Affiliations
Division of Hospital Medicine, Department of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine
Given name(s)
Yelena
Family name
Burklin
Degrees
MD

One-dose-fits-all aspirin administration strategy may not be advisable

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 04/05/2019 - 14:41

Clinical question: Are the same doses of aspirin equally effective in preventing cardiovascular (CV) events and long-term colorectal risk reduction in patients of various body sizes?

Background: Strong evidence for the one-dose-fits-all approach to use of aspirin in long-term prevention of CV events is lacking. Aspirin effect may be dependent on patient’s body size. Excess dosing of aspirin in patients of small body size might negatively affect their outcomes.

Study design: Meta-analysis.

Dr. Yelena Burklin, assistant professor of medicine in the division of hospital medicine, Emory University, Atlanta.
Dr. Yelena Burklin

Setting: Trials from the Antithrombotic Trialists’ Collaboration, other systematic reviews of trials of aspirin, and from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

Synopsis: The authors included 10 trials (117,279 participants altogether) and analyzed the association of body weight with the effectiveness of aspirin doses on CV event and colon cancer prevention. The greatest benefit of low-dose aspirin (75-100 mg) in reducing CV events was seen in patients weighing 50-69 kg (hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.65-0.85; P less than .0001), with CV events increasing with increasing weights (P interaction = .0072). There was an increased rate of fatality with low-dose aspirin among patients at body weights greater than 70 kg (HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.08-1.64; P = .0082) or less than 50 kg (HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.04-2.21; P = .031). Higher doses of aspirin were more effective at higher body weights (P interaction = .017). Similar weight-dependent effects were seen in the 20-year risk of colorectal cancer.

While findings are consistent across trials looking at dose-dependent aspirin effects in patients of various body sizes, limitations included lack of generalizability of the results in secondary prevention trials, inclusion of older trials, variability of participants’ characteristics, and aspirin compliance across trials.

Bottom line: Weight-based aspirin dosing may be required for prevention of CV events, sudden cardiac death, and cancer. Based on the results of this meta-analysis, one-dose-fits-all aspirin administration strategy may not be advisable.

Citation: Rothwell PM et al. Effects of aspirin on risks of vascular events and cancer according to body weight and dose: Analysis of individual patient data from randomized trials. Lancet. 2018;392:387-99.
 

Dr. Burklin is an assistant professor of medicine in the division of hospital medicine at Emory University, Atlanta.

Publications
Topics
Sections

Clinical question: Are the same doses of aspirin equally effective in preventing cardiovascular (CV) events and long-term colorectal risk reduction in patients of various body sizes?

Background: Strong evidence for the one-dose-fits-all approach to use of aspirin in long-term prevention of CV events is lacking. Aspirin effect may be dependent on patient’s body size. Excess dosing of aspirin in patients of small body size might negatively affect their outcomes.

Study design: Meta-analysis.

Dr. Yelena Burklin, assistant professor of medicine in the division of hospital medicine, Emory University, Atlanta.
Dr. Yelena Burklin

Setting: Trials from the Antithrombotic Trialists’ Collaboration, other systematic reviews of trials of aspirin, and from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

Synopsis: The authors included 10 trials (117,279 participants altogether) and analyzed the association of body weight with the effectiveness of aspirin doses on CV event and colon cancer prevention. The greatest benefit of low-dose aspirin (75-100 mg) in reducing CV events was seen in patients weighing 50-69 kg (hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.65-0.85; P less than .0001), with CV events increasing with increasing weights (P interaction = .0072). There was an increased rate of fatality with low-dose aspirin among patients at body weights greater than 70 kg (HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.08-1.64; P = .0082) or less than 50 kg (HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.04-2.21; P = .031). Higher doses of aspirin were more effective at higher body weights (P interaction = .017). Similar weight-dependent effects were seen in the 20-year risk of colorectal cancer.

While findings are consistent across trials looking at dose-dependent aspirin effects in patients of various body sizes, limitations included lack of generalizability of the results in secondary prevention trials, inclusion of older trials, variability of participants’ characteristics, and aspirin compliance across trials.

Bottom line: Weight-based aspirin dosing may be required for prevention of CV events, sudden cardiac death, and cancer. Based on the results of this meta-analysis, one-dose-fits-all aspirin administration strategy may not be advisable.

Citation: Rothwell PM et al. Effects of aspirin on risks of vascular events and cancer according to body weight and dose: Analysis of individual patient data from randomized trials. Lancet. 2018;392:387-99.
 

Dr. Burklin is an assistant professor of medicine in the division of hospital medicine at Emory University, Atlanta.

Clinical question: Are the same doses of aspirin equally effective in preventing cardiovascular (CV) events and long-term colorectal risk reduction in patients of various body sizes?

Background: Strong evidence for the one-dose-fits-all approach to use of aspirin in long-term prevention of CV events is lacking. Aspirin effect may be dependent on patient’s body size. Excess dosing of aspirin in patients of small body size might negatively affect their outcomes.

Study design: Meta-analysis.

Dr. Yelena Burklin, assistant professor of medicine in the division of hospital medicine, Emory University, Atlanta.
Dr. Yelena Burklin

Setting: Trials from the Antithrombotic Trialists’ Collaboration, other systematic reviews of trials of aspirin, and from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

Synopsis: The authors included 10 trials (117,279 participants altogether) and analyzed the association of body weight with the effectiveness of aspirin doses on CV event and colon cancer prevention. The greatest benefit of low-dose aspirin (75-100 mg) in reducing CV events was seen in patients weighing 50-69 kg (hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.65-0.85; P less than .0001), with CV events increasing with increasing weights (P interaction = .0072). There was an increased rate of fatality with low-dose aspirin among patients at body weights greater than 70 kg (HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.08-1.64; P = .0082) or less than 50 kg (HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.04-2.21; P = .031). Higher doses of aspirin were more effective at higher body weights (P interaction = .017). Similar weight-dependent effects were seen in the 20-year risk of colorectal cancer.

While findings are consistent across trials looking at dose-dependent aspirin effects in patients of various body sizes, limitations included lack of generalizability of the results in secondary prevention trials, inclusion of older trials, variability of participants’ characteristics, and aspirin compliance across trials.

Bottom line: Weight-based aspirin dosing may be required for prevention of CV events, sudden cardiac death, and cancer. Based on the results of this meta-analysis, one-dose-fits-all aspirin administration strategy may not be advisable.

Citation: Rothwell PM et al. Effects of aspirin on risks of vascular events and cancer according to body weight and dose: Analysis of individual patient data from randomized trials. Lancet. 2018;392:387-99.
 

Dr. Burklin is an assistant professor of medicine in the division of hospital medicine at Emory University, Atlanta.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Eyebrow Default
CLINICAL
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.

Admitting medicine patients to off-service, nonmedicine units linked with increased in-hospital mortality

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 09/14/2018 - 11:54

Background: Increased saturation of hospital capacity compromises patient outcomes. This creates additional challenges for the provision of appropriate specialized care. In some hospitals, patients are “bed-spaced,” or admitted to non–internal medicine service locations, such as a surgical ward, in order to free up space in the emergency department. Whether bed-spacing reduces quality of care or patient outcomes has not been previously studied.

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Large tertiary care academic hospital in Canada, during Jan. 1, 2015-Jan. 1, 2016.

Synopsis: There were 3,243 patients included in the analysis, of which 1,125 (35%) were bed-spaced to the off-service wards. The remaining 2,118 patients (65%) were admitted to the assigned internal medicine units. In the first week of hospitalization, in-hospital mortality among bed-spaced patients was approximately three times that of patients admitted to the assigned internal medicine wards. Upon admission, in-hospital mortality for the bed-spaced patients had a hazard ratio of 3.42 (95% confidence interval, 2.23-5.26; P less than .0001) with subsequent decrease by 0.97 (95% CI, 0.94-0.99; P = .0133) per day in the hospital. By the third week of hospitalization, the mortality risks had equalized. Sensitivity analyses revealed similar results.

Bottom line: This retrospective study is based on a single center; however, the observed increased mortality among the bed-spaced patients merits further investigation. Assessment of study generalizability and formulation of strategies for improving patient safety are needed.

Citation: Bai AD et al. Mortality of hospitalised internal medicine patients bed-spaced to non–internal medicine inpatient units: Retrospective cohort study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2018 Jan;27(1):11-20. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2017-006925.

Dr. Burklin is assistant professor of medicine in the division of hospital medicine, Emory University, Atlanta.

Publications
Sections

Background: Increased saturation of hospital capacity compromises patient outcomes. This creates additional challenges for the provision of appropriate specialized care. In some hospitals, patients are “bed-spaced,” or admitted to non–internal medicine service locations, such as a surgical ward, in order to free up space in the emergency department. Whether bed-spacing reduces quality of care or patient outcomes has not been previously studied.

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Large tertiary care academic hospital in Canada, during Jan. 1, 2015-Jan. 1, 2016.

Synopsis: There were 3,243 patients included in the analysis, of which 1,125 (35%) were bed-spaced to the off-service wards. The remaining 2,118 patients (65%) were admitted to the assigned internal medicine units. In the first week of hospitalization, in-hospital mortality among bed-spaced patients was approximately three times that of patients admitted to the assigned internal medicine wards. Upon admission, in-hospital mortality for the bed-spaced patients had a hazard ratio of 3.42 (95% confidence interval, 2.23-5.26; P less than .0001) with subsequent decrease by 0.97 (95% CI, 0.94-0.99; P = .0133) per day in the hospital. By the third week of hospitalization, the mortality risks had equalized. Sensitivity analyses revealed similar results.

Bottom line: This retrospective study is based on a single center; however, the observed increased mortality among the bed-spaced patients merits further investigation. Assessment of study generalizability and formulation of strategies for improving patient safety are needed.

Citation: Bai AD et al. Mortality of hospitalised internal medicine patients bed-spaced to non–internal medicine inpatient units: Retrospective cohort study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2018 Jan;27(1):11-20. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2017-006925.

Dr. Burklin is assistant professor of medicine in the division of hospital medicine, Emory University, Atlanta.

Background: Increased saturation of hospital capacity compromises patient outcomes. This creates additional challenges for the provision of appropriate specialized care. In some hospitals, patients are “bed-spaced,” or admitted to non–internal medicine service locations, such as a surgical ward, in order to free up space in the emergency department. Whether bed-spacing reduces quality of care or patient outcomes has not been previously studied.

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Large tertiary care academic hospital in Canada, during Jan. 1, 2015-Jan. 1, 2016.

Synopsis: There were 3,243 patients included in the analysis, of which 1,125 (35%) were bed-spaced to the off-service wards. The remaining 2,118 patients (65%) were admitted to the assigned internal medicine units. In the first week of hospitalization, in-hospital mortality among bed-spaced patients was approximately three times that of patients admitted to the assigned internal medicine wards. Upon admission, in-hospital mortality for the bed-spaced patients had a hazard ratio of 3.42 (95% confidence interval, 2.23-5.26; P less than .0001) with subsequent decrease by 0.97 (95% CI, 0.94-0.99; P = .0133) per day in the hospital. By the third week of hospitalization, the mortality risks had equalized. Sensitivity analyses revealed similar results.

Bottom line: This retrospective study is based on a single center; however, the observed increased mortality among the bed-spaced patients merits further investigation. Assessment of study generalizability and formulation of strategies for improving patient safety are needed.

Citation: Bai AD et al. Mortality of hospitalised internal medicine patients bed-spaced to non–internal medicine inpatient units: Retrospective cohort study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2018 Jan;27(1):11-20. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2017-006925.

Dr. Burklin is assistant professor of medicine in the division of hospital medicine, Emory University, Atlanta.

Publications
Publications
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default

A SNF-based enhanced care program may help reduce 30-day readmissions

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 09/14/2018 - 11:54

Background: The acuity of many patients recently discharged from an acute care facility is high. Some of these patients are being transferred to a SNF upon hospital discharge. Currently existing SNF care systems may not be prepared sufficiently for the challenges that arise with the admission of such patients to the SNFs after hospital discharge, resulting in readmissions.

Study design: Observational, retrospective cohort analysis.

Setting: Collaborative effort among a large, urban, acute care center, interdisciplinary clinical team, 124 community physicians, and eight SNFs.

Synopsis: In addition to standard care, the Enhanced Care Program (ECP) included a team of nurse practitioners participating in the care of SNF patients, a pharmacist-driven medication reconciliation at the time of transfer, and educational in-services for SNF nursing staff. Following introduction of the three ECP interventions, 30-day readmission rates were compared for both ECP and non-ECP patient groups. After adjustment for sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, ECP patients had 29% lower odds of being readmitted within 30 days (P less than .001). Multivariate analyses confirmed similar results. Major caveats include that this was a single-hospital study and that selection of the enrolled patients was not random, but rather, was determined by their primary care providers, potentially leading to some confounding.

Bottom line: For patients discharged to SNFs, an interdisciplinary care approach may reduce 30-day hospital readmissions.

Citation: Rosen BT et al. The Enhanced Care Program: Impact of a care transition program on 30-day hospital readmissions for patients discharged from an acute care facility to skilled nursing facilities. J Hosp Med. 2017 Oct 4:E1-E7. doi: 10.12788/jhm.2852

Dr. Yelena Burklin, assistant professor of medicine in the division of hospital medicine, Emory University, Atlanta.

Dr. Burklin is assistant professor of medicine in the division of hospital medicine, Emory University, Atlanta.

Publications
Topics
Sections

Background: The acuity of many patients recently discharged from an acute care facility is high. Some of these patients are being transferred to a SNF upon hospital discharge. Currently existing SNF care systems may not be prepared sufficiently for the challenges that arise with the admission of such patients to the SNFs after hospital discharge, resulting in readmissions.

Study design: Observational, retrospective cohort analysis.

Setting: Collaborative effort among a large, urban, acute care center, interdisciplinary clinical team, 124 community physicians, and eight SNFs.

Synopsis: In addition to standard care, the Enhanced Care Program (ECP) included a team of nurse practitioners participating in the care of SNF patients, a pharmacist-driven medication reconciliation at the time of transfer, and educational in-services for SNF nursing staff. Following introduction of the three ECP interventions, 30-day readmission rates were compared for both ECP and non-ECP patient groups. After adjustment for sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, ECP patients had 29% lower odds of being readmitted within 30 days (P less than .001). Multivariate analyses confirmed similar results. Major caveats include that this was a single-hospital study and that selection of the enrolled patients was not random, but rather, was determined by their primary care providers, potentially leading to some confounding.

Bottom line: For patients discharged to SNFs, an interdisciplinary care approach may reduce 30-day hospital readmissions.

Citation: Rosen BT et al. The Enhanced Care Program: Impact of a care transition program on 30-day hospital readmissions for patients discharged from an acute care facility to skilled nursing facilities. J Hosp Med. 2017 Oct 4:E1-E7. doi: 10.12788/jhm.2852

Dr. Yelena Burklin, assistant professor of medicine in the division of hospital medicine, Emory University, Atlanta.

Dr. Burklin is assistant professor of medicine in the division of hospital medicine, Emory University, Atlanta.

Background: The acuity of many patients recently discharged from an acute care facility is high. Some of these patients are being transferred to a SNF upon hospital discharge. Currently existing SNF care systems may not be prepared sufficiently for the challenges that arise with the admission of such patients to the SNFs after hospital discharge, resulting in readmissions.

Study design: Observational, retrospective cohort analysis.

Setting: Collaborative effort among a large, urban, acute care center, interdisciplinary clinical team, 124 community physicians, and eight SNFs.

Synopsis: In addition to standard care, the Enhanced Care Program (ECP) included a team of nurse practitioners participating in the care of SNF patients, a pharmacist-driven medication reconciliation at the time of transfer, and educational in-services for SNF nursing staff. Following introduction of the three ECP interventions, 30-day readmission rates were compared for both ECP and non-ECP patient groups. After adjustment for sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, ECP patients had 29% lower odds of being readmitted within 30 days (P less than .001). Multivariate analyses confirmed similar results. Major caveats include that this was a single-hospital study and that selection of the enrolled patients was not random, but rather, was determined by their primary care providers, potentially leading to some confounding.

Bottom line: For patients discharged to SNFs, an interdisciplinary care approach may reduce 30-day hospital readmissions.

Citation: Rosen BT et al. The Enhanced Care Program: Impact of a care transition program on 30-day hospital readmissions for patients discharged from an acute care facility to skilled nursing facilities. J Hosp Med. 2017 Oct 4:E1-E7. doi: 10.12788/jhm.2852

Dr. Yelena Burklin, assistant professor of medicine in the division of hospital medicine, Emory University, Atlanta.

Dr. Burklin is assistant professor of medicine in the division of hospital medicine, Emory University, Atlanta.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default

Challenge of Personality Disorders

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 01/02/2017 - 19:34
Display Headline
The formidable cluster: The challenge of personality disorders among hospitalized patients

All practicing hospitalists encounter challenging patient situations that stem from issues beyond medical illness. Those situations include the patient who demands to talk with the doctor repeatedly disregarding the lack of urgency, or the patient who, despite seeing multiple well‐regarded specialists, attempts to split the healthcare team by generating unwarranted praise or criticism toward individual caregivers.

Although these patients may be labeled difficult, hateful, or simply a unique patient‐management opportunity, effective care requires a more nuanced understanding of a possible underlying personality disorder that adversely affects the patientphysician relationship. In this issue of the Journal of Hospital Medicine, Riddle et al. provide an important review that outlines a framework for identifying the likely presence of a personality disorder along with practical advice for how to manage these patients.[1] As the authors point out, personality disorders are relatively common among patients seeking medical care but are challenging to diagnose, particularly in the setting of superimposed medical illness. Common to all personality disorders are difficulties forming and maintaining positive relationships with others such that care providers find themselves feeling frustrated, fearful, or inadequate. Inpatient providers typically receive very little training in how to care for patients with personality disorders.

The approach of avoiding collaborative teaching rounds, driven perhaps by a need for time efficiency, deprives learners of the chance to reflect on effective interactions with these patients.

Personality disorders result from genetic predisposition, complex brain dysfunction, and environmental influences. Social determinants also play a role, although limited social networks may simultaneously be a result of a personality disorder and a contributing factor.[2] Although there is a temptation to view personality disorders separate from medical conditions such as diabetes mellitus, diagnosing a personality disorder is far more complicated than simply checking a glycosylated hemoglobin. As Riddle et al. suggest, making a specific diagnosis from the list of 10 personality disorders is challenging in the hospital setting, even for experienced psychiatrists. Given the danger of propagating a diagnosis unabated and unquestioned through the electronic medical record, the attending hospitalist should be reluctant to include a diagnosis such as borderline personality disorder or histrionic personality disorder in the patient problem list without input from experts. Instead, it is useful to document the specific behaviors that are impacting patient care during this episode of illness.

We are concerned about the impact of personality disorders on a number of aspects of patient care, and these are areas that are potentially fertile ground for scholarship and research.

EFFECT ON THE PATIENT EXPERIENCE

Patients with personality disorders may have difficulty assessing the severity of their own medical illnesses. Educating patients on the meaning and value of recovery may be helpful in establishing appropriate expectations of care,[3] although it is equally important to assess the value of illness from the patient's perspective. As Riddle et al. point out, the goal for the hospitalist team is to mitigate the negative impact of adverse behavior on overall care. A recent pilot study of smartphone applications for use by patients with borderline personality disorder might have utility in the inpatient setting.[4] These types of innovations provide opportunities for hospitalist research in the care of patients with personality disorders.

EFFECT OF PERSONALITY DISORDERS ON TEAM‐BASED CLINICAL CARE

A recent observational study published in the Journal of Hospital Medicine identified several important attributes of a high‐functioning inpatient care team.[5] The findings reinforced the concept that patient care is a social activity. To provide high‐quality care, a high‐functioning partnership between team members is required. Riddle et al. point out that patients with personality traits and disorders can negatively impact the relationship among care team members. The hospitalist may be tempted to leave the nursing staff to handle the unwanted communication with the patient. This strategy is maladaptive and creates friction between the hospitalist and the nursing staff. In addition, it reduces an opportunity to recognize important real‐time changes in patients' clinical status that may adversely affect patient outcomes.

EFFECT ON DIAGNOSTIC REASONING

Clinical and diagnostic reasoning plays a central role in patient care. Hospitalists must identify key elements from empirical data and formulate their problem representation to assist in planning the next diagnostic and treatment plans. The medical literature regarding the effect of providing care to patients with maladaptive personality structures is limited. Recent literature investigating the effect of negative patient attributes on diagnostic reasoning suggests that caring for disruptive patients, such as those with maladaptive personality structures, adversely impacts the diagnostic reasoning process. In other words, we are more likely to make cognitive errors when faced with patients who foster a negative feeling. When given vignettes of the same diagnosis but prefaced with patient characteristics that would affect their likeability, trainees of both family practice and internal medicine made significantly fewer correct diagnoses in patients who were given negative connotation, such as overly demanding, a trait not uncommonly seen in patients with personality disorders/traits.[6] The diagnosis rate was more pronounced with complex cases. It is theorized that our cognitive reasoning and use of illness scripts can overcome maladaptive behavior when it comes to common presentations of common illness. However, more complex or atypical presentations require a higher level of diagnostic reasoning that may be impacted by patients who have maladaptive behaviors. The authors hypothesize a resource depletion of mental energy as a result of managing these patients.

EFFECT ON PHYSICIAN WELL‐BEING

Patients with personality disorders require increased time from healthcare providers. Burnout is a major issue for internists.[7] Any provider who has cared for patients with personality disorders can attest to the effects on emotional energy, although this effect deserves study. Without adequate coping strategies by care providers, we run the risk of depleting both our empathy and our mental resources, all of which can negatively affect patient experience and outcomes. The coping strategies that are described by Riddle et al. should be helpful in mitigating the anticipated challenges of caring for these patients and improve both our diagnostic reasoning and care‐provider resiliency.

There is still much to be learned about the long‐term effects of maladaptive personality structures on patient outcomes. We believe that is imperative to have the skills to recognize our patients with maladaptive personality traits and how the care of these patients poses challenges on the functioning of the interdisciplinary care team. Without the advanced training to make the challenging diagnosis of a personality disorder during an acute inpatient stay, it is recommended that hospitalists document the specific behaviors that are impacting patient care and the care team. It is our hope that effective coping strategies can lead to reduced risk of diagnostic errors and bolster the resiliency of the hospitalist.

Disclosure

Nothing to report.

References
  1. Riddle M, Meeks T, Alvarez C, Dubovsky A. When personality is the problem: managing patients with difficulty personalities on the acute care unit. J Hosp Med. 2016;11(12):873878.
  2. Lazarus SA, Cheavens JS. An examination of social network quality and composition in women with and without borderline personality disorder [published online June 27, 2016]. Personal Disord. doi:10.1037/per0000201.
  3. Huguelet P, Guillaume S, Vidal S, et al. Values as determinant of meaning among patients with psychiatric disorders in the perspective of recovery [published online June 8, 2016]. Sci Rep. doi:10.1038/srep27617.
  4. Prada P, Zamberg I, Bouillault G, et al. EMOTEO: a smartphone application for monitoring and reducing aversive tension in borderline personality disorder patients, a pilot study [published online July 21, 2016]. Perspect Psychiatr Care. doi:10.1111/ppc12178.
  5. McAllister C, Leykum LK, Lanham H, et al. Relationships within inpatient physician housestaff teams and their association with hospitalized patient outcomes. J Hosp Med. 2014;9(12):764771.
  6. Mamede S, Gog T, Schuit SC, et al. Why patients' disruptive behaviours impair diagnostic reasoning: a randomised experiment [published online March 7, 2016]. BMJ Qual Saf. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2015-005065.
  7. Roberts DL, Shanafelt TD, Dyrbye LN, West CP. A national comparison of burnout and work‐life balance among internal medicine hospitalists and outpatient general internists. J Hosp Med. 2014;9(3):176181.
Article PDF
Issue
Journal of Hospital Medicine - 11(12)
Publications
Page Number
890-891
Sections
Article PDF
Article PDF

All practicing hospitalists encounter challenging patient situations that stem from issues beyond medical illness. Those situations include the patient who demands to talk with the doctor repeatedly disregarding the lack of urgency, or the patient who, despite seeing multiple well‐regarded specialists, attempts to split the healthcare team by generating unwarranted praise or criticism toward individual caregivers.

Although these patients may be labeled difficult, hateful, or simply a unique patient‐management opportunity, effective care requires a more nuanced understanding of a possible underlying personality disorder that adversely affects the patientphysician relationship. In this issue of the Journal of Hospital Medicine, Riddle et al. provide an important review that outlines a framework for identifying the likely presence of a personality disorder along with practical advice for how to manage these patients.[1] As the authors point out, personality disorders are relatively common among patients seeking medical care but are challenging to diagnose, particularly in the setting of superimposed medical illness. Common to all personality disorders are difficulties forming and maintaining positive relationships with others such that care providers find themselves feeling frustrated, fearful, or inadequate. Inpatient providers typically receive very little training in how to care for patients with personality disorders.

The approach of avoiding collaborative teaching rounds, driven perhaps by a need for time efficiency, deprives learners of the chance to reflect on effective interactions with these patients.

Personality disorders result from genetic predisposition, complex brain dysfunction, and environmental influences. Social determinants also play a role, although limited social networks may simultaneously be a result of a personality disorder and a contributing factor.[2] Although there is a temptation to view personality disorders separate from medical conditions such as diabetes mellitus, diagnosing a personality disorder is far more complicated than simply checking a glycosylated hemoglobin. As Riddle et al. suggest, making a specific diagnosis from the list of 10 personality disorders is challenging in the hospital setting, even for experienced psychiatrists. Given the danger of propagating a diagnosis unabated and unquestioned through the electronic medical record, the attending hospitalist should be reluctant to include a diagnosis such as borderline personality disorder or histrionic personality disorder in the patient problem list without input from experts. Instead, it is useful to document the specific behaviors that are impacting patient care during this episode of illness.

We are concerned about the impact of personality disorders on a number of aspects of patient care, and these are areas that are potentially fertile ground for scholarship and research.

EFFECT ON THE PATIENT EXPERIENCE

Patients with personality disorders may have difficulty assessing the severity of their own medical illnesses. Educating patients on the meaning and value of recovery may be helpful in establishing appropriate expectations of care,[3] although it is equally important to assess the value of illness from the patient's perspective. As Riddle et al. point out, the goal for the hospitalist team is to mitigate the negative impact of adverse behavior on overall care. A recent pilot study of smartphone applications for use by patients with borderline personality disorder might have utility in the inpatient setting.[4] These types of innovations provide opportunities for hospitalist research in the care of patients with personality disorders.

EFFECT OF PERSONALITY DISORDERS ON TEAM‐BASED CLINICAL CARE

A recent observational study published in the Journal of Hospital Medicine identified several important attributes of a high‐functioning inpatient care team.[5] The findings reinforced the concept that patient care is a social activity. To provide high‐quality care, a high‐functioning partnership between team members is required. Riddle et al. point out that patients with personality traits and disorders can negatively impact the relationship among care team members. The hospitalist may be tempted to leave the nursing staff to handle the unwanted communication with the patient. This strategy is maladaptive and creates friction between the hospitalist and the nursing staff. In addition, it reduces an opportunity to recognize important real‐time changes in patients' clinical status that may adversely affect patient outcomes.

EFFECT ON DIAGNOSTIC REASONING

Clinical and diagnostic reasoning plays a central role in patient care. Hospitalists must identify key elements from empirical data and formulate their problem representation to assist in planning the next diagnostic and treatment plans. The medical literature regarding the effect of providing care to patients with maladaptive personality structures is limited. Recent literature investigating the effect of negative patient attributes on diagnostic reasoning suggests that caring for disruptive patients, such as those with maladaptive personality structures, adversely impacts the diagnostic reasoning process. In other words, we are more likely to make cognitive errors when faced with patients who foster a negative feeling. When given vignettes of the same diagnosis but prefaced with patient characteristics that would affect their likeability, trainees of both family practice and internal medicine made significantly fewer correct diagnoses in patients who were given negative connotation, such as overly demanding, a trait not uncommonly seen in patients with personality disorders/traits.[6] The diagnosis rate was more pronounced with complex cases. It is theorized that our cognitive reasoning and use of illness scripts can overcome maladaptive behavior when it comes to common presentations of common illness. However, more complex or atypical presentations require a higher level of diagnostic reasoning that may be impacted by patients who have maladaptive behaviors. The authors hypothesize a resource depletion of mental energy as a result of managing these patients.

EFFECT ON PHYSICIAN WELL‐BEING

Patients with personality disorders require increased time from healthcare providers. Burnout is a major issue for internists.[7] Any provider who has cared for patients with personality disorders can attest to the effects on emotional energy, although this effect deserves study. Without adequate coping strategies by care providers, we run the risk of depleting both our empathy and our mental resources, all of which can negatively affect patient experience and outcomes. The coping strategies that are described by Riddle et al. should be helpful in mitigating the anticipated challenges of caring for these patients and improve both our diagnostic reasoning and care‐provider resiliency.

There is still much to be learned about the long‐term effects of maladaptive personality structures on patient outcomes. We believe that is imperative to have the skills to recognize our patients with maladaptive personality traits and how the care of these patients poses challenges on the functioning of the interdisciplinary care team. Without the advanced training to make the challenging diagnosis of a personality disorder during an acute inpatient stay, it is recommended that hospitalists document the specific behaviors that are impacting patient care and the care team. It is our hope that effective coping strategies can lead to reduced risk of diagnostic errors and bolster the resiliency of the hospitalist.

Disclosure

Nothing to report.

All practicing hospitalists encounter challenging patient situations that stem from issues beyond medical illness. Those situations include the patient who demands to talk with the doctor repeatedly disregarding the lack of urgency, or the patient who, despite seeing multiple well‐regarded specialists, attempts to split the healthcare team by generating unwarranted praise or criticism toward individual caregivers.

Although these patients may be labeled difficult, hateful, or simply a unique patient‐management opportunity, effective care requires a more nuanced understanding of a possible underlying personality disorder that adversely affects the patientphysician relationship. In this issue of the Journal of Hospital Medicine, Riddle et al. provide an important review that outlines a framework for identifying the likely presence of a personality disorder along with practical advice for how to manage these patients.[1] As the authors point out, personality disorders are relatively common among patients seeking medical care but are challenging to diagnose, particularly in the setting of superimposed medical illness. Common to all personality disorders are difficulties forming and maintaining positive relationships with others such that care providers find themselves feeling frustrated, fearful, or inadequate. Inpatient providers typically receive very little training in how to care for patients with personality disorders.

The approach of avoiding collaborative teaching rounds, driven perhaps by a need for time efficiency, deprives learners of the chance to reflect on effective interactions with these patients.

Personality disorders result from genetic predisposition, complex brain dysfunction, and environmental influences. Social determinants also play a role, although limited social networks may simultaneously be a result of a personality disorder and a contributing factor.[2] Although there is a temptation to view personality disorders separate from medical conditions such as diabetes mellitus, diagnosing a personality disorder is far more complicated than simply checking a glycosylated hemoglobin. As Riddle et al. suggest, making a specific diagnosis from the list of 10 personality disorders is challenging in the hospital setting, even for experienced psychiatrists. Given the danger of propagating a diagnosis unabated and unquestioned through the electronic medical record, the attending hospitalist should be reluctant to include a diagnosis such as borderline personality disorder or histrionic personality disorder in the patient problem list without input from experts. Instead, it is useful to document the specific behaviors that are impacting patient care during this episode of illness.

We are concerned about the impact of personality disorders on a number of aspects of patient care, and these are areas that are potentially fertile ground for scholarship and research.

EFFECT ON THE PATIENT EXPERIENCE

Patients with personality disorders may have difficulty assessing the severity of their own medical illnesses. Educating patients on the meaning and value of recovery may be helpful in establishing appropriate expectations of care,[3] although it is equally important to assess the value of illness from the patient's perspective. As Riddle et al. point out, the goal for the hospitalist team is to mitigate the negative impact of adverse behavior on overall care. A recent pilot study of smartphone applications for use by patients with borderline personality disorder might have utility in the inpatient setting.[4] These types of innovations provide opportunities for hospitalist research in the care of patients with personality disorders.

EFFECT OF PERSONALITY DISORDERS ON TEAM‐BASED CLINICAL CARE

A recent observational study published in the Journal of Hospital Medicine identified several important attributes of a high‐functioning inpatient care team.[5] The findings reinforced the concept that patient care is a social activity. To provide high‐quality care, a high‐functioning partnership between team members is required. Riddle et al. point out that patients with personality traits and disorders can negatively impact the relationship among care team members. The hospitalist may be tempted to leave the nursing staff to handle the unwanted communication with the patient. This strategy is maladaptive and creates friction between the hospitalist and the nursing staff. In addition, it reduces an opportunity to recognize important real‐time changes in patients' clinical status that may adversely affect patient outcomes.

EFFECT ON DIAGNOSTIC REASONING

Clinical and diagnostic reasoning plays a central role in patient care. Hospitalists must identify key elements from empirical data and formulate their problem representation to assist in planning the next diagnostic and treatment plans. The medical literature regarding the effect of providing care to patients with maladaptive personality structures is limited. Recent literature investigating the effect of negative patient attributes on diagnostic reasoning suggests that caring for disruptive patients, such as those with maladaptive personality structures, adversely impacts the diagnostic reasoning process. In other words, we are more likely to make cognitive errors when faced with patients who foster a negative feeling. When given vignettes of the same diagnosis but prefaced with patient characteristics that would affect their likeability, trainees of both family practice and internal medicine made significantly fewer correct diagnoses in patients who were given negative connotation, such as overly demanding, a trait not uncommonly seen in patients with personality disorders/traits.[6] The diagnosis rate was more pronounced with complex cases. It is theorized that our cognitive reasoning and use of illness scripts can overcome maladaptive behavior when it comes to common presentations of common illness. However, more complex or atypical presentations require a higher level of diagnostic reasoning that may be impacted by patients who have maladaptive behaviors. The authors hypothesize a resource depletion of mental energy as a result of managing these patients.

EFFECT ON PHYSICIAN WELL‐BEING

Patients with personality disorders require increased time from healthcare providers. Burnout is a major issue for internists.[7] Any provider who has cared for patients with personality disorders can attest to the effects on emotional energy, although this effect deserves study. Without adequate coping strategies by care providers, we run the risk of depleting both our empathy and our mental resources, all of which can negatively affect patient experience and outcomes. The coping strategies that are described by Riddle et al. should be helpful in mitigating the anticipated challenges of caring for these patients and improve both our diagnostic reasoning and care‐provider resiliency.

There is still much to be learned about the long‐term effects of maladaptive personality structures on patient outcomes. We believe that is imperative to have the skills to recognize our patients with maladaptive personality traits and how the care of these patients poses challenges on the functioning of the interdisciplinary care team. Without the advanced training to make the challenging diagnosis of a personality disorder during an acute inpatient stay, it is recommended that hospitalists document the specific behaviors that are impacting patient care and the care team. It is our hope that effective coping strategies can lead to reduced risk of diagnostic errors and bolster the resiliency of the hospitalist.

Disclosure

Nothing to report.

References
  1. Riddle M, Meeks T, Alvarez C, Dubovsky A. When personality is the problem: managing patients with difficulty personalities on the acute care unit. J Hosp Med. 2016;11(12):873878.
  2. Lazarus SA, Cheavens JS. An examination of social network quality and composition in women with and without borderline personality disorder [published online June 27, 2016]. Personal Disord. doi:10.1037/per0000201.
  3. Huguelet P, Guillaume S, Vidal S, et al. Values as determinant of meaning among patients with psychiatric disorders in the perspective of recovery [published online June 8, 2016]. Sci Rep. doi:10.1038/srep27617.
  4. Prada P, Zamberg I, Bouillault G, et al. EMOTEO: a smartphone application for monitoring and reducing aversive tension in borderline personality disorder patients, a pilot study [published online July 21, 2016]. Perspect Psychiatr Care. doi:10.1111/ppc12178.
  5. McAllister C, Leykum LK, Lanham H, et al. Relationships within inpatient physician housestaff teams and their association with hospitalized patient outcomes. J Hosp Med. 2014;9(12):764771.
  6. Mamede S, Gog T, Schuit SC, et al. Why patients' disruptive behaviours impair diagnostic reasoning: a randomised experiment [published online March 7, 2016]. BMJ Qual Saf. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2015-005065.
  7. Roberts DL, Shanafelt TD, Dyrbye LN, West CP. A national comparison of burnout and work‐life balance among internal medicine hospitalists and outpatient general internists. J Hosp Med. 2014;9(3):176181.
References
  1. Riddle M, Meeks T, Alvarez C, Dubovsky A. When personality is the problem: managing patients with difficulty personalities on the acute care unit. J Hosp Med. 2016;11(12):873878.
  2. Lazarus SA, Cheavens JS. An examination of social network quality and composition in women with and without borderline personality disorder [published online June 27, 2016]. Personal Disord. doi:10.1037/per0000201.
  3. Huguelet P, Guillaume S, Vidal S, et al. Values as determinant of meaning among patients with psychiatric disorders in the perspective of recovery [published online June 8, 2016]. Sci Rep. doi:10.1038/srep27617.
  4. Prada P, Zamberg I, Bouillault G, et al. EMOTEO: a smartphone application for monitoring and reducing aversive tension in borderline personality disorder patients, a pilot study [published online July 21, 2016]. Perspect Psychiatr Care. doi:10.1111/ppc12178.
  5. McAllister C, Leykum LK, Lanham H, et al. Relationships within inpatient physician housestaff teams and their association with hospitalized patient outcomes. J Hosp Med. 2014;9(12):764771.
  6. Mamede S, Gog T, Schuit SC, et al. Why patients' disruptive behaviours impair diagnostic reasoning: a randomised experiment [published online March 7, 2016]. BMJ Qual Saf. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2015-005065.
  7. Roberts DL, Shanafelt TD, Dyrbye LN, West CP. A national comparison of burnout and work‐life balance among internal medicine hospitalists and outpatient general internists. J Hosp Med. 2014;9(3):176181.
Issue
Journal of Hospital Medicine - 11(12)
Issue
Journal of Hospital Medicine - 11(12)
Page Number
890-891
Page Number
890-891
Publications
Publications
Article Type
Display Headline
The formidable cluster: The challenge of personality disorders among hospitalized patients
Display Headline
The formidable cluster: The challenge of personality disorders among hospitalized patients
Sections
Article Source
© 2016 Society of Hospital Medicine
Disallow All Ads
Correspondence Location
Address for correspondence and reprint requests: Daniel P. Hunt, MD, Director, Emory Division of Hospital Medicine, 1784 North Decatur Road, Suite 428, Atlanta, GA 30322; Telephone: 404‐778‐5288; Fax: 404‐778‐5495; E‐mail: dan.hunt@emory.edu
Content Gating
Gated (full article locked unless allowed per User)
Gating Strategy
First Peek Free
Article PDF Media