has created real problems,” Mahar says. “Some places have very good EHR in place, up and running. Other places have bought stuff that they’d now like to throw out the window and have to replace.”

$2.8 Billion for Community Healthcare Services

SHM has long supported efforts to address the nation’s PCP shortage. In October, federal officials announced that they had made some headway on that front by nearly tripling the size of the National Health Service Corps. The loan-repayment and scholarship program grants $60,000 awards to providers in exchange for two-year commitments to medically underserved communities. In 2008, about 3,600 clinicians, mainly PCPs, were enrolled in the corps. This year, the number surpassed 10,000, boosted by $300 million in stimulus money and $1.5 billion from the ACA.

As a matter of healthcare policy, then, the program has arguably been a big success. From a purely economics angle, however, Dr. Feyrer suggests the program’s effect is likely to be more modest, because the award acts like a two-year salary boost for doctors who would likely still be employed, just somewhere else.

Conversely, infrastructure projects like the building of hospitals and community centers could have generated a fairly robust economic boost if they wouldn’t have been completed in the absence of stimulus money. A May 27 report by the Connecticut General Assembly’s Office of Legislature Research, “Health Care Centers and Providers as Economic Drivers,” attempted to quantify the return on stimulus-funded investments in the state.

Among its conclusions, the report found that roughly $11.4 million in improvement grants yielded an estimated economic impact of $18.6 million. Similarly, $16.2 million in funds to renovate existing health centers or increase space through construction of new or expanded services sites yielded an impact of $26.3 million.

$10 Billion to the NIH

A big chunk of the National Institutes of Health’s monies went toward highly rated research projects stuck in backlog. As Dr. Feyrer points out, such funding is less likely to have a short-term stimulus effect. For a quick economic shot in the arm, the main question is whether funds will help create jobs that otherwise would not have existed. Over the long haul, however, Feyrer agrees that increased medical research can yield economic rewards.

Similarly, Mahar says comparative effectiveness research (CER) could provide sizable long-term returns. “Every penny we’re spending on comparative effectiveness research should, down the road, pay off in a big way,” she says. Already, stimulus-funded studies are beginning to emerge from such efforts as a Seattle-based research consortium focused on objectively analyzing cancer diagnostic tools, screening tests, and treatments.

Such research is not without its detractors, who have criticized what they view as government intrusion into personal healthcare decisions. CER also produces winners and losers, making it more politically vulnerable. “No one wants to see their revenue stream cut, even if their overpriced device is no better than other devices,” Mahar says.

Bottom Line

So has healthcare-related stimulus spending really paid off? If early indicators seem mixed, future economic studies may provide more clarity—to a point. After all, Feyrer says, no economist can know what a world without a stimulus would have looked like, meaning the arguments won’t end anytime soon.

Bryn Nelson is a freelance medical writer based in Seattle.

Hospitalists need only look at their inboxes to see the demand they command. Messages beckon from recruiters, professional acquaintances, even prospective employers, pitching job openings as the next big gig. The constant barrage of opportunities can leave hospitalists wondering if there really is something better out there, and if they’re getting the most out of their current jobs.

One way to answer these types of questions is to conduct a formal career assessment, which inventories what is working and what isn’t working in a career and examines how a career fits into a person’s overall life at that point in time, says Cezanne Allen, MD, a certified physician development coach based in Bainbridge Island, Wash.

“Any time a hospitalist finds themselves in a situation where they are dissatisfied or unhappy in their job, they’re not feeling that their current job is very rewarding, or maybe they have career goals they don’t feel they are achieving yet, that would be a good time to do a career assessment,” says Leslie Flores, MHA, a partner at Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants. “Sometimes you just have to step back and say, ‘What do I really want and is this going to get me there, and if not, what do I need to do about it?’”

You’ve Got Personality

Career assessments are as unique as the person conducting them, but there are some elements that hospitalists should consider. A behavioral profile or personality test is extremely helpful for physicians in understanding what their natural “hard-wiring” is when it comes to learning, problem-solving, and communication, says Francine Gaillour, MD, FACPE, MBA, executive director of the Physician Coaching Institute in Bellevue, Wash., which links doctors and healthcare teams with certified career coaches.

A number of personality tests are available for physicians (see “What’s My Personality?,” at right), but a career expert can help interpret the results and best use the information. Along with behavioral style and personality traits, hospitalists should consider their strengths and weaknesses, skills, interests, and criteria for the right job, Flores says. This introspection falls within a career assessment’s self-awareness component, she explains.

Hospitalists can add a situation component, in which they examine their current job and what “can” and “can’t” be changed, or an options component, in which they evaluate staying in the same organization versus leaving, Flores says.

If a physician is dissatisfied with their job, they should seek out the source of their frustration, Dr. Allen says. For example, is it the quality of work, workload, types of patients, patient interaction, practice development, medical knowledge limitations, lack of enjoyment, staff support, reimbursement, or work environment?

“It’s asking myself where I see the problem and then following it up with, ‘What does that tell me about what I really want?’” Dr. Allen says.

A mentor, who can provide objective and critical insight, can help in the assessment process, says Thomas Frederickson, MD, MBA, FACP, FHM, medical director of hospital medicine service at Alegent Health in Omaha, Neb. “There are often mentors within your group who have developed skills and expertise, and have learned to do different things in their careers that you might find exciting,” he explains.

Hospitalists should consult at least one “blind-spot buddy”—be it a mentor, colleague, or some other person—who can pinpoint their weaknesses, Flores says. “It’s somebody who knows you in your work world, who is close enough to be able to observe how you’re functioning in your work world, who can give you good feedback, and who cares enough about you to give you honest feedback, even when it’s not something you want to hear,” she says.

SHM can be a resource for hospitalists to find ways and people to help them assess their careers, say Dr. Frederickson.

“The Society of Hospital Medicine and their annual meetings and chapter meetings are a great place to do networking and a good place to find out different ways and different people you can align yourself with to start looking at your career in an objective way and a critical way,” he says.

Career coaches can be a good option, particularly for hospitalists who are struggling with significant change. Coaches do more than assist with resumes and interview strategies, says Dr. Gaillour. They help people align their careers with their values, strengths, passions, and goals so that they reach their full potential as a professional and a person, she says.

Coaches also advise on how to strategically plan a career and help physicians build career resilience.

“By resilience, I mean that there is always going to be some relevance to what you’re doing and you’re going to be able to weather some of the [healthcare] changes,” Dr. Gaillour says. “With a lot of physician groups and hospitals coming together and the stress of new initiatives, mergers, integrations, electronic medical records, and accountable-care organizations, all of that has a direct impact on physicians.”

The Time Is Right

Recommendations vary on how often career assessments should be conducted. Flores suggests hospitalists conduct a career checkup every two to three years “to see if they’re still on track and if their interests and goals have changed.”

Two years ago, William Atchley Jr., MD, FACP, SFHM, assessed his career while chief of the division of hospital medicine for Sentara Healthcare, a nonprofit healthcare system based in Norfolk, Va. The assessment was illuminating, he says, because it helped him to crystallize his strengths and weaknesses and determine “what I wanted to be doing,” he says.

In July, Dr. Atchley joined Atlanta-based Eagle Hospital Physicians, a physician-led company that develops and manages hospitalist practices for client hospitals. He is now regional senior medical director and is overseeing clinical services and medical affairs in South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia.

The more often physicians examine their career, the better they become at understanding themselves and using that understanding to their advantage, Dr. Gaillour says, who advocates annual assessments. Others suggest a daily dose of assessment.

“Daily, a physician can create a ritual to just check in with themselves, have a space where they can ask themselves questions of what went well today, what do I want more of, if there are complaints that are arising,” Dr. Allen says. “It’s an important way of preventing ourselves from getting in a place where we are really dissatisfied.”

Lisa Ryan is a freelance writer based in New Jersey.

Hospitalists need only look at their inboxes to see the demand they command. Messages beckon from recruiters, professional acquaintances, even prospective employers, pitching job openings as the next big gig. The constant barrage of opportunities can leave hospitalists wondering if there really is something better out there, and if they’re getting the most out of their current jobs.

One way to answer these types of questions is to conduct a formal career assessment, which inventories what is working and what isn’t working in a career and examines how a career fits into a person’s overall life at that point in time, says Cezanne Allen, MD, a certified physician development coach based in Bainbridge Island, Wash.

“Any time a hospitalist finds themselves in a situation where they are dissatisfied or unhappy in their job, they’re not feeling that their current job is very rewarding, or maybe they have career goals they don’t feel they are achieving yet, that would be a good time to do a career assessment,” says Leslie Flores, MHA, a partner at Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants. “Sometimes you just have to step back and say, ‘What do I really want and is this going to get me there, and if not, what do I need to do about it?’”

You’ve Got Personality

Career assessments are as unique as the person conducting them, but there are some elements that hospitalists should consider. A behavioral profile or personality test is extremely helpful for physicians in understanding what their natural “hard-wiring” is when it comes to learning, problem-solving, and communication, says Francine Gaillour, MD, FACPE, MBA, executive director of the Physician Coaching Institute in Bellevue, Wash., which links doctors and healthcare teams with certified career coaches.

A number of personality tests are available for physicians (see “What’s My Personality?,” at right), but a career expert can help interpret the results and best use the information. Along with behavioral style and personality traits, hospitalists should consider their strengths and weaknesses, skills, interests, and criteria for the right job, Flores says. This introspection falls within a career assessment’s self-awareness component, she explains.

Hospitalists can add a situation component, in which they examine their current job and what “can” and “can’t” be changed, or an options component, in which they evaluate staying in the same organization versus leaving, Flores says.

If a physician is dissatisfied with their job, they should seek out the source of their frustration, Dr. Allen says. For example, is it the quality of work, workload, types of patients, patient interaction, practice development, medical knowledge limitations, lack of enjoyment, staff support, reimbursement, or work environment?

“It’s asking myself where I see the problem and then following it up with, ‘What does that tell me about what I really want?’” Dr. Allen says.

A mentor, who can provide objective and critical insight, can help in the assessment process, says Thomas Frederickson, MD, MBA, FACP, FHM, medical director of hospital medicine service at Alegent Health in Omaha, Neb. “There are often mentors within your group who have developed skills and expertise, and have learned to do different things in their careers that you might find exciting,” he explains.

Hospitalists should consult at least one “blind-spot buddy”—be it a mentor, colleague, or some other person—who can pinpoint their weaknesses, Flores says. “It’s somebody who knows you in your work world, who is close enough to be able to observe how you’re functioning in your work world, who can give you good feedback, and who cares enough about you to give you honest feedback, even when it’s not something you want to hear,” she says.

SHM can be a resource for hospitalists to find ways and people to help them assess their careers, say Dr. Frederickson.

“The Society of Hospital Medicine and their annual meetings and chapter meetings are a great place to do networking and a good place to find out different ways and different people you can align yourself with to start looking at your career in an objective way and a critical way,” he says.

Career coaches can be a good option, particularly for hospitalists who are struggling with significant change. Coaches do more than assist with resumes and interview strategies, says Dr. Gaillour. They help people align their careers with their values, strengths, passions, and goals so that they reach their full potential as a professional and a person, she says.

Coaches also advise on how to strategically plan a career and help physicians build career resilience.

“By resilience, I mean that there is always going to be some relevance to what you’re doing and you’re going to be able to weather some of the [healthcare] changes,” Dr. Gaillour says. “With a lot of physician groups and hospitals coming together and the stress of new initiatives, mergers, integrations, electronic medical records, and accountable-care organizations, all of that has a direct impact on physicians.”

The Time Is Right

Recommendations vary on how often career assessments should be conducted. Flores suggests hospitalists conduct a career checkup every two to three years “to see if they’re still on track and if their interests and goals have changed.”

Two years ago, William Atchley Jr., MD, FACP, SFHM, assessed his career while chief of the division of hospital medicine for Sentara Healthcare, a nonprofit healthcare system based in Norfolk, Va. The assessment was illuminating, he says, because it helped him to crystallize his strengths and weaknesses and determine “what I wanted to be doing,” he says.

In July, Dr. Atchley joined Atlanta-based Eagle Hospital Physicians, a physician-led company that develops and manages hospitalist practices for client hospitals. He is now regional senior medical director and is overseeing clinical services and medical affairs in South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia.

The more often physicians examine their career, the better they become at understanding themselves and using that understanding to their advantage, Dr. Gaillour says, who advocates annual assessments. Others suggest a daily dose of assessment.

“Daily, a physician can create a ritual to just check in with themselves, have a space where they can ask themselves questions of what went well today, what do I want more of, if there are complaints that are arising,” Dr. Allen says. “It’s an important way of preventing ourselves from getting in a place where we are really dissatisfied.”

Lisa Ryan is a freelance writer based in New Jersey.

Hospitalists need only look at their inboxes to see the demand they command. Messages beckon from recruiters, professional acquaintances, even prospective employers, pitching job openings as the next big gig. The constant barrage of opportunities can leave hospitalists wondering if there really is something better out there, and if they’re getting the most out of their current jobs.

One way to answer these types of questions is to conduct a formal career assessment, which inventories what is working and what isn’t working in a career and examines how a career fits into a person’s overall life at that point in time, says Cezanne Allen, MD, a certified physician development coach based in Bainbridge Island, Wash.

“Any time a hospitalist finds themselves in a situation where they are dissatisfied or unhappy in their job, they’re not feeling that their current job is very rewarding, or maybe they have career goals they don’t feel they are achieving yet, that would be a good time to do a career assessment,” says Leslie Flores, MHA, a partner at Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants. “Sometimes you just have to step back and say, ‘What do I really want and is this going to get me there, and if not, what do I need to do about it?’”

You’ve Got Personality

Career assessments are as unique as the person conducting them, but there are some elements that hospitalists should consider. A behavioral profile or personality test is extremely helpful for physicians in understanding what their natural “hard-wiring” is when it comes to learning, problem-solving, and communication, says Francine Gaillour, MD, FACPE, MBA, executive director of the Physician Coaching Institute in Bellevue, Wash., which links doctors and healthcare teams with certified career coaches.

A number of personality tests are available for physicians (see “What’s My Personality?,” at right), but a career expert can help interpret the results and best use the information. Along with behavioral style and personality traits, hospitalists should consider their strengths and weaknesses, skills, interests, and criteria for the right job, Flores says. This introspection falls within a career assessment’s self-awareness component, she explains.

Hospitalists can add a situation component, in which they examine their current job and what “can” and “can’t” be changed, or an options component, in which they evaluate staying in the same organization versus leaving, Flores says.

If a physician is dissatisfied with their job, they should seek out the source of their frustration, Dr. Allen says. For example, is it the quality of work, workload, types of patients, patient interaction, practice development, medical knowledge limitations, lack of enjoyment, staff support, reimbursement, or work environment?

“It’s asking myself where I see the problem and then following it up with, ‘What does that tell me about what I really want?’” Dr. Allen says.

A mentor, who can provide objective and critical insight, can help in the assessment process, says Thomas Frederickson, MD, MBA, FACP, FHM, medical director of hospital medicine service at Alegent Health in Omaha, Neb. “There are often mentors within your group who have developed skills and expertise, and have learned to do different things in their careers that you might find exciting,” he explains.

Hospitalists should consult at least one “blind-spot buddy”—be it a mentor, colleague, or some other person—who can pinpoint their weaknesses, Flores says. “It’s somebody who knows you in your work world, who is close enough to be able to observe how you’re functioning in your work world, who can give you good feedback, and who cares enough about you to give you honest feedback, even when it’s not something you want to hear,” she says.

SHM can be a resource for hospitalists to find ways and people to help them assess their careers, say Dr. Frederickson.

“The Society of Hospital Medicine and their annual meetings and chapter meetings are a great place to do networking and a good place to find out different ways and different people you can align yourself with to start looking at your career in an objective way and a critical way,” he says.

Career coaches can be a good option, particularly for hospitalists who are struggling with significant change. Coaches do more than assist with resumes and interview strategies, says Dr. Gaillour. They help people align their careers with their values, strengths, passions, and goals so that they reach their full potential as a professional and a person, she says.

Coaches also advise on how to strategically plan a career and help physicians build career resilience.

“By resilience, I mean that there is always going to be some relevance to what you’re doing and you’re going to be able to weather some of the [healthcare] changes,” Dr. Gaillour says. “With a lot of physician groups and hospitals coming together and the stress of new initiatives, mergers, integrations, electronic medical records, and accountable-care organizations, all of that has a direct impact on physicians.”

The Time Is Right

Recommendations vary on how often career assessments should be conducted. Flores suggests hospitalists conduct a career checkup every two to three years “to see if they’re still on track and if their interests and goals have changed.”

Two years ago, William Atchley Jr., MD, FACP, SFHM, assessed his career while chief of the division of hospital medicine for Sentara Healthcare, a nonprofit healthcare system based in Norfolk, Va. The assessment was illuminating, he says, because it helped him to crystallize his strengths and weaknesses and determine “what I wanted to be doing,” he says.

In July, Dr. Atchley joined Atlanta-based Eagle Hospital Physicians, a physician-led company that develops and manages hospitalist practices for client hospitals. He is now regional senior medical director and is overseeing clinical services and medical affairs in South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia.

The more often physicians examine their career, the better they become at understanding themselves and using that understanding to their advantage, Dr. Gaillour says, who advocates annual assessments. Others suggest a daily dose of assessment.

“Daily, a physician can create a ritual to just check in with themselves, have a space where they can ask themselves questions of what went well today, what do I want more of, if there are complaints that are arising,” Dr. Allen says. “It’s an important way of preventing ourselves from getting in a place where we are really dissatisfied.”

Lisa Ryan is a freelance writer based in New Jersey.

The newest Dartmouth Atlas report, released Sept. 28, documents striking variation in 30-day hospital readmission rates for Medicare patients across 308 hospital-referral regions.¹ The authors found little progress in decreasing 30-day readmissions from 2004 to 2009, while for some conditions and many regions, rates actually went up.

National readmission rates following surgery were 12.7% in both 2004 and 2009; readmissions for medical conditions rose slightly, from 15.9% to 16.1%, over the same period. Only 42% of hospitalized Medicare patients discharged to home had a PCP contact within 14 days of discharge, according to the report.

The Dartmouth Atlas Project (www.dartmouthatlas.org) documents geographic variation in healthcare utilization unrelated to outcome. It offers an extensive database for comparison by state, county, region and facility.

The new report is the first to identify an association nationally between readmissions rates and “the overall intensity of inpatient care provided to patients within a region or hospital,” with patterns of relatively high hospital utilization often corresponding with areas of higher readmissions. “Other patients are readmitted simply because they live in a locale where the hospital is used more frequently as a site of care,” the authors note.

Without continuous, high-quality care coordination across sites, the authors write, discharged patients can repeatedly bounce back to emergency rooms and hospitals.

Reference

1. Goodman, DC, Fisher ES, Chang C. After Hospitalization: A Dartmouth Atlas Report on Post-Acute Care for Medicare Beneficiaries. Dartmouth Atlas website. Available at: www.dartmouthatlas.org/downloads/reports/Post_discharge_events_092811.pdf. Accessed Oct. 15, 2011.

The newest Dartmouth Atlas report, released Sept. 28, documents striking variation in 30-day hospital readmission rates for Medicare patients across 308 hospital-referral regions.¹ The authors found little progress in decreasing 30-day readmissions from 2004 to 2009, while for some conditions and many regions, rates actually went up.

National readmission rates following surgery were 12.7% in both 2004 and 2009; readmissions for medical conditions rose slightly, from 15.9% to 16.1%, over the same period. Only 42% of hospitalized Medicare patients discharged to home had a PCP contact within 14 days of discharge, according to the report.

The Dartmouth Atlas Project (www.dartmouthatlas.org) documents geographic variation in healthcare utilization unrelated to outcome. It offers an extensive database for comparison by state, county, region and facility.

The new report is the first to identify an association nationally between readmissions rates and “the overall intensity of inpatient care provided to patients within a region or hospital,” with patterns of relatively high hospital utilization often corresponding with areas of higher readmissions. “Other patients are readmitted simply because they live in a locale where the hospital is used more frequently as a site of care,” the authors note.

Without continuous, high-quality care coordination across sites, the authors write, discharged patients can repeatedly bounce back to emergency rooms and hospitals.

Reference

1. Goodman, DC, Fisher ES, Chang C. After Hospitalization: A Dartmouth Atlas Report on Post-Acute Care for Medicare Beneficiaries. Dartmouth Atlas website. Available at: www.dartmouthatlas.org/downloads/reports/Post_discharge_events_092811.pdf. Accessed Oct. 15, 2011.

The newest Dartmouth Atlas report, released Sept. 28, documents striking variation in 30-day hospital readmission rates for Medicare patients across 308 hospital-referral regions.¹ The authors found little progress in decreasing 30-day readmissions from 2004 to 2009, while for some conditions and many regions, rates actually went up.

National readmission rates following surgery were 12.7% in both 2004 and 2009; readmissions for medical conditions rose slightly, from 15.9% to 16.1%, over the same period. Only 42% of hospitalized Medicare patients discharged to home had a PCP contact within 14 days of discharge, according to the report.

The Dartmouth Atlas Project (www.dartmouthatlas.org) documents geographic variation in healthcare utilization unrelated to outcome. It offers an extensive database for comparison by state, county, region and facility.

The new report is the first to identify an association nationally between readmissions rates and “the overall intensity of inpatient care provided to patients within a region or hospital,” with patterns of relatively high hospital utilization often corresponding with areas of higher readmissions. “Other patients are readmitted simply because they live in a locale where the hospital is used more frequently as a site of care,” the authors note.

Without continuous, high-quality care coordination across sites, the authors write, discharged patients can repeatedly bounce back to emergency rooms and hospitals.

Reference

1. Goodman, DC, Fisher ES, Chang C. After Hospitalization: A Dartmouth Atlas Report on Post-Acute Care for Medicare Beneficiaries. Dartmouth Atlas website. Available at: www.dartmouthatlas.org/downloads/reports/Post_discharge_events_092811.pdf. Accessed Oct. 15, 2011.

A company pitching a new bacteria-resistant line of hospital linens is studying just how effective their product can be in the hospital setting.

PurThread Technologies Inc. is working with the University of Iowa on a second privacy curtain study that the company expects will show that their line of curtains, scrubs, doctor’s coats, bed linens, and patient gowns will help hospitalists and other inpatient physicians reduce the amount of bacteria they come into contact with. The research is the next step following a study presented at the Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy meeting in September, which showed 92% of hospital privacy curtains were contaminated with potentially pathogenic bacteria, such as MRSA and VRE (vancomyicn-resistant enterococcus), within a week of being laundered.

The study was funded by PurThread and performed at the University of Iowa Hospital in Iowa City.

PurThread president and CEO Kathryn Bowsher says the company aims to take its first orders this year, thanks to a novel alloy it has woven into the fabrics it uses. As hospitals struggle to reach full compliance with hand hygiene and other safety measures, Bowsher believes her textiles are an easy answer.

“It’s always easier to re-engineer the system than it is to modify human behavior,” she adds. “And this would essentially be a plug-and-play solution. You stick these on the shelves and in the inventory of the hospital, instead of the traditional ones, and nobody has to think of it after that.”

A company pitching a new bacteria-resistant line of hospital linens is studying just how effective their product can be in the hospital setting.

PurThread Technologies Inc. is working with the University of Iowa on a second privacy curtain study that the company expects will show that their line of curtains, scrubs, doctor’s coats, bed linens, and patient gowns will help hospitalists and other inpatient physicians reduce the amount of bacteria they come into contact with. The research is the next step following a study presented at the Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy meeting in September, which showed 92% of hospital privacy curtains were contaminated with potentially pathogenic bacteria, such as MRSA and VRE (vancomyicn-resistant enterococcus), within a week of being laundered.

The study was funded by PurThread and performed at the University of Iowa Hospital in Iowa City.

PurThread president and CEO Kathryn Bowsher says the company aims to take its first orders this year, thanks to a novel alloy it has woven into the fabrics it uses. As hospitals struggle to reach full compliance with hand hygiene and other safety measures, Bowsher believes her textiles are an easy answer.

“It’s always easier to re-engineer the system than it is to modify human behavior,” she adds. “And this would essentially be a plug-and-play solution. You stick these on the shelves and in the inventory of the hospital, instead of the traditional ones, and nobody has to think of it after that.”

A company pitching a new bacteria-resistant line of hospital linens is studying just how effective their product can be in the hospital setting.

PurThread Technologies Inc. is working with the University of Iowa on a second privacy curtain study that the company expects will show that their line of curtains, scrubs, doctor’s coats, bed linens, and patient gowns will help hospitalists and other inpatient physicians reduce the amount of bacteria they come into contact with. The research is the next step following a study presented at the Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy meeting in September, which showed 92% of hospital privacy curtains were contaminated with potentially pathogenic bacteria, such as MRSA and VRE (vancomyicn-resistant enterococcus), within a week of being laundered.

The study was funded by PurThread and performed at the University of Iowa Hospital in Iowa City.

PurThread president and CEO Kathryn Bowsher says the company aims to take its first orders this year, thanks to a novel alloy it has woven into the fabrics it uses. As hospitals struggle to reach full compliance with hand hygiene and other safety measures, Bowsher believes her textiles are an easy answer.

“It’s always easier to re-engineer the system than it is to modify human behavior,” she adds. “And this would essentially be a plug-and-play solution. You stick these on the shelves and in the inventory of the hospital, instead of the traditional ones, and nobody has to think of it after that.”

An automated email system that notifies both hospitalists and PCPs about post-discharge test results can help ensure results don’t “fall through the cracks,” according to an abstract presented at HM11.

The report, “Design and Implementation of an Automated Email Notification System for Results of Tests Pending at Discharge,” suggests that by providing an automatic email when results are completed, inpatient physicians will be more responsible for the patient, and create a dialogue with primary-care physicians (PCPs) as well. The authors estimate that physicians are aware of 40% of the final results of tests pending at discharge.

“Things fall through the cracks,” says Anuj Dalal, MD, FHM, a hospitalist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “This is a method to make sure these test results don’t fall through the cracks.”

Dr. Dalal’s team created the automatic emails across five services—chemistry, hematology, microbiology, pathology, and radiology—in the past two years. Preliminary data show that the system helps ensure physicians are aware of more test results, but additional research is needed.

Still, Dr. Dalal believes creating an email system at a given institution helps if only by drawing attention to the issue of pending results once a patient has left the hospital. And even if the implementation of the system at a less-wired hospital is difficult, the omnipresence of email should help with adopting.

“Everyone has email today,” he adds.

An automated email system that notifies both hospitalists and PCPs about post-discharge test results can help ensure results don’t “fall through the cracks,” according to an abstract presented at HM11.

The report, “Design and Implementation of an Automated Email Notification System for Results of Tests Pending at Discharge,” suggests that by providing an automatic email when results are completed, inpatient physicians will be more responsible for the patient, and create a dialogue with primary-care physicians (PCPs) as well. The authors estimate that physicians are aware of 40% of the final results of tests pending at discharge.

“Things fall through the cracks,” says Anuj Dalal, MD, FHM, a hospitalist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “This is a method to make sure these test results don’t fall through the cracks.”

Dr. Dalal’s team created the automatic emails across five services—chemistry, hematology, microbiology, pathology, and radiology—in the past two years. Preliminary data show that the system helps ensure physicians are aware of more test results, but additional research is needed.

Still, Dr. Dalal believes creating an email system at a given institution helps if only by drawing attention to the issue of pending results once a patient has left the hospital. And even if the implementation of the system at a less-wired hospital is difficult, the omnipresence of email should help with adopting.

“Everyone has email today,” he adds.

An automated email system that notifies both hospitalists and PCPs about post-discharge test results can help ensure results don’t “fall through the cracks,” according to an abstract presented at HM11.

The report, “Design and Implementation of an Automated Email Notification System for Results of Tests Pending at Discharge,” suggests that by providing an automatic email when results are completed, inpatient physicians will be more responsible for the patient, and create a dialogue with primary-care physicians (PCPs) as well. The authors estimate that physicians are aware of 40% of the final results of tests pending at discharge.

“Things fall through the cracks,” says Anuj Dalal, MD, FHM, a hospitalist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “This is a method to make sure these test results don’t fall through the cracks.”

Dr. Dalal’s team created the automatic emails across five services—chemistry, hematology, microbiology, pathology, and radiology—in the past two years. Preliminary data show that the system helps ensure physicians are aware of more test results, but additional research is needed.

Still, Dr. Dalal believes creating an email system at a given institution helps if only by drawing attention to the issue of pending results once a patient has left the hospital. And even if the implementation of the system at a less-wired hospital is difficult, the omnipresence of email should help with adopting.

“Everyone has email today,” he adds.

Clinical informatics, the principle of blending health information technology (HIT) with patient care, is going mainstream. The subspecialty, popular in hospitalist circles, is scheduled to offer board certification following its recent approval by the American Board of Medical Specialties. The first examination will be administered by the American Board of Preventative Medicine and could be held as early as fall 2012, with certificates awarded early in 2013.

AMIA, the informatics trade group, believes the recognition will help push more medical schools to integrate informatics into the curriculum, which will only further solidify the subspecialty place in modern medicine.

Clinical informatics, the principle of blending health information technology (HIT) with patient care, is going mainstream. The subspecialty, popular in hospitalist circles, is scheduled to offer board certification following its recent approval by the American Board of Medical Specialties. The first examination will be administered by the American Board of Preventative Medicine and could be held as early as fall 2012, with certificates awarded early in 2013.

AMIA, the informatics trade group, believes the recognition will help push more medical schools to integrate informatics into the curriculum, which will only further solidify the subspecialty place in modern medicine.

Clinical informatics, the principle of blending health information technology (HIT) with patient care, is going mainstream. The subspecialty, popular in hospitalist circles, is scheduled to offer board certification following its recent approval by the American Board of Medical Specialties. The first examination will be administered by the American Board of Preventative Medicine and could be held as early as fall 2012, with certificates awarded early in 2013.

AMIA, the informatics trade group, believes the recognition will help push more medical schools to integrate informatics into the curriculum, which will only further solidify the subspecialty place in modern medicine.

Projected total number of adult in-hospital cardiac arrests that are treated with a resuscitation response each year in U.S. hospitals.¹ Raina Merchant, MD, and colleagues from the University of Pennsylvania Health System derived several estimates from the American Heart Association’s Get with the Guidelines-Resuscitation registry for 2003 to 2007, weighted for total U.S. hospital bed days. Survival rate for in-hospital cardiac arrests is 21%, compared with 10% for arrests in other settings. But the authors note that arrests might be rising, which is “important for understanding the burden of in-hospital cardiac arrest and developing strategies to improve care for hospitalized patients,” Dr. Merchant says.

Reference

1. Merchant RM, Yang L, Becker LB, et al. Incidence of treated cardiac arrest in hospitalized patients in the United States. Crit Care Med. 2011;39(11):2401-2406.

Projected total number of adult in-hospital cardiac arrests that are treated with a resuscitation response each year in U.S. hospitals.¹ Raina Merchant, MD, and colleagues from the University of Pennsylvania Health System derived several estimates from the American Heart Association’s Get with the Guidelines-Resuscitation registry for 2003 to 2007, weighted for total U.S. hospital bed days. Survival rate for in-hospital cardiac arrests is 21%, compared with 10% for arrests in other settings. But the authors note that arrests might be rising, which is “important for understanding the burden of in-hospital cardiac arrest and developing strategies to improve care for hospitalized patients,” Dr. Merchant says.

Reference

1. Merchant RM, Yang L, Becker LB, et al. Incidence of treated cardiac arrest in hospitalized patients in the United States. Crit Care Med. 2011;39(11):2401-2406.

Projected total number of adult in-hospital cardiac arrests that are treated with a resuscitation response each year in U.S. hospitals.¹ Raina Merchant, MD, and colleagues from the University of Pennsylvania Health System derived several estimates from the American Heart Association’s Get with the Guidelines-Resuscitation registry for 2003 to 2007, weighted for total U.S. hospital bed days. Survival rate for in-hospital cardiac arrests is 21%, compared with 10% for arrests in other settings. But the authors note that arrests might be rising, which is “important for understanding the burden of in-hospital cardiac arrest and developing strategies to improve care for hospitalized patients,” Dr. Merchant says.

Reference

1. Merchant RM, Yang L, Becker LB, et al. Incidence of treated cardiac arrest in hospitalized patients in the United States. Crit Care Med. 2011;39(11):2401-2406.

It’s been nearly two decades since I graduated from medical school. I think back and I honestly do not remember any lectures about transitions of care.

During residency, I remember some attending physicians would insist that when I discharged patients from the hospital, the patients had to leave with post-discharge appointments in hand. Like any diligent intern, I did as I was told. I telephoned the administrative assistants in clinic and booked follow-up appointments for my patients. I always asked for the first available appointment. Why? Because that was what my senior resident told me to do. I suspect he learned that from his resident as well.

Sometimes the appointment was scheduled for the week following discharge; other times it was six months later. I honestly didn’t give it much thought. There was a blank on the discharge paperwork and I filled it in with a date and time. I was doing my job—or so I thought.

Can you imagine if someone just gave you a slip of paper today telling you when to show up to get your teeth cleaned without consulting your schedule? How about scheduling the oil change for your car at a garage 100 miles away? Seems pretty silly, doesn’t it? Nothing about it seems customer-centric or cost-efficient.

With such a system in place, why are we surprised when patients do not show up for their follow-up appointments? When the patient presents to the ED later and is readmitted to the hospital, we label them as “non-compliant” because they failed to show up for their follow-up appointment.

Inefficient, Ineffective, Inappropriate

There are multiple problems with the above situation. The first problem: Why are doctors calling to schedule follow-up appointments in the first place? Do we ask airline pilots to serve refreshments? I suppose they could, but I’d rather they concentrate on flying the plane. It also seems like an awful waste of money and resources when we could accomplish the same feat with less-expensive airline attendants who are better trained to interact with passengers.

At most teaching hospitals across the country, I suspect we still rely on trainees to book follow-up appointments for patients. At hospitals without trainees, I suspect some of this responsibility falls on nurses and unit coordinators. Again, I wonder how often these people are actually in a position to schedule an appointment that the patient is likely to keep—or whether they are filling in a box on a checklist like I used to do.

Common Problem?

How do other industries address this issue? Well, many utilize customer service representatives to help consumers book their appointments. Some industries have advanced software, which allows consumers to book their own appointment online. I have to tell you that I am chuckling as I write this. I’m chuckling not because this is funny—I am just amazed that something that is so common sense is not utilized consistently across the hospital industry. When was the last time you actually called a hotel to book a room? Most of us find it so much more convenient to book airline tickets or hotel rooms online.

If we were to create a system with the consumer’s satisfaction and cost in mind, would you rely on trainees, nurses, or unit coordinators to book follow-up appointments? I suppose Hypothetical System 2.0 would include consumer representatives speaking with patients to book appointments. Hypothetical System 3.0 would allow patients and/or a family member to book the appointment online.

I can tell you that folks at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, where I work, have given this some thought. We are nowhere near a 3.0 version, but we do rely on professional appointment-makers to work with our hospitalized patients to book follow-up appointments. Inpatient providers put in the order online requesting follow-up appointments for their hospitalized patients. The online application asks the provider to specify the requests. Does the patient need follow-up with specialists, as well as their primary outpatient provider? The inpatient provider can specify the window of time in which they recommend follow-up for the patient. If I want my patient to follow up with their primary-care physician (PCP) within one week and with their cardiologist within two weeks, the appointment-maker will work with the patient and the respective doctors’ offices to make this happen. I am contacted only if any issues arise.

All of this information is provided to the patient with their other discharge paperwork. Some of you might be asking: How can the hospital afford to pay for this software and for the cadre of professional appointment-makers? I am wondering how hospitals can afford not to. It’s like worrying about the cost of a college degree until you realize how difficult it is trying to get a job without one.

Part of the PCP “access” problem we have in this country is due to the fact that not every patient shows up for scheduled appointments. Our appointment-makers minimize the “no show” rate because, by speaking with patients about their schedules, they are providing appointments to patients with knowledge that they are likely to make the appointment. One of the things we learned at Beth Israel was that our trainees were sometimes requesting appointments for patients within one week of discharge when I knew darn well that the patient was unlikely to make that appointment because the patient most likely would still be at rehab.

Prior to this system, we also had the occasional PCP who was upset because we booked their patient’s follow-up with a specialist who was outside that PCP’s “inner circle” of specialists. How in the world are any of us supposed to remember this information?

Well, our professional appointment-makers utilize this information as part of the algorithm they follow when booking appointments for patients. As our nation moves towards a value-based purchasing system for healthcare, we don’t need to recreate the wheel; we can adopt proven practices from other cost-effective industries—and we can improve customer satisfaction.

I am interested in hearing how appointments are arranged for your hospitalized patients. Send me your thoughts at JosephLi@hospitalmedicine.org.

Dr. Li is president of SHM.

It’s been nearly two decades since I graduated from medical school. I think back and I honestly do not remember any lectures about transitions of care.

During residency, I remember some attending physicians would insist that when I discharged patients from the hospital, the patients had to leave with post-discharge appointments in hand. Like any diligent intern, I did as I was told. I telephoned the administrative assistants in clinic and booked follow-up appointments for my patients. I always asked for the first available appointment. Why? Because that was what my senior resident told me to do. I suspect he learned that from his resident as well.

Sometimes the appointment was scheduled for the week following discharge; other times it was six months later. I honestly didn’t give it much thought. There was a blank on the discharge paperwork and I filled it in with a date and time. I was doing my job—or so I thought.

Can you imagine if someone just gave you a slip of paper today telling you when to show up to get your teeth cleaned without consulting your schedule? How about scheduling the oil change for your car at a garage 100 miles away? Seems pretty silly, doesn’t it? Nothing about it seems customer-centric or cost-efficient.

With such a system in place, why are we surprised when patients do not show up for their follow-up appointments? When the patient presents to the ED later and is readmitted to the hospital, we label them as “non-compliant” because they failed to show up for their follow-up appointment.

Inefficient, Ineffective, Inappropriate

There are multiple problems with the above situation. The first problem: Why are doctors calling to schedule follow-up appointments in the first place? Do we ask airline pilots to serve refreshments? I suppose they could, but I’d rather they concentrate on flying the plane. It also seems like an awful waste of money and resources when we could accomplish the same feat with less-expensive airline attendants who are better trained to interact with passengers.

At most teaching hospitals across the country, I suspect we still rely on trainees to book follow-up appointments for patients. At hospitals without trainees, I suspect some of this responsibility falls on nurses and unit coordinators. Again, I wonder how often these people are actually in a position to schedule an appointment that the patient is likely to keep—or whether they are filling in a box on a checklist like I used to do.

Common Problem?

How do other industries address this issue? Well, many utilize customer service representatives to help consumers book their appointments. Some industries have advanced software, which allows consumers to book their own appointment online. I have to tell you that I am chuckling as I write this. I’m chuckling not because this is funny—I am just amazed that something that is so common sense is not utilized consistently across the hospital industry. When was the last time you actually called a hotel to book a room? Most of us find it so much more convenient to book airline tickets or hotel rooms online.

If we were to create a system with the consumer’s satisfaction and cost in mind, would you rely on trainees, nurses, or unit coordinators to book follow-up appointments? I suppose Hypothetical System 2.0 would include consumer representatives speaking with patients to book appointments. Hypothetical System 3.0 would allow patients and/or a family member to book the appointment online.

I can tell you that folks at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, where I work, have given this some thought. We are nowhere near a 3.0 version, but we do rely on professional appointment-makers to work with our hospitalized patients to book follow-up appointments. Inpatient providers put in the order online requesting follow-up appointments for their hospitalized patients. The online application asks the provider to specify the requests. Does the patient need follow-up with specialists, as well as their primary outpatient provider? The inpatient provider can specify the window of time in which they recommend follow-up for the patient. If I want my patient to follow up with their primary-care physician (PCP) within one week and with their cardiologist within two weeks, the appointment-maker will work with the patient and the respective doctors’ offices to make this happen. I am contacted only if any issues arise.

All of this information is provided to the patient with their other discharge paperwork. Some of you might be asking: How can the hospital afford to pay for this software and for the cadre of professional appointment-makers? I am wondering how hospitals can afford not to. It’s like worrying about the cost of a college degree until you realize how difficult it is trying to get a job without one.

Part of the PCP “access” problem we have in this country is due to the fact that not every patient shows up for scheduled appointments. Our appointment-makers minimize the “no show” rate because, by speaking with patients about their schedules, they are providing appointments to patients with knowledge that they are likely to make the appointment. One of the things we learned at Beth Israel was that our trainees were sometimes requesting appointments for patients within one week of discharge when I knew darn well that the patient was unlikely to make that appointment because the patient most likely would still be at rehab.

Prior to this system, we also had the occasional PCP who was upset because we booked their patient’s follow-up with a specialist who was outside that PCP’s “inner circle” of specialists. How in the world are any of us supposed to remember this information?

Well, our professional appointment-makers utilize this information as part of the algorithm they follow when booking appointments for patients. As our nation moves towards a value-based purchasing system for healthcare, we don’t need to recreate the wheel; we can adopt proven practices from other cost-effective industries—and we can improve customer satisfaction.

I am interested in hearing how appointments are arranged for your hospitalized patients. Send me your thoughts at JosephLi@hospitalmedicine.org.

Dr. Li is president of SHM.

It’s been nearly two decades since I graduated from medical school. I think back and I honestly do not remember any lectures about transitions of care.

During residency, I remember some attending physicians would insist that when I discharged patients from the hospital, the patients had to leave with post-discharge appointments in hand. Like any diligent intern, I did as I was told. I telephoned the administrative assistants in clinic and booked follow-up appointments for my patients. I always asked for the first available appointment. Why? Because that was what my senior resident told me to do. I suspect he learned that from his resident as well.

Sometimes the appointment was scheduled for the week following discharge; other times it was six months later. I honestly didn’t give it much thought. There was a blank on the discharge paperwork and I filled it in with a date and time. I was doing my job—or so I thought.

Can you imagine if someone just gave you a slip of paper today telling you when to show up to get your teeth cleaned without consulting your schedule? How about scheduling the oil change for your car at a garage 100 miles away? Seems pretty silly, doesn’t it? Nothing about it seems customer-centric or cost-efficient.

With such a system in place, why are we surprised when patients do not show up for their follow-up appointments? When the patient presents to the ED later and is readmitted to the hospital, we label them as “non-compliant” because they failed to show up for their follow-up appointment.

Inefficient, Ineffective, Inappropriate

There are multiple problems with the above situation. The first problem: Why are doctors calling to schedule follow-up appointments in the first place? Do we ask airline pilots to serve refreshments? I suppose they could, but I’d rather they concentrate on flying the plane. It also seems like an awful waste of money and resources when we could accomplish the same feat with less-expensive airline attendants who are better trained to interact with passengers.

At most teaching hospitals across the country, I suspect we still rely on trainees to book follow-up appointments for patients. At hospitals without trainees, I suspect some of this responsibility falls on nurses and unit coordinators. Again, I wonder how often these people are actually in a position to schedule an appointment that the patient is likely to keep—or whether they are filling in a box on a checklist like I used to do.

Common Problem?

How do other industries address this issue? Well, many utilize customer service representatives to help consumers book their appointments. Some industries have advanced software, which allows consumers to book their own appointment online. I have to tell you that I am chuckling as I write this. I’m chuckling not because this is funny—I am just amazed that something that is so common sense is not utilized consistently across the hospital industry. When was the last time you actually called a hotel to book a room? Most of us find it so much more convenient to book airline tickets or hotel rooms online.

If we were to create a system with the consumer’s satisfaction and cost in mind, would you rely on trainees, nurses, or unit coordinators to book follow-up appointments? I suppose Hypothetical System 2.0 would include consumer representatives speaking with patients to book appointments. Hypothetical System 3.0 would allow patients and/or a family member to book the appointment online.

I can tell you that folks at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, where I work, have given this some thought. We are nowhere near a 3.0 version, but we do rely on professional appointment-makers to work with our hospitalized patients to book follow-up appointments. Inpatient providers put in the order online requesting follow-up appointments for their hospitalized patients. The online application asks the provider to specify the requests. Does the patient need follow-up with specialists, as well as their primary outpatient provider? The inpatient provider can specify the window of time in which they recommend follow-up for the patient. If I want my patient to follow up with their primary-care physician (PCP) within one week and with their cardiologist within two weeks, the appointment-maker will work with the patient and the respective doctors’ offices to make this happen. I am contacted only if any issues arise.

All of this information is provided to the patient with their other discharge paperwork. Some of you might be asking: How can the hospital afford to pay for this software and for the cadre of professional appointment-makers? I am wondering how hospitals can afford not to. It’s like worrying about the cost of a college degree until you realize how difficult it is trying to get a job without one.

Part of the PCP “access” problem we have in this country is due to the fact that not every patient shows up for scheduled appointments. Our appointment-makers minimize the “no show” rate because, by speaking with patients about their schedules, they are providing appointments to patients with knowledge that they are likely to make the appointment. One of the things we learned at Beth Israel was that our trainees were sometimes requesting appointments for patients within one week of discharge when I knew darn well that the patient was unlikely to make that appointment because the patient most likely would still be at rehab.

Prior to this system, we also had the occasional PCP who was upset because we booked their patient’s follow-up with a specialist who was outside that PCP’s “inner circle” of specialists. How in the world are any of us supposed to remember this information?

Well, our professional appointment-makers utilize this information as part of the algorithm they follow when booking appointments for patients. As our nation moves towards a value-based purchasing system for healthcare, we don’t need to recreate the wheel; we can adopt proven practices from other cost-effective industries—and we can improve customer satisfaction.

I am interested in hearing how appointments are arranged for your hospitalized patients. Send me your thoughts at JosephLi@hospitalmedicine.org.

Dr. Li is president of SHM.

Pornography. There can be few better hooks for readers than that. Just typing the word is a bit uncomfortable. As is, I imagine, reading it. But it’s effective, and likely why you’ve made it to word 37 of my column—34 words further than you usually get, I imagine.

“What about pornography?” you ask with bated breath. “What could pornography possibly have to do with hospital medicine?” your mind wonders. “Is this the column that (finally) gets Glasheen fired?” the ambulance chaser in you titillates.

By now, you’ve no doubt heard the famous Potter Stewart definition of pornography: “I know it when I see it.” That’s how the former U.S. Supreme Court justice described his threshold for recognizing pornography. It was made famous in a 1960s decision about whether a particular movie scene was protected by the 1st Amendment right to free speech or, indeed, a pornographic obscenity to be censured. Stewart, who clearly recognized the need to “define” pornography, also recognized the inherent challenges in doing so. The I-know-it-when-I-see-it benchmark is, of course, flawed, but I defy you to come up with a better definition.

Quality Is, of Course…

I was thinking about pornography (another discomforting phrase to type) recently—and Potter Stewart’s challenge in defining it, specifically—when I was asked about quality in healthcare. The query, which occurred during a several-hour, mind-numbing meeting (is there another type of several-hour meeting?), was “What is quality?” The question, laced with hostility and dripping with antagonism, was posed by a senior physician and directed pointedly at me. Indignantly, I cleared my throat, mentally stepping onto my pedestal to ceremoniously topple this academic egghead with my erudite response.

“Well, quality is, of course,” I confidently retorted, the “of course” added to demonstrate my moral superiority, “the ability to … uhhh, you see … ummmm, you know.” At which point I again cleared my throat not once, not twice, but a socially awkward three times before employing the timed-honored, full-body shock-twitch that signifies that you’ve just received an urgent vibrate page (faked, of course) and excused myself from the meeting, never to return.

The reality is that I struggle to define quality. Like Chief Justice Stewart, I think I know quality when I see it, but more precise definitions can be elusive.

And distracting.

It’s Not My Job

Just this morning, I read a news release from a respected physician group trumpeting the fact that their advocacy resulted in the federal government reducing the number of quality data-point requirements in their final rule for accountable-care organizations (ACOs) from 66 to 33. Trumpeting? Is this a good thing? Should we be supporting fewer quality measures? The article quoted a physician leader saying that the original reporting requirements were too burdensome. Too burdensome to whom? My guess is the recipients of our care, often referred to as our patients, wouldn’t categorize quality assurance as “too burdensome.”

I was at another meeting recently in which a respected colleague related her take on the physician role in improving quality. “I don’t think that’s a physician’s job. That’s what we have a quality department for,” she noted. “It’s just too expensive, time-consuming, and boring for physicians to do that kind of work.”

Too burdensome? Not a physician’s job to ensure the delivery of quality care? While I understand the sentiment (the need to have support staff collecting data, recognition of the huge infrastructure requirements, etc.), I can’t help but think that these types of responses are a large part of the struggle we are having with improving quality.

Then again, I would hazard that 0.0 percent of physicians would argue with the premise that we are obliged by the Hippocratic Oath, our moral compass, and our sense of professionalism to provide the best possible care to our patients. If we accept that we aren’t doing that—and we aren’t—then what is the disconnect? Why aren’t we seeking more quality data points? Why isn’t this “our job”?

Definitional Disconnect

Well, the truth is, it is our job. And we know it. The problem is that quality isn’t universally defined and the process of trying to define it often distracts us from the true task at hand—improving patient care.

Few of us would argue that a wrong-site surgery or anaphylaxis from administration of a medication known to have caused an allergy represents a suboptimal level of care. But more often than not, we see quality being measured and defined in less concrete, more obscure ways—ways that my eyes may not view as low-quality. These definitions are inherently flawed and breed contempt among providers who are told they aren’t passing muster in metrics they don’t see as “quality.”

So the real disconnect is definitional. Is quality defined by the Institute of Medicine characteristics of safe, effective, patient-centered, timely, efficient, and equitable care? Or is it the rates of underuse, overuse, and misuse of medical treatments and procedures? Or is it defined by individual quality metrics such as those captured by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)—you know, things like hospital fall rates, perioperative antibiotic usage, beta-blockers after MI, or whether a patient reported their bathroom as being clean?

Is 30% of the quality of care that we deliver referable to the patient experience (as measured by HCAHPS), as the new value-based purchasing program would have us believe? Is it hospital accreditation through the Joint Commission? Or physician certification through our parent boards? Is quality measured by a physician’s cognitive or technical skills, or where they went to school? Is it experience, medical knowledge, guideline usage?

We use such a mystifying array of metrics to define quality that it confuses the issue such that physicians who personally believe they are doing a good job can become disenfranchised. To a physician who provides clinically appropriate care around a surgical procedure or treatment of pneumonia, it can be demeaning and demoralizing to suggest that his or her patient did not receive “high quality” care because the bathroom wasn’t clean or the patient didn’t get a flu shot. Yet, this is the message we often send—a message that alienates many physicians, making them cynical about quality and disengaged in quality improvement. The result is that they seek fewer quality data points and defer the job of improving quality to someone else.

Make no mistake: Quality measures have an important role in our healthcare landscape. But to the degree that defining quality confuses, alienates, or disenfranchises providers, we should stop trying to define it. Quality is not a thing, a metric, or an outcome. It is not an elusive, unquantifiable creature that is achievable only by the elite. Quality is simply providing the best possible care. And quality improvement is simply closing the gap between the best possible care and actual care.

In this regard, we can learn a lot from Potter Stewart. We know quality when we see it. And we know what an absence of quality looks like.

Let’s close that gap by putting less energy into defining quality, and putting more energy into the tenacious pursuit of quality.

Dr. Glasheen is physician editor of The Hospitalist.

Pornography. There can be few better hooks for readers than that. Just typing the word is a bit uncomfortable. As is, I imagine, reading it. But it’s effective, and likely why you’ve made it to word 37 of my column—34 words further than you usually get, I imagine.

“What about pornography?” you ask with bated breath. “What could pornography possibly have to do with hospital medicine?” your mind wonders. “Is this the column that (finally) gets Glasheen fired?” the ambulance chaser in you titillates.

By now, you’ve no doubt heard the famous Potter Stewart definition of pornography: “I know it when I see it.” That’s how the former U.S. Supreme Court justice described his threshold for recognizing pornography. It was made famous in a 1960s decision about whether a particular movie scene was protected by the 1st Amendment right to free speech or, indeed, a pornographic obscenity to be censured. Stewart, who clearly recognized the need to “define” pornography, also recognized the inherent challenges in doing so. The I-know-it-when-I-see-it benchmark is, of course, flawed, but I defy you to come up with a better definition.

Quality Is, of Course…

I was thinking about pornography (another discomforting phrase to type) recently—and Potter Stewart’s challenge in defining it, specifically—when I was asked about quality in healthcare. The query, which occurred during a several-hour, mind-numbing meeting (is there another type of several-hour meeting?), was “What is quality?” The question, laced with hostility and dripping with antagonism, was posed by a senior physician and directed pointedly at me. Indignantly, I cleared my throat, mentally stepping onto my pedestal to ceremoniously topple this academic egghead with my erudite response.

“Well, quality is, of course,” I confidently retorted, the “of course” added to demonstrate my moral superiority, “the ability to … uhhh, you see … ummmm, you know.” At which point I again cleared my throat not once, not twice, but a socially awkward three times before employing the timed-honored, full-body shock-twitch that signifies that you’ve just received an urgent vibrate page (faked, of course) and excused myself from the meeting, never to return.

The reality is that I struggle to define quality. Like Chief Justice Stewart, I think I know quality when I see it, but more precise definitions can be elusive.

And distracting.

It’s Not My Job

Just this morning, I read a news release from a respected physician group trumpeting the fact that their advocacy resulted in the federal government reducing the number of quality data-point requirements in their final rule for accountable-care organizations (ACOs) from 66 to 33. Trumpeting? Is this a good thing? Should we be supporting fewer quality measures? The article quoted a physician leader saying that the original reporting requirements were too burdensome. Too burdensome to whom? My guess is the recipients of our care, often referred to as our patients, wouldn’t categorize quality assurance as “too burdensome.”

I was at another meeting recently in which a respected colleague related her take on the physician role in improving quality. “I don’t think that’s a physician’s job. That’s what we have a quality department for,” she noted. “It’s just too expensive, time-consuming, and boring for physicians to do that kind of work.”

Too burdensome? Not a physician’s job to ensure the delivery of quality care? While I understand the sentiment (the need to have support staff collecting data, recognition of the huge infrastructure requirements, etc.), I can’t help but think that these types of responses are a large part of the struggle we are having with improving quality.

Then again, I would hazard that 0.0 percent of physicians would argue with the premise that we are obliged by the Hippocratic Oath, our moral compass, and our sense of professionalism to provide the best possible care to our patients. If we accept that we aren’t doing that—and we aren’t—then what is the disconnect? Why aren’t we seeking more quality data points? Why isn’t this “our job”?

Definitional Disconnect

Well, the truth is, it is our job. And we know it. The problem is that quality isn’t universally defined and the process of trying to define it often distracts us from the true task at hand—improving patient care.

Few of us would argue that a wrong-site surgery or anaphylaxis from administration of a medication known to have caused an allergy represents a suboptimal level of care. But more often than not, we see quality being measured and defined in less concrete, more obscure ways—ways that my eyes may not view as low-quality. These definitions are inherently flawed and breed contempt among providers who are told they aren’t passing muster in metrics they don’t see as “quality.”

So the real disconnect is definitional. Is quality defined by the Institute of Medicine characteristics of safe, effective, patient-centered, timely, efficient, and equitable care? Or is it the rates of underuse, overuse, and misuse of medical treatments and procedures? Or is it defined by individual quality metrics such as those captured by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)—you know, things like hospital fall rates, perioperative antibiotic usage, beta-blockers after MI, or whether a patient reported their bathroom as being clean?

Is 30% of the quality of care that we deliver referable to the patient experience (as measured by HCAHPS), as the new value-based purchasing program would have us believe? Is it hospital accreditation through the Joint Commission? Or physician certification through our parent boards? Is quality measured by a physician’s cognitive or technical skills, or where they went to school? Is it experience, medical knowledge, guideline usage?

We use such a mystifying array of metrics to define quality that it confuses the issue such that physicians who personally believe they are doing a good job can become disenfranchised. To a physician who provides clinically appropriate care around a surgical procedure or treatment of pneumonia, it can be demeaning and demoralizing to suggest that his or her patient did not receive “high quality” care because the bathroom wasn’t clean or the patient didn’t get a flu shot. Yet, this is the message we often send—a message that alienates many physicians, making them cynical about quality and disengaged in quality improvement. The result is that they seek fewer quality data points and defer the job of improving quality to someone else.

Make no mistake: Quality measures have an important role in our healthcare landscape. But to the degree that defining quality confuses, alienates, or disenfranchises providers, we should stop trying to define it. Quality is not a thing, a metric, or an outcome. It is not an elusive, unquantifiable creature that is achievable only by the elite. Quality is simply providing the best possible care. And quality improvement is simply closing the gap between the best possible care and actual care.

In this regard, we can learn a lot from Potter Stewart. We know quality when we see it. And we know what an absence of quality looks like.

Let’s close that gap by putting less energy into defining quality, and putting more energy into the tenacious pursuit of quality.

Dr. Glasheen is physician editor of The Hospitalist.

Pornography. There can be few better hooks for readers than that. Just typing the word is a bit uncomfortable. As is, I imagine, reading it. But it’s effective, and likely why you’ve made it to word 37 of my column—34 words further than you usually get, I imagine.

“What about pornography?” you ask with bated breath. “What could pornography possibly have to do with hospital medicine?” your mind wonders. “Is this the column that (finally) gets Glasheen fired?” the ambulance chaser in you titillates.

By now, you’ve no doubt heard the famous Potter Stewart definition of pornography: “I know it when I see it.” That’s how the former U.S. Supreme Court justice described his threshold for recognizing pornography. It was made famous in a 1960s decision about whether a particular movie scene was protected by the 1st Amendment right to free speech or, indeed, a pornographic obscenity to be censured. Stewart, who clearly recognized the need to “define” pornography, also recognized the inherent challenges in doing so. The I-know-it-when-I-see-it benchmark is, of course, flawed, but I defy you to come up with a better definition.

Quality Is, of Course…

I was thinking about pornography (another discomforting phrase to type) recently—and Potter Stewart’s challenge in defining it, specifically—when I was asked about quality in healthcare. The query, which occurred during a several-hour, mind-numbing meeting (is there another type of several-hour meeting?), was “What is quality?” The question, laced with hostility and dripping with antagonism, was posed by a senior physician and directed pointedly at me. Indignantly, I cleared my throat, mentally stepping onto my pedestal to ceremoniously topple this academic egghead with my erudite response.

“Well, quality is, of course,” I confidently retorted, the “of course” added to demonstrate my moral superiority, “the ability to … uhhh, you see … ummmm, you know.” At which point I again cleared my throat not once, not twice, but a socially awkward three times before employing the timed-honored, full-body shock-twitch that signifies that you’ve just received an urgent vibrate page (faked, of course) and excused myself from the meeting, never to return.

The reality is that I struggle to define quality. Like Chief Justice Stewart, I think I know quality when I see it, but more precise definitions can be elusive.

And distracting.

It’s Not My Job

Just this morning, I read a news release from a respected physician group trumpeting the fact that their advocacy resulted in the federal government reducing the number of quality data-point requirements in their final rule for accountable-care organizations (ACOs) from 66 to 33. Trumpeting? Is this a good thing? Should we be supporting fewer quality measures? The article quoted a physician leader saying that the original reporting requirements were too burdensome. Too burdensome to whom? My guess is the recipients of our care, often referred to as our patients, wouldn’t categorize quality assurance as “too burdensome.”

I was at another meeting recently in which a respected colleague related her take on the physician role in improving quality. “I don’t think that’s a physician’s job. That’s what we have a quality department for,” she noted. “It’s just too expensive, time-consuming, and boring for physicians to do that kind of work.”

Too burdensome? Not a physician’s job to ensure the delivery of quality care? While I understand the sentiment (the need to have support staff collecting data, recognition of the huge infrastructure requirements, etc.), I can’t help but think that these types of responses are a large part of the struggle we are having with improving quality.

Then again, I would hazard that 0.0 percent of physicians would argue with the premise that we are obliged by the Hippocratic Oath, our moral compass, and our sense of professionalism to provide the best possible care to our patients. If we accept that we aren’t doing that—and we aren’t—then what is the disconnect? Why aren’t we seeking more quality data points? Why isn’t this “our job”?

Definitional Disconnect

Well, the truth is, it is our job. And we know it. The problem is that quality isn’t universally defined and the process of trying to define it often distracts us from the true task at hand—improving patient care.

Few of us would argue that a wrong-site surgery or anaphylaxis from administration of a medication known to have caused an allergy represents a suboptimal level of care. But more often than not, we see quality being measured and defined in less concrete, more obscure ways—ways that my eyes may not view as low-quality. These definitions are inherently flawed and breed contempt among providers who are told they aren’t passing muster in metrics they don’t see as “quality.”

So the real disconnect is definitional. Is quality defined by the Institute of Medicine characteristics of safe, effective, patient-centered, timely, efficient, and equitable care? Or is it the rates of underuse, overuse, and misuse of medical treatments and procedures? Or is it defined by individual quality metrics such as those captured by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)—you know, things like hospital fall rates, perioperative antibiotic usage, beta-blockers after MI, or whether a patient reported their bathroom as being clean?

Is 30% of the quality of care that we deliver referable to the patient experience (as measured by HCAHPS), as the new value-based purchasing program would have us believe? Is it hospital accreditation through the Joint Commission? Or physician certification through our parent boards? Is quality measured by a physician’s cognitive or technical skills, or where they went to school? Is it experience, medical knowledge, guideline usage?

We use such a mystifying array of metrics to define quality that it confuses the issue such that physicians who personally believe they are doing a good job can become disenfranchised. To a physician who provides clinically appropriate care around a surgical procedure or treatment of pneumonia, it can be demeaning and demoralizing to suggest that his or her patient did not receive “high quality” care because the bathroom wasn’t clean or the patient didn’t get a flu shot. Yet, this is the message we often send—a message that alienates many physicians, making them cynical about quality and disengaged in quality improvement. The result is that they seek fewer quality data points and defer the job of improving quality to someone else.

Make no mistake: Quality measures have an important role in our healthcare landscape. But to the degree that defining quality confuses, alienates, or disenfranchises providers, we should stop trying to define it. Quality is not a thing, a metric, or an outcome. It is not an elusive, unquantifiable creature that is achievable only by the elite. Quality is simply providing the best possible care. And quality improvement is simply closing the gap between the best possible care and actual care.

In this regard, we can learn a lot from Potter Stewart. We know quality when we see it. And we know what an absence of quality looks like.

Let’s close that gap by putting less energy into defining quality, and putting more energy into the tenacious pursuit of quality.

Dr. Glasheen is physician editor of The Hospitalist.