Dr.

Dear Dr. Hospitalist:

We have several physicians in our large academic group whom I hate to follow when picking up teams. There have only been a few situations when I thought there was a clear knowledge deficit, but the most irritating problem is that they don’t discharge patients. I’ve only been in the group for several years, so I don’t want to come across as a complainer. However, I am concerned about poor patient care and the work left to me to discharge patients. How can I help these physicians improve without damaging my relationship with them?

Dr. Frustrated

Dr. Hospitalist responds:

You bring up a problem that I’m certain many of us in hospital medicine have experienced at some point in our career. Since the “practice” of medicine can often be done with much variability, there are many gray areas that occur during the care of patients. However, we all know it is the transitioning of patients into and out of the hospital that is the most labor-intensive period of their care. If at all possible, the discharge process is best performed by the person with the most longitudinal knowledge of the patient’s hospital course.

Your leadership team has the responsibility to assess the quality and quantity of work of all team members. The periodic assessment of a clinician’s skill and aptitude, as well as the safety of care delivered to patients, can be done in several ways. Typically, the initial assessment is done by focused professional practice evaluations (FPPEs) and later by ongoing professional practice evaluations (OPPEs). The Joint Commission created these tools in 2007 to help determine if the quality of care by clinicians fell below an acceptable level.

FPPEs, as defined by the commission, are “the time limited evaluation of practitioner competence in performing a specific privilege.” They are usually done three to six months after the initial credentialing period, when a new or additional privilege is requested after the initial appointment, or when a condition or issue affecting the delivery of safe and high-quality care is identified.

OPPEs, as the name suggests, are typically done on an ongoing basis (usually annually). These practitioner-specific reports are best utilized as screening tools, and when unusual or aberrant tendencies are observed, a more detailed analysis typically is required.

Although these formal evaluations are carried out by chart review and analysis of data collected by the hospital, they should always be supported by discreet and candid conversations with other frontline team members. It is during these sessions that individuals should take the opportunity to express their opinions regarding the care delivered by their colleagues. From my experience, because of the shared care of patients in hospital medicine, if there is a problem with an individual’s professionalism or clinical abilities, it is usually well-known by others in the group.

If for some reason group leaders are not performing these mandated evaluations (and thus risking regulatory sanctions) or don’t have a formal mechanism in place, I would encourage them to establish one. In the interim, I would discreetly address the individuals and share your concerns. Many times, the problems you mention can be resolved with awareness, mentoring, and/or proctoring, but like any needed corrective actions, they must first be acknowledged.

Good luck! TH

Dear Dr. Hospitalist:

We have several physicians in our large academic group whom I hate to follow when picking up teams. There have only been a few situations when I thought there was a clear knowledge deficit, but the most irritating problem is that they don’t discharge patients. I’ve only been in the group for several years, so I don’t want to come across as a complainer. However, I am concerned about poor patient care and the work left to me to discharge patients. How can I help these physicians improve without damaging my relationship with them?

Dr. Frustrated

Dr. Hospitalist responds:

You bring up a problem that I’m certain many of us in hospital medicine have experienced at some point in our career. Since the “practice” of medicine can often be done with much variability, there are many gray areas that occur during the care of patients. However, we all know it is the transitioning of patients into and out of the hospital that is the most labor-intensive period of their care. If at all possible, the discharge process is best performed by the person with the most longitudinal knowledge of the patient’s hospital course.

Your leadership team has the responsibility to assess the quality and quantity of work of all team members. The periodic assessment of a clinician’s skill and aptitude, as well as the safety of care delivered to patients, can be done in several ways. Typically, the initial assessment is done by focused professional practice evaluations (FPPEs) and later by ongoing professional practice evaluations (OPPEs). The Joint Commission created these tools in 2007 to help determine if the quality of care by clinicians fell below an acceptable level.

FPPEs, as defined by the commission, are “the time limited evaluation of practitioner competence in performing a specific privilege.” They are usually done three to six months after the initial credentialing period, when a new or additional privilege is requested after the initial appointment, or when a condition or issue affecting the delivery of safe and high-quality care is identified.

OPPEs, as the name suggests, are typically done on an ongoing basis (usually annually). These practitioner-specific reports are best utilized as screening tools, and when unusual or aberrant tendencies are observed, a more detailed analysis typically is required.

Although these formal evaluations are carried out by chart review and analysis of data collected by the hospital, they should always be supported by discreet and candid conversations with other frontline team members. It is during these sessions that individuals should take the opportunity to express their opinions regarding the care delivered by their colleagues. From my experience, because of the shared care of patients in hospital medicine, if there is a problem with an individual’s professionalism or clinical abilities, it is usually well-known by others in the group.

If for some reason group leaders are not performing these mandated evaluations (and thus risking regulatory sanctions) or don’t have a formal mechanism in place, I would encourage them to establish one. In the interim, I would discreetly address the individuals and share your concerns. Many times, the problems you mention can be resolved with awareness, mentoring, and/or proctoring, but like any needed corrective actions, they must first be acknowledged.

Good luck! TH

Dear Dr. Hospitalist:

We have several physicians in our large academic group whom I hate to follow when picking up teams. There have only been a few situations when I thought there was a clear knowledge deficit, but the most irritating problem is that they don’t discharge patients. I’ve only been in the group for several years, so I don’t want to come across as a complainer. However, I am concerned about poor patient care and the work left to me to discharge patients. How can I help these physicians improve without damaging my relationship with them?

Dr. Frustrated

Dr. Hospitalist responds:

You bring up a problem that I’m certain many of us in hospital medicine have experienced at some point in our career. Since the “practice” of medicine can often be done with much variability, there are many gray areas that occur during the care of patients. However, we all know it is the transitioning of patients into and out of the hospital that is the most labor-intensive period of their care. If at all possible, the discharge process is best performed by the person with the most longitudinal knowledge of the patient’s hospital course.

Your leadership team has the responsibility to assess the quality and quantity of work of all team members. The periodic assessment of a clinician’s skill and aptitude, as well as the safety of care delivered to patients, can be done in several ways. Typically, the initial assessment is done by focused professional practice evaluations (FPPEs) and later by ongoing professional practice evaluations (OPPEs). The Joint Commission created these tools in 2007 to help determine if the quality of care by clinicians fell below an acceptable level.

FPPEs, as defined by the commission, are “the time limited evaluation of practitioner competence in performing a specific privilege.” They are usually done three to six months after the initial credentialing period, when a new or additional privilege is requested after the initial appointment, or when a condition or issue affecting the delivery of safe and high-quality care is identified.

OPPEs, as the name suggests, are typically done on an ongoing basis (usually annually). These practitioner-specific reports are best utilized as screening tools, and when unusual or aberrant tendencies are observed, a more detailed analysis typically is required.

Although these formal evaluations are carried out by chart review and analysis of data collected by the hospital, they should always be supported by discreet and candid conversations with other frontline team members. It is during these sessions that individuals should take the opportunity to express their opinions regarding the care delivered by their colleagues. From my experience, because of the shared care of patients in hospital medicine, if there is a problem with an individual’s professionalism or clinical abilities, it is usually well-known by others in the group.

If for some reason group leaders are not performing these mandated evaluations (and thus risking regulatory sanctions) or don’t have a formal mechanism in place, I would encourage them to establish one. In the interim, I would discreetly address the individuals and share your concerns. Many times, the problems you mention can be resolved with awareness, mentoring, and/or proctoring, but like any needed corrective actions, they must first be acknowledged.

Good luck! TH

I am a hospitalist at a small rural hospital, and I’ve read both the hyponatremia and SIADH articles published in The Hospitalist. Our lab does not do any urine testing beyond a UA [urinalysis] in house, so the urine osmol and urine Na+ tests are send-outs, which take several days to come back. I’m having difficulty with diagnosing the reason for and treating hyponatremia. I find it complicated, and when the urine tests are not readily available, it’s difficult to use the algorithm. Do you know of any basic tips that could help? If our hospital does not have the right urine tests readily available, should I be sending these patients to the larger hospital from the ED if sodium is <125, instead of admitting them?

—Carleigh Wilson, DO

Dr. Hospitalist responds:

I too can recall moonlighting in a small rural hospital in southern Georgia 25 years ago; I remember having to improvise when taking care of patients with hyponatremia. Fortunately, even though we have developed more sophisticated equipment to help in the diagnosis (e.g. electrodes that are not hampered by excess triglycerides or proteins), my basic approach to evaluating these patients hasn’t changed much.

I still begin with an assessment of the patients’ serum osmolarity, which is usually low in most hospitalized patients. If it is elevated, then, of course, hyperglycemia is the most common cause, but we also must consider alcohol or, way less common these days, mannitol. Hypoosmolar hyponatremia most often occurs when the kidneys are overwhelmed by the intake of water and cannot excrete it as free water. Even though it can occur when there is pathologic consumption of large amounts of water (psychogenic polydipsia) or excess consumption of beer, it most often occurs when the kidney fails to fully dilute the urine, which would be evidenced by urine osmolality >100mmol/l.

A good history and physical will help categorize the patients with poorly diluted urine; in the absence of measured urine osmolality, however, urine specific gravity (USG) can be used with some caveats. Studies have shown that USG done by refractometry and reagent strip (both very inexpensive) have a correlation of 0.75-0.80 with urine osmolality. Although there are many variables affecting both (pH, ketones, glucose, urobilinogen, bilirubin, and protein for the reagent strips), I would use the refractometer, which only seems to be affected by bilirubin, ketones, and hemoglobin. So, at a pH of 7, with all the variables considered and a USG of 1.010, predicted osmolality is approximately 300 mosm/kg/H20. Also, while osmolarity and specific gravity change in parallel, the two measurements diverge when there are large particles in solution (e.g. glucose or proteins), so be careful … Dr Kokko would be so proud of me!

The next step is to determine the patients’ volume status. Because I’m old school, I still believe this can be done at the bedside. On most occasions, it is only when I’m trying to decide whether the primary sodium loss in hypovolemic patients is due to a renal or extra-renal cause that the urine sodium is helpful. In truly hypovolemic and asymptomatic patients, I usually start with normal saline (NS) to correct the volume status and follow the serum sodium closely to avoid correcting too rapidly. Urine sodium is not particularly helpful in caring for euvolemic and hypervolemic hyponatremic patients.

Due to multiple variables (e.g. acute vs. chronic, co-morbidities, nursing and lab support, quick and safe transfer to higher level of care), it is difficult to quantify a “safe” level of hyponatremia to treat at a small rural hospital. Considering the clinical variables and presence of symptoms, I probably would not be comfortable with a serum sodium less than 123 meq/L. However, you have to understand and appreciate your limitations and develop your own level of comfort.

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

I am a hospitalist at a small rural hospital, and I’ve read both the hyponatremia and SIADH articles published in The Hospitalist. Our lab does not do any urine testing beyond a UA [urinalysis] in house, so the urine osmol and urine Na+ tests are send-outs, which take several days to come back. I’m having difficulty with diagnosing the reason for and treating hyponatremia. I find it complicated, and when the urine tests are not readily available, it’s difficult to use the algorithm. Do you know of any basic tips that could help? If our hospital does not have the right urine tests readily available, should I be sending these patients to the larger hospital from the ED if sodium is <125, instead of admitting them?

—Carleigh Wilson, DO

Dr. Hospitalist responds:

I too can recall moonlighting in a small rural hospital in southern Georgia 25 years ago; I remember having to improvise when taking care of patients with hyponatremia. Fortunately, even though we have developed more sophisticated equipment to help in the diagnosis (e.g. electrodes that are not hampered by excess triglycerides or proteins), my basic approach to evaluating these patients hasn’t changed much.

I still begin with an assessment of the patients’ serum osmolarity, which is usually low in most hospitalized patients. If it is elevated, then, of course, hyperglycemia is the most common cause, but we also must consider alcohol or, way less common these days, mannitol. Hypoosmolar hyponatremia most often occurs when the kidneys are overwhelmed by the intake of water and cannot excrete it as free water. Even though it can occur when there is pathologic consumption of large amounts of water (psychogenic polydipsia) or excess consumption of beer, it most often occurs when the kidney fails to fully dilute the urine, which would be evidenced by urine osmolality >100mmol/l.

A good history and physical will help categorize the patients with poorly diluted urine; in the absence of measured urine osmolality, however, urine specific gravity (USG) can be used with some caveats. Studies have shown that USG done by refractometry and reagent strip (both very inexpensive) have a correlation of 0.75-0.80 with urine osmolality. Although there are many variables affecting both (pH, ketones, glucose, urobilinogen, bilirubin, and protein for the reagent strips), I would use the refractometer, which only seems to be affected by bilirubin, ketones, and hemoglobin. So, at a pH of 7, with all the variables considered and a USG of 1.010, predicted osmolality is approximately 300 mosm/kg/H20. Also, while osmolarity and specific gravity change in parallel, the two measurements diverge when there are large particles in solution (e.g. glucose or proteins), so be careful … Dr Kokko would be so proud of me!

The next step is to determine the patients’ volume status. Because I’m old school, I still believe this can be done at the bedside. On most occasions, it is only when I’m trying to decide whether the primary sodium loss in hypovolemic patients is due to a renal or extra-renal cause that the urine sodium is helpful. In truly hypovolemic and asymptomatic patients, I usually start with normal saline (NS) to correct the volume status and follow the serum sodium closely to avoid correcting too rapidly. Urine sodium is not particularly helpful in caring for euvolemic and hypervolemic hyponatremic patients.

Due to multiple variables (e.g. acute vs. chronic, co-morbidities, nursing and lab support, quick and safe transfer to higher level of care), it is difficult to quantify a “safe” level of hyponatremia to treat at a small rural hospital. Considering the clinical variables and presence of symptoms, I probably would not be comfortable with a serum sodium less than 123 meq/L. However, you have to understand and appreciate your limitations and develop your own level of comfort.

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

I am a hospitalist at a small rural hospital, and I’ve read both the hyponatremia and SIADH articles published in The Hospitalist. Our lab does not do any urine testing beyond a UA [urinalysis] in house, so the urine osmol and urine Na+ tests are send-outs, which take several days to come back. I’m having difficulty with diagnosing the reason for and treating hyponatremia. I find it complicated, and when the urine tests are not readily available, it’s difficult to use the algorithm. Do you know of any basic tips that could help? If our hospital does not have the right urine tests readily available, should I be sending these patients to the larger hospital from the ED if sodium is <125, instead of admitting them?

—Carleigh Wilson, DO

Dr. Hospitalist responds:

I too can recall moonlighting in a small rural hospital in southern Georgia 25 years ago; I remember having to improvise when taking care of patients with hyponatremia. Fortunately, even though we have developed more sophisticated equipment to help in the diagnosis (e.g. electrodes that are not hampered by excess triglycerides or proteins), my basic approach to evaluating these patients hasn’t changed much.

I still begin with an assessment of the patients’ serum osmolarity, which is usually low in most hospitalized patients. If it is elevated, then, of course, hyperglycemia is the most common cause, but we also must consider alcohol or, way less common these days, mannitol. Hypoosmolar hyponatremia most often occurs when the kidneys are overwhelmed by the intake of water and cannot excrete it as free water. Even though it can occur when there is pathologic consumption of large amounts of water (psychogenic polydipsia) or excess consumption of beer, it most often occurs when the kidney fails to fully dilute the urine, which would be evidenced by urine osmolality >100mmol/l.

A good history and physical will help categorize the patients with poorly diluted urine; in the absence of measured urine osmolality, however, urine specific gravity (USG) can be used with some caveats. Studies have shown that USG done by refractometry and reagent strip (both very inexpensive) have a correlation of 0.75-0.80 with urine osmolality. Although there are many variables affecting both (pH, ketones, glucose, urobilinogen, bilirubin, and protein for the reagent strips), I would use the refractometer, which only seems to be affected by bilirubin, ketones, and hemoglobin. So, at a pH of 7, with all the variables considered and a USG of 1.010, predicted osmolality is approximately 300 mosm/kg/H20. Also, while osmolarity and specific gravity change in parallel, the two measurements diverge when there are large particles in solution (e.g. glucose or proteins), so be careful … Dr Kokko would be so proud of me!

The next step is to determine the patients’ volume status. Because I’m old school, I still believe this can be done at the bedside. On most occasions, it is only when I’m trying to decide whether the primary sodium loss in hypovolemic patients is due to a renal or extra-renal cause that the urine sodium is helpful. In truly hypovolemic and asymptomatic patients, I usually start with normal saline (NS) to correct the volume status and follow the serum sodium closely to avoid correcting too rapidly. Urine sodium is not particularly helpful in caring for euvolemic and hypervolemic hyponatremic patients.

Due to multiple variables (e.g. acute vs. chronic, co-morbidities, nursing and lab support, quick and safe transfer to higher level of care), it is difficult to quantify a “safe” level of hyponatremia to treat at a small rural hospital. Considering the clinical variables and presence of symptoms, I probably would not be comfortable with a serum sodium less than 123 meq/L. However, you have to understand and appreciate your limitations and develop your own level of comfort.

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

What would the status be for a hospitalist who could train for one year to become a critical care intensivist to address the shortage of intensivists? I’m one of the hospitalists who love critical care but cannot do two more years out for critical care training.

—Amadeo Rivera, MD

Has there been any progress in the 2012 SCCM/SHM proposal to train hospitalists as intensivists?

—Stephen M. Pastores, MD, Memorial

Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, N.Y.

Dr. Hospitalist responds:

As you may recall, SHM and the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) published a joint position paper in the Journal of Hospital Medicine in June 2012 in which they proposed a one-year critical care fellowship for hospitalists with at least three years of experience.

Since only one year of clinical rotations is required for critical care board eligibility, and there already exists a one-year track for other medical subspecialists (e.g. nephrology, infectious disease), most of us in hospital medicine thought the recommendation would have been much better received. Well, you guessed it. The following month, the leadership of the American College of Chest Physicians and the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses wrote in an editorial that a one-year fellowship was inadequate for hospitalists to gain competence in critical care medicine. Since then, there has not been much progress, at least not publicly, toward a standardized, streamlined, and accredited process for hospitalists to achieve critical care certification in one year.

Nevertheless, employing a standard search engine (Google) and terminology, I was able to locate one U.S.-based training program offering a one-year critical care medicine fellowship program recognized by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education for candidates with a background in anesthesiology, surgery, or internal medicine.

What would the status be for a hospitalist who could train for one year to become a critical care intensivist to address the shortage of intensivists? I’m one of the hospitalists who love critical care but cannot do two more years out for critical care training.

—Amadeo Rivera, MD

Has there been any progress in the 2012 SCCM/SHM proposal to train hospitalists as intensivists?

—Stephen M. Pastores, MD, Memorial

Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, N.Y.

Dr. Hospitalist responds:

As you may recall, SHM and the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) published a joint position paper in the Journal of Hospital Medicine in June 2012 in which they proposed a one-year critical care fellowship for hospitalists with at least three years of experience.

Since only one year of clinical rotations is required for critical care board eligibility, and there already exists a one-year track for other medical subspecialists (e.g. nephrology, infectious disease), most of us in hospital medicine thought the recommendation would have been much better received. Well, you guessed it. The following month, the leadership of the American College of Chest Physicians and the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses wrote in an editorial that a one-year fellowship was inadequate for hospitalists to gain competence in critical care medicine. Since then, there has not been much progress, at least not publicly, toward a standardized, streamlined, and accredited process for hospitalists to achieve critical care certification in one year.

Nevertheless, employing a standard search engine (Google) and terminology, I was able to locate one U.S.-based training program offering a one-year critical care medicine fellowship program recognized by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education for candidates with a background in anesthesiology, surgery, or internal medicine.

What would the status be for a hospitalist who could train for one year to become a critical care intensivist to address the shortage of intensivists? I’m one of the hospitalists who love critical care but cannot do two more years out for critical care training.

—Amadeo Rivera, MD

Has there been any progress in the 2012 SCCM/SHM proposal to train hospitalists as intensivists?

—Stephen M. Pastores, MD, Memorial

Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, N.Y.

Dr. Hospitalist responds:

As you may recall, SHM and the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) published a joint position paper in the Journal of Hospital Medicine in June 2012 in which they proposed a one-year critical care fellowship for hospitalists with at least three years of experience.

Since only one year of clinical rotations is required for critical care board eligibility, and there already exists a one-year track for other medical subspecialists (e.g. nephrology, infectious disease), most of us in hospital medicine thought the recommendation would have been much better received. Well, you guessed it. The following month, the leadership of the American College of Chest Physicians and the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses wrote in an editorial that a one-year fellowship was inadequate for hospitalists to gain competence in critical care medicine. Since then, there has not been much progress, at least not publicly, toward a standardized, streamlined, and accredited process for hospitalists to achieve critical care certification in one year.

Nevertheless, employing a standard search engine (Google) and terminology, I was able to locate one U.S.-based training program offering a one-year critical care medicine fellowship program recognized by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education for candidates with a background in anesthesiology, surgery, or internal medicine.

Should the admitting physician or the discharge physician bill the CPT code (99234-99236) for a patient who is admitted and discharged in the same 24-hour period?

—Charlette

Dr. Hospitalist responds:

Assuming both physicians are part of the same group and specialty, they are considered one physician. Since it appears that both face-to-face encounters are separated by eight hours, you’re correct, only one physician can bill the bundled care code 99234-99236. The group must decide which physician gets the RVU credit for the bundled code. Our group gives the credit to the admitting physician.

Should the admitting physician or the discharge physician bill the CPT code (99234-99236) for a patient who is admitted and discharged in the same 24-hour period?

—Charlette

Dr. Hospitalist responds:

Assuming both physicians are part of the same group and specialty, they are considered one physician. Since it appears that both face-to-face encounters are separated by eight hours, you’re correct, only one physician can bill the bundled care code 99234-99236. The group must decide which physician gets the RVU credit for the bundled code. Our group gives the credit to the admitting physician.

Should the admitting physician or the discharge physician bill the CPT code (99234-99236) for a patient who is admitted and discharged in the same 24-hour period?

—Charlette

Dr. Hospitalist responds:

Assuming both physicians are part of the same group and specialty, they are considered one physician. Since it appears that both face-to-face encounters are separated by eight hours, you’re correct, only one physician can bill the bundled care code 99234-99236. The group must decide which physician gets the RVU credit for the bundled code. Our group gives the credit to the admitting physician.

Why is it that there are no focused looks into the ED? We all know, as hospitalists, that the ED locks us into many admissions. Yet I see no initiatives through the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) going after the ED for wanting patients admitted rather than trying to get these patients sent home for outpatient therapy.

–Ray Nowaczyk, DO

Dr. Hospitalist responds:

Au contraire, my fellow hospitalist! The ED is monitored and investigated by many hospital committees and governmental agencies. Although we physicians, and I’m sure most hospitals, have always acknowledged our responsibilities to take care of patients during an emergency, this responsibility was enshrined in legalese in 1986 with the passage of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), also known as the “antidumping law.” Since its passage, any hospital that receives Medicare or Medicaid funding, which includes almost all of them, is at risk of being fined or losing this vital source of funding if this law is violated.

EMTALA essentially states that any patient who presents to the ED must be provided a screening exam and treatment for any “emergent medical condition” (including labor), regardless of the individual’s ability to pay. The hospital is then required to provide “stabilizing” treatment for these patients or transfer them to another facility where this treatment can be provided. Furthermore, hospitals that refuse to accept these patients in transfer without valid reasons (e.g. no open beds) can be charged with an EMTALA violation.

As you well know, what is considered stabilized or at baseline by one clinician can be seen as unstable or requiring urgent care by another. The real day-to-day practice of medicine often defies evidence-based logic and forces us to make decisions based on many clinical and nonclinical variables.

These situations are further compounded by recent CMS attempts to hold hospitals publicly accountable for ED throughput by posting these measures on its website. Along with other metrics, the citizenry can now see how long it takes an ED patient to be seen by a health professional, receive pain medication if they have a broken bone, receive appropriate treatment and be sent home, or, if admitted, how long it takes to get into a bed.

This information makes it clearer that in situations of clinical uncertainty, it may be easier for many ED physicians to admit than to discharge. The “treat-‘em or street-‘em” mentality of triaging patients, of course, varies from doc to doc and can definitely create antipathy towards physicians in the ED. As much as I may disagree with some of our ED doc’s admissions, I always—OK, maybe not always—try to assume they have the patient’s best interest at heart.

Once admitted, the onus is placed on us, as hospitalists, to determine whether the patient requires ongoing inpatient care, can be cared for in an “observation” capacity, or should be discharged. We all have received calls from a nurse informing us that the patient “does not meet inpatient criteria”—even if the patient is hypotensive with systemic inflammatory response syndrome and lactic acidosis. Oh, if we could only send them back to the ED!

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

Why is it that there are no focused looks into the ED? We all know, as hospitalists, that the ED locks us into many admissions. Yet I see no initiatives through the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) going after the ED for wanting patients admitted rather than trying to get these patients sent home for outpatient therapy.

–Ray Nowaczyk, DO

Dr. Hospitalist responds:

Au contraire, my fellow hospitalist! The ED is monitored and investigated by many hospital committees and governmental agencies. Although we physicians, and I’m sure most hospitals, have always acknowledged our responsibilities to take care of patients during an emergency, this responsibility was enshrined in legalese in 1986 with the passage of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), also known as the “antidumping law.” Since its passage, any hospital that receives Medicare or Medicaid funding, which includes almost all of them, is at risk of being fined or losing this vital source of funding if this law is violated.

EMTALA essentially states that any patient who presents to the ED must be provided a screening exam and treatment for any “emergent medical condition” (including labor), regardless of the individual’s ability to pay. The hospital is then required to provide “stabilizing” treatment for these patients or transfer them to another facility where this treatment can be provided. Furthermore, hospitals that refuse to accept these patients in transfer without valid reasons (e.g. no open beds) can be charged with an EMTALA violation.

As you well know, what is considered stabilized or at baseline by one clinician can be seen as unstable or requiring urgent care by another. The real day-to-day practice of medicine often defies evidence-based logic and forces us to make decisions based on many clinical and nonclinical variables.

These situations are further compounded by recent CMS attempts to hold hospitals publicly accountable for ED throughput by posting these measures on its website. Along with other metrics, the citizenry can now see how long it takes an ED patient to be seen by a health professional, receive pain medication if they have a broken bone, receive appropriate treatment and be sent home, or, if admitted, how long it takes to get into a bed.

This information makes it clearer that in situations of clinical uncertainty, it may be easier for many ED physicians to admit than to discharge. The “treat-‘em or street-‘em” mentality of triaging patients, of course, varies from doc to doc and can definitely create antipathy towards physicians in the ED. As much as I may disagree with some of our ED doc’s admissions, I always—OK, maybe not always—try to assume they have the patient’s best interest at heart.

Once admitted, the onus is placed on us, as hospitalists, to determine whether the patient requires ongoing inpatient care, can be cared for in an “observation” capacity, or should be discharged. We all have received calls from a nurse informing us that the patient “does not meet inpatient criteria”—even if the patient is hypotensive with systemic inflammatory response syndrome and lactic acidosis. Oh, if we could only send them back to the ED!

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

Why is it that there are no focused looks into the ED? We all know, as hospitalists, that the ED locks us into many admissions. Yet I see no initiatives through the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) going after the ED for wanting patients admitted rather than trying to get these patients sent home for outpatient therapy.

–Ray Nowaczyk, DO

Dr. Hospitalist responds:

Au contraire, my fellow hospitalist! The ED is monitored and investigated by many hospital committees and governmental agencies. Although we physicians, and I’m sure most hospitals, have always acknowledged our responsibilities to take care of patients during an emergency, this responsibility was enshrined in legalese in 1986 with the passage of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), also known as the “antidumping law.” Since its passage, any hospital that receives Medicare or Medicaid funding, which includes almost all of them, is at risk of being fined or losing this vital source of funding if this law is violated.

EMTALA essentially states that any patient who presents to the ED must be provided a screening exam and treatment for any “emergent medical condition” (including labor), regardless of the individual’s ability to pay. The hospital is then required to provide “stabilizing” treatment for these patients or transfer them to another facility where this treatment can be provided. Furthermore, hospitals that refuse to accept these patients in transfer without valid reasons (e.g. no open beds) can be charged with an EMTALA violation.

As you well know, what is considered stabilized or at baseline by one clinician can be seen as unstable or requiring urgent care by another. The real day-to-day practice of medicine often defies evidence-based logic and forces us to make decisions based on many clinical and nonclinical variables.

These situations are further compounded by recent CMS attempts to hold hospitals publicly accountable for ED throughput by posting these measures on its website. Along with other metrics, the citizenry can now see how long it takes an ED patient to be seen by a health professional, receive pain medication if they have a broken bone, receive appropriate treatment and be sent home, or, if admitted, how long it takes to get into a bed.

This information makes it clearer that in situations of clinical uncertainty, it may be easier for many ED physicians to admit than to discharge. The “treat-‘em or street-‘em” mentality of triaging patients, of course, varies from doc to doc and can definitely create antipathy towards physicians in the ED. As much as I may disagree with some of our ED doc’s admissions, I always—OK, maybe not always—try to assume they have the patient’s best interest at heart.

Once admitted, the onus is placed on us, as hospitalists, to determine whether the patient requires ongoing inpatient care, can be cared for in an “observation” capacity, or should be discharged. We all have received calls from a nurse informing us that the patient “does not meet inpatient criteria”—even if the patient is hypotensive with systemic inflammatory response syndrome and lactic acidosis. Oh, if we could only send them back to the ED!

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

Dr. Hospitalist

I just read your article regarding billing. My supervising physician is a surgeon. She and I are both employed by the same hospital. Can she have me dictate the discharge summary before she signs off on it? Or does she have to dictate it because it is in the global post-op period and she is paid for the surgery? If she has me perform an inpatient consult one afternoon/evening, but she doesn't lay eyes on the patient until the following morning, can she bill for the initial consult? Or does she bill for the first subsequent consult? Where is the information to back up your responses, please?

—Concerned with Coding

Dr. Hospitalist responds:

You don’t say so, but I’m assuming you work as a physician assistant (PA) or a nurse practitioner (NP). Since you and your supervising physician are employed by the same hospital, I also assume your fees are assigned to the hospital and you are both considered members of the same “surgical group.”

Just so we’re all on the same page, let’s further define “global surgical” period. Even though there are three types of global surgical packages, they are all based on the number of expected post-operative days. In general, there are the zero- and 10-day post-op periods (for minor procedures) and the 90-day post-op period (for most major procedures). Almost all services, supplies, wound management, and follow-up visits related to the procedure are included in the global surgery payment.

The discharge summary also is part of the global surgery package. When your supervising physician co-signs and validates your note, she can bill as though she did the note herself as defined in the scope of practice and credentialing process at your hospital.

If allowed by your state and sanctioned by your hospital, you can bill separately; however, the global surgery payment would be decreased as per the Medicare Claims Processing Manual (Chapter 12, Sections 40 and 40.1-Physician/Nonphysician Practitioners), which states that “when a NP, PA, or CNS furnish services to a patient during a global surgical period, contractors shall determine the level of NP [nurse practitioner], PA [physician assistant], or CNS [clinical nurse specialist] involvement in furnishing part of the surgeon’s global surgical package consistent with their current practice of processing such claims.” The manual goes on to say that those NP, PA, or CNS services furnished are paid at 80% of the lesser of the actual charge or 85% of what a physician is paid under the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule.

Now you see why it’s more lucrative for the physician to bill than the NP/PA, especially if the extender is working under the “supervision” of the physician.

As I’m sure you’re aware, effective Jan. 1, 2010, the consultation codes were no longer recognized for Medicare Part B payment. Practitioners are directed to code patient evaluation and management (E/M) visits with E/M codes that represent where the visit occurs and identify the complexity of the visit performed.

Medicare directives are pretty clear that in order to bill for a visit, the physician or clinician must have a “face-to-face” encounter with the patient on the day of service billed. There is an opportunity for the physician and NP/PA from the same group practice to bill a split/shared E/M code under either unique physician identification number (UPIN), but the physician must still have a face-to-face encounter on the day of service or the bill must be submitted using the NP/PA’s UPIN (Medicare Claims Processing Manual, Chapter 12 – Physician/Nonphysician Practitioners. Section 30.6.1-Selection of Level of Evaluation and Management Service. Implemented: 01-04-10).

Therefore, in the situation that you describe, the supervising physician must bill for a subsequent visit E/M code.

Occasionally, teaching institutions with residents have formalized agreements with insurers that allow residents to see patients one day, with the attending physician allowed to bill for that day without seeing the patient. You should check with your group’s billing specialist to see if such arrangements have been made for your group.

After taking all this into consideration, however, I perceive the bigger issue as underlying tension or mistrust between you and the supervising physician. I suggest sitting down and having a conversation about scope of practice and expectations, and then you can better determine if you are the right person for that position.

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

Dr. Hospitalist

I just read your article regarding billing. My supervising physician is a surgeon. She and I are both employed by the same hospital. Can she have me dictate the discharge summary before she signs off on it? Or does she have to dictate it because it is in the global post-op period and she is paid for the surgery? If she has me perform an inpatient consult one afternoon/evening, but she doesn't lay eyes on the patient until the following morning, can she bill for the initial consult? Or does she bill for the first subsequent consult? Where is the information to back up your responses, please?

—Concerned with Coding

Dr. Hospitalist responds:

You don’t say so, but I’m assuming you work as a physician assistant (PA) or a nurse practitioner (NP). Since you and your supervising physician are employed by the same hospital, I also assume your fees are assigned to the hospital and you are both considered members of the same “surgical group.”

Just so we’re all on the same page, let’s further define “global surgical” period. Even though there are three types of global surgical packages, they are all based on the number of expected post-operative days. In general, there are the zero- and 10-day post-op periods (for minor procedures) and the 90-day post-op period (for most major procedures). Almost all services, supplies, wound management, and follow-up visits related to the procedure are included in the global surgery payment.

The discharge summary also is part of the global surgery package. When your supervising physician co-signs and validates your note, she can bill as though she did the note herself as defined in the scope of practice and credentialing process at your hospital.

If allowed by your state and sanctioned by your hospital, you can bill separately; however, the global surgery payment would be decreased as per the Medicare Claims Processing Manual (Chapter 12, Sections 40 and 40.1-Physician/Nonphysician Practitioners), which states that “when a NP, PA, or CNS furnish services to a patient during a global surgical period, contractors shall determine the level of NP [nurse practitioner], PA [physician assistant], or CNS [clinical nurse specialist] involvement in furnishing part of the surgeon’s global surgical package consistent with their current practice of processing such claims.” The manual goes on to say that those NP, PA, or CNS services furnished are paid at 80% of the lesser of the actual charge or 85% of what a physician is paid under the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule.

Now you see why it’s more lucrative for the physician to bill than the NP/PA, especially if the extender is working under the “supervision” of the physician.

As I’m sure you’re aware, effective Jan. 1, 2010, the consultation codes were no longer recognized for Medicare Part B payment. Practitioners are directed to code patient evaluation and management (E/M) visits with E/M codes that represent where the visit occurs and identify the complexity of the visit performed.

Medicare directives are pretty clear that in order to bill for a visit, the physician or clinician must have a “face-to-face” encounter with the patient on the day of service billed. There is an opportunity for the physician and NP/PA from the same group practice to bill a split/shared E/M code under either unique physician identification number (UPIN), but the physician must still have a face-to-face encounter on the day of service or the bill must be submitted using the NP/PA’s UPIN (Medicare Claims Processing Manual, Chapter 12 – Physician/Nonphysician Practitioners. Section 30.6.1-Selection of Level of Evaluation and Management Service. Implemented: 01-04-10).

Therefore, in the situation that you describe, the supervising physician must bill for a subsequent visit E/M code.

Occasionally, teaching institutions with residents have formalized agreements with insurers that allow residents to see patients one day, with the attending physician allowed to bill for that day without seeing the patient. You should check with your group’s billing specialist to see if such arrangements have been made for your group.

After taking all this into consideration, however, I perceive the bigger issue as underlying tension or mistrust between you and the supervising physician. I suggest sitting down and having a conversation about scope of practice and expectations, and then you can better determine if you are the right person for that position.

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

Dr. Hospitalist

I just read your article regarding billing. My supervising physician is a surgeon. She and I are both employed by the same hospital. Can she have me dictate the discharge summary before she signs off on it? Or does she have to dictate it because it is in the global post-op period and she is paid for the surgery? If she has me perform an inpatient consult one afternoon/evening, but she doesn't lay eyes on the patient until the following morning, can she bill for the initial consult? Or does she bill for the first subsequent consult? Where is the information to back up your responses, please?

—Concerned with Coding

Dr. Hospitalist responds:

You don’t say so, but I’m assuming you work as a physician assistant (PA) or a nurse practitioner (NP). Since you and your supervising physician are employed by the same hospital, I also assume your fees are assigned to the hospital and you are both considered members of the same “surgical group.”

Just so we’re all on the same page, let’s further define “global surgical” period. Even though there are three types of global surgical packages, they are all based on the number of expected post-operative days. In general, there are the zero- and 10-day post-op periods (for minor procedures) and the 90-day post-op period (for most major procedures). Almost all services, supplies, wound management, and follow-up visits related to the procedure are included in the global surgery payment.

The discharge summary also is part of the global surgery package. When your supervising physician co-signs and validates your note, she can bill as though she did the note herself as defined in the scope of practice and credentialing process at your hospital.

If allowed by your state and sanctioned by your hospital, you can bill separately; however, the global surgery payment would be decreased as per the Medicare Claims Processing Manual (Chapter 12, Sections 40 and 40.1-Physician/Nonphysician Practitioners), which states that “when a NP, PA, or CNS furnish services to a patient during a global surgical period, contractors shall determine the level of NP [nurse practitioner], PA [physician assistant], or CNS [clinical nurse specialist] involvement in furnishing part of the surgeon’s global surgical package consistent with their current practice of processing such claims.” The manual goes on to say that those NP, PA, or CNS services furnished are paid at 80% of the lesser of the actual charge or 85% of what a physician is paid under the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule.

Now you see why it’s more lucrative for the physician to bill than the NP/PA, especially if the extender is working under the “supervision” of the physician.

As I’m sure you’re aware, effective Jan. 1, 2010, the consultation codes were no longer recognized for Medicare Part B payment. Practitioners are directed to code patient evaluation and management (E/M) visits with E/M codes that represent where the visit occurs and identify the complexity of the visit performed.

Medicare directives are pretty clear that in order to bill for a visit, the physician or clinician must have a “face-to-face” encounter with the patient on the day of service billed. There is an opportunity for the physician and NP/PA from the same group practice to bill a split/shared E/M code under either unique physician identification number (UPIN), but the physician must still have a face-to-face encounter on the day of service or the bill must be submitted using the NP/PA’s UPIN (Medicare Claims Processing Manual, Chapter 12 – Physician/Nonphysician Practitioners. Section 30.6.1-Selection of Level of Evaluation and Management Service. Implemented: 01-04-10).

Therefore, in the situation that you describe, the supervising physician must bill for a subsequent visit E/M code.

Occasionally, teaching institutions with residents have formalized agreements with insurers that allow residents to see patients one day, with the attending physician allowed to bill for that day without seeing the patient. You should check with your group’s billing specialist to see if such arrangements have been made for your group.

After taking all this into consideration, however, I perceive the bigger issue as underlying tension or mistrust between you and the supervising physician. I suggest sitting down and having a conversation about scope of practice and expectations, and then you can better determine if you are the right person for that position.

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

Wait-and-See Approach Best for Newly Approved Meds

I am a new hospitalist, out of residency for two years, and feel very uncertain about using new or recently approved medications on my patients. Do you have any suggestions about how or when new medications should be used in practice?

–David Ray, MD

Dr. Hospitalist responds:

I certainly can understand your trepidation about using newly approved medications. Although our system of evaluating and approving medications for clinical use is considered the most rigorous in the world, 16 so-called novel medications were pulled from the shelves from 2000 to 2010, which equates to 6% of the total approved during that period. All in all, not a bad ratio, but the number of poor outcomes associated with a high-profile dud can be astronomical.

I think there are several major reasons why we have adverse issues with medications that have survived the rigors of the initial FDA approval process. First, many human drug trials are conducted in developing countries, where the human genome is much more homogenous and the liabilities for injuries are way less than in the U.S. Many researchers have acknowledged the significant role of pharmacogenomics, and how each physiology and pathology is unique. Couple these with the tendency to test drugs one at a time in younger cohorts—very few medications are administered in this manner in the U.S.—and one can quickly see how complex the equation becomes.

Another reason is the influence relegated to clinical trials. All clinicians should be familiar with the stages (0 to 4) and processes of how the FDA analyzes human drug trials. The FDA usually requires that two “adequate and well-controlled” trials confirm that a drug is safe and effective before it approves it for sale to the public. Once a drug completes Stage 3, an extensive statistical analysis is conducted to assure a drug’s demonstrated benefit is real and not the result of chance. But as it turns out, because the measured effects in most clinical trials are so small, chance is very hard to prove or disprove.

This was astutely demonstrated in a 2005 article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (2005;294(2):218-228). John P. Ioannidis, MD, examined the results of 49 high-profile clinical-research studies in which 45 found that proposed intervention was effective. Of the 45 claiming effectiveness, seven (16%) were contradicted by subsequent studies, and seven others had found effects that were stronger than those of subsequent studies. Of the 26 randomly controlled trials that were followed up by larger trials, the initial finding was entirely contradicted in three cases (12%); another six cases (23%) found the benefit to be less than half of what had been initially reported.

In most instances, it wasn’t the therapy that changed but the sample size. In fact, many clinicians and biostatisticians believe many more so-called “evidence-based” practices or medicinals would be legitimately challenged if subjected to rigorous follow-up studies.

In my own personal experience as a hospitalist, I can think of two areas where the general medical community accepted initial studies only to refute them later: perioperative use of beta-blockers and inpatient glycemic control.

In light of the many high-profile medications that have been pulled from the market, I don’t like being in the first group to jump on the bandwagon. My general rule is to wait three to five years after a drug has been released before prescribing for patients. As always, there are exceptions. In instances where new medications have profound or life-altering potential (i.e. the new anticoagulants or gene-targeting meds for certain cancers) and the risks are substantiated, I’m all in!

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

Wait-and-See Approach Best for Newly Approved Meds

I am a new hospitalist, out of residency for two years, and feel very uncertain about using new or recently approved medications on my patients. Do you have any suggestions about how or when new medications should be used in practice?

–David Ray, MD

Dr. Hospitalist responds:

I certainly can understand your trepidation about using newly approved medications. Although our system of evaluating and approving medications for clinical use is considered the most rigorous in the world, 16 so-called novel medications were pulled from the shelves from 2000 to 2010, which equates to 6% of the total approved during that period. All in all, not a bad ratio, but the number of poor outcomes associated with a high-profile dud can be astronomical.

I think there are several major reasons why we have adverse issues with medications that have survived the rigors of the initial FDA approval process. First, many human drug trials are conducted in developing countries, where the human genome is much more homogenous and the liabilities for injuries are way less than in the U.S. Many researchers have acknowledged the significant role of pharmacogenomics, and how each physiology and pathology is unique. Couple these with the tendency to test drugs one at a time in younger cohorts—very few medications are administered in this manner in the U.S.—and one can quickly see how complex the equation becomes.

Another reason is the influence relegated to clinical trials. All clinicians should be familiar with the stages (0 to 4) and processes of how the FDA analyzes human drug trials. The FDA usually requires that two “adequate and well-controlled” trials confirm that a drug is safe and effective before it approves it for sale to the public. Once a drug completes Stage 3, an extensive statistical analysis is conducted to assure a drug’s demonstrated benefit is real and not the result of chance. But as it turns out, because the measured effects in most clinical trials are so small, chance is very hard to prove or disprove.

This was astutely demonstrated in a 2005 article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (2005;294(2):218-228). John P. Ioannidis, MD, examined the results of 49 high-profile clinical-research studies in which 45 found that proposed intervention was effective. Of the 45 claiming effectiveness, seven (16%) were contradicted by subsequent studies, and seven others had found effects that were stronger than those of subsequent studies. Of the 26 randomly controlled trials that were followed up by larger trials, the initial finding was entirely contradicted in three cases (12%); another six cases (23%) found the benefit to be less than half of what had been initially reported.

In most instances, it wasn’t the therapy that changed but the sample size. In fact, many clinicians and biostatisticians believe many more so-called “evidence-based” practices or medicinals would be legitimately challenged if subjected to rigorous follow-up studies.

In my own personal experience as a hospitalist, I can think of two areas where the general medical community accepted initial studies only to refute them later: perioperative use of beta-blockers and inpatient glycemic control.

In light of the many high-profile medications that have been pulled from the market, I don’t like being in the first group to jump on the bandwagon. My general rule is to wait three to five years after a drug has been released before prescribing for patients. As always, there are exceptions. In instances where new medications have profound or life-altering potential (i.e. the new anticoagulants or gene-targeting meds for certain cancers) and the risks are substantiated, I’m all in!

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

Wait-and-See Approach Best for Newly Approved Meds

I am a new hospitalist, out of residency for two years, and feel very uncertain about using new or recently approved medications on my patients. Do you have any suggestions about how or when new medications should be used in practice?

–David Ray, MD

Dr. Hospitalist responds:

I certainly can understand your trepidation about using newly approved medications. Although our system of evaluating and approving medications for clinical use is considered the most rigorous in the world, 16 so-called novel medications were pulled from the shelves from 2000 to 2010, which equates to 6% of the total approved during that period. All in all, not a bad ratio, but the number of poor outcomes associated with a high-profile dud can be astronomical.

I think there are several major reasons why we have adverse issues with medications that have survived the rigors of the initial FDA approval process. First, many human drug trials are conducted in developing countries, where the human genome is much more homogenous and the liabilities for injuries are way less than in the U.S. Many researchers have acknowledged the significant role of pharmacogenomics, and how each physiology and pathology is unique. Couple these with the tendency to test drugs one at a time in younger cohorts—very few medications are administered in this manner in the U.S.—and one can quickly see how complex the equation becomes.

Another reason is the influence relegated to clinical trials. All clinicians should be familiar with the stages (0 to 4) and processes of how the FDA analyzes human drug trials. The FDA usually requires that two “adequate and well-controlled” trials confirm that a drug is safe and effective before it approves it for sale to the public. Once a drug completes Stage 3, an extensive statistical analysis is conducted to assure a drug’s demonstrated benefit is real and not the result of chance. But as it turns out, because the measured effects in most clinical trials are so small, chance is very hard to prove or disprove.

This was astutely demonstrated in a 2005 article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (2005;294(2):218-228). John P. Ioannidis, MD, examined the results of 49 high-profile clinical-research studies in which 45 found that proposed intervention was effective. Of the 45 claiming effectiveness, seven (16%) were contradicted by subsequent studies, and seven others had found effects that were stronger than those of subsequent studies. Of the 26 randomly controlled trials that were followed up by larger trials, the initial finding was entirely contradicted in three cases (12%); another six cases (23%) found the benefit to be less than half of what had been initially reported.

In most instances, it wasn’t the therapy that changed but the sample size. In fact, many clinicians and biostatisticians believe many more so-called “evidence-based” practices or medicinals would be legitimately challenged if subjected to rigorous follow-up studies.

In my own personal experience as a hospitalist, I can think of two areas where the general medical community accepted initial studies only to refute them later: perioperative use of beta-blockers and inpatient glycemic control.

In light of the many high-profile medications that have been pulled from the market, I don’t like being in the first group to jump on the bandwagon. My general rule is to wait three to five years after a drug has been released before prescribing for patients. As always, there are exceptions. In instances where new medications have profound or life-altering potential (i.e. the new anticoagulants or gene-targeting meds for certain cancers) and the risks are substantiated, I’m all in!

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

Dr. Hospitalist

In this age of cost containment and fiscal frugality, how do you handle high-census periods without jeopardizing patient care?

–Michael P. Mason, Tulsa, Okla.

Dr. Hospitalist responds:

Your group must first define the term “high census,” because workload is based on many factors. Seeing 20 patients a day in a large inner-city hospital is much different from seeing 20 patients in a suburban hospital in an affluent part of town. Also, seeing 20 patients geographically located on the same floor is much easier than 20 patients spread all over the hospital. Mid-level or nurse case-management support also makes a difference.

Once defined, there are many different ways to handle the high census; each hospitalist group must decide what works for them.

Many groups rely on their compensation structure to entice their physicians to see higher numbers of patients. The pay structure may be production-based and entice many of the group members to see more patients. Typically, for the member that does not want to see the large volumes, there are usually colleagues who are more than happy to cover the excess patients.

Some groups employ a hybrid system, with their compensation based on production and salary. Generally, bonuses or incentives are applied after meeting a specific relative value unit (RVU) threshold. These thresholds vary and usually are raised periodically based on the percentage of staff able to collect. Again, some group members may volunteer to see the excess patients for higher compensation. It is up to the group to develop mechanisms to measure the quality of care of these high producers and monitor for burnout.

Then there are groups that have no volume incentives and everyone is paid a salary. Many groups that utilize any of these compensation models have group members “on call” to come in when needed and see the excess patients. Many pay the on-call person some nominal amount just for being on call, or a per-patient or hourly rate if they have to come in. Others make it a mandatory part of the schedule without any additional compensation.

Many groups have integrated advanced-practice providers (nurse practitioners and physician assistants) into their systems. They can help hospitalists improve efficiency by seeing patients that are less ill or awaiting placement, or by performing such labor-intensive tasks as admissions and discharges.

HM groups should collaborate with the hospital’s chief financial officer. Like clinicians, most administrators recognize it is very difficult to deliver high-quality and efficient care when the numbers get high. It is in their best interest to help devise strategies and models that deliver quality care and the metrics needed to sustain support.

HM has become such a large specialty that there is no-one-size-fits-all solution to high censuses. In the end, you have to be comfortable with the system created by your group, work to help improve it, or seek a better fit.

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

Dr. Hospitalist

In this age of cost containment and fiscal frugality, how do you handle high-census periods without jeopardizing patient care?

–Michael P. Mason, Tulsa, Okla.

Dr. Hospitalist responds:

Your group must first define the term “high census,” because workload is based on many factors. Seeing 20 patients a day in a large inner-city hospital is much different from seeing 20 patients in a suburban hospital in an affluent part of town. Also, seeing 20 patients geographically located on the same floor is much easier than 20 patients spread all over the hospital. Mid-level or nurse case-management support also makes a difference.

Once defined, there are many different ways to handle the high census; each hospitalist group must decide what works for them.

Many groups rely on their compensation structure to entice their physicians to see higher numbers of patients. The pay structure may be production-based and entice many of the group members to see more patients. Typically, for the member that does not want to see the large volumes, there are usually colleagues who are more than happy to cover the excess patients.

Some groups employ a hybrid system, with their compensation based on production and salary. Generally, bonuses or incentives are applied after meeting a specific relative value unit (RVU) threshold. These thresholds vary and usually are raised periodically based on the percentage of staff able to collect. Again, some group members may volunteer to see the excess patients for higher compensation. It is up to the group to develop mechanisms to measure the quality of care of these high producers and monitor for burnout.

Then there are groups that have no volume incentives and everyone is paid a salary. Many groups that utilize any of these compensation models have group members “on call” to come in when needed and see the excess patients. Many pay the on-call person some nominal amount just for being on call, or a per-patient or hourly rate if they have to come in. Others make it a mandatory part of the schedule without any additional compensation.

Many groups have integrated advanced-practice providers (nurse practitioners and physician assistants) into their systems. They can help hospitalists improve efficiency by seeing patients that are less ill or awaiting placement, or by performing such labor-intensive tasks as admissions and discharges.

HM groups should collaborate with the hospital’s chief financial officer. Like clinicians, most administrators recognize it is very difficult to deliver high-quality and efficient care when the numbers get high. It is in their best interest to help devise strategies and models that deliver quality care and the metrics needed to sustain support.

HM has become such a large specialty that there is no-one-size-fits-all solution to high censuses. In the end, you have to be comfortable with the system created by your group, work to help improve it, or seek a better fit.

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

Dr. Hospitalist

In this age of cost containment and fiscal frugality, how do you handle high-census periods without jeopardizing patient care?

–Michael P. Mason, Tulsa, Okla.

Dr. Hospitalist responds:

Your group must first define the term “high census,” because workload is based on many factors. Seeing 20 patients a day in a large inner-city hospital is much different from seeing 20 patients in a suburban hospital in an affluent part of town. Also, seeing 20 patients geographically located on the same floor is much easier than 20 patients spread all over the hospital. Mid-level or nurse case-management support also makes a difference.

Once defined, there are many different ways to handle the high census; each hospitalist group must decide what works for them.

Many groups rely on their compensation structure to entice their physicians to see higher numbers of patients. The pay structure may be production-based and entice many of the group members to see more patients. Typically, for the member that does not want to see the large volumes, there are usually colleagues who are more than happy to cover the excess patients.

Some groups employ a hybrid system, with their compensation based on production and salary. Generally, bonuses or incentives are applied after meeting a specific relative value unit (RVU) threshold. These thresholds vary and usually are raised periodically based on the percentage of staff able to collect. Again, some group members may volunteer to see the excess patients for higher compensation. It is up to the group to develop mechanisms to measure the quality of care of these high producers and monitor for burnout.

Then there are groups that have no volume incentives and everyone is paid a salary. Many groups that utilize any of these compensation models have group members “on call” to come in when needed and see the excess patients. Many pay the on-call person some nominal amount just for being on call, or a per-patient or hourly rate if they have to come in. Others make it a mandatory part of the schedule without any additional compensation.

Many groups have integrated advanced-practice providers (nurse practitioners and physician assistants) into their systems. They can help hospitalists improve efficiency by seeing patients that are less ill or awaiting placement, or by performing such labor-intensive tasks as admissions and discharges.

HM groups should collaborate with the hospital’s chief financial officer. Like clinicians, most administrators recognize it is very difficult to deliver high-quality and efficient care when the numbers get high. It is in their best interest to help devise strategies and models that deliver quality care and the metrics needed to sustain support.

HM has become such a large specialty that there is no-one-size-fits-all solution to high censuses. In the end, you have to be comfortable with the system created by your group, work to help improve it, or seek a better fit.

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

Dr. Hospitalist

Dear Dr. Hospitalist:

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

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

Your feedback is very much appreciated.

–Donna Ting, MD, MPH

Dr. Hospitalist responds:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Hospitalist

Dear Dr. Hospitalist:

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

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

Your feedback is very much appreciated.

–Donna Ting, MD, MPH

Dr. Hospitalist responds:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Hospitalist

Dear Dr. Hospitalist:

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

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

Your feedback is very much appreciated.

–Donna Ting, MD, MPH

Dr. Hospitalist responds:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Hospitalist

I am a third-year internal-medicine resident and currently looking for a nocturnist opportunity. I have no experience in negotiating a job or salary. When I interview for a job, should I negotiate for salary? How do I know that the salary is correct and what others in the same group are getting? Thanks for the help.

–Santhosh Mannem, New York City

Dr. Hospitalist responds:

Salary discussions are always intriguing, mainly because you won’t really know what everyone else is getting paid. There are several places to get some information. To begin, find out the general salary range for the market in which you want to work. Just because an annual salary might be $240,000 in Emporia, Kan., doesn’t mean a thing if you are looking for a job in Salt Lake City or Seattle. You can use the online resources through SHM (www.hospitalmedicine.org/survey) to paint a pretty good picture of salary by region, but remember that these are ranges only.

When I think of job offers, I like to take total compensation and break it down by category. For example, benefits are not negotiable—your employer cannot vary the health insurance coverage they provide by physician. Still, you need to consider benefits as an important part of the package. A good health insurance plan won’t mean as much to a single physician as it would to one with a family, so consider your individual needs. I strongly encourage you to make a line item for every potential benefit: health, dental, disability, life, continuing medical education (CME), professional dues, retirement plans (potentially with an employer match), malpractice insurance costs, and so on. A job with a “salary” of $300,000 but no benefits would pale in comparison to a job paying $250,000 with full benefits.

Don’t discount the value of benefits; get the numbers and assign a dollar amount. If the group is not being transparent on benefits, walk away.

With strict regard to salary, you probably will get little to no information as to what the rest of the group members are paid. Feel free to ask, but expect some vague answers. Most often, there is a fairly tight convergence of salaries within a given market, and it’s always better to interview for more than one job in the same location. You mentioned that you’d like to work as a nocturnist, which is good. These positions are recruited heavily and tend to command a higher initial salary.

Overall, your ability to negotiate a higher salary is going to be rather limited. However, there is another calculation worth mentioning: You need to find out how much you are being paid per unit of work so you can compare jobs. Here are some of the items to help you figure out a formula that works for you: annual salary, contracted shifts per year/month, pay per shift, admits/census per shift, number of weekends, and potential bonus thresholds. Use these numbers (metrics) to more accurately compare different jobs. There is no magic formula; it just depends on what is important to you, but you will get a much better picture if you combine these metrics with your benefit analysis.

As a nocturnist, I would not expect to hit any productivity metrics. If you are that busy, it’s probably a miserable job. In a business sense, nights almost always lose money.

One thing that can always be negotiated: a signing bonus and/or loan forgiveness. Often, a practice won’t want to continually offer higher starting salaries since eventually this causes wage creep across the practice. However, they can be much more flexible when it comes to “one-time” payments. This keeps the overall salary structure for the practice intact and is usually much more agreeable for your employer. As always, it’s a supply-and-demand issue, but if you are a nocturnist looking at a high-demand area, I would negotiate hard for a signing bonus and maybe even a contract-renewal bonus after your first year.

It never hurts to get creative, either. I remember negotiating my first job; I offered to sign a two-year contract (instead of one) if they would let me take off six months the first year. They said yes, I did some traveling that first year on my new salary, and I stayed with the practice for 11 years. Don’t get so caught up in salary numbers that you lose sight of what’s really important to you and whether the job would be the right fit.

Good luck and welcome to hospital medicine. You’ll love it.

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

Dr. Hospitalist

I am a third-year internal-medicine resident and currently looking for a nocturnist opportunity. I have no experience in negotiating a job or salary. When I interview for a job, should I negotiate for salary? How do I know that the salary is correct and what others in the same group are getting? Thanks for the help.

–Santhosh Mannem, New York City

Dr. Hospitalist responds:

Salary discussions are always intriguing, mainly because you won’t really know what everyone else is getting paid. There are several places to get some information. To begin, find out the general salary range for the market in which you want to work. Just because an annual salary might be $240,000 in Emporia, Kan., doesn’t mean a thing if you are looking for a job in Salt Lake City or Seattle. You can use the online resources through SHM (www.hospitalmedicine.org/survey) to paint a pretty good picture of salary by region, but remember that these are ranges only.

When I think of job offers, I like to take total compensation and break it down by category. For example, benefits are not negotiable—your employer cannot vary the health insurance coverage they provide by physician. Still, you need to consider benefits as an important part of the package. A good health insurance plan won’t mean as much to a single physician as it would to one with a family, so consider your individual needs. I strongly encourage you to make a line item for every potential benefit: health, dental, disability, life, continuing medical education (CME), professional dues, retirement plans (potentially with an employer match), malpractice insurance costs, and so on. A job with a “salary” of $300,000 but no benefits would pale in comparison to a job paying $250,000 with full benefits.

Don’t discount the value of benefits; get the numbers and assign a dollar amount. If the group is not being transparent on benefits, walk away.

With strict regard to salary, you probably will get little to no information as to what the rest of the group members are paid. Feel free to ask, but expect some vague answers. Most often, there is a fairly tight convergence of salaries within a given market, and it’s always better to interview for more than one job in the same location. You mentioned that you’d like to work as a nocturnist, which is good. These positions are recruited heavily and tend to command a higher initial salary.

Overall, your ability to negotiate a higher salary is going to be rather limited. However, there is another calculation worth mentioning: You need to find out how much you are being paid per unit of work so you can compare jobs. Here are some of the items to help you figure out a formula that works for you: annual salary, contracted shifts per year/month, pay per shift, admits/census per shift, number of weekends, and potential bonus thresholds. Use these numbers (metrics) to more accurately compare different jobs. There is no magic formula; it just depends on what is important to you, but you will get a much better picture if you combine these metrics with your benefit analysis.

As a nocturnist, I would not expect to hit any productivity metrics. If you are that busy, it’s probably a miserable job. In a business sense, nights almost always lose money.

One thing that can always be negotiated: a signing bonus and/or loan forgiveness. Often, a practice won’t want to continually offer higher starting salaries since eventually this causes wage creep across the practice. However, they can be much more flexible when it comes to “one-time” payments. This keeps the overall salary structure for the practice intact and is usually much more agreeable for your employer. As always, it’s a supply-and-demand issue, but if you are a nocturnist looking at a high-demand area, I would negotiate hard for a signing bonus and maybe even a contract-renewal bonus after your first year.

It never hurts to get creative, either. I remember negotiating my first job; I offered to sign a two-year contract (instead of one) if they would let me take off six months the first year. They said yes, I did some traveling that first year on my new salary, and I stayed with the practice for 11 years. Don’t get so caught up in salary numbers that you lose sight of what’s really important to you and whether the job would be the right fit.

Good luck and welcome to hospital medicine. You’ll love it.

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

Dr. Hospitalist

I am a third-year internal-medicine resident and currently looking for a nocturnist opportunity. I have no experience in negotiating a job or salary. When I interview for a job, should I negotiate for salary? How do I know that the salary is correct and what others in the same group are getting? Thanks for the help.

–Santhosh Mannem, New York City

Dr. Hospitalist responds:

Salary discussions are always intriguing, mainly because you won’t really know what everyone else is getting paid. There are several places to get some information. To begin, find out the general salary range for the market in which you want to work. Just because an annual salary might be $240,000 in Emporia, Kan., doesn’t mean a thing if you are looking for a job in Salt Lake City or Seattle. You can use the online resources through SHM (www.hospitalmedicine.org/survey) to paint a pretty good picture of salary by region, but remember that these are ranges only.

When I think of job offers, I like to take total compensation and break it down by category. For example, benefits are not negotiable—your employer cannot vary the health insurance coverage they provide by physician. Still, you need to consider benefits as an important part of the package. A good health insurance plan won’t mean as much to a single physician as it would to one with a family, so consider your individual needs. I strongly encourage you to make a line item for every potential benefit: health, dental, disability, life, continuing medical education (CME), professional dues, retirement plans (potentially with an employer match), malpractice insurance costs, and so on. A job with a “salary” of $300,000 but no benefits would pale in comparison to a job paying $250,000 with full benefits.

Don’t discount the value of benefits; get the numbers and assign a dollar amount. If the group is not being transparent on benefits, walk away.

With strict regard to salary, you probably will get little to no information as to what the rest of the group members are paid. Feel free to ask, but expect some vague answers. Most often, there is a fairly tight convergence of salaries within a given market, and it’s always better to interview for more than one job in the same location. You mentioned that you’d like to work as a nocturnist, which is good. These positions are recruited heavily and tend to command a higher initial salary.

Overall, your ability to negotiate a higher salary is going to be rather limited. However, there is another calculation worth mentioning: You need to find out how much you are being paid per unit of work so you can compare jobs. Here are some of the items to help you figure out a formula that works for you: annual salary, contracted shifts per year/month, pay per shift, admits/census per shift, number of weekends, and potential bonus thresholds. Use these numbers (metrics) to more accurately compare different jobs. There is no magic formula; it just depends on what is important to you, but you will get a much better picture if you combine these metrics with your benefit analysis.

As a nocturnist, I would not expect to hit any productivity metrics. If you are that busy, it’s probably a miserable job. In a business sense, nights almost always lose money.

One thing that can always be negotiated: a signing bonus and/or loan forgiveness. Often, a practice won’t want to continually offer higher starting salaries since eventually this causes wage creep across the practice. However, they can be much more flexible when it comes to “one-time” payments. This keeps the overall salary structure for the practice intact and is usually much more agreeable for your employer. As always, it’s a supply-and-demand issue, but if you are a nocturnist looking at a high-demand area, I would negotiate hard for a signing bonus and maybe even a contract-renewal bonus after your first year.

It never hurts to get creative, either. I remember negotiating my first job; I offered to sign a two-year contract (instead of one) if they would let me take off six months the first year. They said yes, I did some traveling that first year on my new salary, and I stayed with the practice for 11 years. Don’t get so caught up in salary numbers that you lose sight of what’s really important to you and whether the job would be the right fit.

Good luck and welcome to hospital medicine. You’ll love it.

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