MHM

Present “hospitalist” in a word association exercise to a wide range of healthcare personnel in clinical and administrative roles, and many would instantly respond with “seven-on/seven-off schedule.”

Some numbers from SHM’s 2014 State of Hospital Medicine report:

• 53.8%: Portion of hospitalist groups using a seven-on/seven-off schedule.
• 182: Median number of shifts worked annually by a full-time hospitalist (standard contract hours, does not include “extra” shifts).
• 65%: Portion of groups having day shifts that are 12.0–13.9 hours in length.

These numbers suggest to me that, at least outside of academia, the standard hospitalist is working 12-hour shifts on a seven-on/seven-off schedule. And that mirrors my experience working on-site with hundreds of hospitalist groups across the country.

In other words, the hospitalist marketplace has spoken unambiguously regarding the favored work schedule. In some ways, it is a defining feature of hospitalist practice. In the same way that a defining characteristic of Millennials is devotion to social media and that air travel is associated with cramped seats, this work schedule is a defining characteristic for hospitalists.

Schedule Benefits? Many …

There is a reason for its popularity: It is simple to understand and operationalize, it provides for good hospitalist-patient continuity, and having every other week off is often cited as a principle reason for becoming a hospitalist (in many cases, it might only take a clerk or administrator a few hours to create a group’s work schedule for a whole year). Many hospitalist groups have followed this schedule for a decade or longer, and while they might have periodically discussed moving to an entirely different model, most have stuck with what they know.

I’m convinced this schedule will be around for many years to come.

Not Ideal in All Respects

Despite this schedule’s popularity, I regularly talk with hospitalists who say it has become very stressful and monotonous. They say they would really like to change to something else but feel stuck by the complexity of alternative models and the difficulty achieving consensus within the group regarding what model offers enough advantages—and acceptable costs—to be worth it.

They cite as shortcomings of the seven-on/seven-off schedule:

• It can be a Herculean task to alter the schedule to arrange a day or two off during the regularly scheduled week. They often give up on the effort, and over time, this can lead to some resentment toward their work.
• There is a tendency to adopt a systole-diastole lifestyle, with no activities other than work during the week on (e.g., no trips to the gym, dinners out with family, etc.) and an effort to move all of these into the week off. They’ll say, “What other profession requires one to shut down their personal life for seven days every other week?”
• It can be difficult to reliably use the seven days off productively. Sometimes it might be better to return to work after only two to four days off if at other times it were easy to arrange more than seven consecutive days off.
• The “switch day” can be difficult for the hospital. Such schedules nearly always are arranged so that all the doctors conclude seven days of work on the same day and are replaced by others the following day. Every hospitalist patient (typically more than half of all patients in the hospital) gets a new doctor on the same day, and the whole hospital runs less efficiently as a result.

Change Your Schedule?

Who am I kidding? Few groups, probably none to be precise, are likely to change their schedule as a result of reading this column. But I’m among what seems to be a small contingent who believe alternative schedules can work. Whether your group decides to pursue a different model should be entirely up to its members, but it is worthwhile to periodically discuss the costs and benefits of your current schedule as well as what other options might be practical. In most cases the discussion will conclude without any significant change, but discussing it periodically might turn up worthwhile small adjustments.

But if your group is ready to make a meaningful change away from a rigid seven-on/seven-off schedule, the first step could be to vary the number of days off. No longer would all in the group switch on the same day; only one doctor would switch at a time (unless there are more than seven day shifts), and that could occur on any day of the week.

To illustrate, let’s say you’re in a group with four day shifts. For this week, Dr. Plant might start Monday after four days off, Dr. Bonham has had 11 days off and starts Tuesday, Dr. Page starts Friday after nine days off, and Dr. Jones starts Saturday after six days off. Each will work seven consecutive day shifts, and the number of off days will vary depending on their own wishes and the needs of the group. This is much more complicated to schedule, but varying the switch day and number of days off between weeks can be good for work-life balance.

Some will quickly identify difficulties, such as how to get the kids’ nanny to match a varying work schedule like this. I know many hospitalists who have done this successfully and are glad they did, but I’m sure there are also many for whom changing to a schedule like this might require moving from their current terrific childcare arrangements to a new one, something that they (justifiably) are unwilling to do.

And if your group successfully moves to a seven-on/X-off schedule (i.e., varied number of days off), you could next think about varying the number of consecutive days worked. Maybe it could range from no fewer than five or six (to preserve reasonable continuity) to as many as 10 or 11 as long as you have the stamina.

I don’t have research proving this would be a better schedule. But my own career, and the experiences of a number of others I’ve spoken with, is enough to convince me it’s worth considering. TH

Present “hospitalist” in a word association exercise to a wide range of healthcare personnel in clinical and administrative roles, and many would instantly respond with “seven-on/seven-off schedule.”

Some numbers from SHM’s 2014 State of Hospital Medicine report:

• 53.8%: Portion of hospitalist groups using a seven-on/seven-off schedule.
• 182: Median number of shifts worked annually by a full-time hospitalist (standard contract hours, does not include “extra” shifts).
• 65%: Portion of groups having day shifts that are 12.0–13.9 hours in length.

These numbers suggest to me that, at least outside of academia, the standard hospitalist is working 12-hour shifts on a seven-on/seven-off schedule. And that mirrors my experience working on-site with hundreds of hospitalist groups across the country.

In other words, the hospitalist marketplace has spoken unambiguously regarding the favored work schedule. In some ways, it is a defining feature of hospitalist practice. In the same way that a defining characteristic of Millennials is devotion to social media and that air travel is associated with cramped seats, this work schedule is a defining characteristic for hospitalists.

Schedule Benefits? Many …

There is a reason for its popularity: It is simple to understand and operationalize, it provides for good hospitalist-patient continuity, and having every other week off is often cited as a principle reason for becoming a hospitalist (in many cases, it might only take a clerk or administrator a few hours to create a group’s work schedule for a whole year). Many hospitalist groups have followed this schedule for a decade or longer, and while they might have periodically discussed moving to an entirely different model, most have stuck with what they know.

I’m convinced this schedule will be around for many years to come.

Not Ideal in All Respects

Despite this schedule’s popularity, I regularly talk with hospitalists who say it has become very stressful and monotonous. They say they would really like to change to something else but feel stuck by the complexity of alternative models and the difficulty achieving consensus within the group regarding what model offers enough advantages—and acceptable costs—to be worth it.

They cite as shortcomings of the seven-on/seven-off schedule:

• It can be a Herculean task to alter the schedule to arrange a day or two off during the regularly scheduled week. They often give up on the effort, and over time, this can lead to some resentment toward their work.
• There is a tendency to adopt a systole-diastole lifestyle, with no activities other than work during the week on (e.g., no trips to the gym, dinners out with family, etc.) and an effort to move all of these into the week off. They’ll say, “What other profession requires one to shut down their personal life for seven days every other week?”
• It can be difficult to reliably use the seven days off productively. Sometimes it might be better to return to work after only two to four days off if at other times it were easy to arrange more than seven consecutive days off.
• The “switch day” can be difficult for the hospital. Such schedules nearly always are arranged so that all the doctors conclude seven days of work on the same day and are replaced by others the following day. Every hospitalist patient (typically more than half of all patients in the hospital) gets a new doctor on the same day, and the whole hospital runs less efficiently as a result.

Change Your Schedule?

Who am I kidding? Few groups, probably none to be precise, are likely to change their schedule as a result of reading this column. But I’m among what seems to be a small contingent who believe alternative schedules can work. Whether your group decides to pursue a different model should be entirely up to its members, but it is worthwhile to periodically discuss the costs and benefits of your current schedule as well as what other options might be practical. In most cases the discussion will conclude without any significant change, but discussing it periodically might turn up worthwhile small adjustments.

But if your group is ready to make a meaningful change away from a rigid seven-on/seven-off schedule, the first step could be to vary the number of days off. No longer would all in the group switch on the same day; only one doctor would switch at a time (unless there are more than seven day shifts), and that could occur on any day of the week.

To illustrate, let’s say you’re in a group with four day shifts. For this week, Dr. Plant might start Monday after four days off, Dr. Bonham has had 11 days off and starts Tuesday, Dr. Page starts Friday after nine days off, and Dr. Jones starts Saturday after six days off. Each will work seven consecutive day shifts, and the number of off days will vary depending on their own wishes and the needs of the group. This is much more complicated to schedule, but varying the switch day and number of days off between weeks can be good for work-life balance.

Some will quickly identify difficulties, such as how to get the kids’ nanny to match a varying work schedule like this. I know many hospitalists who have done this successfully and are glad they did, but I’m sure there are also many for whom changing to a schedule like this might require moving from their current terrific childcare arrangements to a new one, something that they (justifiably) are unwilling to do.

And if your group successfully moves to a seven-on/X-off schedule (i.e., varied number of days off), you could next think about varying the number of consecutive days worked. Maybe it could range from no fewer than five or six (to preserve reasonable continuity) to as many as 10 or 11 as long as you have the stamina.

I don’t have research proving this would be a better schedule. But my own career, and the experiences of a number of others I’ve spoken with, is enough to convince me it’s worth considering. TH

Present “hospitalist” in a word association exercise to a wide range of healthcare personnel in clinical and administrative roles, and many would instantly respond with “seven-on/seven-off schedule.”

Some numbers from SHM’s 2014 State of Hospital Medicine report:

• 53.8%: Portion of hospitalist groups using a seven-on/seven-off schedule.
• 182: Median number of shifts worked annually by a full-time hospitalist (standard contract hours, does not include “extra” shifts).
• 65%: Portion of groups having day shifts that are 12.0–13.9 hours in length.

These numbers suggest to me that, at least outside of academia, the standard hospitalist is working 12-hour shifts on a seven-on/seven-off schedule. And that mirrors my experience working on-site with hundreds of hospitalist groups across the country.

In other words, the hospitalist marketplace has spoken unambiguously regarding the favored work schedule. In some ways, it is a defining feature of hospitalist practice. In the same way that a defining characteristic of Millennials is devotion to social media and that air travel is associated with cramped seats, this work schedule is a defining characteristic for hospitalists.

Schedule Benefits? Many …

There is a reason for its popularity: It is simple to understand and operationalize, it provides for good hospitalist-patient continuity, and having every other week off is often cited as a principle reason for becoming a hospitalist (in many cases, it might only take a clerk or administrator a few hours to create a group’s work schedule for a whole year). Many hospitalist groups have followed this schedule for a decade or longer, and while they might have periodically discussed moving to an entirely different model, most have stuck with what they know.

I’m convinced this schedule will be around for many years to come.

Not Ideal in All Respects

Despite this schedule’s popularity, I regularly talk with hospitalists who say it has become very stressful and monotonous. They say they would really like to change to something else but feel stuck by the complexity of alternative models and the difficulty achieving consensus within the group regarding what model offers enough advantages—and acceptable costs—to be worth it.

They cite as shortcomings of the seven-on/seven-off schedule:

• It can be a Herculean task to alter the schedule to arrange a day or two off during the regularly scheduled week. They often give up on the effort, and over time, this can lead to some resentment toward their work.
• There is a tendency to adopt a systole-diastole lifestyle, with no activities other than work during the week on (e.g., no trips to the gym, dinners out with family, etc.) and an effort to move all of these into the week off. They’ll say, “What other profession requires one to shut down their personal life for seven days every other week?”
• It can be difficult to reliably use the seven days off productively. Sometimes it might be better to return to work after only two to four days off if at other times it were easy to arrange more than seven consecutive days off.
• The “switch day” can be difficult for the hospital. Such schedules nearly always are arranged so that all the doctors conclude seven days of work on the same day and are replaced by others the following day. Every hospitalist patient (typically more than half of all patients in the hospital) gets a new doctor on the same day, and the whole hospital runs less efficiently as a result.

Change Your Schedule?

Who am I kidding? Few groups, probably none to be precise, are likely to change their schedule as a result of reading this column. But I’m among what seems to be a small contingent who believe alternative schedules can work. Whether your group decides to pursue a different model should be entirely up to its members, but it is worthwhile to periodically discuss the costs and benefits of your current schedule as well as what other options might be practical. In most cases the discussion will conclude without any significant change, but discussing it periodically might turn up worthwhile small adjustments.

But if your group is ready to make a meaningful change away from a rigid seven-on/seven-off schedule, the first step could be to vary the number of days off. No longer would all in the group switch on the same day; only one doctor would switch at a time (unless there are more than seven day shifts), and that could occur on any day of the week.

To illustrate, let’s say you’re in a group with four day shifts. For this week, Dr. Plant might start Monday after four days off, Dr. Bonham has had 11 days off and starts Tuesday, Dr. Page starts Friday after nine days off, and Dr. Jones starts Saturday after six days off. Each will work seven consecutive day shifts, and the number of off days will vary depending on their own wishes and the needs of the group. This is much more complicated to schedule, but varying the switch day and number of days off between weeks can be good for work-life balance.

Some will quickly identify difficulties, such as how to get the kids’ nanny to match a varying work schedule like this. I know many hospitalists who have done this successfully and are glad they did, but I’m sure there are also many for whom changing to a schedule like this might require moving from their current terrific childcare arrangements to a new one, something that they (justifiably) are unwilling to do.

And if your group successfully moves to a seven-on/X-off schedule (i.e., varied number of days off), you could next think about varying the number of consecutive days worked. Maybe it could range from no fewer than five or six (to preserve reasonable continuity) to as many as 10 or 11 as long as you have the stamina.

I don’t have research proving this would be a better schedule. But my own career, and the experiences of a number of others I’ve spoken with, is enough to convince me it’s worth considering. TH

On a spring day a couple of years ago, I met with some internal medicine residents in a “Healthcare Systems Immersion” elective. I was to provide thoughts about the nonclinical portion of my work that I spend consulting with other hospitalist groups.

I asked for their thoughts about whether the ranks of doctors providing direct bedside care were losing too many of the most talented clinicians to nonclinical roles. The most vocal resident was confident that was not the case; these doctors would ultimately have a positive impact on the care of larger numbers of patients through administrative work than through direct patient care.

I wonder if she is right.

Numerous Hospitalists Opt for Nonnclinical Work

It seems like lots of hospitalists are transitioning to nonclinical work. My experience is that most who have administrative or other nonclinical roles continue—for part of their time—to provide direct patient care. But some leave clinical work behind altogether. Some of them are very prominent people in our field, like the top physician at CMS, the current U.S. Surgeon General, and this year’s most influential physician executive as judged by Modern Healthcare. I think it is pretty cool that these people come from our specialty.

I couldn’t find published survey data on the portion of hospitalists, or doctors in any specialty, who have entirely (or almost entirely) nonclinical roles. My impression is that this was a vanishingly small number across all specialties 30 or 40 years ago, but it seems to have increased pretty dramatically in the last 10 years. At the start of my career, few hospitals had a physician in an administrative position. Now it is common.

Physician leadership roles now include information technology (CMIO), quality (CQO), leader of the employed physician group, and hospital CEO (at least two hospitalists I know are in this role). And there are lots of nonclinical roles for doctors outside of hospitals.

Pros, Cons for Healthcare

I’ve had mixed feelings watching many people leave clinical practice. Most of them, like those mentioned above, continue to make important contributions to our healthcare system; they improve the services and care patients receive. Yet it seems like some of the best clinicians are taken from active practice and are difficult to replace.

At the start of my career, the few doctors who left clinical practice for nonclinical work tended to do so late in their careers. Now many make this choice very early in their careers. Of the six or seven residents I met with above, several planned to pursue entirely nonclinical work either immediately upon completing residency or after just a few years of clinical practice. They were at one of the top internal medicine programs in the country and will, presumably, provide direct clinical care to a really small number of patients over their careers.

It makes me wonder if there is a meaningful effect of more talented people having, and exercising, the option to leave clinical practice, resulting in a tilt toward somewhat-less-talented doctors left to treat patients. I hope there is no meaningful effect in this direction, but I’m not sure.

Reasons to Move

My experience is that most doctors who have left clinical work will wax eloquent about how they really loved it and weren’t fleeing it but did so because they wanted to “try something new” or contribute to healthcare in other ways. I’m suspicious that for many of them this isn’t entirely true. Some must have been fleeing it. They were burned out, tired of being on call, and so on, and were eager to find relief from clinical work more than they were “drawn to a new career challenge.” They just don’t want to admit it.

I sometimes think about what several nationally prominent hospitalist leaders have said to me over my career. Not long ago, one said, “Wow. You’re still seeing patients and making rounds? I can’t believe it. You need to find something better.”

This doctor seemed to equate an entire career spent in clinical practice as something done mostly by those who aren’t talented enough to have other options. What a change from 30 or 40 years ago.

Several years ago, in a very moving conversation, another nationally prominent hospitalist leader told me, “It’s all about the patient and how we care for them at the bedside. There’s no better way we can spend our time.”

The Best Career

Within a few years, he left clinical practice entirely, even though he was still mid-career.

I hold in highest esteem hospitalists and other doctors who spend a full career in direct patient care and do it well. At the top of that list is my own dad, who is up there with Osler when it comes to dedicated physicians.

Of course, those who spend most or all of their time in nonclinical work really can make important contributions that help the healthcare system better serve patients, in some cases clearly making a bigger difference for more patients than they could via direct clinical care. We need talented people in both roles, but we also need to always be looking for ways to minimize the numbers of doctors who feel the need to flee a clinical career.

Like many hospitalists, I think about these things a lot when making decisions about my own career. I hope we all have the wisdom to make the best choices for ourselves, and for the patients we set out to serve when we entered medical school. TH

On a spring day a couple of years ago, I met with some internal medicine residents in a “Healthcare Systems Immersion” elective. I was to provide thoughts about the nonclinical portion of my work that I spend consulting with other hospitalist groups.

I asked for their thoughts about whether the ranks of doctors providing direct bedside care were losing too many of the most talented clinicians to nonclinical roles. The most vocal resident was confident that was not the case; these doctors would ultimately have a positive impact on the care of larger numbers of patients through administrative work than through direct patient care.

I wonder if she is right.

Numerous Hospitalists Opt for Nonnclinical Work

It seems like lots of hospitalists are transitioning to nonclinical work. My experience is that most who have administrative or other nonclinical roles continue—for part of their time—to provide direct patient care. But some leave clinical work behind altogether. Some of them are very prominent people in our field, like the top physician at CMS, the current U.S. Surgeon General, and this year’s most influential physician executive as judged by Modern Healthcare. I think it is pretty cool that these people come from our specialty.

I couldn’t find published survey data on the portion of hospitalists, or doctors in any specialty, who have entirely (or almost entirely) nonclinical roles. My impression is that this was a vanishingly small number across all specialties 30 or 40 years ago, but it seems to have increased pretty dramatically in the last 10 years. At the start of my career, few hospitals had a physician in an administrative position. Now it is common.

Physician leadership roles now include information technology (CMIO), quality (CQO), leader of the employed physician group, and hospital CEO (at least two hospitalists I know are in this role). And there are lots of nonclinical roles for doctors outside of hospitals.

Pros, Cons for Healthcare

I’ve had mixed feelings watching many people leave clinical practice. Most of them, like those mentioned above, continue to make important contributions to our healthcare system; they improve the services and care patients receive. Yet it seems like some of the best clinicians are taken from active practice and are difficult to replace.

At the start of my career, the few doctors who left clinical practice for nonclinical work tended to do so late in their careers. Now many make this choice very early in their careers. Of the six or seven residents I met with above, several planned to pursue entirely nonclinical work either immediately upon completing residency or after just a few years of clinical practice. They were at one of the top internal medicine programs in the country and will, presumably, provide direct clinical care to a really small number of patients over their careers.

It makes me wonder if there is a meaningful effect of more talented people having, and exercising, the option to leave clinical practice, resulting in a tilt toward somewhat-less-talented doctors left to treat patients. I hope there is no meaningful effect in this direction, but I’m not sure.

Reasons to Move

My experience is that most doctors who have left clinical work will wax eloquent about how they really loved it and weren’t fleeing it but did so because they wanted to “try something new” or contribute to healthcare in other ways. I’m suspicious that for many of them this isn’t entirely true. Some must have been fleeing it. They were burned out, tired of being on call, and so on, and were eager to find relief from clinical work more than they were “drawn to a new career challenge.” They just don’t want to admit it.

I sometimes think about what several nationally prominent hospitalist leaders have said to me over my career. Not long ago, one said, “Wow. You’re still seeing patients and making rounds? I can’t believe it. You need to find something better.”

This doctor seemed to equate an entire career spent in clinical practice as something done mostly by those who aren’t talented enough to have other options. What a change from 30 or 40 years ago.

Several years ago, in a very moving conversation, another nationally prominent hospitalist leader told me, “It’s all about the patient and how we care for them at the bedside. There’s no better way we can spend our time.”

The Best Career

Within a few years, he left clinical practice entirely, even though he was still mid-career.

I hold in highest esteem hospitalists and other doctors who spend a full career in direct patient care and do it well. At the top of that list is my own dad, who is up there with Osler when it comes to dedicated physicians.

Of course, those who spend most or all of their time in nonclinical work really can make important contributions that help the healthcare system better serve patients, in some cases clearly making a bigger difference for more patients than they could via direct clinical care. We need talented people in both roles, but we also need to always be looking for ways to minimize the numbers of doctors who feel the need to flee a clinical career.

Like many hospitalists, I think about these things a lot when making decisions about my own career. I hope we all have the wisdom to make the best choices for ourselves, and for the patients we set out to serve when we entered medical school. TH

On a spring day a couple of years ago, I met with some internal medicine residents in a “Healthcare Systems Immersion” elective. I was to provide thoughts about the nonclinical portion of my work that I spend consulting with other hospitalist groups.

I asked for their thoughts about whether the ranks of doctors providing direct bedside care were losing too many of the most talented clinicians to nonclinical roles. The most vocal resident was confident that was not the case; these doctors would ultimately have a positive impact on the care of larger numbers of patients through administrative work than through direct patient care.

I wonder if she is right.

Numerous Hospitalists Opt for Nonnclinical Work

It seems like lots of hospitalists are transitioning to nonclinical work. My experience is that most who have administrative or other nonclinical roles continue—for part of their time—to provide direct patient care. But some leave clinical work behind altogether. Some of them are very prominent people in our field, like the top physician at CMS, the current U.S. Surgeon General, and this year’s most influential physician executive as judged by Modern Healthcare. I think it is pretty cool that these people come from our specialty.

I couldn’t find published survey data on the portion of hospitalists, or doctors in any specialty, who have entirely (or almost entirely) nonclinical roles. My impression is that this was a vanishingly small number across all specialties 30 or 40 years ago, but it seems to have increased pretty dramatically in the last 10 years. At the start of my career, few hospitals had a physician in an administrative position. Now it is common.

Physician leadership roles now include information technology (CMIO), quality (CQO), leader of the employed physician group, and hospital CEO (at least two hospitalists I know are in this role). And there are lots of nonclinical roles for doctors outside of hospitals.

Pros, Cons for Healthcare

I’ve had mixed feelings watching many people leave clinical practice. Most of them, like those mentioned above, continue to make important contributions to our healthcare system; they improve the services and care patients receive. Yet it seems like some of the best clinicians are taken from active practice and are difficult to replace.

At the start of my career, the few doctors who left clinical practice for nonclinical work tended to do so late in their careers. Now many make this choice very early in their careers. Of the six or seven residents I met with above, several planned to pursue entirely nonclinical work either immediately upon completing residency or after just a few years of clinical practice. They were at one of the top internal medicine programs in the country and will, presumably, provide direct clinical care to a really small number of patients over their careers.

It makes me wonder if there is a meaningful effect of more talented people having, and exercising, the option to leave clinical practice, resulting in a tilt toward somewhat-less-talented doctors left to treat patients. I hope there is no meaningful effect in this direction, but I’m not sure.

Reasons to Move

My experience is that most doctors who have left clinical work will wax eloquent about how they really loved it and weren’t fleeing it but did so because they wanted to “try something new” or contribute to healthcare in other ways. I’m suspicious that for many of them this isn’t entirely true. Some must have been fleeing it. They were burned out, tired of being on call, and so on, and were eager to find relief from clinical work more than they were “drawn to a new career challenge.” They just don’t want to admit it.

I sometimes think about what several nationally prominent hospitalist leaders have said to me over my career. Not long ago, one said, “Wow. You’re still seeing patients and making rounds? I can’t believe it. You need to find something better.”

This doctor seemed to equate an entire career spent in clinical practice as something done mostly by those who aren’t talented enough to have other options. What a change from 30 or 40 years ago.

Several years ago, in a very moving conversation, another nationally prominent hospitalist leader told me, “It’s all about the patient and how we care for them at the bedside. There’s no better way we can spend our time.”

The Best Career

Within a few years, he left clinical practice entirely, even though he was still mid-career.

I hold in highest esteem hospitalists and other doctors who spend a full career in direct patient care and do it well. At the top of that list is my own dad, who is up there with Osler when it comes to dedicated physicians.

Of course, those who spend most or all of their time in nonclinical work really can make important contributions that help the healthcare system better serve patients, in some cases clearly making a bigger difference for more patients than they could via direct clinical care. We need talented people in both roles, but we also need to always be looking for ways to minimize the numbers of doctors who feel the need to flee a clinical career.

Like many hospitalists, I think about these things a lot when making decisions about my own career. I hope we all have the wisdom to make the best choices for ourselves, and for the patients we set out to serve when we entered medical school. TH

I think every hospitalist group should diligently try to maximize hospitalist-patient continuity, but many seem to adopt schedules and other operational practices that erode it. Let’s walk through the issue of continuity, starting with some history.

Inpatient Continuity in Old Healthcare System

Proudly carrying a pager nearly the size of a loaf of bread and wearing a white shirt and pants with Converse All Stars, I served as a hospital orderly in the 1970s. This position involved things like getting patients out of bed, placing Foley catheters, performing chest compressions during codes, and transporting the bodies of the deceased to the morgue. I really enjoyed the work, and the experience serves as one of my historical frames of reference for how hospital care has evolved since then.

The way I remember it, nearly everyone at the hospital worked a predictable schedule. RN staffing was the same each day; it didn’t vary based on census. Each full-time RN worked five shifts a week, eight hours each. Most or all would work alternate weekends and would have two compensatory days off during the following work week. This resulted in terrific continuity between nurse and patient, and the long length of stays meant patients and nurses got to know one another really well.

Continuity Takes a Hit

But things have changed. Nurse-patient continuity seems to have declined significantly as a result of two main forces: the hospital’s efforts to reduce staffing costs by varying nurse staffing to match daily patient volume, and nurses’ desire for a wide variety of work schedules. Asking a bedside nurse in today’s hospital whether the patient’s confusion, diarrhea, or appetite is meaningfully different today than yesterday typically yields the same reply. “This is my first day with the patient; I’ll have to look at the chart.”

I couldn’t find many research articles or editorials regarding hospital nurse-patient continuity from one day to the next. But several researchers seem to have begun studying this issue and have recently published a proposed framework for assessing it, and I found one study showing it wasn’t correlated with rates of pressure ulcers.^1,2.

My anecdotal experience tells me continuity between the patient and caregivers of all stripes matters a lot. Research will be valuable in helping us to better understand its most significant costs and benefits, but I’m already convinced “Continuity is King” and should be one of the most important factors in the design of work schedules and patient allocation models for nurses and hospitalists alike.

While some might say we should wait for randomized trials of continuity to determine its importance, I’m inclined to see it like the authors of “Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials.” As a ding against those who insist on research data when common sense may be sufficient, they concluded “…that everyone might benefit if the most radical protagonists of evidence-based medicine organised and participated in a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, crossover trial of the parachute.³

Continuity and Hospitalists

On top of what I see as erosion in nurse-patient continuity, the arrival of hospitalists disrupted doctor-patient continuity across the inpatient and outpatient setting. While there was significant concern about this when our field first took off in the 1990s, it seems to be getting a great deal less attention over the last few years. In many hospitalist groups I work with, it is one of the last factors considered when creating a work schedule. Factors that are examined include the following:

• Solely for provider convenience, a group might regularly schedule a provider for only two or three consecutive daytime shifts, or sometimes only single days;
• Groups that use unit-based hospital (a.k.a. “geographic”) staffing might have a patient transfer to a different attending hospitalist solely as a result of moving to a room in a different nursing unit; and
• As part of morning load leveling, some groups reassign existing patients to a new hospitalist.

I think all groups should work hard to avoid doing these things. And while I seem to be a real outlier on this one, I think the benefits of a separate daytime hospitalist admitter shift are not worth the cost of having different doctors always do the admission and first follow-up visit. Most groups should consider moving the admitter into an additional rounder position and allocating daytime admissions across all hospitalists.

One study found that hospitalist discontinuity was not associated with adverse events, and another found it was associated with higher length of stay for selected diagnoses.^4,5 But there is too little research to draw hard conclusions. I’m convinced poor continuity increases the possibility of handoff-related errors, likely results in lower patient satisfaction, and increases the overall work of the hospitalist group, because more providers have to take the time to get to know the patient.

Although there will always be some tension between terrific continuity and a sustainable hospitalist lifestyle—a person can work only so many consecutive days before wearing out—every group should thoughtfully consider whether they are doing everything reasonable to maximize continuity. After all, continuity is king.

References

1. Stifter J, Yao Y, Lopez KC, Khokhar A, Wilkie DJ, Keenan GM. Proposing a new conceptual model and an exemplar measure using health information technology to examine the impact of relational nurse continuity on hospital-acquired pressure ulcers. ANS Adv Nurs Sci. 2015;38(3):241-251.
2. Stifter J, Yao Y, Lodhi MK, et al. Nurse continuity and hospital-acquired pressure ulcers: a comparative analysis using an electronic health record “big data” set. Nurs Res. 2015;64(5):361-371.
3. Smith GC, Pell JP. Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2003;327(7429):1459-1461.
4. O’Leary KJ, Turner J, Christensen N, et al. The effect of hospitalist discontinuity on adverse events. J Hosp Med. 2015;10(3):147-151.
5. Epstein K, Juarez E, Epstein A, Loya K, Singer A. The impact of fragmentation of hospitalist care on length of stay. J Hosp Med. 2010;5(6):335-338.

I think every hospitalist group should diligently try to maximize hospitalist-patient continuity, but many seem to adopt schedules and other operational practices that erode it. Let’s walk through the issue of continuity, starting with some history.

Inpatient Continuity in Old Healthcare System

Proudly carrying a pager nearly the size of a loaf of bread and wearing a white shirt and pants with Converse All Stars, I served as a hospital orderly in the 1970s. This position involved things like getting patients out of bed, placing Foley catheters, performing chest compressions during codes, and transporting the bodies of the deceased to the morgue. I really enjoyed the work, and the experience serves as one of my historical frames of reference for how hospital care has evolved since then.

The way I remember it, nearly everyone at the hospital worked a predictable schedule. RN staffing was the same each day; it didn’t vary based on census. Each full-time RN worked five shifts a week, eight hours each. Most or all would work alternate weekends and would have two compensatory days off during the following work week. This resulted in terrific continuity between nurse and patient, and the long length of stays meant patients and nurses got to know one another really well.

Continuity Takes a Hit

But things have changed. Nurse-patient continuity seems to have declined significantly as a result of two main forces: the hospital’s efforts to reduce staffing costs by varying nurse staffing to match daily patient volume, and nurses’ desire for a wide variety of work schedules. Asking a bedside nurse in today’s hospital whether the patient’s confusion, diarrhea, or appetite is meaningfully different today than yesterday typically yields the same reply. “This is my first day with the patient; I’ll have to look at the chart.”

I couldn’t find many research articles or editorials regarding hospital nurse-patient continuity from one day to the next. But several researchers seem to have begun studying this issue and have recently published a proposed framework for assessing it, and I found one study showing it wasn’t correlated with rates of pressure ulcers.^1,2.

My anecdotal experience tells me continuity between the patient and caregivers of all stripes matters a lot. Research will be valuable in helping us to better understand its most significant costs and benefits, but I’m already convinced “Continuity is King” and should be one of the most important factors in the design of work schedules and patient allocation models for nurses and hospitalists alike.

While some might say we should wait for randomized trials of continuity to determine its importance, I’m inclined to see it like the authors of “Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials.” As a ding against those who insist on research data when common sense may be sufficient, they concluded “…that everyone might benefit if the most radical protagonists of evidence-based medicine organised and participated in a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, crossover trial of the parachute.³

Continuity and Hospitalists

On top of what I see as erosion in nurse-patient continuity, the arrival of hospitalists disrupted doctor-patient continuity across the inpatient and outpatient setting. While there was significant concern about this when our field first took off in the 1990s, it seems to be getting a great deal less attention over the last few years. In many hospitalist groups I work with, it is one of the last factors considered when creating a work schedule. Factors that are examined include the following:

• Solely for provider convenience, a group might regularly schedule a provider for only two or three consecutive daytime shifts, or sometimes only single days;
• Groups that use unit-based hospital (a.k.a. “geographic”) staffing might have a patient transfer to a different attending hospitalist solely as a result of moving to a room in a different nursing unit; and
• As part of morning load leveling, some groups reassign existing patients to a new hospitalist.

I think all groups should work hard to avoid doing these things. And while I seem to be a real outlier on this one, I think the benefits of a separate daytime hospitalist admitter shift are not worth the cost of having different doctors always do the admission and first follow-up visit. Most groups should consider moving the admitter into an additional rounder position and allocating daytime admissions across all hospitalists.

One study found that hospitalist discontinuity was not associated with adverse events, and another found it was associated with higher length of stay for selected diagnoses.^4,5 But there is too little research to draw hard conclusions. I’m convinced poor continuity increases the possibility of handoff-related errors, likely results in lower patient satisfaction, and increases the overall work of the hospitalist group, because more providers have to take the time to get to know the patient.

Although there will always be some tension between terrific continuity and a sustainable hospitalist lifestyle—a person can work only so many consecutive days before wearing out—every group should thoughtfully consider whether they are doing everything reasonable to maximize continuity. After all, continuity is king.

References

1. Stifter J, Yao Y, Lopez KC, Khokhar A, Wilkie DJ, Keenan GM. Proposing a new conceptual model and an exemplar measure using health information technology to examine the impact of relational nurse continuity on hospital-acquired pressure ulcers. ANS Adv Nurs Sci. 2015;38(3):241-251.
2. Stifter J, Yao Y, Lodhi MK, et al. Nurse continuity and hospital-acquired pressure ulcers: a comparative analysis using an electronic health record “big data” set. Nurs Res. 2015;64(5):361-371.
3. Smith GC, Pell JP. Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2003;327(7429):1459-1461.
4. O’Leary KJ, Turner J, Christensen N, et al. The effect of hospitalist discontinuity on adverse events. J Hosp Med. 2015;10(3):147-151.
5. Epstein K, Juarez E, Epstein A, Loya K, Singer A. The impact of fragmentation of hospitalist care on length of stay. J Hosp Med. 2010;5(6):335-338.

I think every hospitalist group should diligently try to maximize hospitalist-patient continuity, but many seem to adopt schedules and other operational practices that erode it. Let’s walk through the issue of continuity, starting with some history.

Inpatient Continuity in Old Healthcare System

Proudly carrying a pager nearly the size of a loaf of bread and wearing a white shirt and pants with Converse All Stars, I served as a hospital orderly in the 1970s. This position involved things like getting patients out of bed, placing Foley catheters, performing chest compressions during codes, and transporting the bodies of the deceased to the morgue. I really enjoyed the work, and the experience serves as one of my historical frames of reference for how hospital care has evolved since then.

The way I remember it, nearly everyone at the hospital worked a predictable schedule. RN staffing was the same each day; it didn’t vary based on census. Each full-time RN worked five shifts a week, eight hours each. Most or all would work alternate weekends and would have two compensatory days off during the following work week. This resulted in terrific continuity between nurse and patient, and the long length of stays meant patients and nurses got to know one another really well.

Continuity Takes a Hit

But things have changed. Nurse-patient continuity seems to have declined significantly as a result of two main forces: the hospital’s efforts to reduce staffing costs by varying nurse staffing to match daily patient volume, and nurses’ desire for a wide variety of work schedules. Asking a bedside nurse in today’s hospital whether the patient’s confusion, diarrhea, or appetite is meaningfully different today than yesterday typically yields the same reply. “This is my first day with the patient; I’ll have to look at the chart.”

I couldn’t find many research articles or editorials regarding hospital nurse-patient continuity from one day to the next. But several researchers seem to have begun studying this issue and have recently published a proposed framework for assessing it, and I found one study showing it wasn’t correlated with rates of pressure ulcers.^1,2.

My anecdotal experience tells me continuity between the patient and caregivers of all stripes matters a lot. Research will be valuable in helping us to better understand its most significant costs and benefits, but I’m already convinced “Continuity is King” and should be one of the most important factors in the design of work schedules and patient allocation models for nurses and hospitalists alike.

While some might say we should wait for randomized trials of continuity to determine its importance, I’m inclined to see it like the authors of “Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials.” As a ding against those who insist on research data when common sense may be sufficient, they concluded “…that everyone might benefit if the most radical protagonists of evidence-based medicine organised and participated in a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, crossover trial of the parachute.³

Continuity and Hospitalists

On top of what I see as erosion in nurse-patient continuity, the arrival of hospitalists disrupted doctor-patient continuity across the inpatient and outpatient setting. While there was significant concern about this when our field first took off in the 1990s, it seems to be getting a great deal less attention over the last few years. In many hospitalist groups I work with, it is one of the last factors considered when creating a work schedule. Factors that are examined include the following:

• Solely for provider convenience, a group might regularly schedule a provider for only two or three consecutive daytime shifts, or sometimes only single days;
• Groups that use unit-based hospital (a.k.a. “geographic”) staffing might have a patient transfer to a different attending hospitalist solely as a result of moving to a room in a different nursing unit; and
• As part of morning load leveling, some groups reassign existing patients to a new hospitalist.

I think all groups should work hard to avoid doing these things. And while I seem to be a real outlier on this one, I think the benefits of a separate daytime hospitalist admitter shift are not worth the cost of having different doctors always do the admission and first follow-up visit. Most groups should consider moving the admitter into an additional rounder position and allocating daytime admissions across all hospitalists.

One study found that hospitalist discontinuity was not associated with adverse events, and another found it was associated with higher length of stay for selected diagnoses.^4,5 But there is too little research to draw hard conclusions. I’m convinced poor continuity increases the possibility of handoff-related errors, likely results in lower patient satisfaction, and increases the overall work of the hospitalist group, because more providers have to take the time to get to know the patient.

Although there will always be some tension between terrific continuity and a sustainable hospitalist lifestyle—a person can work only so many consecutive days before wearing out—every group should thoughtfully consider whether they are doing everything reasonable to maximize continuity. After all, continuity is king.

References

1. Stifter J, Yao Y, Lopez KC, Khokhar A, Wilkie DJ, Keenan GM. Proposing a new conceptual model and an exemplar measure using health information technology to examine the impact of relational nurse continuity on hospital-acquired pressure ulcers. ANS Adv Nurs Sci. 2015;38(3):241-251.
2. Stifter J, Yao Y, Lodhi MK, et al. Nurse continuity and hospital-acquired pressure ulcers: a comparative analysis using an electronic health record “big data” set. Nurs Res. 2015;64(5):361-371.
3. Smith GC, Pell JP. Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2003;327(7429):1459-1461.
4. O’Leary KJ, Turner J, Christensen N, et al. The effect of hospitalist discontinuity on adverse events. J Hosp Med. 2015;10(3):147-151.
5. Epstein K, Juarez E, Epstein A, Loya K, Singer A. The impact of fragmentation of hospitalist care on length of stay. J Hosp Med. 2010;5(6):335-338.

Editor’s note: Second in a continuing series of articles exploring ways hospitalist groups can cut back.

In last month’s column, I made the case that most hospitalist groups should think about doing away with a morning meeting to distribute overnight admissions and changing a daytime admitter shift into another rounder and having all of the day rounders share admissions. Here I’ll describe additional things in place at some hospitalist groups that should probably be eliminated.

Obscuring Attending Hospitalist Name

Some hospitalist groups admit patients to the “blue team” or “gold team” or use a similar system. I encountered one place that had a fuchsia team. Such designations typically take the place of the attending physician’s name and can be convenient when one hospitalist goes off service and is replaced by another; the team name stays the same. Even if the attending hospitalist makes up the entire team (i.e., no residents or students), some groups use the “team” name rather than the attending hospitalist name.

But when the patient’s chart, sign on the door, and other identifying materials all refer only to the team that is caring for the patient, the patients, their families, and most hospital staff don’t have an easy way to identify the responsible physician. Say a worried daughter steps into the hall to ask the nurse, “Which doctor is taking care of my dad?” The nurse might readily see that the blue team is responsible but may not know which hospitalist is working on the blue team today and might have to walk back to the nursing station to look over a sheet of paper (a “decoder ring”) to figure out the hospitalist’s name.

This scenario has all kinds of drawbacks. To the daughter, the name of the doctor in charge is a big deal. It doesn’t inspire confidence if the nurse can’t readily say who that is. And the busy nurse might forget to investigate and provide the name to the daughter in a timely way.

I think groups using a system like this should seriously consider replacing team names with the attending hospitalist name and updating that name in the medical record, whether that is an EHR, a paper chart, or some other form, every time that doctor rotates off service and is replaced by another. Hospital staff, patients, and families should always see the name of the attending physician and not an uninformative color or nondescript team name.

It will require work for someone, the hospitalist in many cases, to go into the EHR and write an order or send a message to ensure that the hospitalist name is kept current every time one doctor replaces another. But it’s worth the effort.

Day Hospitalists Should Round on Patients Admitted after Midnight

Although not exactly common, I’ve come across this scenario often enough that it’s worth mentioning.

Hospitalists, sometimes with a hint of indignity or even chest thumping, have told me they don’t visit or round on patients admitted after midnight by their night doctor. “You can’t bill for a second visit on the same calendar day,” they explain, firmly. “So if I can’t get paid to see the patient, then I won’t.”

This is just crazy.

For one thing, these same doctors are typically employed by the hospital and are being paid to provide whatever care patients need. I think they’ve just latched onto the “can’t bill another visit” as an excuse to get out of some work.

Don’t forget that many of these patients may wait over 30 hours from their admitting visit to the first follow-up visit; this delay is at the beginning of their hospital stay, when they might be most unstable. And it delays initiation of discharge planning and other important steps in patient care.

I don’t see any room for meaningful debate on this. The rounder who picks up a patient admitted the night before should always make a full rounding visit, even if the admission was after midnight.

But if the visit isn’t billable, you are freed from the typical billing-related documentation requirements. No need to document detail in the note that doesn’t meaningfully contribute to the care of the patient. For example, you might omit a chief complaint for this encounter.

Daytime Triage Doctor

Practices larger than about 20 full-time equivalents often have one daytime doctor hold a “triage” or “hot” pager, which others call to make a new referral. This triage doctor will hear about all referrals and keep track of and contact the hospitalist responsible for the next new patient. This can be a very busy job and often comes on top of a full clinical load for that doctor.

As I mentioned in my July 2015 and December 2010 articles, in many or most groups, a clerical person could take over this function, at least during business hours.

Vacation Time

In many or most cases, hospitalists that have specified vacation time are not getting a better deal than those that have no vacation time. What really matters is how many shifts you’re responsible for in a year. For the days you aren’t on shift, in most hospitalist groups it really doesn’t matter whether you label some of them as vacation days or CME days.

I discussed this issue in greater detail in my March 2007 article.

But if you’re in the 30% of hospitalist groups that have a vacation (or PTO) provision currently and it works well, then there certainly isn’t a compelling reason to change or do away with it.

Editor’s note: Second in a continuing series of articles exploring ways hospitalist groups can cut back.

In last month’s column, I made the case that most hospitalist groups should think about doing away with a morning meeting to distribute overnight admissions and changing a daytime admitter shift into another rounder and having all of the day rounders share admissions. Here I’ll describe additional things in place at some hospitalist groups that should probably be eliminated.

Obscuring Attending Hospitalist Name

Some hospitalist groups admit patients to the “blue team” or “gold team” or use a similar system. I encountered one place that had a fuchsia team. Such designations typically take the place of the attending physician’s name and can be convenient when one hospitalist goes off service and is replaced by another; the team name stays the same. Even if the attending hospitalist makes up the entire team (i.e., no residents or students), some groups use the “team” name rather than the attending hospitalist name.

But when the patient’s chart, sign on the door, and other identifying materials all refer only to the team that is caring for the patient, the patients, their families, and most hospital staff don’t have an easy way to identify the responsible physician. Say a worried daughter steps into the hall to ask the nurse, “Which doctor is taking care of my dad?” The nurse might readily see that the blue team is responsible but may not know which hospitalist is working on the blue team today and might have to walk back to the nursing station to look over a sheet of paper (a “decoder ring”) to figure out the hospitalist’s name.

This scenario has all kinds of drawbacks. To the daughter, the name of the doctor in charge is a big deal. It doesn’t inspire confidence if the nurse can’t readily say who that is. And the busy nurse might forget to investigate and provide the name to the daughter in a timely way.

I think groups using a system like this should seriously consider replacing team names with the attending hospitalist name and updating that name in the medical record, whether that is an EHR, a paper chart, or some other form, every time that doctor rotates off service and is replaced by another. Hospital staff, patients, and families should always see the name of the attending physician and not an uninformative color or nondescript team name.

It will require work for someone, the hospitalist in many cases, to go into the EHR and write an order or send a message to ensure that the hospitalist name is kept current every time one doctor replaces another. But it’s worth the effort.

Day Hospitalists Should Round on Patients Admitted after Midnight

Although not exactly common, I’ve come across this scenario often enough that it’s worth mentioning.

Hospitalists, sometimes with a hint of indignity or even chest thumping, have told me they don’t visit or round on patients admitted after midnight by their night doctor. “You can’t bill for a second visit on the same calendar day,” they explain, firmly. “So if I can’t get paid to see the patient, then I won’t.”

This is just crazy.

For one thing, these same doctors are typically employed by the hospital and are being paid to provide whatever care patients need. I think they’ve just latched onto the “can’t bill another visit” as an excuse to get out of some work.

Don’t forget that many of these patients may wait over 30 hours from their admitting visit to the first follow-up visit; this delay is at the beginning of their hospital stay, when they might be most unstable. And it delays initiation of discharge planning and other important steps in patient care.

I don’t see any room for meaningful debate on this. The rounder who picks up a patient admitted the night before should always make a full rounding visit, even if the admission was after midnight.

But if the visit isn’t billable, you are freed from the typical billing-related documentation requirements. No need to document detail in the note that doesn’t meaningfully contribute to the care of the patient. For example, you might omit a chief complaint for this encounter.

Daytime Triage Doctor

Practices larger than about 20 full-time equivalents often have one daytime doctor hold a “triage” or “hot” pager, which others call to make a new referral. This triage doctor will hear about all referrals and keep track of and contact the hospitalist responsible for the next new patient. This can be a very busy job and often comes on top of a full clinical load for that doctor.

As I mentioned in my July 2015 and December 2010 articles, in many or most groups, a clerical person could take over this function, at least during business hours.

Vacation Time

In many or most cases, hospitalists that have specified vacation time are not getting a better deal than those that have no vacation time. What really matters is how many shifts you’re responsible for in a year. For the days you aren’t on shift, in most hospitalist groups it really doesn’t matter whether you label some of them as vacation days or CME days.

I discussed this issue in greater detail in my March 2007 article.

But if you’re in the 30% of hospitalist groups that have a vacation (or PTO) provision currently and it works well, then there certainly isn’t a compelling reason to change or do away with it.

Editor’s note: Second in a continuing series of articles exploring ways hospitalist groups can cut back.

In last month’s column, I made the case that most hospitalist groups should think about doing away with a morning meeting to distribute overnight admissions and changing a daytime admitter shift into another rounder and having all of the day rounders share admissions. Here I’ll describe additional things in place at some hospitalist groups that should probably be eliminated.

Obscuring Attending Hospitalist Name

Some hospitalist groups admit patients to the “blue team” or “gold team” or use a similar system. I encountered one place that had a fuchsia team. Such designations typically take the place of the attending physician’s name and can be convenient when one hospitalist goes off service and is replaced by another; the team name stays the same. Even if the attending hospitalist makes up the entire team (i.e., no residents or students), some groups use the “team” name rather than the attending hospitalist name.

But when the patient’s chart, sign on the door, and other identifying materials all refer only to the team that is caring for the patient, the patients, their families, and most hospital staff don’t have an easy way to identify the responsible physician. Say a worried daughter steps into the hall to ask the nurse, “Which doctor is taking care of my dad?” The nurse might readily see that the blue team is responsible but may not know which hospitalist is working on the blue team today and might have to walk back to the nursing station to look over a sheet of paper (a “decoder ring”) to figure out the hospitalist’s name.

This scenario has all kinds of drawbacks. To the daughter, the name of the doctor in charge is a big deal. It doesn’t inspire confidence if the nurse can’t readily say who that is. And the busy nurse might forget to investigate and provide the name to the daughter in a timely way.

I think groups using a system like this should seriously consider replacing team names with the attending hospitalist name and updating that name in the medical record, whether that is an EHR, a paper chart, or some other form, every time that doctor rotates off service and is replaced by another. Hospital staff, patients, and families should always see the name of the attending physician and not an uninformative color or nondescript team name.

It will require work for someone, the hospitalist in many cases, to go into the EHR and write an order or send a message to ensure that the hospitalist name is kept current every time one doctor replaces another. But it’s worth the effort.

Day Hospitalists Should Round on Patients Admitted after Midnight

Although not exactly common, I’ve come across this scenario often enough that it’s worth mentioning.

Hospitalists, sometimes with a hint of indignity or even chest thumping, have told me they don’t visit or round on patients admitted after midnight by their night doctor. “You can’t bill for a second visit on the same calendar day,” they explain, firmly. “So if I can’t get paid to see the patient, then I won’t.”

This is just crazy.

For one thing, these same doctors are typically employed by the hospital and are being paid to provide whatever care patients need. I think they’ve just latched onto the “can’t bill another visit” as an excuse to get out of some work.

Don’t forget that many of these patients may wait over 30 hours from their admitting visit to the first follow-up visit; this delay is at the beginning of their hospital stay, when they might be most unstable. And it delays initiation of discharge planning and other important steps in patient care.

I don’t see any room for meaningful debate on this. The rounder who picks up a patient admitted the night before should always make a full rounding visit, even if the admission was after midnight.

But if the visit isn’t billable, you are freed from the typical billing-related documentation requirements. No need to document detail in the note that doesn’t meaningfully contribute to the care of the patient. For example, you might omit a chief complaint for this encounter.

Daytime Triage Doctor

Practices larger than about 20 full-time equivalents often have one daytime doctor hold a “triage” or “hot” pager, which others call to make a new referral. This triage doctor will hear about all referrals and keep track of and contact the hospitalist responsible for the next new patient. This can be a very busy job and often comes on top of a full clinical load for that doctor.

As I mentioned in my July 2015 and December 2010 articles, in many or most groups, a clerical person could take over this function, at least during business hours.

Vacation Time

In many or most cases, hospitalists that have specified vacation time are not getting a better deal than those that have no vacation time. What really matters is how many shifts you’re responsible for in a year. For the days you aren’t on shift, in most hospitalist groups it really doesn’t matter whether you label some of them as vacation days or CME days.

I discussed this issue in greater detail in my March 2007 article.

But if you’re in the 30% of hospitalist groups that have a vacation (or PTO) provision currently and it works well, then there certainly isn’t a compelling reason to change or do away with it.

You shouldn’t maintain things that do not deliver the value you anticipated when you first put them in place. For example, I thought Netflix streaming would be terrific, but I have used it so infrequently that it probably costs me $50 per movie or show watched. I should probably dump it.

Your hospitalist group might have some operational practices that are not as valuable as they seem and could be replaced with something better. For many groups, this might include doing away with a separate daytime admitter shift and a morning meeting to distribute the overnight admissions.

Daytime Admission Shift

My experience is that hospitalist groups with more than about five daytime doctors almost always have a day-shift person dedicated to seeing new admissions. In most cases, this procedure is implemented with the idea of reducing the stress of other day-shift doctors, who don’t have to interrupt rounds to admit a new patient. Some see a dedicated admitter as a tool to improve ED throughput, because this doctor isn’t tied up with rounds and can immediately start seeing a new admission.

I think an admitter shift does deliver both of these benefits, but its costs make it suboptimal in most settings. For example, a single admitter will impede ED throughput any time more than one new admission is waiting to be seen, and for most groups that will be much of the day. In fact, improved ED throughput is best achieved by having many hospitalists available for admissions, not just a single admitter. (There are many other factors influencing ED throughput, such as whether ED doctors simply send patients to their “floor” bed prior to being seen by a hospitalist. But for this article, I’m just considering the influence of a dedicated admitter.)

I think “silo-ing” work into different roles, such as separating rounding and admitting, makes it more difficult to ensure that each is always working productively. There are likely to be times when the admitter has little or nothing to do, even though the rounders are very busy. Or perhaps the rounders aren’t very busy, but the admitter has just been asked to admit four ED patients at the same time.

While protecting rounders from the stress of admissions is valuable, it comes at the cost of a net increase in hospitalist work, because a new doctor must get to know the patient on the day following admission. And this admitter-to-rounder handoff serves as another opportunity for errors—and probably lowers patient satisfaction.

I think most groups should consider moving the admitter shift into an additional rounder position, dividing admissions across all of the doctors working during the daytime. For example, a group that has six rounders and a separate admitter would change to seven rounders, each available to admit every seventh daytime admission. Each would bear the meaningful stress of having rounds interrupted to admit a new patient, but accepting every seventh daytime admission shouldn’t be too difficult on most days.

Don’t forget that eliminating the admitter means that the list of new patients you take on each morning will be shorter. Mornings may be a little less stressful.

A.M. Distribution

The daytime doctors at many hospitalist groups meet each morning to discuss how the new admissions from the prior night (or even the last 24 hours) will be distributed. Or perhaps one person, sometimes a nurse or clerical staff, arrives very early each day to do this.

Although it might take some careful planning, I think most groups that use this sort of morning distribution should abandon it for a better system. Consider a group in which all six daytime doctors spend an average of 20 minutes distributing patients each morning. Twenty minutes (0.33 hours) times six doctors times 365 days comes to 730 hours annually.

Assuming these doctors are compensated at typical rates, the practice is spending more than $100,000 annually just so the doctors can distribute patients each morning. On top of this, nurses and others at the hospital are usually delayed in learning which daytime hospitalist is caring for each patient. These costs seem unreasonably high.

An alternative is to develop a system by which any admitter, such as a night doctor, who will not be providing subsequent care to a patient can identify by name the doctor who will be providing that care. During the admission encounter, the admitter can tell patient/family, “Dr. Boswell will be taking over your care starting tomorrow. He’s a great guy and has been named one of Portland’s best doctors.” This seems so much better than saying, “One of my partners will be taking over tomorrow. I don’t know which of my partners it will be, but they’re all good doctors.” And Dr. Boswell’s name can be entered into the attending physician field of the EHR so that all hospital staff will know without delay.

MedAptus has recently launched software they call “Assign” that may be able to replace the morning meeting and automate assigning new admissions to each hospitalist. I haven’t seen it in operation, so I can’t speak for its effectiveness, but it might be worthwhile for some groups.

Practical Considerations

The changes I’ve described above might not be optimal for every group, and they may take meaningful work to implement. But I don’t think the difficulty of these things is the biggest barrier. The biggest barrier is probably just inertia in most cases, the same reason I’m still a Netflix streaming subscriber even though I almost never watch it. I did, however, really enjoy the Nexflix original series Lilyhammer.

You shouldn’t maintain things that do not deliver the value you anticipated when you first put them in place. For example, I thought Netflix streaming would be terrific, but I have used it so infrequently that it probably costs me $50 per movie or show watched. I should probably dump it.

Your hospitalist group might have some operational practices that are not as valuable as they seem and could be replaced with something better. For many groups, this might include doing away with a separate daytime admitter shift and a morning meeting to distribute the overnight admissions.

Daytime Admission Shift

My experience is that hospitalist groups with more than about five daytime doctors almost always have a day-shift person dedicated to seeing new admissions. In most cases, this procedure is implemented with the idea of reducing the stress of other day-shift doctors, who don’t have to interrupt rounds to admit a new patient. Some see a dedicated admitter as a tool to improve ED throughput, because this doctor isn’t tied up with rounds and can immediately start seeing a new admission.

I think an admitter shift does deliver both of these benefits, but its costs make it suboptimal in most settings. For example, a single admitter will impede ED throughput any time more than one new admission is waiting to be seen, and for most groups that will be much of the day. In fact, improved ED throughput is best achieved by having many hospitalists available for admissions, not just a single admitter. (There are many other factors influencing ED throughput, such as whether ED doctors simply send patients to their “floor” bed prior to being seen by a hospitalist. But for this article, I’m just considering the influence of a dedicated admitter.)

I think “silo-ing” work into different roles, such as separating rounding and admitting, makes it more difficult to ensure that each is always working productively. There are likely to be times when the admitter has little or nothing to do, even though the rounders are very busy. Or perhaps the rounders aren’t very busy, but the admitter has just been asked to admit four ED patients at the same time.

While protecting rounders from the stress of admissions is valuable, it comes at the cost of a net increase in hospitalist work, because a new doctor must get to know the patient on the day following admission. And this admitter-to-rounder handoff serves as another opportunity for errors—and probably lowers patient satisfaction.

I think most groups should consider moving the admitter shift into an additional rounder position, dividing admissions across all of the doctors working during the daytime. For example, a group that has six rounders and a separate admitter would change to seven rounders, each available to admit every seventh daytime admission. Each would bear the meaningful stress of having rounds interrupted to admit a new patient, but accepting every seventh daytime admission shouldn’t be too difficult on most days.

Don’t forget that eliminating the admitter means that the list of new patients you take on each morning will be shorter. Mornings may be a little less stressful.

A.M. Distribution

The daytime doctors at many hospitalist groups meet each morning to discuss how the new admissions from the prior night (or even the last 24 hours) will be distributed. Or perhaps one person, sometimes a nurse or clerical staff, arrives very early each day to do this.

Although it might take some careful planning, I think most groups that use this sort of morning distribution should abandon it for a better system. Consider a group in which all six daytime doctors spend an average of 20 minutes distributing patients each morning. Twenty minutes (0.33 hours) times six doctors times 365 days comes to 730 hours annually.

Assuming these doctors are compensated at typical rates, the practice is spending more than $100,000 annually just so the doctors can distribute patients each morning. On top of this, nurses and others at the hospital are usually delayed in learning which daytime hospitalist is caring for each patient. These costs seem unreasonably high.

An alternative is to develop a system by which any admitter, such as a night doctor, who will not be providing subsequent care to a patient can identify by name the doctor who will be providing that care. During the admission encounter, the admitter can tell patient/family, “Dr. Boswell will be taking over your care starting tomorrow. He’s a great guy and has been named one of Portland’s best doctors.” This seems so much better than saying, “One of my partners will be taking over tomorrow. I don’t know which of my partners it will be, but they’re all good doctors.” And Dr. Boswell’s name can be entered into the attending physician field of the EHR so that all hospital staff will know without delay.

MedAptus has recently launched software they call “Assign” that may be able to replace the morning meeting and automate assigning new admissions to each hospitalist. I haven’t seen it in operation, so I can’t speak for its effectiveness, but it might be worthwhile for some groups.

Practical Considerations

The changes I’ve described above might not be optimal for every group, and they may take meaningful work to implement. But I don’t think the difficulty of these things is the biggest barrier. The biggest barrier is probably just inertia in most cases, the same reason I’m still a Netflix streaming subscriber even though I almost never watch it. I did, however, really enjoy the Nexflix original series Lilyhammer.

You shouldn’t maintain things that do not deliver the value you anticipated when you first put them in place. For example, I thought Netflix streaming would be terrific, but I have used it so infrequently that it probably costs me $50 per movie or show watched. I should probably dump it.

Your hospitalist group might have some operational practices that are not as valuable as they seem and could be replaced with something better. For many groups, this might include doing away with a separate daytime admitter shift and a morning meeting to distribute the overnight admissions.

Daytime Admission Shift

My experience is that hospitalist groups with more than about five daytime doctors almost always have a day-shift person dedicated to seeing new admissions. In most cases, this procedure is implemented with the idea of reducing the stress of other day-shift doctors, who don’t have to interrupt rounds to admit a new patient. Some see a dedicated admitter as a tool to improve ED throughput, because this doctor isn’t tied up with rounds and can immediately start seeing a new admission.

I think an admitter shift does deliver both of these benefits, but its costs make it suboptimal in most settings. For example, a single admitter will impede ED throughput any time more than one new admission is waiting to be seen, and for most groups that will be much of the day. In fact, improved ED throughput is best achieved by having many hospitalists available for admissions, not just a single admitter. (There are many other factors influencing ED throughput, such as whether ED doctors simply send patients to their “floor” bed prior to being seen by a hospitalist. But for this article, I’m just considering the influence of a dedicated admitter.)

I think “silo-ing” work into different roles, such as separating rounding and admitting, makes it more difficult to ensure that each is always working productively. There are likely to be times when the admitter has little or nothing to do, even though the rounders are very busy. Or perhaps the rounders aren’t very busy, but the admitter has just been asked to admit four ED patients at the same time.

While protecting rounders from the stress of admissions is valuable, it comes at the cost of a net increase in hospitalist work, because a new doctor must get to know the patient on the day following admission. And this admitter-to-rounder handoff serves as another opportunity for errors—and probably lowers patient satisfaction.

I think most groups should consider moving the admitter shift into an additional rounder position, dividing admissions across all of the doctors working during the daytime. For example, a group that has six rounders and a separate admitter would change to seven rounders, each available to admit every seventh daytime admission. Each would bear the meaningful stress of having rounds interrupted to admit a new patient, but accepting every seventh daytime admission shouldn’t be too difficult on most days.

Don’t forget that eliminating the admitter means that the list of new patients you take on each morning will be shorter. Mornings may be a little less stressful.

A.M. Distribution

The daytime doctors at many hospitalist groups meet each morning to discuss how the new admissions from the prior night (or even the last 24 hours) will be distributed. Or perhaps one person, sometimes a nurse or clerical staff, arrives very early each day to do this.

Although it might take some careful planning, I think most groups that use this sort of morning distribution should abandon it for a better system. Consider a group in which all six daytime doctors spend an average of 20 minutes distributing patients each morning. Twenty minutes (0.33 hours) times six doctors times 365 days comes to 730 hours annually.

Assuming these doctors are compensated at typical rates, the practice is spending more than $100,000 annually just so the doctors can distribute patients each morning. On top of this, nurses and others at the hospital are usually delayed in learning which daytime hospitalist is caring for each patient. These costs seem unreasonably high.

An alternative is to develop a system by which any admitter, such as a night doctor, who will not be providing subsequent care to a patient can identify by name the doctor who will be providing that care. During the admission encounter, the admitter can tell patient/family, “Dr. Boswell will be taking over your care starting tomorrow. He’s a great guy and has been named one of Portland’s best doctors.” This seems so much better than saying, “One of my partners will be taking over tomorrow. I don’t know which of my partners it will be, but they’re all good doctors.” And Dr. Boswell’s name can be entered into the attending physician field of the EHR so that all hospital staff will know without delay.

MedAptus has recently launched software they call “Assign” that may be able to replace the morning meeting and automate assigning new admissions to each hospitalist. I haven’t seen it in operation, so I can’t speak for its effectiveness, but it might be worthwhile for some groups.

Practical Considerations

The changes I’ve described above might not be optimal for every group, and they may take meaningful work to implement. But I don’t think the difficulty of these things is the biggest barrier. The biggest barrier is probably just inertia in most cases, the same reason I’m still a Netflix streaming subscriber even though I almost never watch it. I did, however, really enjoy the Nexflix original series Lilyhammer.

Using quotes to ensure that the results were only those that include the two words adjacent to one another, rather than separated, I entered the following phrases into my Google search engine:

• “hospitalist burnout” = 1,580 results
• “hospitalist morale” = 208 results
• “hospitalist well-being” = 0 results

I think the number of results suggests the level of interest in each topic and, if that is the case, clearly thinking about how hospitalists are doing in their careers is more commonly done through the paradigm of burnout than the other two terms. (Of course, there may be other terms that I didn’t consider.) In fact, there have been a handful of published studies of hospitalist burnout and job satisfaction.^1,2

Those studies generally have shown both reasonably high levels of job satisfaction and troubling levels of burnout.

But I’ve been thinking about hospitalist morale for a while. I think morale is reasonably distinct from both burnout and job satisfaction.

Causes of a National Decline in Hospitalist Morale

I think hospitalist morale has declined some over the past two or three years across the country. This observation is meaningful because it comes from my experience working with a lot of hospitalist groups coast to coast. But I’m the first to admit it is just anecdotal and is subject to my own biases.

I can think of several things contributing to a decline in morale.

EHR adoption. Near the top of the list is the adoption of EHRs in many hospitals, which typically leads doctors in other specialties to seek hospitalist assistance with EHR-related tasks (e.g. medicine reconciliation and order writing) even in cases where there is little or no clinical reason for hospitalist involvement. Lots of hospitalists complain about this. To be clear, in many hospitals the hospitalists are reasonably content with using the EHR, but they experience ongoing frustration and low morale resulting from nonclinical work other doctors pressure them to take over.

Observation status. Many hospitals began classifying a larger portion of patients as observation status over the last few years; at the same time, patients and families have become more aware of how much of a disadvantage this is. In many cases, it is the hospitalist who takes the brunt of patient and family frustration. This can get awfully stressful and frustrating, and I think it is a contributor to allegations of malpractice.

Budgetary stress. Ever since SHM began collecting survey data in the late 1990s, the financial support hospitals have been providing to hospitalists has increased dramatically. The most recent State of Hospital Medicine report, published in 2104, showed median support provided by hospitals of $156,063 per FTE hospitalist, per year. Some hospitals have begun to resist providing more support, and this translates into stress and lower morale for hospitalists. This is far from a universal issue, but it does lead to lower morale for hospitalists who face it.

Many other factors may be contributing to a national decline in morale, but I think these are some of the most important.

What Can Be Done?

Some hospitalist groups have great morale now and don’t need to do much of anything right now, but some groups should think about a deliberate strategy to improve it.

Sadly, there isn’t a prescription that is sure to work. But there are some things you can try.

Self-care. The field of palliative care has thought a lot about caring for caregivers, and hospitalist groups might want to adopt some of their practices. Search the Internet on “self-care” + “palliative care,” and you’ll find a lot of interesting things. The group I’m part of launched a deliberate program of professionally led and facilitated hospitalist self-care, with high hopes that included mindful meditation, among other things. As soon as we had designed our program, the Mayo Clinic published their favorable experience with a program that was very similar to what we had planned, and I thought we would see similar benefits.³

But, while all who attended the sessions thought they were valuable, attendance was so poor that we ended up cancelling the program. The hospitalists were interested in attending but were either on service and busy seeing patients, or were off and didn’t want to drive in to work solely for the purpose of reducing work stress.

I’m convinced a self-care program is valuable but very tricky to schedule effectively. Maybe others have come up with effective ways of overcoming this problem.

Social connections. Some hospitalist groups seem to have little social and personal connection to other physicians and hospital leaders. I think this results in lower hospitalist morale and tends to be self-reinforcing. If you’re in such a group, you and your hospitalist colleagues should deliberately seek better relationships with other doctors and hospital administrative leaders. Ensure that you visit with others at lunch, talk with them at committee meetings, ask about their vacation and personal activities, and pursue activities with them outside of work.

When these sorts of social connections are strong, work is far more satisfying and you’re much more likely to be treated as a peer by other doctors. I think this is really important and shouldn’t be overlooked if your group is suffering from low morale.

Adaptive work. Lastly, you might want to approach changes to your work and morale as “adaptive work,” rather than “technical work.” Space doesn’t permit a description of these, but it is worth reading about how they differ. Many groups will find value in reframing their approach to aspects of work they don’t like as adaptive work.

References

1. Hinami K, Whelan CT, Wolosin RJ, Miller JA, Wetterneck TB. Worklife and satisfaction of hospitalists: toward flourishing careers. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27(1):28-36.
2. Hoff TH, Whitcomb WF, Williams K, Nelson JR, Cheesman RA. Characteristics and work experiences of hospitalists in the United States. Arch Intern Med. 2001;161(6):851-858.
3. West CP, Dyrbye LN, Rabatin JT, et al. Intervention to promote physician well-being, job satisfaction, and professionalism: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(4):527-533.

Using quotes to ensure that the results were only those that include the two words adjacent to one another, rather than separated, I entered the following phrases into my Google search engine:

• “hospitalist burnout” = 1,580 results
• “hospitalist morale” = 208 results
• “hospitalist well-being” = 0 results

I think the number of results suggests the level of interest in each topic and, if that is the case, clearly thinking about how hospitalists are doing in their careers is more commonly done through the paradigm of burnout than the other two terms. (Of course, there may be other terms that I didn’t consider.) In fact, there have been a handful of published studies of hospitalist burnout and job satisfaction.^1,2

Those studies generally have shown both reasonably high levels of job satisfaction and troubling levels of burnout.

But I’ve been thinking about hospitalist morale for a while. I think morale is reasonably distinct from both burnout and job satisfaction.

Causes of a National Decline in Hospitalist Morale

I think hospitalist morale has declined some over the past two or three years across the country. This observation is meaningful because it comes from my experience working with a lot of hospitalist groups coast to coast. But I’m the first to admit it is just anecdotal and is subject to my own biases.

I can think of several things contributing to a decline in morale.

EHR adoption. Near the top of the list is the adoption of EHRs in many hospitals, which typically leads doctors in other specialties to seek hospitalist assistance with EHR-related tasks (e.g. medicine reconciliation and order writing) even in cases where there is little or no clinical reason for hospitalist involvement. Lots of hospitalists complain about this. To be clear, in many hospitals the hospitalists are reasonably content with using the EHR, but they experience ongoing frustration and low morale resulting from nonclinical work other doctors pressure them to take over.

Observation status. Many hospitals began classifying a larger portion of patients as observation status over the last few years; at the same time, patients and families have become more aware of how much of a disadvantage this is. In many cases, it is the hospitalist who takes the brunt of patient and family frustration. This can get awfully stressful and frustrating, and I think it is a contributor to allegations of malpractice.

Budgetary stress. Ever since SHM began collecting survey data in the late 1990s, the financial support hospitals have been providing to hospitalists has increased dramatically. The most recent State of Hospital Medicine report, published in 2104, showed median support provided by hospitals of $156,063 per FTE hospitalist, per year. Some hospitals have begun to resist providing more support, and this translates into stress and lower morale for hospitalists. This is far from a universal issue, but it does lead to lower morale for hospitalists who face it.

Many other factors may be contributing to a national decline in morale, but I think these are some of the most important.

What Can Be Done?

Some hospitalist groups have great morale now and don’t need to do much of anything right now, but some groups should think about a deliberate strategy to improve it.

Sadly, there isn’t a prescription that is sure to work. But there are some things you can try.

Self-care. The field of palliative care has thought a lot about caring for caregivers, and hospitalist groups might want to adopt some of their practices. Search the Internet on “self-care” + “palliative care,” and you’ll find a lot of interesting things. The group I’m part of launched a deliberate program of professionally led and facilitated hospitalist self-care, with high hopes that included mindful meditation, among other things. As soon as we had designed our program, the Mayo Clinic published their favorable experience with a program that was very similar to what we had planned, and I thought we would see similar benefits.³

But, while all who attended the sessions thought they were valuable, attendance was so poor that we ended up cancelling the program. The hospitalists were interested in attending but were either on service and busy seeing patients, or were off and didn’t want to drive in to work solely for the purpose of reducing work stress.

I’m convinced a self-care program is valuable but very tricky to schedule effectively. Maybe others have come up with effective ways of overcoming this problem.

Social connections. Some hospitalist groups seem to have little social and personal connection to other physicians and hospital leaders. I think this results in lower hospitalist morale and tends to be self-reinforcing. If you’re in such a group, you and your hospitalist colleagues should deliberately seek better relationships with other doctors and hospital administrative leaders. Ensure that you visit with others at lunch, talk with them at committee meetings, ask about their vacation and personal activities, and pursue activities with them outside of work.

When these sorts of social connections are strong, work is far more satisfying and you’re much more likely to be treated as a peer by other doctors. I think this is really important and shouldn’t be overlooked if your group is suffering from low morale.

Adaptive work. Lastly, you might want to approach changes to your work and morale as “adaptive work,” rather than “technical work.” Space doesn’t permit a description of these, but it is worth reading about how they differ. Many groups will find value in reframing their approach to aspects of work they don’t like as adaptive work.

References

1. Hinami K, Whelan CT, Wolosin RJ, Miller JA, Wetterneck TB. Worklife and satisfaction of hospitalists: toward flourishing careers. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27(1):28-36.
2. Hoff TH, Whitcomb WF, Williams K, Nelson JR, Cheesman RA. Characteristics and work experiences of hospitalists in the United States. Arch Intern Med. 2001;161(6):851-858.
3. West CP, Dyrbye LN, Rabatin JT, et al. Intervention to promote physician well-being, job satisfaction, and professionalism: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(4):527-533.

Using quotes to ensure that the results were only those that include the two words adjacent to one another, rather than separated, I entered the following phrases into my Google search engine:

• “hospitalist burnout” = 1,580 results
• “hospitalist morale” = 208 results
• “hospitalist well-being” = 0 results

I think the number of results suggests the level of interest in each topic and, if that is the case, clearly thinking about how hospitalists are doing in their careers is more commonly done through the paradigm of burnout than the other two terms. (Of course, there may be other terms that I didn’t consider.) In fact, there have been a handful of published studies of hospitalist burnout and job satisfaction.^1,2

Those studies generally have shown both reasonably high levels of job satisfaction and troubling levels of burnout.

But I’ve been thinking about hospitalist morale for a while. I think morale is reasonably distinct from both burnout and job satisfaction.

Causes of a National Decline in Hospitalist Morale

I think hospitalist morale has declined some over the past two or three years across the country. This observation is meaningful because it comes from my experience working with a lot of hospitalist groups coast to coast. But I’m the first to admit it is just anecdotal and is subject to my own biases.

I can think of several things contributing to a decline in morale.

EHR adoption. Near the top of the list is the adoption of EHRs in many hospitals, which typically leads doctors in other specialties to seek hospitalist assistance with EHR-related tasks (e.g. medicine reconciliation and order writing) even in cases where there is little or no clinical reason for hospitalist involvement. Lots of hospitalists complain about this. To be clear, in many hospitals the hospitalists are reasonably content with using the EHR, but they experience ongoing frustration and low morale resulting from nonclinical work other doctors pressure them to take over.

Observation status. Many hospitals began classifying a larger portion of patients as observation status over the last few years; at the same time, patients and families have become more aware of how much of a disadvantage this is. In many cases, it is the hospitalist who takes the brunt of patient and family frustration. This can get awfully stressful and frustrating, and I think it is a contributor to allegations of malpractice.

Budgetary stress. Ever since SHM began collecting survey data in the late 1990s, the financial support hospitals have been providing to hospitalists has increased dramatically. The most recent State of Hospital Medicine report, published in 2104, showed median support provided by hospitals of $156,063 per FTE hospitalist, per year. Some hospitals have begun to resist providing more support, and this translates into stress and lower morale for hospitalists. This is far from a universal issue, but it does lead to lower morale for hospitalists who face it.

Many other factors may be contributing to a national decline in morale, but I think these are some of the most important.

What Can Be Done?

Some hospitalist groups have great morale now and don’t need to do much of anything right now, but some groups should think about a deliberate strategy to improve it.

Sadly, there isn’t a prescription that is sure to work. But there are some things you can try.

Self-care. The field of palliative care has thought a lot about caring for caregivers, and hospitalist groups might want to adopt some of their practices. Search the Internet on “self-care” + “palliative care,” and you’ll find a lot of interesting things. The group I’m part of launched a deliberate program of professionally led and facilitated hospitalist self-care, with high hopes that included mindful meditation, among other things. As soon as we had designed our program, the Mayo Clinic published their favorable experience with a program that was very similar to what we had planned, and I thought we would see similar benefits.³

But, while all who attended the sessions thought they were valuable, attendance was so poor that we ended up cancelling the program. The hospitalists were interested in attending but were either on service and busy seeing patients, or were off and didn’t want to drive in to work solely for the purpose of reducing work stress.

I’m convinced a self-care program is valuable but very tricky to schedule effectively. Maybe others have come up with effective ways of overcoming this problem.

Social connections. Some hospitalist groups seem to have little social and personal connection to other physicians and hospital leaders. I think this results in lower hospitalist morale and tends to be self-reinforcing. If you’re in such a group, you and your hospitalist colleagues should deliberately seek better relationships with other doctors and hospital administrative leaders. Ensure that you visit with others at lunch, talk with them at committee meetings, ask about their vacation and personal activities, and pursue activities with them outside of work.

When these sorts of social connections are strong, work is far more satisfying and you’re much more likely to be treated as a peer by other doctors. I think this is really important and shouldn’t be overlooked if your group is suffering from low morale.

Adaptive work. Lastly, you might want to approach changes to your work and morale as “adaptive work,” rather than “technical work.” Space doesn’t permit a description of these, but it is worth reading about how they differ. Many groups will find value in reframing their approach to aspects of work they don’t like as adaptive work.

References

1. Hinami K, Whelan CT, Wolosin RJ, Miller JA, Wetterneck TB. Worklife and satisfaction of hospitalists: toward flourishing careers. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27(1):28-36.
2. Hoff TH, Whitcomb WF, Williams K, Nelson JR, Cheesman RA. Characteristics and work experiences of hospitalists in the United States. Arch Intern Med. 2001;161(6):851-858.
3. West CP, Dyrbye LN, Rabatin JT, et al. Intervention to promote physician well-being, job satisfaction, and professionalism: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(4):527-533.

Editor’s note: This article is adapted from a June 2015 post on SHM’s official blog, “The Hospital Leader”.

When you see him on stage, it’s like he’s always been here. Bob Wachter, MD, one of the pioneers of the hospital medicine movement, has taken the podium at SHM’s annual meetings for more than a decade. Whether he’s uncovering important issues in electronic medical records or covering Elton John songs, he seems like a fixture in our world—and in healthcare.

The Unique Paths of Hospitalist Careers

But, rather than being a fixed, static thing, the life of any hospitalist—including the leaders of the movement—is a progression.

That progression starts in a different place for every hospitalist and is influenced by the people and events in their lives. Some hospitalists knew they wanted to be in medicine from a young age. Others found their calling much later in life.

Every one of those progressions is interspersed with moments of humor. For instance, this piece of hospitalist trivia: Dr. Wachter was the Penn Quaker mascot for the University of Pennsylvania the last time its men’s basketball team made it to the Final Four.

They also include the kinds of profound experiences that get to the very root of what it means to be a hospitalist. For Bob, it was being a resident in the ICU at the University of California San Francisco in the 1980s, just as AIDS was beginning to be diagnosed and understood.

That’s why I’m proud to introduce “Before the White Coat,” a new podcast from SHM, available on iTunes and other podcast apps. “Before the White Coat” is a 20-minute podcast, presented every two weeks.

Today, you can listen to full interviews between me and Bob Wachter, Ron Greeno of IPC Health, Jeff Wiese at Tulane University, SHM President Bob Harrington, CMS's Chief Medical Officer Patrick Conway and UCLA's Nasim Afsar. And later in September, Before the White Coat will present exclusive insights into the lives of Brian Harte of the Cleveland Clinic and Mark Williams at the University of Kentucky.

Today, you can listen to full interviews between me and Bob Wachter, Ron Greeno of IPC Health, Jeff Wiese at Tulane University, SHM President Bob Harrington, CMS's Chief Medical Officer Patrick Conway and UCLA’s Nasim Afsar. And later in September, Before the White Coat will present exclusive insights into the lives of Brian Harte of the Cleveland Clinic and Mark Williams at the University of Kentucky.

—Larry Wellikson, MD, MHM

Next, you’ll hear from Ron Greeno, MD, MHM, FCCP, now chief strategy officer at IPC Healthcare. After that, I’ll talk with many of the other leaders every two weeks, including Pat Conway, MD, MSc, at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Mary Jo Gorman, MD, MBA, who founded Advanced ICU Care, and Nasim Afsar, MD, FSHM, at UCLA.

I’m looking forward to exploring the progression of their lives and careers with you. These personal conversations complement the wealth of clinical and practice management information that SHM already offers.

Podcast: A Format That Works for Hospitalists

Hospitalists are busy people. Whether at the hospital or at home, they are almost constantly on their feet. We wanted to present “Before the White Coat” as a podcast—something you can listen to while on the way to the hospital—or on the way home. Or maybe during an off hour in either place.

And we know that hospitalists are interested in podcasts; podcasts produced and distributed by The Hospitalist have been downloaded more than 40,000 times.

In fact, this podcast is modeled on some of the most successful podcasts out there: National Public Radio’s industry-leading podcasts, the new podcasts from Gimlet Media, and Adam Corolla’s “Take a Knee.”

Those podcasts have proven that the format works—and that people are catching on quickly. According to new research from the Pew Research Center, one in three Americans have listened to a podcast, and the number of people who have listened to a podcast in the last month has doubled since 2008.

How to Listen and Share

I hope you’ll join their ranks today. Here’s how:

• Visit the “Before the White Coat” website, www.beforethewhitecoat.org.
• iTunes users can subscribe by searching “Before the White Coat” in the podcast section of iTunes.
• And listeners using other podcast apps can either search for “Before the White Coat” or find details on the podcast website.

This is a new project for SHM, and I hope you’ll tell us what you think. You can tweet your reaction at @SHMLive—use the #B4theWC hashtag.

Finally, if you like it, I hope you’ll share it with friends, colleagues, and others in medicine.

As always, thank you for being an active part of the hospital medicine movement. I hope you’ll enjoy this newest piece of it.

Larry Wellikson is CEO of the Society of Hospital Medicine.

Editor’s note: This article is adapted from a June 2015 post on SHM’s official blog, “The Hospital Leader”.

When you see him on stage, it’s like he’s always been here. Bob Wachter, MD, one of the pioneers of the hospital medicine movement, has taken the podium at SHM’s annual meetings for more than a decade. Whether he’s uncovering important issues in electronic medical records or covering Elton John songs, he seems like a fixture in our world—and in healthcare.

The Unique Paths of Hospitalist Careers

But, rather than being a fixed, static thing, the life of any hospitalist—including the leaders of the movement—is a progression.

That progression starts in a different place for every hospitalist and is influenced by the people and events in their lives. Some hospitalists knew they wanted to be in medicine from a young age. Others found their calling much later in life.

Every one of those progressions is interspersed with moments of humor. For instance, this piece of hospitalist trivia: Dr. Wachter was the Penn Quaker mascot for the University of Pennsylvania the last time its men’s basketball team made it to the Final Four.

They also include the kinds of profound experiences that get to the very root of what it means to be a hospitalist. For Bob, it was being a resident in the ICU at the University of California San Francisco in the 1980s, just as AIDS was beginning to be diagnosed and understood.

That’s why I’m proud to introduce “Before the White Coat,” a new podcast from SHM, available on iTunes and other podcast apps. “Before the White Coat” is a 20-minute podcast, presented every two weeks.

Today, you can listen to full interviews between me and Bob Wachter, Ron Greeno of IPC Health, Jeff Wiese at Tulane University, SHM President Bob Harrington, CMS's Chief Medical Officer Patrick Conway and UCLA's Nasim Afsar. And later in September, Before the White Coat will present exclusive insights into the lives of Brian Harte of the Cleveland Clinic and Mark Williams at the University of Kentucky.

Today, you can listen to full interviews between me and Bob Wachter, Ron Greeno of IPC Health, Jeff Wiese at Tulane University, SHM President Bob Harrington, CMS's Chief Medical Officer Patrick Conway and UCLA’s Nasim Afsar. And later in September, Before the White Coat will present exclusive insights into the lives of Brian Harte of the Cleveland Clinic and Mark Williams at the University of Kentucky.

—Larry Wellikson, MD, MHM

Next, you’ll hear from Ron Greeno, MD, MHM, FCCP, now chief strategy officer at IPC Healthcare. After that, I’ll talk with many of the other leaders every two weeks, including Pat Conway, MD, MSc, at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Mary Jo Gorman, MD, MBA, who founded Advanced ICU Care, and Nasim Afsar, MD, FSHM, at UCLA.

I’m looking forward to exploring the progression of their lives and careers with you. These personal conversations complement the wealth of clinical and practice management information that SHM already offers.

Podcast: A Format That Works for Hospitalists

Hospitalists are busy people. Whether at the hospital or at home, they are almost constantly on their feet. We wanted to present “Before the White Coat” as a podcast—something you can listen to while on the way to the hospital—or on the way home. Or maybe during an off hour in either place.

And we know that hospitalists are interested in podcasts; podcasts produced and distributed by The Hospitalist have been downloaded more than 40,000 times.

In fact, this podcast is modeled on some of the most successful podcasts out there: National Public Radio’s industry-leading podcasts, the new podcasts from Gimlet Media, and Adam Corolla’s “Take a Knee.”

Those podcasts have proven that the format works—and that people are catching on quickly. According to new research from the Pew Research Center, one in three Americans have listened to a podcast, and the number of people who have listened to a podcast in the last month has doubled since 2008.

How to Listen and Share

I hope you’ll join their ranks today. Here’s how:

• Visit the “Before the White Coat” website, www.beforethewhitecoat.org.
• iTunes users can subscribe by searching “Before the White Coat” in the podcast section of iTunes.
• And listeners using other podcast apps can either search for “Before the White Coat” or find details on the podcast website.

This is a new project for SHM, and I hope you’ll tell us what you think. You can tweet your reaction at @SHMLive—use the #B4theWC hashtag.

Finally, if you like it, I hope you’ll share it with friends, colleagues, and others in medicine.

As always, thank you for being an active part of the hospital medicine movement. I hope you’ll enjoy this newest piece of it.

Larry Wellikson is CEO of the Society of Hospital Medicine.

Editor’s note: This article is adapted from a June 2015 post on SHM’s official blog, “The Hospital Leader”.

When you see him on stage, it’s like he’s always been here. Bob Wachter, MD, one of the pioneers of the hospital medicine movement, has taken the podium at SHM’s annual meetings for more than a decade. Whether he’s uncovering important issues in electronic medical records or covering Elton John songs, he seems like a fixture in our world—and in healthcare.

The Unique Paths of Hospitalist Careers

But, rather than being a fixed, static thing, the life of any hospitalist—including the leaders of the movement—is a progression.

That progression starts in a different place for every hospitalist and is influenced by the people and events in their lives. Some hospitalists knew they wanted to be in medicine from a young age. Others found their calling much later in life.

Every one of those progressions is interspersed with moments of humor. For instance, this piece of hospitalist trivia: Dr. Wachter was the Penn Quaker mascot for the University of Pennsylvania the last time its men’s basketball team made it to the Final Four.

They also include the kinds of profound experiences that get to the very root of what it means to be a hospitalist. For Bob, it was being a resident in the ICU at the University of California San Francisco in the 1980s, just as AIDS was beginning to be diagnosed and understood.

That’s why I’m proud to introduce “Before the White Coat,” a new podcast from SHM, available on iTunes and other podcast apps. “Before the White Coat” is a 20-minute podcast, presented every two weeks.

Today, you can listen to full interviews between me and Bob Wachter, Ron Greeno of IPC Health, Jeff Wiese at Tulane University, SHM President Bob Harrington, CMS's Chief Medical Officer Patrick Conway and UCLA's Nasim Afsar. And later in September, Before the White Coat will present exclusive insights into the lives of Brian Harte of the Cleveland Clinic and Mark Williams at the University of Kentucky.

Today, you can listen to full interviews between me and Bob Wachter, Ron Greeno of IPC Health, Jeff Wiese at Tulane University, SHM President Bob Harrington, CMS's Chief Medical Officer Patrick Conway and UCLA’s Nasim Afsar. And later in September, Before the White Coat will present exclusive insights into the lives of Brian Harte of the Cleveland Clinic and Mark Williams at the University of Kentucky.

—Larry Wellikson, MD, MHM

Next, you’ll hear from Ron Greeno, MD, MHM, FCCP, now chief strategy officer at IPC Healthcare. After that, I’ll talk with many of the other leaders every two weeks, including Pat Conway, MD, MSc, at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Mary Jo Gorman, MD, MBA, who founded Advanced ICU Care, and Nasim Afsar, MD, FSHM, at UCLA.

I’m looking forward to exploring the progression of their lives and careers with you. These personal conversations complement the wealth of clinical and practice management information that SHM already offers.

Podcast: A Format That Works for Hospitalists

Hospitalists are busy people. Whether at the hospital or at home, they are almost constantly on their feet. We wanted to present “Before the White Coat” as a podcast—something you can listen to while on the way to the hospital—or on the way home. Or maybe during an off hour in either place.

And we know that hospitalists are interested in podcasts; podcasts produced and distributed by The Hospitalist have been downloaded more than 40,000 times.

In fact, this podcast is modeled on some of the most successful podcasts out there: National Public Radio’s industry-leading podcasts, the new podcasts from Gimlet Media, and Adam Corolla’s “Take a Knee.”

Those podcasts have proven that the format works—and that people are catching on quickly. According to new research from the Pew Research Center, one in three Americans have listened to a podcast, and the number of people who have listened to a podcast in the last month has doubled since 2008.

How to Listen and Share

I hope you’ll join their ranks today. Here’s how:

• Visit the “Before the White Coat” website, www.beforethewhitecoat.org.
• iTunes users can subscribe by searching “Before the White Coat” in the podcast section of iTunes.
• And listeners using other podcast apps can either search for “Before the White Coat” or find details on the podcast website.

This is a new project for SHM, and I hope you’ll tell us what you think. You can tweet your reaction at @SHMLive—use the #B4theWC hashtag.

Finally, if you like it, I hope you’ll share it with friends, colleagues, and others in medicine.

As always, thank you for being an active part of the hospital medicine movement. I hope you’ll enjoy this newest piece of it.

Larry Wellikson is CEO of the Society of Hospital Medicine.

The musty collections of National Geographic magazines once found in so many basements are largely gone. Replacing them are dusty sets of the Advisory Board binders and booklets found in hospital administration offices around the country. I think the same principle drives the impulse to collect both publications—the idea that they contain worthwhile information that one day will be reviewed. But I think it’s more likely they will be ignored until it is time to move and someone has to decide what to do with the painfully heavy pile of paper.

Lots of old and largely forgotten things are making a comeback in healthcare. I suppose this is always happening, but I sense we’re now experiencing more of this than usual. It’s a renaissance of sorts.

I first heard about fecal transplant for Clostridium difficile infection (instilling a “better” microbiome in the hope of realizing many benefits) about six or eight years ago. Although I was sure this was a new idea, my retired internist father told me this had been around when he was in training. Wikipedia says that four Colorado surgeons published a paper about it in 1958 and that the Chinese were doing this 1,600 years ago.

PCPs Visit Hospitalized Patients

Writing in the NEJM earlier this year, Goroll and Hunt proposed that primary care physicians visit their hospitalized patients in the role of consultant while the hospitalist remains attending. As they note, this idea surfaced as soon as the hospitalist model began taking hold. Back then, we usually referred to it as a “social visit” by the PCP. Anecdotal experience from my work with hundreds of hospitalist groups tells me that such visits have all but disappeared. But nearly every such PCP visit on a patient I’ve cared for has seemed worthwhile; in many cases, these hospital calls simply reassure a nervous patient or family member, and occasionally they ensure that the PCP and I arrive at a more effective plan of care than we might otherwise.

Perhaps new forms of healthcare reimbursement, accountable care, and population health may make “continuity visits” economically viable for PCPs. Wouldn’t it be interesting if PCP visits to hospitalized patients and hospitalist visits to outpatients, such as those occurring in a pre-op clinic or a skilled nursing facility, become commonplace? The trick in all of this will be to ensure the right amount of overlap, or shared visits, between PCP and hospitalist without expensive duplication of effort or errors stemming from too many cooks in the kitchen.

Post-Hospital Follow-Up Schedules

When I began practicing as a hospitalist in the 1980s, doctors routinely wrote orders similar to this one: “Have patient follow up with Dr. Smith (PCP or specialist) in 1-2 weeks.” The unit secretary or other hospital clerical staff would contact the physician’s office to schedule the appointment, and the patient would leave the hospital with a written reminder in hand. My sense is that nearly all hospitals had been doing this for decades; somehow this practice has nearly disappeared over the last 10-20 years, however, and I sometimes hear this old practice discussed as a new idea.

I think making sure the patient has a follow-up appointment in hand when leaving the hospital is likely good for clinical outcomes, readmissions, and patient satisfaction. In my view, it is hardly worth lots of research to prove the benefit of what should be a relatively low-cost intervention. Why not just have providers write orders detailing follow-up with a specific doctor or clinic and a timeframe, and have unit secretaries communicate with outpatient clinics to schedule the appointments and ensure that the details are provided to the patient, maybe via an EHR-generated after visit summary? Seems pretty easy, right?

Turns out it isn’t easy at all for most hospitals. Lots of energetic hospitalists have taken on a project like this, only to run into so many brick walls. One hospitalist told me recently that the unit secretary’s labor union at her hospital refused to allow it. So some hospitals have turned to a single person, or a small group of people, who make appointments for all hospital patients. Some hospitalist groups have one of their own staff make appointments for hospitalist patients. This relieves the unit secretaries of the task but requires additional funding for the salaries of these people.

Maybe, at some time not so far off, EHRs will be so user-friendly and patients/families so accustomed to using them that it will be common for patients/families to arrange the appointments on their own. It could even be a required step—a hard stop—in the discharge process.

Whatever emerges as the most common method of making these appointments, I think it is safe to say this old practice will become “new” and common within the next few years.

Multidisciplinary Rounds

While working as an orderly in the 1970s, I would often visit with the nurses in their break room. When a doctor arrived to make rounds on the floor, the RN would jump up, stub out her cigarette, and round with the doctor. I sometimes tagged along as an observer. The nurse let the doctor know just how the patient had been doing and provided test results and any other relevant information the doctor might need. The doctor would provide orders, and sometimes the nurse wrote them into the chart (think of today’s medical scribes). Although their interaction was much less collaborative than is typical today, they did ask lots of questions of one another to clarify ambiguities.

I think these 1970s caregivers were doing effective multidisciplinary rounds. But by the late 1980s or so, as both doctor and nurse became busier, they stopped rounding together.

I smile when I hear descriptions of this “new” idea of doctor and nurse (and often other caregivers) rounding together. Today’s hospital culture is less hierarchical than the 1970s, though some would say it still has a ways to go, so teamwork and multidisciplinary rounds may yield more benefit than decades ago. But the idea of rounding together certainly isn’t new.

As we try to figure out the best way to thrive in a rapidly changing healthcare environment, we may find value in returning to the old ways of doing some things.

The musty collections of National Geographic magazines once found in so many basements are largely gone. Replacing them are dusty sets of the Advisory Board binders and booklets found in hospital administration offices around the country. I think the same principle drives the impulse to collect both publications—the idea that they contain worthwhile information that one day will be reviewed. But I think it’s more likely they will be ignored until it is time to move and someone has to decide what to do with the painfully heavy pile of paper.

Lots of old and largely forgotten things are making a comeback in healthcare. I suppose this is always happening, but I sense we’re now experiencing more of this than usual. It’s a renaissance of sorts.

I first heard about fecal transplant for Clostridium difficile infection (instilling a “better” microbiome in the hope of realizing many benefits) about six or eight years ago. Although I was sure this was a new idea, my retired internist father told me this had been around when he was in training. Wikipedia says that four Colorado surgeons published a paper about it in 1958 and that the Chinese were doing this 1,600 years ago.

PCPs Visit Hospitalized Patients

Writing in the NEJM earlier this year, Goroll and Hunt proposed that primary care physicians visit their hospitalized patients in the role of consultant while the hospitalist remains attending. As they note, this idea surfaced as soon as the hospitalist model began taking hold. Back then, we usually referred to it as a “social visit” by the PCP. Anecdotal experience from my work with hundreds of hospitalist groups tells me that such visits have all but disappeared. But nearly every such PCP visit on a patient I’ve cared for has seemed worthwhile; in many cases, these hospital calls simply reassure a nervous patient or family member, and occasionally they ensure that the PCP and I arrive at a more effective plan of care than we might otherwise.

Perhaps new forms of healthcare reimbursement, accountable care, and population health may make “continuity visits” economically viable for PCPs. Wouldn’t it be interesting if PCP visits to hospitalized patients and hospitalist visits to outpatients, such as those occurring in a pre-op clinic or a skilled nursing facility, become commonplace? The trick in all of this will be to ensure the right amount of overlap, or shared visits, between PCP and hospitalist without expensive duplication of effort or errors stemming from too many cooks in the kitchen.

Post-Hospital Follow-Up Schedules

When I began practicing as a hospitalist in the 1980s, doctors routinely wrote orders similar to this one: “Have patient follow up with Dr. Smith (PCP or specialist) in 1-2 weeks.” The unit secretary or other hospital clerical staff would contact the physician’s office to schedule the appointment, and the patient would leave the hospital with a written reminder in hand. My sense is that nearly all hospitals had been doing this for decades; somehow this practice has nearly disappeared over the last 10-20 years, however, and I sometimes hear this old practice discussed as a new idea.

I think making sure the patient has a follow-up appointment in hand when leaving the hospital is likely good for clinical outcomes, readmissions, and patient satisfaction. In my view, it is hardly worth lots of research to prove the benefit of what should be a relatively low-cost intervention. Why not just have providers write orders detailing follow-up with a specific doctor or clinic and a timeframe, and have unit secretaries communicate with outpatient clinics to schedule the appointments and ensure that the details are provided to the patient, maybe via an EHR-generated after visit summary? Seems pretty easy, right?

Turns out it isn’t easy at all for most hospitals. Lots of energetic hospitalists have taken on a project like this, only to run into so many brick walls. One hospitalist told me recently that the unit secretary’s labor union at her hospital refused to allow it. So some hospitals have turned to a single person, or a small group of people, who make appointments for all hospital patients. Some hospitalist groups have one of their own staff make appointments for hospitalist patients. This relieves the unit secretaries of the task but requires additional funding for the salaries of these people.

Maybe, at some time not so far off, EHRs will be so user-friendly and patients/families so accustomed to using them that it will be common for patients/families to arrange the appointments on their own. It could even be a required step—a hard stop—in the discharge process.

Whatever emerges as the most common method of making these appointments, I think it is safe to say this old practice will become “new” and common within the next few years.

Multidisciplinary Rounds

While working as an orderly in the 1970s, I would often visit with the nurses in their break room. When a doctor arrived to make rounds on the floor, the RN would jump up, stub out her cigarette, and round with the doctor. I sometimes tagged along as an observer. The nurse let the doctor know just how the patient had been doing and provided test results and any other relevant information the doctor might need. The doctor would provide orders, and sometimes the nurse wrote them into the chart (think of today’s medical scribes). Although their interaction was much less collaborative than is typical today, they did ask lots of questions of one another to clarify ambiguities.

I think these 1970s caregivers were doing effective multidisciplinary rounds. But by the late 1980s or so, as both doctor and nurse became busier, they stopped rounding together.

I smile when I hear descriptions of this “new” idea of doctor and nurse (and often other caregivers) rounding together. Today’s hospital culture is less hierarchical than the 1970s, though some would say it still has a ways to go, so teamwork and multidisciplinary rounds may yield more benefit than decades ago. But the idea of rounding together certainly isn’t new.

As we try to figure out the best way to thrive in a rapidly changing healthcare environment, we may find value in returning to the old ways of doing some things.

The musty collections of National Geographic magazines once found in so many basements are largely gone. Replacing them are dusty sets of the Advisory Board binders and booklets found in hospital administration offices around the country. I think the same principle drives the impulse to collect both publications—the idea that they contain worthwhile information that one day will be reviewed. But I think it’s more likely they will be ignored until it is time to move and someone has to decide what to do with the painfully heavy pile of paper.

Lots of old and largely forgotten things are making a comeback in healthcare. I suppose this is always happening, but I sense we’re now experiencing more of this than usual. It’s a renaissance of sorts.

I first heard about fecal transplant for Clostridium difficile infection (instilling a “better” microbiome in the hope of realizing many benefits) about six or eight years ago. Although I was sure this was a new idea, my retired internist father told me this had been around when he was in training. Wikipedia says that four Colorado surgeons published a paper about it in 1958 and that the Chinese were doing this 1,600 years ago.

PCPs Visit Hospitalized Patients

Writing in the NEJM earlier this year, Goroll and Hunt proposed that primary care physicians visit their hospitalized patients in the role of consultant while the hospitalist remains attending. As they note, this idea surfaced as soon as the hospitalist model began taking hold. Back then, we usually referred to it as a “social visit” by the PCP. Anecdotal experience from my work with hundreds of hospitalist groups tells me that such visits have all but disappeared. But nearly every such PCP visit on a patient I’ve cared for has seemed worthwhile; in many cases, these hospital calls simply reassure a nervous patient or family member, and occasionally they ensure that the PCP and I arrive at a more effective plan of care than we might otherwise.

Perhaps new forms of healthcare reimbursement, accountable care, and population health may make “continuity visits” economically viable for PCPs. Wouldn’t it be interesting if PCP visits to hospitalized patients and hospitalist visits to outpatients, such as those occurring in a pre-op clinic or a skilled nursing facility, become commonplace? The trick in all of this will be to ensure the right amount of overlap, or shared visits, between PCP and hospitalist without expensive duplication of effort or errors stemming from too many cooks in the kitchen.

Post-Hospital Follow-Up Schedules

When I began practicing as a hospitalist in the 1980s, doctors routinely wrote orders similar to this one: “Have patient follow up with Dr. Smith (PCP or specialist) in 1-2 weeks.” The unit secretary or other hospital clerical staff would contact the physician’s office to schedule the appointment, and the patient would leave the hospital with a written reminder in hand. My sense is that nearly all hospitals had been doing this for decades; somehow this practice has nearly disappeared over the last 10-20 years, however, and I sometimes hear this old practice discussed as a new idea.

I think making sure the patient has a follow-up appointment in hand when leaving the hospital is likely good for clinical outcomes, readmissions, and patient satisfaction. In my view, it is hardly worth lots of research to prove the benefit of what should be a relatively low-cost intervention. Why not just have providers write orders detailing follow-up with a specific doctor or clinic and a timeframe, and have unit secretaries communicate with outpatient clinics to schedule the appointments and ensure that the details are provided to the patient, maybe via an EHR-generated after visit summary? Seems pretty easy, right?

Turns out it isn’t easy at all for most hospitals. Lots of energetic hospitalists have taken on a project like this, only to run into so many brick walls. One hospitalist told me recently that the unit secretary’s labor union at her hospital refused to allow it. So some hospitals have turned to a single person, or a small group of people, who make appointments for all hospital patients. Some hospitalist groups have one of their own staff make appointments for hospitalist patients. This relieves the unit secretaries of the task but requires additional funding for the salaries of these people.

Maybe, at some time not so far off, EHRs will be so user-friendly and patients/families so accustomed to using them that it will be common for patients/families to arrange the appointments on their own. It could even be a required step—a hard stop—in the discharge process.

Whatever emerges as the most common method of making these appointments, I think it is safe to say this old practice will become “new” and common within the next few years.

Multidisciplinary Rounds

While working as an orderly in the 1970s, I would often visit with the nurses in their break room. When a doctor arrived to make rounds on the floor, the RN would jump up, stub out her cigarette, and round with the doctor. I sometimes tagged along as an observer. The nurse let the doctor know just how the patient had been doing and provided test results and any other relevant information the doctor might need. The doctor would provide orders, and sometimes the nurse wrote them into the chart (think of today’s medical scribes). Although their interaction was much less collaborative than is typical today, they did ask lots of questions of one another to clarify ambiguities.

I think these 1970s caregivers were doing effective multidisciplinary rounds. But by the late 1980s or so, as both doctor and nurse became busier, they stopped rounding together.

I smile when I hear descriptions of this “new” idea of doctor and nurse (and often other caregivers) rounding together. Today’s hospital culture is less hierarchical than the 1970s, though some would say it still has a ways to go, so teamwork and multidisciplinary rounds may yield more benefit than decades ago. But the idea of rounding together certainly isn’t new.

As we try to figure out the best way to thrive in a rapidly changing healthcare environment, we may find value in returning to the old ways of doing some things.

As a hospitalist myself, I have seen firsthand the need for a healthcare system that provides better care, spends dollars more wisely, and keeps people healthier. I practice on weekends taking care of children, many of whom have multiple chronic conditions and fragile social support, and their families. I love patient care; however, too many times, we hospitalists see patients whose fragmented care results in poor outcomes and repeated hospitalizations.

In my current role at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), I am pleased to see that Secretary Burwell is confronting these problems head on, with concrete goals for shifting the equation in how we pay for care. Specifically, we announced the goal of moving 30% of payments by 2016 into alternative payment models such as accountable care organizations (ACOs) or bundled payments, where the provider is accountable for total cost of care and quality. We set the goal of 50% of payments in these models by 2018. In 2011, Medicare had essentially zero payments in these models, but by 2014, we have reached 20% and growing in alternative payment models. Hospitalists can play a significant role in this healthcare transformation, and several initiatives in CMS’ Innovation Center, which I lead, are relevant to our work.

Recently, a Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) report showed that an estimated 50,000 fewer patients died in hospitals, 1.3 million fewer adverse events and infections occurred, and approximately $12 billion in healthcare costs were saved as a result of a reduction in hospital-acquired conditions from 2010 to 2013. This progress toward a safer healthcare system occurred during a period of concerted attention directed by hospitals and hospitalists throughout the country at reducing adverse events. These efforts were also due in part to provisions of the Affordable Care Act such as Medicare payment incentives to improve the quality of care and the HHS Partnership for Patients initiative. The Partnership for Patients is a nationwide public-private collaboration that began in April 2011 with two main goals: Reduce preventable hospital-acquired conditions by 40% and 30-day readmissions by 20%. Since the Partnership for Patients was launched, the vast majority of U.S. hospitals and many other stakeholders have joined the collaborative effort and delivered results.

CMS is committed to making even greater progress toward keeping people as safe and healthy as possible. That is why we have launched a second round of Hospital Engagement Network (HEN) contracts to continue reducing preventable hospital-acquired conditions and readmissions. HEN funding will be available to award contracts to national, regional, or state hospital associations, large healthcare organizations, or national affinity organizations that will support hospitals in their efforts to reduce preventable hospital-acquired conditions and readmissions. In February, CMS posted a request for proposals for HEN contracts to continue the success achieved in improving patient safety.

The Partnership for Patients and HENs are just one part of an overall effort by HHS to deliver better care, spend dollars more wisely, and improve health. Initiatives like the Partnership for Patients, accountable care organizations, quality improvement organizations, and others have helped reduce hospital readmissions in Medicare by nearly 8% between January 2012 and December 2013—translating into 150,000 fewer readmissions. Hospitalists have played a major role in these improvements.

On a broader front, CMS is taking action to improve healthcare so patients and their families can get the best care possible. To this end, CMS is focused on three key areas: (1) improving the way providers and hospitals are paid, (2) improving and innovating in care delivery, and (3) sharing information more broadly with providers and hospitals, consumers, and others to support better decisions.

When it comes to improving the way providers are paid, we want to reward value and care coordination—rather than volume and care duplication. We have over 25 payment and service delivery models at the CMS Innovation Center, but I will call out three that are particularly relevant to hospitalists. First, the ACO program is demonstrating positive results. Medicare has over 400 ACOs serving almost eight million beneficiaries. The Pioneer ACO program evaluation results demonstrated over $380 million in savings and improved quality—for example, improvement in 28 out of 33 quality measures, including patient experience of care. Based on these results, this model was the first from the CMS Innovation Center to be certified by the CMS actuary, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services announced her intent to expand the model components as a permanent part of the Medicare program through rulemaking. Second, in the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement model, we have thousands of providers (e.g. hospitals, physician groups) in phase 1 determining how they might improve care and considering taking on financial risk. The model includes acute and post-acute care, such as a 90-day episode for hip and knee replacement. We have 500 providers, and more that are willing to take on two-sided financial risk will likely be added in the next quarter. Hospitalists have a large role to play in improving quality and reducing costs in this model. Finally, the State Innovation Model is driving state and local change. In this model, we are funding and partnering with states on comprehensive delivery system reform. Seventeen states are implementing interventions, and 21 states and territories are designing their plans. The state is encouraged to partner with payers, providers, employers, public health entities, and others in the state to strive within the whole state population for better care, smarter spending, and healthier people. Many states are implementing payment models such as ACOs and bundled payments in Medicaid and with private payers. Increasingly, hospital medicine groups are going to value-based in the quality and efficiency of care delivery, both within the hospital walls and for episodes of care. This will entail stronger linkages and teamwork, both within the hospital and with clinicians in the community. It will also require a much stronger focus on predicting which patients are at risk of decompensation and delivering tailored interventions, including care management and technology to monitor patients in the home and other settings.

To improve care delivery, we are supporting providers to find new ways to coordinate and integrate care. For example, discharging a patient from the hospital without clear instructions on how to take care of themselves at home, when they should take their medicines, or when to check back in with the doctor can lead to an unnecessary readmission back into the hospital. This is especially true of individuals who have complex illnesses or diseases that may be more difficult to manage. We are supporting care improvement through a variety of channels, including facilitating hospitals and community groups teaming up to share best practices, and we applaud the Society of Hospital Medicine’s BOOST program, which is focused on peer mentoring and improvement.

Finally, as we look to improve the way information is distributed, we are working to create more transparency on the cost and quality of care, to bring electronic health information to inform care, and to bring the most recent scientific evidence to the point of care so we can bolster clinical decision making. Necessary information needs to be available to the treating physician and patients across settings. We must continue to improve the interoperability and usability of electronic health records so that they can enable improvement and care delivery.

I hope that as hospitalists you will take a closer look at the HHS initiatives I’ve described here—and others—and consider becoming a participant. Hospital medicine physicians are already leading many of these initiatives and are a positive force for health system transformation. As I look back on my last four-plus years at CMS (which sometimes feel like 30 years), I am amazed by how much progress we have made in improving the quality of care (e.g. over 95% of measures in CMS quality programs have improved over the last three years), spending dollars more wisely (e.g. lowest cost growth in the last four years in over 50 years), and improving the health of the nation (e.g. decreased smoking rates). Our nation is moving rapidly toward accountable, alternative payment models, including the recent legislation to “fix the SGR,” and I have seen hospitalists lead progress towards adopting these models nationally and locally. A challenge for all of us is to accelerate the pace of positive change and relentlessly pursue improved patient outcomes and a higher performing health system. But I know hospitalists are up to this challenge.

Thank you for all the work that you do every day on behalf of your patients and a better health system.

As a hospitalist myself, I have seen firsthand the need for a healthcare system that provides better care, spends dollars more wisely, and keeps people healthier. I practice on weekends taking care of children, many of whom have multiple chronic conditions and fragile social support, and their families. I love patient care; however, too many times, we hospitalists see patients whose fragmented care results in poor outcomes and repeated hospitalizations.

In my current role at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), I am pleased to see that Secretary Burwell is confronting these problems head on, with concrete goals for shifting the equation in how we pay for care. Specifically, we announced the goal of moving 30% of payments by 2016 into alternative payment models such as accountable care organizations (ACOs) or bundled payments, where the provider is accountable for total cost of care and quality. We set the goal of 50% of payments in these models by 2018. In 2011, Medicare had essentially zero payments in these models, but by 2014, we have reached 20% and growing in alternative payment models. Hospitalists can play a significant role in this healthcare transformation, and several initiatives in CMS’ Innovation Center, which I lead, are relevant to our work.

Recently, a Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) report showed that an estimated 50,000 fewer patients died in hospitals, 1.3 million fewer adverse events and infections occurred, and approximately $12 billion in healthcare costs were saved as a result of a reduction in hospital-acquired conditions from 2010 to 2013. This progress toward a safer healthcare system occurred during a period of concerted attention directed by hospitals and hospitalists throughout the country at reducing adverse events. These efforts were also due in part to provisions of the Affordable Care Act such as Medicare payment incentives to improve the quality of care and the HHS Partnership for Patients initiative. The Partnership for Patients is a nationwide public-private collaboration that began in April 2011 with two main goals: Reduce preventable hospital-acquired conditions by 40% and 30-day readmissions by 20%. Since the Partnership for Patients was launched, the vast majority of U.S. hospitals and many other stakeholders have joined the collaborative effort and delivered results.

CMS is committed to making even greater progress toward keeping people as safe and healthy as possible. That is why we have launched a second round of Hospital Engagement Network (HEN) contracts to continue reducing preventable hospital-acquired conditions and readmissions. HEN funding will be available to award contracts to national, regional, or state hospital associations, large healthcare organizations, or national affinity organizations that will support hospitals in their efforts to reduce preventable hospital-acquired conditions and readmissions. In February, CMS posted a request for proposals for HEN contracts to continue the success achieved in improving patient safety.

The Partnership for Patients and HENs are just one part of an overall effort by HHS to deliver better care, spend dollars more wisely, and improve health. Initiatives like the Partnership for Patients, accountable care organizations, quality improvement organizations, and others have helped reduce hospital readmissions in Medicare by nearly 8% between January 2012 and December 2013—translating into 150,000 fewer readmissions. Hospitalists have played a major role in these improvements.

On a broader front, CMS is taking action to improve healthcare so patients and their families can get the best care possible. To this end, CMS is focused on three key areas: (1) improving the way providers and hospitals are paid, (2) improving and innovating in care delivery, and (3) sharing information more broadly with providers and hospitals, consumers, and others to support better decisions.

When it comes to improving the way providers are paid, we want to reward value and care coordination—rather than volume and care duplication. We have over 25 payment and service delivery models at the CMS Innovation Center, but I will call out three that are particularly relevant to hospitalists. First, the ACO program is demonstrating positive results. Medicare has over 400 ACOs serving almost eight million beneficiaries. The Pioneer ACO program evaluation results demonstrated over $380 million in savings and improved quality—for example, improvement in 28 out of 33 quality measures, including patient experience of care. Based on these results, this model was the first from the CMS Innovation Center to be certified by the CMS actuary, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services announced her intent to expand the model components as a permanent part of the Medicare program through rulemaking. Second, in the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement model, we have thousands of providers (e.g. hospitals, physician groups) in phase 1 determining how they might improve care and considering taking on financial risk. The model includes acute and post-acute care, such as a 90-day episode for hip and knee replacement. We have 500 providers, and more that are willing to take on two-sided financial risk will likely be added in the next quarter. Hospitalists have a large role to play in improving quality and reducing costs in this model. Finally, the State Innovation Model is driving state and local change. In this model, we are funding and partnering with states on comprehensive delivery system reform. Seventeen states are implementing interventions, and 21 states and territories are designing their plans. The state is encouraged to partner with payers, providers, employers, public health entities, and others in the state to strive within the whole state population for better care, smarter spending, and healthier people. Many states are implementing payment models such as ACOs and bundled payments in Medicaid and with private payers. Increasingly, hospital medicine groups are going to value-based in the quality and efficiency of care delivery, both within the hospital walls and for episodes of care. This will entail stronger linkages and teamwork, both within the hospital and with clinicians in the community. It will also require a much stronger focus on predicting which patients are at risk of decompensation and delivering tailored interventions, including care management and technology to monitor patients in the home and other settings.

To improve care delivery, we are supporting providers to find new ways to coordinate and integrate care. For example, discharging a patient from the hospital without clear instructions on how to take care of themselves at home, when they should take their medicines, or when to check back in with the doctor can lead to an unnecessary readmission back into the hospital. This is especially true of individuals who have complex illnesses or diseases that may be more difficult to manage. We are supporting care improvement through a variety of channels, including facilitating hospitals and community groups teaming up to share best practices, and we applaud the Society of Hospital Medicine’s BOOST program, which is focused on peer mentoring and improvement.

Finally, as we look to improve the way information is distributed, we are working to create more transparency on the cost and quality of care, to bring electronic health information to inform care, and to bring the most recent scientific evidence to the point of care so we can bolster clinical decision making. Necessary information needs to be available to the treating physician and patients across settings. We must continue to improve the interoperability and usability of electronic health records so that they can enable improvement and care delivery.

I hope that as hospitalists you will take a closer look at the HHS initiatives I’ve described here—and others—and consider becoming a participant. Hospital medicine physicians are already leading many of these initiatives and are a positive force for health system transformation. As I look back on my last four-plus years at CMS (which sometimes feel like 30 years), I am amazed by how much progress we have made in improving the quality of care (e.g. over 95% of measures in CMS quality programs have improved over the last three years), spending dollars more wisely (e.g. lowest cost growth in the last four years in over 50 years), and improving the health of the nation (e.g. decreased smoking rates). Our nation is moving rapidly toward accountable, alternative payment models, including the recent legislation to “fix the SGR,” and I have seen hospitalists lead progress towards adopting these models nationally and locally. A challenge for all of us is to accelerate the pace of positive change and relentlessly pursue improved patient outcomes and a higher performing health system. But I know hospitalists are up to this challenge.

Thank you for all the work that you do every day on behalf of your patients and a better health system.

As a hospitalist myself, I have seen firsthand the need for a healthcare system that provides better care, spends dollars more wisely, and keeps people healthier. I practice on weekends taking care of children, many of whom have multiple chronic conditions and fragile social support, and their families. I love patient care; however, too many times, we hospitalists see patients whose fragmented care results in poor outcomes and repeated hospitalizations.

In my current role at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), I am pleased to see that Secretary Burwell is confronting these problems head on, with concrete goals for shifting the equation in how we pay for care. Specifically, we announced the goal of moving 30% of payments by 2016 into alternative payment models such as accountable care organizations (ACOs) or bundled payments, where the provider is accountable for total cost of care and quality. We set the goal of 50% of payments in these models by 2018. In 2011, Medicare had essentially zero payments in these models, but by 2014, we have reached 20% and growing in alternative payment models. Hospitalists can play a significant role in this healthcare transformation, and several initiatives in CMS’ Innovation Center, which I lead, are relevant to our work.

Recently, a Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) report showed that an estimated 50,000 fewer patients died in hospitals, 1.3 million fewer adverse events and infections occurred, and approximately $12 billion in healthcare costs were saved as a result of a reduction in hospital-acquired conditions from 2010 to 2013. This progress toward a safer healthcare system occurred during a period of concerted attention directed by hospitals and hospitalists throughout the country at reducing adverse events. These efforts were also due in part to provisions of the Affordable Care Act such as Medicare payment incentives to improve the quality of care and the HHS Partnership for Patients initiative. The Partnership for Patients is a nationwide public-private collaboration that began in April 2011 with two main goals: Reduce preventable hospital-acquired conditions by 40% and 30-day readmissions by 20%. Since the Partnership for Patients was launched, the vast majority of U.S. hospitals and many other stakeholders have joined the collaborative effort and delivered results.

CMS is committed to making even greater progress toward keeping people as safe and healthy as possible. That is why we have launched a second round of Hospital Engagement Network (HEN) contracts to continue reducing preventable hospital-acquired conditions and readmissions. HEN funding will be available to award contracts to national, regional, or state hospital associations, large healthcare organizations, or national affinity organizations that will support hospitals in their efforts to reduce preventable hospital-acquired conditions and readmissions. In February, CMS posted a request for proposals for HEN contracts to continue the success achieved in improving patient safety.

The Partnership for Patients and HENs are just one part of an overall effort by HHS to deliver better care, spend dollars more wisely, and improve health. Initiatives like the Partnership for Patients, accountable care organizations, quality improvement organizations, and others have helped reduce hospital readmissions in Medicare by nearly 8% between January 2012 and December 2013—translating into 150,000 fewer readmissions. Hospitalists have played a major role in these improvements.

On a broader front, CMS is taking action to improve healthcare so patients and their families can get the best care possible. To this end, CMS is focused on three key areas: (1) improving the way providers and hospitals are paid, (2) improving and innovating in care delivery, and (3) sharing information more broadly with providers and hospitals, consumers, and others to support better decisions.

When it comes to improving the way providers are paid, we want to reward value and care coordination—rather than volume and care duplication. We have over 25 payment and service delivery models at the CMS Innovation Center, but I will call out three that are particularly relevant to hospitalists. First, the ACO program is demonstrating positive results. Medicare has over 400 ACOs serving almost eight million beneficiaries. The Pioneer ACO program evaluation results demonstrated over $380 million in savings and improved quality—for example, improvement in 28 out of 33 quality measures, including patient experience of care. Based on these results, this model was the first from the CMS Innovation Center to be certified by the CMS actuary, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services announced her intent to expand the model components as a permanent part of the Medicare program through rulemaking. Second, in the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement model, we have thousands of providers (e.g. hospitals, physician groups) in phase 1 determining how they might improve care and considering taking on financial risk. The model includes acute and post-acute care, such as a 90-day episode for hip and knee replacement. We have 500 providers, and more that are willing to take on two-sided financial risk will likely be added in the next quarter. Hospitalists have a large role to play in improving quality and reducing costs in this model. Finally, the State Innovation Model is driving state and local change. In this model, we are funding and partnering with states on comprehensive delivery system reform. Seventeen states are implementing interventions, and 21 states and territories are designing their plans. The state is encouraged to partner with payers, providers, employers, public health entities, and others in the state to strive within the whole state population for better care, smarter spending, and healthier people. Many states are implementing payment models such as ACOs and bundled payments in Medicaid and with private payers. Increasingly, hospital medicine groups are going to value-based in the quality and efficiency of care delivery, both within the hospital walls and for episodes of care. This will entail stronger linkages and teamwork, both within the hospital and with clinicians in the community. It will also require a much stronger focus on predicting which patients are at risk of decompensation and delivering tailored interventions, including care management and technology to monitor patients in the home and other settings.

To improve care delivery, we are supporting providers to find new ways to coordinate and integrate care. For example, discharging a patient from the hospital without clear instructions on how to take care of themselves at home, when they should take their medicines, or when to check back in with the doctor can lead to an unnecessary readmission back into the hospital. This is especially true of individuals who have complex illnesses or diseases that may be more difficult to manage. We are supporting care improvement through a variety of channels, including facilitating hospitals and community groups teaming up to share best practices, and we applaud the Society of Hospital Medicine’s BOOST program, which is focused on peer mentoring and improvement.

Finally, as we look to improve the way information is distributed, we are working to create more transparency on the cost and quality of care, to bring electronic health information to inform care, and to bring the most recent scientific evidence to the point of care so we can bolster clinical decision making. Necessary information needs to be available to the treating physician and patients across settings. We must continue to improve the interoperability and usability of electronic health records so that they can enable improvement and care delivery.

I hope that as hospitalists you will take a closer look at the HHS initiatives I’ve described here—and others—and consider becoming a participant. Hospital medicine physicians are already leading many of these initiatives and are a positive force for health system transformation. As I look back on my last four-plus years at CMS (which sometimes feel like 30 years), I am amazed by how much progress we have made in improving the quality of care (e.g. over 95% of measures in CMS quality programs have improved over the last three years), spending dollars more wisely (e.g. lowest cost growth in the last four years in over 50 years), and improving the health of the nation (e.g. decreased smoking rates). Our nation is moving rapidly toward accountable, alternative payment models, including the recent legislation to “fix the SGR,” and I have seen hospitalists lead progress towards adopting these models nationally and locally. A challenge for all of us is to accelerate the pace of positive change and relentlessly pursue improved patient outcomes and a higher performing health system. But I know hospitalists are up to this challenge.

Thank you for all the work that you do every day on behalf of your patients and a better health system.

Doctors were the first to begin using pagers and, along with drug dealers, appear to be the last to give them up. But we really need to get rid of them.

Sadly, for the foreseeable future, we will need a pager replacement, but, in the longer term, I’m hopeful that we can:

1. Reduce the frequency of electronic interruptions—all forms of interruptions—and the adverse effects that reliably accompany them, and
2. Ensure that each interruption has value—that is, reduce or eliminate the many low value and non-urgent messages we all get (e.g. the ones informing you of a lab result you’ve already seen).

Death to the Pager

I can’t imagine anyone who will be more pleased than I will if pagers go the way of now rare hospital-wide PA announcements. Some hospitals have eliminated these announcements entirely, and even critical messages like “code blue” announcements are sent directly to each responder via a pager or other personal device.

Around the time the first iPhone was born, hospital signs banning cell phones began coming down. It seems the fear that they would disrupt hospital electronics, such as telemetry and other monitoring devices, has proven largely unfounded (though, along with things like computer keyboards and stethoscopes, pagers and cell phones can serve as dangerous repositories of bacteria).

Now nearly everyone, from staff to patients, keeps a cell phone with them while in the hospital. I think that is the most important step toward getting rid of pagers. Many doctors already are using the standard text messaging apps that come with the phone to communicate with one another efficiently.

“Regular” Texting Won’t Cut It

Unfortunately, the standard text messaging that comes with every smartphone is not HIPAA compliant. Though I certainly don’t know how anyone would do it, it is apparently too easy for another person to intercept the message. So, if you’re texting information related to your clinical work, you need to make sure it doesn’t include anything that could be considered protected health information. It isn’t enough just to leave the patient’s name off the message. If you’re in the habit of regularly texting doctors, nurses, and other healthcare personnel about patient care, you are at high risk of violating HIPAA, even if you try hard to avoid it.

Another big drawback is that there isn’t a good way to turn off work-related texting when you’re off duty, while leaving your texting app open for communication with your friends and family. Hospital staff will sometimes fail to check whether you’re on duty before texting, and that will lead to your personal time being interrupted by work reminders.

I think these shortcomings mean that none of us should rely on the standard text messaging apps that come with our phones.

But in order for a different app or service to be of any value, we will need to ensure that most providers associated with our hospital are on the same messaging system. That is a tall order, but fortunately there are a lot of companies trying to produce an attractive product that makes it as easy as possible to attract a critical mass of users at your institution.

HIPAA-Compliant Texting Vendors

Many healthcare tech companies provide secure messaging, usually at no additional cost, as an add-on to their main products, such as charge capture software (e.g. IngeniousMed), or physician social networking (e.g. Doximity). Something like 30 companies now offer a dedicated HIPAA-compliant texting option, including IM Your Doc, Voalte, Telmediq, PerfectServe, Vocera, and TigerText. There are so many that it is awfully tough to understand all of their strengths and shortcomings in detail, but I’m having fun trying to do just that. And I anticipate there will be significant consolidation in vendors within the next two to three years.

The dedicated HIPAA-compliant texting services range in price from free for basic features to a monthly fee per user that varies depending on the features you choose to enable. Some offer integration with the hospital’s EHR, which can let a message sender who only knows the patient’s name to see which doctor, nurse, or other caregiver is currently responsible for the patient. Some offer integration with a call schedule and answering service, or even replace an answering service.

No pager replacement will be viable if there are sites in the hospital or elsewhere where it is out of contact; a solution that works on both cellular networks and Wi-Fi is essential. Some vendors offer the ability for messages not delivered to or acknowledged by the recipient to escalate to other forms of delivery after a specified period of time.

I would love to see a feature that I don’t think any vendor offers yet. It would be great if all messages the sender hasn’t marked “stat” or “urgent” first went to a queue in the EHR rather than immediately interrupting the recipient. That way a doctor or other caregiver could see messages while already working in the EHR, rather than glancing at each new message as it arrives, something that all too often needlessly interrupts another important task such as talking with a patient.

And, since most work in EHRs is done in front of a larger device with a full keyboard, it would be easier to type a quick reply message than it would be to rely on a smartphone keyboard for return messaging. Protocols could be established such that messages waiting in the EHR without a reply or dismissal after a specified time would then be sent to the recipient’s personal device.

A Texting Ecosystem

In nearly every case, the hospital will select the text messaging vendor, though hospitalists and nurses, who will typically be among the highest-volume users, should participate in the decision. But the real value of the system hinges on ensuring its wide adoption by most, or nearly all, hospital caregivers and affiliated ambulatory providers.

I would enjoy hearing from those who are already using a HIPAA-secure texting and pager replacement service now, as well as those still researching their options. This has the potential to meaningfully change the way hospitalists and others do their work.

Doctors were the first to begin using pagers and, along with drug dealers, appear to be the last to give them up. But we really need to get rid of them.

Sadly, for the foreseeable future, we will need a pager replacement, but, in the longer term, I’m hopeful that we can:

1. Reduce the frequency of electronic interruptions—all forms of interruptions—and the adverse effects that reliably accompany them, and
2. Ensure that each interruption has value—that is, reduce or eliminate the many low value and non-urgent messages we all get (e.g. the ones informing you of a lab result you’ve already seen).

Death to the Pager

I can’t imagine anyone who will be more pleased than I will if pagers go the way of now rare hospital-wide PA announcements. Some hospitals have eliminated these announcements entirely, and even critical messages like “code blue” announcements are sent directly to each responder via a pager or other personal device.

Around the time the first iPhone was born, hospital signs banning cell phones began coming down. It seems the fear that they would disrupt hospital electronics, such as telemetry and other monitoring devices, has proven largely unfounded (though, along with things like computer keyboards and stethoscopes, pagers and cell phones can serve as dangerous repositories of bacteria).

Now nearly everyone, from staff to patients, keeps a cell phone with them while in the hospital. I think that is the most important step toward getting rid of pagers. Many doctors already are using the standard text messaging apps that come with the phone to communicate with one another efficiently.

“Regular” Texting Won’t Cut It

Unfortunately, the standard text messaging that comes with every smartphone is not HIPAA compliant. Though I certainly don’t know how anyone would do it, it is apparently too easy for another person to intercept the message. So, if you’re texting information related to your clinical work, you need to make sure it doesn’t include anything that could be considered protected health information. It isn’t enough just to leave the patient’s name off the message. If you’re in the habit of regularly texting doctors, nurses, and other healthcare personnel about patient care, you are at high risk of violating HIPAA, even if you try hard to avoid it.

Another big drawback is that there isn’t a good way to turn off work-related texting when you’re off duty, while leaving your texting app open for communication with your friends and family. Hospital staff will sometimes fail to check whether you’re on duty before texting, and that will lead to your personal time being interrupted by work reminders.

I think these shortcomings mean that none of us should rely on the standard text messaging apps that come with our phones.

But in order for a different app or service to be of any value, we will need to ensure that most providers associated with our hospital are on the same messaging system. That is a tall order, but fortunately there are a lot of companies trying to produce an attractive product that makes it as easy as possible to attract a critical mass of users at your institution.

HIPAA-Compliant Texting Vendors

Many healthcare tech companies provide secure messaging, usually at no additional cost, as an add-on to their main products, such as charge capture software (e.g. IngeniousMed), or physician social networking (e.g. Doximity). Something like 30 companies now offer a dedicated HIPAA-compliant texting option, including IM Your Doc, Voalte, Telmediq, PerfectServe, Vocera, and TigerText. There are so many that it is awfully tough to understand all of their strengths and shortcomings in detail, but I’m having fun trying to do just that. And I anticipate there will be significant consolidation in vendors within the next two to three years.

The dedicated HIPAA-compliant texting services range in price from free for basic features to a monthly fee per user that varies depending on the features you choose to enable. Some offer integration with the hospital’s EHR, which can let a message sender who only knows the patient’s name to see which doctor, nurse, or other caregiver is currently responsible for the patient. Some offer integration with a call schedule and answering service, or even replace an answering service.

No pager replacement will be viable if there are sites in the hospital or elsewhere where it is out of contact; a solution that works on both cellular networks and Wi-Fi is essential. Some vendors offer the ability for messages not delivered to or acknowledged by the recipient to escalate to other forms of delivery after a specified period of time.

I would love to see a feature that I don’t think any vendor offers yet. It would be great if all messages the sender hasn’t marked “stat” or “urgent” first went to a queue in the EHR rather than immediately interrupting the recipient. That way a doctor or other caregiver could see messages while already working in the EHR, rather than glancing at each new message as it arrives, something that all too often needlessly interrupts another important task such as talking with a patient.

And, since most work in EHRs is done in front of a larger device with a full keyboard, it would be easier to type a quick reply message than it would be to rely on a smartphone keyboard for return messaging. Protocols could be established such that messages waiting in the EHR without a reply or dismissal after a specified time would then be sent to the recipient’s personal device.

A Texting Ecosystem

In nearly every case, the hospital will select the text messaging vendor, though hospitalists and nurses, who will typically be among the highest-volume users, should participate in the decision. But the real value of the system hinges on ensuring its wide adoption by most, or nearly all, hospital caregivers and affiliated ambulatory providers.

I would enjoy hearing from those who are already using a HIPAA-secure texting and pager replacement service now, as well as those still researching their options. This has the potential to meaningfully change the way hospitalists and others do their work.

Doctors were the first to begin using pagers and, along with drug dealers, appear to be the last to give them up. But we really need to get rid of them.

Sadly, for the foreseeable future, we will need a pager replacement, but, in the longer term, I’m hopeful that we can:

1. Reduce the frequency of electronic interruptions—all forms of interruptions—and the adverse effects that reliably accompany them, and
2. Ensure that each interruption has value—that is, reduce or eliminate the many low value and non-urgent messages we all get (e.g. the ones informing you of a lab result you’ve already seen).

Death to the Pager

I can’t imagine anyone who will be more pleased than I will if pagers go the way of now rare hospital-wide PA announcements. Some hospitals have eliminated these announcements entirely, and even critical messages like “code blue” announcements are sent directly to each responder via a pager or other personal device.

Around the time the first iPhone was born, hospital signs banning cell phones began coming down. It seems the fear that they would disrupt hospital electronics, such as telemetry and other monitoring devices, has proven largely unfounded (though, along with things like computer keyboards and stethoscopes, pagers and cell phones can serve as dangerous repositories of bacteria).

Now nearly everyone, from staff to patients, keeps a cell phone with them while in the hospital. I think that is the most important step toward getting rid of pagers. Many doctors already are using the standard text messaging apps that come with the phone to communicate with one another efficiently.

“Regular” Texting Won’t Cut It

Unfortunately, the standard text messaging that comes with every smartphone is not HIPAA compliant. Though I certainly don’t know how anyone would do it, it is apparently too easy for another person to intercept the message. So, if you’re texting information related to your clinical work, you need to make sure it doesn’t include anything that could be considered protected health information. It isn’t enough just to leave the patient’s name off the message. If you’re in the habit of regularly texting doctors, nurses, and other healthcare personnel about patient care, you are at high risk of violating HIPAA, even if you try hard to avoid it.

Another big drawback is that there isn’t a good way to turn off work-related texting when you’re off duty, while leaving your texting app open for communication with your friends and family. Hospital staff will sometimes fail to check whether you’re on duty before texting, and that will lead to your personal time being interrupted by work reminders.

I think these shortcomings mean that none of us should rely on the standard text messaging apps that come with our phones.

But in order for a different app or service to be of any value, we will need to ensure that most providers associated with our hospital are on the same messaging system. That is a tall order, but fortunately there are a lot of companies trying to produce an attractive product that makes it as easy as possible to attract a critical mass of users at your institution.

HIPAA-Compliant Texting Vendors

Many healthcare tech companies provide secure messaging, usually at no additional cost, as an add-on to their main products, such as charge capture software (e.g. IngeniousMed), or physician social networking (e.g. Doximity). Something like 30 companies now offer a dedicated HIPAA-compliant texting option, including IM Your Doc, Voalte, Telmediq, PerfectServe, Vocera, and TigerText. There are so many that it is awfully tough to understand all of their strengths and shortcomings in detail, but I’m having fun trying to do just that. And I anticipate there will be significant consolidation in vendors within the next two to three years.

The dedicated HIPAA-compliant texting services range in price from free for basic features to a monthly fee per user that varies depending on the features you choose to enable. Some offer integration with the hospital’s EHR, which can let a message sender who only knows the patient’s name to see which doctor, nurse, or other caregiver is currently responsible for the patient. Some offer integration with a call schedule and answering service, or even replace an answering service.

No pager replacement will be viable if there are sites in the hospital or elsewhere where it is out of contact; a solution that works on both cellular networks and Wi-Fi is essential. Some vendors offer the ability for messages not delivered to or acknowledged by the recipient to escalate to other forms of delivery after a specified period of time.

I would love to see a feature that I don’t think any vendor offers yet. It would be great if all messages the sender hasn’t marked “stat” or “urgent” first went to a queue in the EHR rather than immediately interrupting the recipient. That way a doctor or other caregiver could see messages while already working in the EHR, rather than glancing at each new message as it arrives, something that all too often needlessly interrupts another important task such as talking with a patient.

And, since most work in EHRs is done in front of a larger device with a full keyboard, it would be easier to type a quick reply message than it would be to rely on a smartphone keyboard for return messaging. Protocols could be established such that messages waiting in the EHR without a reply or dismissal after a specified time would then be sent to the recipient’s personal device.

A Texting Ecosystem

In nearly every case, the hospital will select the text messaging vendor, though hospitalists and nurses, who will typically be among the highest-volume users, should participate in the decision. But the real value of the system hinges on ensuring its wide adoption by most, or nearly all, hospital caregivers and affiliated ambulatory providers.

I would enjoy hearing from those who are already using a HIPAA-secure texting and pager replacement service now, as well as those still researching their options. This has the potential to meaningfully change the way hospitalists and others do their work.