Innovations in Healthcare

One in 20 hospitalized patients picks up an infection in the hospital, and a recent article by the Associated Press describes the emergence of new technologies to fight antibiotic-resistant superbugs: “They sweep. They swab. They sterilize. And still the germs persist.”¹

Hospitals across the country are testing new approaches to stop the spread of superbugs, which are tied to an estimated 100,000 deaths per year, according to the CDC. New approaches include robotlike machines that emit ultraviolet light or hydrogen-peroxide vapors, germ-resistant copper bed rails and call buttons, antimicrobial linens and wall paint, and hydrogel post-surgical dressings infused with silver ions that have antimicrobial properties.

Research firm Frost & Sullivan estimates that the market for bug-killing products and technologies will grow to $80 million from $30 million in the next three years. And yet evidence of positive outcomes from them continues to be debated.

“In short, escalating antimicrobial-resistance issues have us facing the prospect of untreatable bacterial pathogens, particularly involving gram-negative organisms,” James Pile, MD, FACP, SFHM, a hospital medicine and infectious diseases physician at Cleveland Clinic, wrote in an email. “In fact, many of our hospitals already deal with a limited number of infections caused by bacteria we have no clearly effective antibiotics against; the issue is only going to get worse.”

As an example, the CDC recently issued a warning about carbapenum-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE), which has a 40% mortality rate and last year was reported in 4.6% of U.S. hospitals.² CDC recommends that hospitals use more of the existing prevention measures against CRE, including active-case detection and segregation of patients and the staff who care for them. Dr. Pile says health facilities need to do a better job of preventing infections involving multi-drug-resistant pathogens, but in the meantime, “proven technologies such as proper hand hygiene and antimicrobial stewardship are more important than ever.”

Larry Beresford is a freelance writer in Oakland, Calif.

References

1. Stobbe, M. Germ-zapping “robots”: Hospitals combat superbugs. Associated Press website. Available at: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/hospitals-see-surge-superbug-fighting-products. Accessed June 7, 2013.
2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Vital Signs: Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6209a3.htm?s_cid=mm6209a3_w. Accessed June 7, 2013.
3. Wise ME, Scott RD, Baggs JM, et al. National estimates of central line-associated bloodstream infections in critical care patients. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol, 2013;34(6):547-554.
4. Hsu E, Lin D, Evans SJ, et al. Doing well by doing good: assessing the cost savings of an intervention to reduce central line-associated bloodstream infections in a Hawaii hospital. Am J Med Qual, 2013 May 7 [Epub ahead of print].
5. Association of American Medical Colleges. Medical school enrollment on pace to reach 30 percent increase by 2017. Association of American Medical Colleges website. Available at: https://www.aamc.org/newsroom/newsreleases/ 335244/050213.html. Accessed June 7, 2013.

One in 20 hospitalized patients picks up an infection in the hospital, and a recent article by the Associated Press describes the emergence of new technologies to fight antibiotic-resistant superbugs: “They sweep. They swab. They sterilize. And still the germs persist.”¹

Hospitals across the country are testing new approaches to stop the spread of superbugs, which are tied to an estimated 100,000 deaths per year, according to the CDC. New approaches include robotlike machines that emit ultraviolet light or hydrogen-peroxide vapors, germ-resistant copper bed rails and call buttons, antimicrobial linens and wall paint, and hydrogel post-surgical dressings infused with silver ions that have antimicrobial properties.

Research firm Frost & Sullivan estimates that the market for bug-killing products and technologies will grow to $80 million from $30 million in the next three years. And yet evidence of positive outcomes from them continues to be debated.

“In short, escalating antimicrobial-resistance issues have us facing the prospect of untreatable bacterial pathogens, particularly involving gram-negative organisms,” James Pile, MD, FACP, SFHM, a hospital medicine and infectious diseases physician at Cleveland Clinic, wrote in an email. “In fact, many of our hospitals already deal with a limited number of infections caused by bacteria we have no clearly effective antibiotics against; the issue is only going to get worse.”

As an example, the CDC recently issued a warning about carbapenum-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE), which has a 40% mortality rate and last year was reported in 4.6% of U.S. hospitals.² CDC recommends that hospitals use more of the existing prevention measures against CRE, including active-case detection and segregation of patients and the staff who care for them. Dr. Pile says health facilities need to do a better job of preventing infections involving multi-drug-resistant pathogens, but in the meantime, “proven technologies such as proper hand hygiene and antimicrobial stewardship are more important than ever.”

Larry Beresford is a freelance writer in Oakland, Calif.

References

1. Stobbe, M. Germ-zapping “robots”: Hospitals combat superbugs. Associated Press website. Available at: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/hospitals-see-surge-superbug-fighting-products. Accessed June 7, 2013.
2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Vital Signs: Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6209a3.htm?s_cid=mm6209a3_w. Accessed June 7, 2013.
3. Wise ME, Scott RD, Baggs JM, et al. National estimates of central line-associated bloodstream infections in critical care patients. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol, 2013;34(6):547-554.
4. Hsu E, Lin D, Evans SJ, et al. Doing well by doing good: assessing the cost savings of an intervention to reduce central line-associated bloodstream infections in a Hawaii hospital. Am J Med Qual, 2013 May 7 [Epub ahead of print].
5. Association of American Medical Colleges. Medical school enrollment on pace to reach 30 percent increase by 2017. Association of American Medical Colleges website. Available at: https://www.aamc.org/newsroom/newsreleases/ 335244/050213.html. Accessed June 7, 2013.

One in 20 hospitalized patients picks up an infection in the hospital, and a recent article by the Associated Press describes the emergence of new technologies to fight antibiotic-resistant superbugs: “They sweep. They swab. They sterilize. And still the germs persist.”¹

Hospitals across the country are testing new approaches to stop the spread of superbugs, which are tied to an estimated 100,000 deaths per year, according to the CDC. New approaches include robotlike machines that emit ultraviolet light or hydrogen-peroxide vapors, germ-resistant copper bed rails and call buttons, antimicrobial linens and wall paint, and hydrogel post-surgical dressings infused with silver ions that have antimicrobial properties.

Research firm Frost & Sullivan estimates that the market for bug-killing products and technologies will grow to $80 million from $30 million in the next three years. And yet evidence of positive outcomes from them continues to be debated.

“In short, escalating antimicrobial-resistance issues have us facing the prospect of untreatable bacterial pathogens, particularly involving gram-negative organisms,” James Pile, MD, FACP, SFHM, a hospital medicine and infectious diseases physician at Cleveland Clinic, wrote in an email. “In fact, many of our hospitals already deal with a limited number of infections caused by bacteria we have no clearly effective antibiotics against; the issue is only going to get worse.”

As an example, the CDC recently issued a warning about carbapenum-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE), which has a 40% mortality rate and last year was reported in 4.6% of U.S. hospitals.² CDC recommends that hospitals use more of the existing prevention measures against CRE, including active-case detection and segregation of patients and the staff who care for them. Dr. Pile says health facilities need to do a better job of preventing infections involving multi-drug-resistant pathogens, but in the meantime, “proven technologies such as proper hand hygiene and antimicrobial stewardship are more important than ever.”

Larry Beresford is a freelance writer in Oakland, Calif.

References

1. Stobbe, M. Germ-zapping “robots”: Hospitals combat superbugs. Associated Press website. Available at: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/hospitals-see-surge-superbug-fighting-products. Accessed June 7, 2013.
2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Vital Signs: Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6209a3.htm?s_cid=mm6209a3_w. Accessed June 7, 2013.
3. Wise ME, Scott RD, Baggs JM, et al. National estimates of central line-associated bloodstream infections in critical care patients. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol, 2013;34(6):547-554.
4. Hsu E, Lin D, Evans SJ, et al. Doing well by doing good: assessing the cost savings of an intervention to reduce central line-associated bloodstream infections in a Hawaii hospital. Am J Med Qual, 2013 May 7 [Epub ahead of print].
5. Association of American Medical Colleges. Medical school enrollment on pace to reach 30 percent increase by 2017. Association of American Medical Colleges website. Available at: https://www.aamc.org/newsroom/newsreleases/ 335244/050213.html. Accessed June 7, 2013.

Funeral-home representatives sometimes make multiple trips to a hospital or doctor’s office to get a death certificate signed, often waiting in the lobby for hours. I first realized this in the 1980s when starting post-residency practice as a hospitalist. I began asking these guys (they are nearly always men, in my experience) how much time they typically invest getting each certificate signed. They told of walking halfway across a golf course to catch the doctor on the 13th hole or making the 90-minute drive (each way) to a doctor’s office, sometimes finding the doctor had just left, only to repeat the process several times before getting the signature.

When the Clinton administration made electronic signatures via the Internet valid, I thought about starting a business charging funeral homes something like $200 for getting the doctor to sign it electronically within 48 hours. I would use about half of the $200 to provide an incentive for the doctor to sign quickly (sign within 48 hours, and you’ll get a $100 gift card!), then use the rest to fund the company. Since funeral homes probably spend much more than $200 per certificate paying their staff to drive around getting signatures on paper, I thought they would jump at this idea.

I never pursued it, but that doesn’t stop me from loudly proclaiming to friends and family that it was a “can’t-miss” blockbuster Internet business idea. Of course, I never tested that theory, but it makes for fun chest-thumping at parties.

A number of states, including Florida, Texas, and others, now have in place online completion of death certificates. Indiana has required use of its online death certificate since 2011; there is no option to use paper. I suspect nearly every state will do the same before long. But that alone won’t ensure timely completion. Doctors and others who complete the certificates need to ensure they respond quickly, something they often fail to do.

It Really Matters

Lack of a death certificate can hold up burial or cremation, and things like life-insurance payouts and estate settlement are delayed. For a grieving family, these things only add to their pain.

I’m aware of a tragic case from a few years ago in which a certificate was passed around to a number of doctors, each of whom thought with some justification that someone else should sign it. It sat in two different mailboxes for many days while the intended recipients were vacationing. All of this delayed the burial, and the poor family had to send updates to loved ones saying, “We don’t know when Dad’s funeral will be.” About three weeks later, the certificate was completed and the funeral held. What a terribly sad story!

Some states have laws governing how quickly certificates must be signed. A thought-provoking 2004 Medical Staff Update from Stanford University says that California requires a signature within 15 hours of death, though I wonder how often this is enforced.

Improving Turnaround Time

There are several things hospitalists could consider to improve timely completion of death certificates:

• Ensure doctors liberally complete them for one another. Don’t let one doctor’s absence delay, even for a day, getting it completed and signed. This means the “covering” doctor has access to the discharge (death) summary in the medical record.
• When several doctors in different specialties are caring for a patient at the time of death, nearly any of them could reasonably sign the certificate. It might be appropriate to adopt a policy that whichever doctor (e.g. hospitalist, intensivist, or oncologist) who had contact with the patient and is presented with the certificate should go ahead and sign it rather than passing it along to one of the other specialties, regardless of which served as attending.
• Consider creating a central access point at your hospital for receipt of death certificates. Ideally, a funeral-home representative can deliver it to one person at the hospital who will do the leg work of getting a doctor to sign it quickly. Delays are likely if the funeral-home representative has to “shop it around” to different departments and physician offices. A hospital staffer should be able to navigate this quickly.
• Pressure EMR vendors to include some sort of death-certificate functionality in the future. I don’t know if some have it already, but it seems like it shouldn’t be too difficult for an EMR to spit out a prefilled certificate in much the same way e-prescribing works. It could even be delivered electronically to the funeral home.
• For hospitalists with 24-hour, on-site presence, it could be reasonable to have an on-duty hospitalist complete the certificate at the time of death rather than waiting for the funeral home to initiate the process. This was standard when I was a resident, and it may be a practical approach in many settings.
• Consider copying one hospital I worked with previously: They created a hospitalist salary bonus for timely completion. I assure you this policy was very effective.

Dr. Nelson has been a practicing hospitalist since 1988. He is co-founder and past president of SHM, and principal in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants. He is co-director for SHM’s “Best Practices in Managing a Hospital Medicine Program” course. Write to him at john.nelson@nelsonflores.com.

Funeral-home representatives sometimes make multiple trips to a hospital or doctor’s office to get a death certificate signed, often waiting in the lobby for hours. I first realized this in the 1980s when starting post-residency practice as a hospitalist. I began asking these guys (they are nearly always men, in my experience) how much time they typically invest getting each certificate signed. They told of walking halfway across a golf course to catch the doctor on the 13th hole or making the 90-minute drive (each way) to a doctor’s office, sometimes finding the doctor had just left, only to repeat the process several times before getting the signature.

When the Clinton administration made electronic signatures via the Internet valid, I thought about starting a business charging funeral homes something like $200 for getting the doctor to sign it electronically within 48 hours. I would use about half of the $200 to provide an incentive for the doctor to sign quickly (sign within 48 hours, and you’ll get a $100 gift card!), then use the rest to fund the company. Since funeral homes probably spend much more than $200 per certificate paying their staff to drive around getting signatures on paper, I thought they would jump at this idea.

I never pursued it, but that doesn’t stop me from loudly proclaiming to friends and family that it was a “can’t-miss” blockbuster Internet business idea. Of course, I never tested that theory, but it makes for fun chest-thumping at parties.

A number of states, including Florida, Texas, and others, now have in place online completion of death certificates. Indiana has required use of its online death certificate since 2011; there is no option to use paper. I suspect nearly every state will do the same before long. But that alone won’t ensure timely completion. Doctors and others who complete the certificates need to ensure they respond quickly, something they often fail to do.

It Really Matters

Lack of a death certificate can hold up burial or cremation, and things like life-insurance payouts and estate settlement are delayed. For a grieving family, these things only add to their pain.

I’m aware of a tragic case from a few years ago in which a certificate was passed around to a number of doctors, each of whom thought with some justification that someone else should sign it. It sat in two different mailboxes for many days while the intended recipients were vacationing. All of this delayed the burial, and the poor family had to send updates to loved ones saying, “We don’t know when Dad’s funeral will be.” About three weeks later, the certificate was completed and the funeral held. What a terribly sad story!

Some states have laws governing how quickly certificates must be signed. A thought-provoking 2004 Medical Staff Update from Stanford University says that California requires a signature within 15 hours of death, though I wonder how often this is enforced.

Improving Turnaround Time

There are several things hospitalists could consider to improve timely completion of death certificates:

• Ensure doctors liberally complete them for one another. Don’t let one doctor’s absence delay, even for a day, getting it completed and signed. This means the “covering” doctor has access to the discharge (death) summary in the medical record.
• When several doctors in different specialties are caring for a patient at the time of death, nearly any of them could reasonably sign the certificate. It might be appropriate to adopt a policy that whichever doctor (e.g. hospitalist, intensivist, or oncologist) who had contact with the patient and is presented with the certificate should go ahead and sign it rather than passing it along to one of the other specialties, regardless of which served as attending.
• Consider creating a central access point at your hospital for receipt of death certificates. Ideally, a funeral-home representative can deliver it to one person at the hospital who will do the leg work of getting a doctor to sign it quickly. Delays are likely if the funeral-home representative has to “shop it around” to different departments and physician offices. A hospital staffer should be able to navigate this quickly.
• Pressure EMR vendors to include some sort of death-certificate functionality in the future. I don’t know if some have it already, but it seems like it shouldn’t be too difficult for an EMR to spit out a prefilled certificate in much the same way e-prescribing works. It could even be delivered electronically to the funeral home.
• For hospitalists with 24-hour, on-site presence, it could be reasonable to have an on-duty hospitalist complete the certificate at the time of death rather than waiting for the funeral home to initiate the process. This was standard when I was a resident, and it may be a practical approach in many settings.
• Consider copying one hospital I worked with previously: They created a hospitalist salary bonus for timely completion. I assure you this policy was very effective.

Dr. Nelson has been a practicing hospitalist since 1988. He is co-founder and past president of SHM, and principal in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants. He is co-director for SHM’s “Best Practices in Managing a Hospital Medicine Program” course. Write to him at john.nelson@nelsonflores.com.

Funeral-home representatives sometimes make multiple trips to a hospital or doctor’s office to get a death certificate signed, often waiting in the lobby for hours. I first realized this in the 1980s when starting post-residency practice as a hospitalist. I began asking these guys (they are nearly always men, in my experience) how much time they typically invest getting each certificate signed. They told of walking halfway across a golf course to catch the doctor on the 13th hole or making the 90-minute drive (each way) to a doctor’s office, sometimes finding the doctor had just left, only to repeat the process several times before getting the signature.

When the Clinton administration made electronic signatures via the Internet valid, I thought about starting a business charging funeral homes something like $200 for getting the doctor to sign it electronically within 48 hours. I would use about half of the $200 to provide an incentive for the doctor to sign quickly (sign within 48 hours, and you’ll get a $100 gift card!), then use the rest to fund the company. Since funeral homes probably spend much more than $200 per certificate paying their staff to drive around getting signatures on paper, I thought they would jump at this idea.

I never pursued it, but that doesn’t stop me from loudly proclaiming to friends and family that it was a “can’t-miss” blockbuster Internet business idea. Of course, I never tested that theory, but it makes for fun chest-thumping at parties.

A number of states, including Florida, Texas, and others, now have in place online completion of death certificates. Indiana has required use of its online death certificate since 2011; there is no option to use paper. I suspect nearly every state will do the same before long. But that alone won’t ensure timely completion. Doctors and others who complete the certificates need to ensure they respond quickly, something they often fail to do.

It Really Matters

Lack of a death certificate can hold up burial or cremation, and things like life-insurance payouts and estate settlement are delayed. For a grieving family, these things only add to their pain.

I’m aware of a tragic case from a few years ago in which a certificate was passed around to a number of doctors, each of whom thought with some justification that someone else should sign it. It sat in two different mailboxes for many days while the intended recipients were vacationing. All of this delayed the burial, and the poor family had to send updates to loved ones saying, “We don’t know when Dad’s funeral will be.” About three weeks later, the certificate was completed and the funeral held. What a terribly sad story!

Some states have laws governing how quickly certificates must be signed. A thought-provoking 2004 Medical Staff Update from Stanford University says that California requires a signature within 15 hours of death, though I wonder how often this is enforced.

Improving Turnaround Time

There are several things hospitalists could consider to improve timely completion of death certificates:

• Ensure doctors liberally complete them for one another. Don’t let one doctor’s absence delay, even for a day, getting it completed and signed. This means the “covering” doctor has access to the discharge (death) summary in the medical record.
• When several doctors in different specialties are caring for a patient at the time of death, nearly any of them could reasonably sign the certificate. It might be appropriate to adopt a policy that whichever doctor (e.g. hospitalist, intensivist, or oncologist) who had contact with the patient and is presented with the certificate should go ahead and sign it rather than passing it along to one of the other specialties, regardless of which served as attending.
• Consider creating a central access point at your hospital for receipt of death certificates. Ideally, a funeral-home representative can deliver it to one person at the hospital who will do the leg work of getting a doctor to sign it quickly. Delays are likely if the funeral-home representative has to “shop it around” to different departments and physician offices. A hospital staffer should be able to navigate this quickly.
• Pressure EMR vendors to include some sort of death-certificate functionality in the future. I don’t know if some have it already, but it seems like it shouldn’t be too difficult for an EMR to spit out a prefilled certificate in much the same way e-prescribing works. It could even be delivered electronically to the funeral home.
• For hospitalists with 24-hour, on-site presence, it could be reasonable to have an on-duty hospitalist complete the certificate at the time of death rather than waiting for the funeral home to initiate the process. This was standard when I was a resident, and it may be a practical approach in many settings.
• Consider copying one hospital I worked with previously: They created a hospitalist salary bonus for timely completion. I assure you this policy was very effective.

Dr. Nelson has been a practicing hospitalist since 1988. He is co-founder and past president of SHM, and principal in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants. He is co-director for SHM’s “Best Practices in Managing a Hospital Medicine Program” course. Write to him at john.nelson@nelsonflores.com.

Two oral research poster presentations at HM13 explored malpractice concerns of hospitalists and the issue of defensive-medicine-related overutilization—popular topics considering how policymakers are attempting to bend the cost curve in the direction of greater efficiency and value.

Hospitalist Alan Kachalia, MD, JD, and colleagues at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston conducted a randomized national survey of 1,020 hospitalists and analyzed their responses to common clinical scenarios. They found evidence of inappropriate overutilization and deviance from scientific evidence or recognized treatment guidelines, which the research team pegged to the practice of defensive medicine.

Dr. Kachalia’s presentation, “Overutilization and Defensive Medicine in U.S. Hospitals: A Randomized National Survey of Hospitalists,” was named best of the oral presentations in the research category.

“Our survey found substantial overutilization, frequently caused by defensive medicine,” in response to questions about practice patterns for two common clinical scenarios: preoperative evaluation and syncope, Dr. Kachalia said. Physicians who practiced at Veterans Affairs medical centers had less association with defensive medicine, while those who paid for their own liability insurance reported more. Overall, defensive medicine was reported for 37% of preoperative evaluations and 58% of the syncope scenarios.

More than 800 abstracts were submitted for HM13’s Research, Innovations, and Clinical Vignettes (RIV) competition. Nearly 600 were accepted, put on display at the annual meeting, and published online (www.shmabstracts.com). More than 100 abstracts were judged, with 15 of the Research and Innovations entries invited to make oral presentations of their projects. Three others gave “Best of RIV” plenary presentations at the conference.

The diversity and richness of HM13’s oral and poster presentations also will be highlighted in the Innovations department of The Hospitalist over the next year.

Asked to suggest policy responses to these findings, Dr. Kachalia said reform of the malpractice system is needed. “What a lot of us argue is that to get physicians to follow treatment guidelines, make them more clear and practical,” he said. “We’d also like to see safe harbors [from lawsuits] for following recognized guidelines.”

Adam Schaffer, MD, also a hospitalist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and colleagues reviewed a medical liability insurance carrier’s database of more than 30,000 closed claims for those in which a hospitalist was the attending of record. Dr. Schaffer’s retrospective, observational analysis, “Medical Malpractice: Causes and Outcomes of Claims Against Hospitalists,” of the claims database from 1997 to 2011 found 272 claims—almost 1%—for which the attending was a hospitalist.

“The claims rate was almost four times lower for hospitalists than for nonhospitalist internal-medicine physicians,” he said.

The average payment for claims against hospitalists also was smaller. He noted that the types of claims were similar and tended to fall in three general categories: errors in medical treatment, missed or delayed diagnoses, and medication-related errors (although claims also tended to have multiple contributing factors).

Research like Dr. Schaffer’s could help to inform patient-safety efforts and reduce legal malpractice risk, he said. If hospitalists have fewer malpractice claims, that information might also be used to argue for lower malpractice premium rates.

Larry Beresford is a freelance writer in Oakland, Calif.

Two oral research poster presentations at HM13 explored malpractice concerns of hospitalists and the issue of defensive-medicine-related overutilization—popular topics considering how policymakers are attempting to bend the cost curve in the direction of greater efficiency and value.

Hospitalist Alan Kachalia, MD, JD, and colleagues at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston conducted a randomized national survey of 1,020 hospitalists and analyzed their responses to common clinical scenarios. They found evidence of inappropriate overutilization and deviance from scientific evidence or recognized treatment guidelines, which the research team pegged to the practice of defensive medicine.

Dr. Kachalia’s presentation, “Overutilization and Defensive Medicine in U.S. Hospitals: A Randomized National Survey of Hospitalists,” was named best of the oral presentations in the research category.

“Our survey found substantial overutilization, frequently caused by defensive medicine,” in response to questions about practice patterns for two common clinical scenarios: preoperative evaluation and syncope, Dr. Kachalia said. Physicians who practiced at Veterans Affairs medical centers had less association with defensive medicine, while those who paid for their own liability insurance reported more. Overall, defensive medicine was reported for 37% of preoperative evaluations and 58% of the syncope scenarios.

More than 800 abstracts were submitted for HM13’s Research, Innovations, and Clinical Vignettes (RIV) competition. Nearly 600 were accepted, put on display at the annual meeting, and published online (www.shmabstracts.com). More than 100 abstracts were judged, with 15 of the Research and Innovations entries invited to make oral presentations of their projects. Three others gave “Best of RIV” plenary presentations at the conference.

The diversity and richness of HM13’s oral and poster presentations also will be highlighted in the Innovations department of The Hospitalist over the next year.

Asked to suggest policy responses to these findings, Dr. Kachalia said reform of the malpractice system is needed. “What a lot of us argue is that to get physicians to follow treatment guidelines, make them more clear and practical,” he said. “We’d also like to see safe harbors [from lawsuits] for following recognized guidelines.”

Adam Schaffer, MD, also a hospitalist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and colleagues reviewed a medical liability insurance carrier’s database of more than 30,000 closed claims for those in which a hospitalist was the attending of record. Dr. Schaffer’s retrospective, observational analysis, “Medical Malpractice: Causes and Outcomes of Claims Against Hospitalists,” of the claims database from 1997 to 2011 found 272 claims—almost 1%—for which the attending was a hospitalist.

“The claims rate was almost four times lower for hospitalists than for nonhospitalist internal-medicine physicians,” he said.

The average payment for claims against hospitalists also was smaller. He noted that the types of claims were similar and tended to fall in three general categories: errors in medical treatment, missed or delayed diagnoses, and medication-related errors (although claims also tended to have multiple contributing factors).

Research like Dr. Schaffer’s could help to inform patient-safety efforts and reduce legal malpractice risk, he said. If hospitalists have fewer malpractice claims, that information might also be used to argue for lower malpractice premium rates.

Larry Beresford is a freelance writer in Oakland, Calif.

Two oral research poster presentations at HM13 explored malpractice concerns of hospitalists and the issue of defensive-medicine-related overutilization—popular topics considering how policymakers are attempting to bend the cost curve in the direction of greater efficiency and value.

Hospitalist Alan Kachalia, MD, JD, and colleagues at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston conducted a randomized national survey of 1,020 hospitalists and analyzed their responses to common clinical scenarios. They found evidence of inappropriate overutilization and deviance from scientific evidence or recognized treatment guidelines, which the research team pegged to the practice of defensive medicine.

Dr. Kachalia’s presentation, “Overutilization and Defensive Medicine in U.S. Hospitals: A Randomized National Survey of Hospitalists,” was named best of the oral presentations in the research category.

“Our survey found substantial overutilization, frequently caused by defensive medicine,” in response to questions about practice patterns for two common clinical scenarios: preoperative evaluation and syncope, Dr. Kachalia said. Physicians who practiced at Veterans Affairs medical centers had less association with defensive medicine, while those who paid for their own liability insurance reported more. Overall, defensive medicine was reported for 37% of preoperative evaluations and 58% of the syncope scenarios.

More than 800 abstracts were submitted for HM13’s Research, Innovations, and Clinical Vignettes (RIV) competition. Nearly 600 were accepted, put on display at the annual meeting, and published online (www.shmabstracts.com). More than 100 abstracts were judged, with 15 of the Research and Innovations entries invited to make oral presentations of their projects. Three others gave “Best of RIV” plenary presentations at the conference.

The diversity and richness of HM13’s oral and poster presentations also will be highlighted in the Innovations department of The Hospitalist over the next year.

Asked to suggest policy responses to these findings, Dr. Kachalia said reform of the malpractice system is needed. “What a lot of us argue is that to get physicians to follow treatment guidelines, make them more clear and practical,” he said. “We’d also like to see safe harbors [from lawsuits] for following recognized guidelines.”

Adam Schaffer, MD, also a hospitalist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and colleagues reviewed a medical liability insurance carrier’s database of more than 30,000 closed claims for those in which a hospitalist was the attending of record. Dr. Schaffer’s retrospective, observational analysis, “Medical Malpractice: Causes and Outcomes of Claims Against Hospitalists,” of the claims database from 1997 to 2011 found 272 claims—almost 1%—for which the attending was a hospitalist.

“The claims rate was almost four times lower for hospitalists than for nonhospitalist internal-medicine physicians,” he said.

The average payment for claims against hospitalists also was smaller. He noted that the types of claims were similar and tended to fall in three general categories: errors in medical treatment, missed or delayed diagnoses, and medication-related errors (although claims also tended to have multiple contributing factors).

Research like Dr. Schaffer’s could help to inform patient-safety efforts and reduce legal malpractice risk, he said. If hospitalists have fewer malpractice claims, that information might also be used to argue for lower malpractice premium rates.

Larry Beresford is a freelance writer in Oakland, Calif.

One of the busiest times of HM13—and, come to think of it, every recent annual meeting—is the poster session for the Research, Innovations, and Clinical Vignettes (RIV) competition. This year, more than 800 abstracts were submitted and reviewed, with nearly 600 being accepted for presentation at HM13. That meant thousands of hospitalists thumbtacking posters to rows and rows of portable bulletin boards in the Gaylord National Resort & Convention Center’s massive exhibit hall.

With all those posters and accompanying oral presentations, it’s impossible for RIV judges to chat with everybody, so they choose finalists based on the abstracts, then listen to quick-hit summaries before choosing a winner on site. And meeting attendees are just as strapped for time, so they do the best they can to see as many posters as they can, taking time to network with old connections and make new ones.

So with all the limitations on how many people will interact with your poster, the small chance of winning Best in Show, and the hundreds of work hours that go into a poster presentation, why do it?

“To share is what I think is really important,” says Todd Hecht, MD, FACP, SFHM, associate professor of clinical medicine at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. “If you don’t let other people know what you’re doing, they can’t bring it to their institutions, nor can you learn from others and bring their innovations to your own hospital.”

Dr. Hecht, director of the Anticoagulation Management Center and Anticoagulation Management Program at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, takes the poster sessions very seriously. This year, he entered a poster in both the Innovations and Vignette categories. His Innovations poster, “Impact of a Multidisciplinary Safety Checklist on the Rate of Preventable Hospital Complications and Standardization of Care,” was a finalist.

That meant that, at the very least, he’d be able to explain to at least two judges what motivated his research team’s project. And what was the inspiration? A 90-year-old male patient with metastatic melanoma who, in the fall of 2011, refused to take medication for VTE prophylaxis, as lesions on his skin made the process rather painful. After refusing the doses for a bit, though, the high-risk patient unsurprisingly developed a pulmonary embolism (PE).

The man survived the PE, but Dr. Hecht and his colleagues began to wonder how many patients refuse VTE prophylaxis. So they investigated, and it turned out that from December 2010 to February 2011, 26.4% of the prescribed doses of prophylaxis on the medicine floors they studied were missed. Moreover, nearly 80% of all missed doses on the medicine floors were due to patient refusal.

“It was astonishing to me that it was that high,” Dr. Hecht says. “If there were 1,000 doses in a month, 260 of them were not being given—and 205 of them were not given because they were refused.”

Checklist Integration

So Dr. Hecht and colleagues set out to create a checklist that could be used daily on multidisciplinary rounds to help reduce the risk of VTE. First question on the list: Has prophylaxis been ordered, and if so, is the patient refusing it? Knowing that patients are “refusing” medication can lead to discussions about why that is happening, which in turn can lead to ways to convince the patient that the preventative measure is a good idea.

Dr. Hecht says the team also realized a checklist creates the opportunity to improve other quality metrics, such as hospital-associated infections (HAIs). Two questions on the checklist ask whether indwelling urinary catheters (IUCs) and central venous catheters (CVCs) can be removed. Two questions ask if telemetry can be stopped and whether there are any pain-management concerns. A final query asks whether there are any nursing, social work, or discharge-related questions—a step that, according to Dr. Hecht, loops the entire multidisciplinary team into the care-plan discussion.

“An ongoing challenge is making sure it’s not just questions being asked and being answered by rote,” Dr. Hecht says. “Just pause and think for just a second for each question. You can get through the checklist in 10 seconds, but you can’t go through the checklist in two seconds.”

The project’s results are what made it a finalist. After the checklist intervention, the number of missed doses of VTE prophylaxis plummeted 59% to just 10.9% (P<0.001) from September to November 2012; the number of “patient refused” doses dropped to 6.3% (P<0.001).

Not only was Dr. Hecht caught off guard by his findings, but so were the judges who visited his poster—Mangla Gulati, MD, FHM, of the University of Maryland School of Medicine and Rachel George, MD, MBA, FHM, of Cogent HMG.

“I wonder if it’s like that in every hospital,” Dr. George says. “I’d like to know.”

The positive reaction and feedback to Dr. Hecht’s poster, however, was not enough to win the Innovations category. That honor went to “SEPTRIS: Improving Sepsis Recognition and Management Through a Mobile Educational Game,” which was developed by a team of researchers at Stanford University in Palo Alto, Calif. The video game

(http://med.stanford.edu/septris/)—a mashup of sepsis and the once-popular Tetris puzzle game—already has been played 17,000 times and is on its way to being shared in other languages.

“Win or lose, it doesn’t matter,” Dr. Hecht says. “The goal is to share your information with other people and learn from them.”

Peter Watson, MD, FACP, FHM, sees it the same way. That’s why this year he was both judge and judged. The division head of hospital medicine for Henry Ford Medical Group in Detroit was part of a group presenting “Feasibility and Efficacy of a Specialized Pilot Training Program to Enhance Inpatient Communication Skills of Hospitalists.” He was a judge for the Research portion of the contest. He says he’s hard-pressed to say which process he enjoyed more, but one trick of the poster trade he passes along is that “judging actually makes you a better presenter on the back end,” especially when it comes to describing in less than five minutes a poster whose work may date back 12 to 18 months.

“In your brain,” he says, “you have a Tolstoy novel of information, but you have to break that down into a paragraph of CliffsNotes, and actually convince the people that are judging you that you have a really cool project that either is going to have a big impact in the field or may lead to other big studies or is going to impress somebody so much that they’re going to go back to their institution and say, ‘Hey, I’m going to do that.’”

Dr. Watson also urges people not to be discouraged by not winning the poster contest. First, all of the accepted abstracts get published online (www.shmabstracts.com) by the Journal of Hospital Medicine, a high point for medical students, residents, and early-career physicians looking to make a mark. Second, presenting information of value to one’s peers is the definition of a specialty that prides itself on collaboration.

“To see a second-year medical student presenting all the way up to a very senior division chief and everything in between is a really good example for our profession,” he says. “That’s really the magic of this meeting.”

Richard Quinn is a freelance writer in New Jersey.

One of the busiest times of HM13—and, come to think of it, every recent annual meeting—is the poster session for the Research, Innovations, and Clinical Vignettes (RIV) competition. This year, more than 800 abstracts were submitted and reviewed, with nearly 600 being accepted for presentation at HM13. That meant thousands of hospitalists thumbtacking posters to rows and rows of portable bulletin boards in the Gaylord National Resort & Convention Center’s massive exhibit hall.

With all those posters and accompanying oral presentations, it’s impossible for RIV judges to chat with everybody, so they choose finalists based on the abstracts, then listen to quick-hit summaries before choosing a winner on site. And meeting attendees are just as strapped for time, so they do the best they can to see as many posters as they can, taking time to network with old connections and make new ones.

So with all the limitations on how many people will interact with your poster, the small chance of winning Best in Show, and the hundreds of work hours that go into a poster presentation, why do it?

“To share is what I think is really important,” says Todd Hecht, MD, FACP, SFHM, associate professor of clinical medicine at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. “If you don’t let other people know what you’re doing, they can’t bring it to their institutions, nor can you learn from others and bring their innovations to your own hospital.”

Dr. Hecht, director of the Anticoagulation Management Center and Anticoagulation Management Program at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, takes the poster sessions very seriously. This year, he entered a poster in both the Innovations and Vignette categories. His Innovations poster, “Impact of a Multidisciplinary Safety Checklist on the Rate of Preventable Hospital Complications and Standardization of Care,” was a finalist.

That meant that, at the very least, he’d be able to explain to at least two judges what motivated his research team’s project. And what was the inspiration? A 90-year-old male patient with metastatic melanoma who, in the fall of 2011, refused to take medication for VTE prophylaxis, as lesions on his skin made the process rather painful. After refusing the doses for a bit, though, the high-risk patient unsurprisingly developed a pulmonary embolism (PE).

The man survived the PE, but Dr. Hecht and his colleagues began to wonder how many patients refuse VTE prophylaxis. So they investigated, and it turned out that from December 2010 to February 2011, 26.4% of the prescribed doses of prophylaxis on the medicine floors they studied were missed. Moreover, nearly 80% of all missed doses on the medicine floors were due to patient refusal.

“It was astonishing to me that it was that high,” Dr. Hecht says. “If there were 1,000 doses in a month, 260 of them were not being given—and 205 of them were not given because they were refused.”

Checklist Integration

So Dr. Hecht and colleagues set out to create a checklist that could be used daily on multidisciplinary rounds to help reduce the risk of VTE. First question on the list: Has prophylaxis been ordered, and if so, is the patient refusing it? Knowing that patients are “refusing” medication can lead to discussions about why that is happening, which in turn can lead to ways to convince the patient that the preventative measure is a good idea.

Dr. Hecht says the team also realized a checklist creates the opportunity to improve other quality metrics, such as hospital-associated infections (HAIs). Two questions on the checklist ask whether indwelling urinary catheters (IUCs) and central venous catheters (CVCs) can be removed. Two questions ask if telemetry can be stopped and whether there are any pain-management concerns. A final query asks whether there are any nursing, social work, or discharge-related questions—a step that, according to Dr. Hecht, loops the entire multidisciplinary team into the care-plan discussion.

“An ongoing challenge is making sure it’s not just questions being asked and being answered by rote,” Dr. Hecht says. “Just pause and think for just a second for each question. You can get through the checklist in 10 seconds, but you can’t go through the checklist in two seconds.”

The project’s results are what made it a finalist. After the checklist intervention, the number of missed doses of VTE prophylaxis plummeted 59% to just 10.9% (P<0.001) from September to November 2012; the number of “patient refused” doses dropped to 6.3% (P<0.001).

Not only was Dr. Hecht caught off guard by his findings, but so were the judges who visited his poster—Mangla Gulati, MD, FHM, of the University of Maryland School of Medicine and Rachel George, MD, MBA, FHM, of Cogent HMG.

“I wonder if it’s like that in every hospital,” Dr. George says. “I’d like to know.”

The positive reaction and feedback to Dr. Hecht’s poster, however, was not enough to win the Innovations category. That honor went to “SEPTRIS: Improving Sepsis Recognition and Management Through a Mobile Educational Game,” which was developed by a team of researchers at Stanford University in Palo Alto, Calif. The video game

(http://med.stanford.edu/septris/)—a mashup of sepsis and the once-popular Tetris puzzle game—already has been played 17,000 times and is on its way to being shared in other languages.

“Win or lose, it doesn’t matter,” Dr. Hecht says. “The goal is to share your information with other people and learn from them.”

Peter Watson, MD, FACP, FHM, sees it the same way. That’s why this year he was both judge and judged. The division head of hospital medicine for Henry Ford Medical Group in Detroit was part of a group presenting “Feasibility and Efficacy of a Specialized Pilot Training Program to Enhance Inpatient Communication Skills of Hospitalists.” He was a judge for the Research portion of the contest. He says he’s hard-pressed to say which process he enjoyed more, but one trick of the poster trade he passes along is that “judging actually makes you a better presenter on the back end,” especially when it comes to describing in less than five minutes a poster whose work may date back 12 to 18 months.

“In your brain,” he says, “you have a Tolstoy novel of information, but you have to break that down into a paragraph of CliffsNotes, and actually convince the people that are judging you that you have a really cool project that either is going to have a big impact in the field or may lead to other big studies or is going to impress somebody so much that they’re going to go back to their institution and say, ‘Hey, I’m going to do that.’”

Dr. Watson also urges people not to be discouraged by not winning the poster contest. First, all of the accepted abstracts get published online (www.shmabstracts.com) by the Journal of Hospital Medicine, a high point for medical students, residents, and early-career physicians looking to make a mark. Second, presenting information of value to one’s peers is the definition of a specialty that prides itself on collaboration.

“To see a second-year medical student presenting all the way up to a very senior division chief and everything in between is a really good example for our profession,” he says. “That’s really the magic of this meeting.”

Richard Quinn is a freelance writer in New Jersey.

One of the busiest times of HM13—and, come to think of it, every recent annual meeting—is the poster session for the Research, Innovations, and Clinical Vignettes (RIV) competition. This year, more than 800 abstracts were submitted and reviewed, with nearly 600 being accepted for presentation at HM13. That meant thousands of hospitalists thumbtacking posters to rows and rows of portable bulletin boards in the Gaylord National Resort & Convention Center’s massive exhibit hall.

With all those posters and accompanying oral presentations, it’s impossible for RIV judges to chat with everybody, so they choose finalists based on the abstracts, then listen to quick-hit summaries before choosing a winner on site. And meeting attendees are just as strapped for time, so they do the best they can to see as many posters as they can, taking time to network with old connections and make new ones.

So with all the limitations on how many people will interact with your poster, the small chance of winning Best in Show, and the hundreds of work hours that go into a poster presentation, why do it?

“To share is what I think is really important,” says Todd Hecht, MD, FACP, SFHM, associate professor of clinical medicine at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. “If you don’t let other people know what you’re doing, they can’t bring it to their institutions, nor can you learn from others and bring their innovations to your own hospital.”

Dr. Hecht, director of the Anticoagulation Management Center and Anticoagulation Management Program at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, takes the poster sessions very seriously. This year, he entered a poster in both the Innovations and Vignette categories. His Innovations poster, “Impact of a Multidisciplinary Safety Checklist on the Rate of Preventable Hospital Complications and Standardization of Care,” was a finalist.

That meant that, at the very least, he’d be able to explain to at least two judges what motivated his research team’s project. And what was the inspiration? A 90-year-old male patient with metastatic melanoma who, in the fall of 2011, refused to take medication for VTE prophylaxis, as lesions on his skin made the process rather painful. After refusing the doses for a bit, though, the high-risk patient unsurprisingly developed a pulmonary embolism (PE).

The man survived the PE, but Dr. Hecht and his colleagues began to wonder how many patients refuse VTE prophylaxis. So they investigated, and it turned out that from December 2010 to February 2011, 26.4% of the prescribed doses of prophylaxis on the medicine floors they studied were missed. Moreover, nearly 80% of all missed doses on the medicine floors were due to patient refusal.

“It was astonishing to me that it was that high,” Dr. Hecht says. “If there were 1,000 doses in a month, 260 of them were not being given—and 205 of them were not given because they were refused.”

Checklist Integration

So Dr. Hecht and colleagues set out to create a checklist that could be used daily on multidisciplinary rounds to help reduce the risk of VTE. First question on the list: Has prophylaxis been ordered, and if so, is the patient refusing it? Knowing that patients are “refusing” medication can lead to discussions about why that is happening, which in turn can lead to ways to convince the patient that the preventative measure is a good idea.

Dr. Hecht says the team also realized a checklist creates the opportunity to improve other quality metrics, such as hospital-associated infections (HAIs). Two questions on the checklist ask whether indwelling urinary catheters (IUCs) and central venous catheters (CVCs) can be removed. Two questions ask if telemetry can be stopped and whether there are any pain-management concerns. A final query asks whether there are any nursing, social work, or discharge-related questions—a step that, according to Dr. Hecht, loops the entire multidisciplinary team into the care-plan discussion.

“An ongoing challenge is making sure it’s not just questions being asked and being answered by rote,” Dr. Hecht says. “Just pause and think for just a second for each question. You can get through the checklist in 10 seconds, but you can’t go through the checklist in two seconds.”

The project’s results are what made it a finalist. After the checklist intervention, the number of missed doses of VTE prophylaxis plummeted 59% to just 10.9% (P<0.001) from September to November 2012; the number of “patient refused” doses dropped to 6.3% (P<0.001).

Not only was Dr. Hecht caught off guard by his findings, but so were the judges who visited his poster—Mangla Gulati, MD, FHM, of the University of Maryland School of Medicine and Rachel George, MD, MBA, FHM, of Cogent HMG.

“I wonder if it’s like that in every hospital,” Dr. George says. “I’d like to know.”

The positive reaction and feedback to Dr. Hecht’s poster, however, was not enough to win the Innovations category. That honor went to “SEPTRIS: Improving Sepsis Recognition and Management Through a Mobile Educational Game,” which was developed by a team of researchers at Stanford University in Palo Alto, Calif. The video game

(http://med.stanford.edu/septris/)—a mashup of sepsis and the once-popular Tetris puzzle game—already has been played 17,000 times and is on its way to being shared in other languages.

“Win or lose, it doesn’t matter,” Dr. Hecht says. “The goal is to share your information with other people and learn from them.”

Peter Watson, MD, FACP, FHM, sees it the same way. That’s why this year he was both judge and judged. The division head of hospital medicine for Henry Ford Medical Group in Detroit was part of a group presenting “Feasibility and Efficacy of a Specialized Pilot Training Program to Enhance Inpatient Communication Skills of Hospitalists.” He was a judge for the Research portion of the contest. He says he’s hard-pressed to say which process he enjoyed more, but one trick of the poster trade he passes along is that “judging actually makes you a better presenter on the back end,” especially when it comes to describing in less than five minutes a poster whose work may date back 12 to 18 months.

“In your brain,” he says, “you have a Tolstoy novel of information, but you have to break that down into a paragraph of CliffsNotes, and actually convince the people that are judging you that you have a really cool project that either is going to have a big impact in the field or may lead to other big studies or is going to impress somebody so much that they’re going to go back to their institution and say, ‘Hey, I’m going to do that.’”

Dr. Watson also urges people not to be discouraged by not winning the poster contest. First, all of the accepted abstracts get published online (www.shmabstracts.com) by the Journal of Hospital Medicine, a high point for medical students, residents, and early-career physicians looking to make a mark. Second, presenting information of value to one’s peers is the definition of a specialty that prides itself on collaboration.

“To see a second-year medical student presenting all the way up to a very senior division chief and everything in between is a really good example for our profession,” he says. “That’s really the magic of this meeting.”

Richard Quinn is a freelance writer in New Jersey.

The Greenville (S.C.) Health System in 2011 instituted a unique patient tracking and surgery scheduling system developed with Integrated Business Systems and Services, also based in South Carolina. The new system, called OR-Max, replaces the ubiquitous, giant dry-erase schedule board with digital displays. The system is connected to pre- and post-op departments, as well as to another electronic board in the family waiting areas. A radio frequency identification number assigned to each new patient tracks the patient’s status through the perioperative process. Text messages update status changes to staff.

“The display boards operate like arrival and departure boards at an airport,” says Gilbert Ritchie, PhD, director of anesthesia and perfusion services. “Instead of a flight number, staff follows a case number” as they watch for status changes.

OR-Max helps to pinpoint delays, facilitates rescheduling, improves workflow, and increases patient satisfaction while reducing costs, according to the health system. GHS says it has seen a 13% increase in staff productivity under the digital scheduling system.

Larry Beresford is a freelance writer in San Francisco

References

1. Weigel C, Suen W, Gupta G. Using Lean methodology to teach quality improvement to internal medicine residents at a safety net hospital. Am J Med Qual. 2013 Feb 4 [Epub ahead of print].
2. Morganti KG, Lovejoy S, Beckjord EB, Haviland AM, Haas AC, Farley DO. A retrospective evaluation of the Perfecting Patient Care University training program for health care organizations. Am J Med Qual. 2013 Apr 9 [Epub ahead of print].
3. Myers JS, Tess A, Glasheen JJ, et al. The Quality and Safety Educators’ Academy: fulfilling an unmet need for faculty development. Am J Med Qual.  2013 Apr 11 [Epub ahead of print].
4. Dong XQ, Simon MA. Elder abuse as a risk factor for hospitalization in older persons. JAMA Intern Med. 2013 Apr 8:1-7. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.238 [Epub ahead of print].
5. Cisco mConcierge. 90% American workers use their own smartphones for work. Cisco mConcierge website. Available at: http://www.ciscomcon.com/sw/swchannel/registration/internet/registrationcfm?SWAPPID=91&RegPageID=350200&SWTHEMEID=12949. Accessed

The Greenville (S.C.) Health System in 2011 instituted a unique patient tracking and surgery scheduling system developed with Integrated Business Systems and Services, also based in South Carolina. The new system, called OR-Max, replaces the ubiquitous, giant dry-erase schedule board with digital displays. The system is connected to pre- and post-op departments, as well as to another electronic board in the family waiting areas. A radio frequency identification number assigned to each new patient tracks the patient’s status through the perioperative process. Text messages update status changes to staff.

“The display boards operate like arrival and departure boards at an airport,” says Gilbert Ritchie, PhD, director of anesthesia and perfusion services. “Instead of a flight number, staff follows a case number” as they watch for status changes.

OR-Max helps to pinpoint delays, facilitates rescheduling, improves workflow, and increases patient satisfaction while reducing costs, according to the health system. GHS says it has seen a 13% increase in staff productivity under the digital scheduling system.

Larry Beresford is a freelance writer in San Francisco

References

1. Weigel C, Suen W, Gupta G. Using Lean methodology to teach quality improvement to internal medicine residents at a safety net hospital. Am J Med Qual. 2013 Feb 4 [Epub ahead of print].
2. Morganti KG, Lovejoy S, Beckjord EB, Haviland AM, Haas AC, Farley DO. A retrospective evaluation of the Perfecting Patient Care University training program for health care organizations. Am J Med Qual. 2013 Apr 9 [Epub ahead of print].
3. Myers JS, Tess A, Glasheen JJ, et al. The Quality and Safety Educators’ Academy: fulfilling an unmet need for faculty development. Am J Med Qual.  2013 Apr 11 [Epub ahead of print].
4. Dong XQ, Simon MA. Elder abuse as a risk factor for hospitalization in older persons. JAMA Intern Med. 2013 Apr 8:1-7. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.238 [Epub ahead of print].
5. Cisco mConcierge. 90% American workers use their own smartphones for work. Cisco mConcierge website. Available at: http://www.ciscomcon.com/sw/swchannel/registration/internet/registrationcfm?SWAPPID=91&RegPageID=350200&SWTHEMEID=12949. Accessed

The Greenville (S.C.) Health System in 2011 instituted a unique patient tracking and surgery scheduling system developed with Integrated Business Systems and Services, also based in South Carolina. The new system, called OR-Max, replaces the ubiquitous, giant dry-erase schedule board with digital displays. The system is connected to pre- and post-op departments, as well as to another electronic board in the family waiting areas. A radio frequency identification number assigned to each new patient tracks the patient’s status through the perioperative process. Text messages update status changes to staff.

“The display boards operate like arrival and departure boards at an airport,” says Gilbert Ritchie, PhD, director of anesthesia and perfusion services. “Instead of a flight number, staff follows a case number” as they watch for status changes.

OR-Max helps to pinpoint delays, facilitates rescheduling, improves workflow, and increases patient satisfaction while reducing costs, according to the health system. GHS says it has seen a 13% increase in staff productivity under the digital scheduling system.

Larry Beresford is a freelance writer in San Francisco

References

1. Weigel C, Suen W, Gupta G. Using Lean methodology to teach quality improvement to internal medicine residents at a safety net hospital. Am J Med Qual. 2013 Feb 4 [Epub ahead of print].
2. Morganti KG, Lovejoy S, Beckjord EB, Haviland AM, Haas AC, Farley DO. A retrospective evaluation of the Perfecting Patient Care University training program for health care organizations. Am J Med Qual. 2013 Apr 9 [Epub ahead of print].
3. Myers JS, Tess A, Glasheen JJ, et al. The Quality and Safety Educators’ Academy: fulfilling an unmet need for faculty development. Am J Med Qual.  2013 Apr 11 [Epub ahead of print].
4. Dong XQ, Simon MA. Elder abuse as a risk factor for hospitalization in older persons. JAMA Intern Med. 2013 Apr 8:1-7. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.238 [Epub ahead of print].
5. Cisco mConcierge. 90% American workers use their own smartphones for work. Cisco mConcierge website. Available at: http://www.ciscomcon.com/sw/swchannel/registration/internet/registrationcfm?SWAPPID=91&RegPageID=350200&SWTHEMEID=12949. Accessed

In a poster presented at HM12, Kathryn Quinn, MPH, CPPS, FACHE, described how her quality team at the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF) developed a checklist to improve physician communication with patients, then taught it to the attending hospitalist faculty.¹ The project began with a list of 29 best practices for patient-physician interaction, as identified in medical literature. Hospitalists then voted for the elements they felt were most important to their practice, as well as those best able to be measured, and a top-10 list was created.

Quinn, the program manager for quality and safety in the division of hospital medicine at UCSF, says the communication best practices were “chosen by the people whose practices we are trying to change.”

The quality team presented the best practices in one-hour training sessions that included small-group role plays, explains co-investigator and UCSF hospitalist Diane Sliwka, MD. The training extended to outpatient physicians, medical specialists, and chief residents. Participants also were provided a laminated pocket card listing the interventions. They also received feedback from structured observations with patients on service.

Quinn says UCSF hospitalists have improved at knocking and asking permission to enter patient rooms, introducing themselves by name and role, and encouraging questions at the end of the interaction. They have been less successful at inquiring about the patient’s concerns early in the interview and at discussing duration of treatment and next steps.

“We learned that it takes more than just talk,” Quinn says. “Just telling physicians how to improve communication doesn’t mean it’s easy to do.”

Still to be determined is the project’s impact on patient satisfaction scores, although the hospitalists reported that they found the training and feedback helpful.

References

1. Quinn K, Neeman N, Mourad M, Sliwka D. Communication coaching: A multifaceted intervention to improve physician-patient communication [abstract]. J Hosp Med. 2012;7 Suppl 2:S108.
2. Sokol PE, Wynia MK. There and Home Again, Safely: Five Responsibilities of Ambulatory Practices in High Quality Care Transitions. American Medical Association website. http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/patient-safety/ambulatory-practices.pdf. Accessed February 12, 2013.
3. Dharmarajan K, Hsieh AF, Lin Z, et al. Diagnoses and timing of 30-day readmissions after hospitalization for heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, or pneumonia. JAMA. 2013;309(4):355-363.
4. JAMA Internal Medicine. Nearly one-third of physicians report missing electronic notification of test results. JAMA Internal Medicine website. Available at: http://media.jamanetwork.com/news-item/nearly-one-third-of-physicians-report-missing-electronic-notification-of-test-results/.Accessed April 8, 2013.
5. Miliard M. VA enlists telehealth for disasters. Healthcare IT News website. http://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/va-enlists-telehealth-disasters. Published February 27, 2013. Accessed April 1, 2013.

In a poster presented at HM12, Kathryn Quinn, MPH, CPPS, FACHE, described how her quality team at the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF) developed a checklist to improve physician communication with patients, then taught it to the attending hospitalist faculty.¹ The project began with a list of 29 best practices for patient-physician interaction, as identified in medical literature. Hospitalists then voted for the elements they felt were most important to their practice, as well as those best able to be measured, and a top-10 list was created.

Quinn, the program manager for quality and safety in the division of hospital medicine at UCSF, says the communication best practices were “chosen by the people whose practices we are trying to change.”

The quality team presented the best practices in one-hour training sessions that included small-group role plays, explains co-investigator and UCSF hospitalist Diane Sliwka, MD. The training extended to outpatient physicians, medical specialists, and chief residents. Participants also were provided a laminated pocket card listing the interventions. They also received feedback from structured observations with patients on service.

Quinn says UCSF hospitalists have improved at knocking and asking permission to enter patient rooms, introducing themselves by name and role, and encouraging questions at the end of the interaction. They have been less successful at inquiring about the patient’s concerns early in the interview and at discussing duration of treatment and next steps.

“We learned that it takes more than just talk,” Quinn says. “Just telling physicians how to improve communication doesn’t mean it’s easy to do.”

Still to be determined is the project’s impact on patient satisfaction scores, although the hospitalists reported that they found the training and feedback helpful.

References

1. Quinn K, Neeman N, Mourad M, Sliwka D. Communication coaching: A multifaceted intervention to improve physician-patient communication [abstract]. J Hosp Med. 2012;7 Suppl 2:S108.
2. Sokol PE, Wynia MK. There and Home Again, Safely: Five Responsibilities of Ambulatory Practices in High Quality Care Transitions. American Medical Association website. http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/patient-safety/ambulatory-practices.pdf. Accessed February 12, 2013.
3. Dharmarajan K, Hsieh AF, Lin Z, et al. Diagnoses and timing of 30-day readmissions after hospitalization for heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, or pneumonia. JAMA. 2013;309(4):355-363.
4. JAMA Internal Medicine. Nearly one-third of physicians report missing electronic notification of test results. JAMA Internal Medicine website. Available at: http://media.jamanetwork.com/news-item/nearly-one-third-of-physicians-report-missing-electronic-notification-of-test-results/.Accessed April 8, 2013.
5. Miliard M. VA enlists telehealth for disasters. Healthcare IT News website. http://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/va-enlists-telehealth-disasters. Published February 27, 2013. Accessed April 1, 2013.

In a poster presented at HM12, Kathryn Quinn, MPH, CPPS, FACHE, described how her quality team at the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF) developed a checklist to improve physician communication with patients, then taught it to the attending hospitalist faculty.¹ The project began with a list of 29 best practices for patient-physician interaction, as identified in medical literature. Hospitalists then voted for the elements they felt were most important to their practice, as well as those best able to be measured, and a top-10 list was created.

Quinn, the program manager for quality and safety in the division of hospital medicine at UCSF, says the communication best practices were “chosen by the people whose practices we are trying to change.”

The quality team presented the best practices in one-hour training sessions that included small-group role plays, explains co-investigator and UCSF hospitalist Diane Sliwka, MD. The training extended to outpatient physicians, medical specialists, and chief residents. Participants also were provided a laminated pocket card listing the interventions. They also received feedback from structured observations with patients on service.

Quinn says UCSF hospitalists have improved at knocking and asking permission to enter patient rooms, introducing themselves by name and role, and encouraging questions at the end of the interaction. They have been less successful at inquiring about the patient’s concerns early in the interview and at discussing duration of treatment and next steps.

“We learned that it takes more than just talk,” Quinn says. “Just telling physicians how to improve communication doesn’t mean it’s easy to do.”

Still to be determined is the project’s impact on patient satisfaction scores, although the hospitalists reported that they found the training and feedback helpful.

References

1. Quinn K, Neeman N, Mourad M, Sliwka D. Communication coaching: A multifaceted intervention to improve physician-patient communication [abstract]. J Hosp Med. 2012;7 Suppl 2:S108.
2. Sokol PE, Wynia MK. There and Home Again, Safely: Five Responsibilities of Ambulatory Practices in High Quality Care Transitions. American Medical Association website. http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/patient-safety/ambulatory-practices.pdf. Accessed February 12, 2013.
3. Dharmarajan K, Hsieh AF, Lin Z, et al. Diagnoses and timing of 30-day readmissions after hospitalization for heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, or pneumonia. JAMA. 2013;309(4):355-363.
4. JAMA Internal Medicine. Nearly one-third of physicians report missing electronic notification of test results. JAMA Internal Medicine website. Available at: http://media.jamanetwork.com/news-item/nearly-one-third-of-physicians-report-missing-electronic-notification-of-test-results/.Accessed April 8, 2013.
5. Miliard M. VA enlists telehealth for disasters. Healthcare IT News website. http://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/va-enlists-telehealth-disasters. Published February 27, 2013. Accessed April 1, 2013.

Paired, robotlike devices that disperse a bleaching disinfectant into the air of hospital rooms, then detoxify the disinfecting chemical, were found to be highly effective at killing and preventing the spread of “superbug” bacteria, according to research from Johns Hopkins Hospital published in Clinical Infectious Diseases.⁵ Hydrogen peroxide vaporizers were first deployed in Singapore hospitals in 2002 during an outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS).

Almost half of a study group of 6,350 patients in and out of 180 hospital rooms over a two-and-a-half-year period received the enhanced cleaning technology, while the others received routine cleaning only. Manufactured by Bioquell Inc. of Horsham, Pa. (www.bioquell.com), each device is about the size of a washing machine. They were deployed in hospital rooms with sealed vents, dispersing a thin film of hydrogen peroxide across all exposed surfaces, equipment, floors, and walls. This approach reduced by 64% the number of patients who later became contaminated with any of the most common drug-resistant organisms, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant enterococci, Clostridium difficile, and Acinetobacter baumannii.

Spreading the bleaching vapor this way “represents a major technological advance in preventing the spread of dangerous bacteria inside hospital rooms,” says senior investigator Trish Perl, MD, MSc, professor of medicine and an infectious disease specialist at Johns Hopkins. The hospital announced in December that it would begin decontaminating isolation rooms with these devices as standard practice starting in January.

Reference

1. Passaretti CL, Otter JA, Reich NG, et al. An evaluation of environmental decontamination with hydrogen peroxide vapor for reducing the risk of patient acquisition of multidrug-resistant organisms. Clin Infect Dis. 2013;56(1):27-35.

Paired, robotlike devices that disperse a bleaching disinfectant into the air of hospital rooms, then detoxify the disinfecting chemical, were found to be highly effective at killing and preventing the spread of “superbug” bacteria, according to research from Johns Hopkins Hospital published in Clinical Infectious Diseases.⁵ Hydrogen peroxide vaporizers were first deployed in Singapore hospitals in 2002 during an outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS).

Almost half of a study group of 6,350 patients in and out of 180 hospital rooms over a two-and-a-half-year period received the enhanced cleaning technology, while the others received routine cleaning only. Manufactured by Bioquell Inc. of Horsham, Pa. (www.bioquell.com), each device is about the size of a washing machine. They were deployed in hospital rooms with sealed vents, dispersing a thin film of hydrogen peroxide across all exposed surfaces, equipment, floors, and walls. This approach reduced by 64% the number of patients who later became contaminated with any of the most common drug-resistant organisms, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant enterococci, Clostridium difficile, and Acinetobacter baumannii.

Spreading the bleaching vapor this way “represents a major technological advance in preventing the spread of dangerous bacteria inside hospital rooms,” says senior investigator Trish Perl, MD, MSc, professor of medicine and an infectious disease specialist at Johns Hopkins. The hospital announced in December that it would begin decontaminating isolation rooms with these devices as standard practice starting in January.

Reference

1. Passaretti CL, Otter JA, Reich NG, et al. An evaluation of environmental decontamination with hydrogen peroxide vapor for reducing the risk of patient acquisition of multidrug-resistant organisms. Clin Infect Dis. 2013;56(1):27-35.

Paired, robotlike devices that disperse a bleaching disinfectant into the air of hospital rooms, then detoxify the disinfecting chemical, were found to be highly effective at killing and preventing the spread of “superbug” bacteria, according to research from Johns Hopkins Hospital published in Clinical Infectious Diseases.⁵ Hydrogen peroxide vaporizers were first deployed in Singapore hospitals in 2002 during an outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS).

Almost half of a study group of 6,350 patients in and out of 180 hospital rooms over a two-and-a-half-year period received the enhanced cleaning technology, while the others received routine cleaning only. Manufactured by Bioquell Inc. of Horsham, Pa. (www.bioquell.com), each device is about the size of a washing machine. They were deployed in hospital rooms with sealed vents, dispersing a thin film of hydrogen peroxide across all exposed surfaces, equipment, floors, and walls. This approach reduced by 64% the number of patients who later became contaminated with any of the most common drug-resistant organisms, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant enterococci, Clostridium difficile, and Acinetobacter baumannii.

Spreading the bleaching vapor this way “represents a major technological advance in preventing the spread of dangerous bacteria inside hospital rooms,” says senior investigator Trish Perl, MD, MSc, professor of medicine and an infectious disease specialist at Johns Hopkins. The hospital announced in December that it would begin decontaminating isolation rooms with these devices as standard practice starting in January.

Reference

1. Passaretti CL, Otter JA, Reich NG, et al. An evaluation of environmental decontamination with hydrogen peroxide vapor for reducing the risk of patient acquisition of multidrug-resistant organisms. Clin Infect Dis. 2013;56(1):27-35.

A recent study from the University of Missouri to explore how patients react to physicians’ use of computerized clinical decision support systems finds that these devices could leave patients feeling ignored and dissatisfied with their medical care, potentially increasing noncompliance with treatment while distracting physicians from the patient encounter.¹

“Patients may be concerned that the decision aids reduce their face-to-face time with physicians,” says lead author Victoria Shaffer, PhD, assistant professor of health and psychological sciences at the University of Missouri. She recommends incorporating computerized systems as teaching tools to engage patients and help them understand their diagnoses and recommendations. “Anything physicians or nurses can do to humanize the process may make patients more comfortable,” she says.

The study presented participants with written descriptions of hypothetical physician-patient encounters, with the physician using unaided judgment, pursuing advice from a medical expert, or using computerized clinical decision support. Physicians using the latter were viewed as less capable, but participants also were less likely to assign those physicians responsibility for negative outcomes.

A concurrent study from Missouri, part of a $14 million project funded by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to reduce avoidable rehospitalizations of nursing home residents, suggests that sophisticated information technology (IT) can lead to more robust and integrated communication strategies among clinical staff, as well as better-coordinated care.² Nursing informatics expert Gregory Alexander found that nursing homes with IT used it to help make clinical decisions, electronically track patient care, and securely relay medical information.

References

1. Shaffer VA, Probst CA, Merkle EC, Arkes HR, Mitchell AM. Why do patients derogate physicians who use a computer-based diagnostic support system? Med Decis Making. 2013;33(1):108-118.
2. Alexander GL, Steege LM, Pasupathy KS, Wise K. Case studies of IT sophistication in nursing homes: a mixed method approach to examine communication strategies about pressure ulcer prevention practices. SciVerse website. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169814112001229. Accessed March 10, 2013.

A recent study from the University of Missouri to explore how patients react to physicians’ use of computerized clinical decision support systems finds that these devices could leave patients feeling ignored and dissatisfied with their medical care, potentially increasing noncompliance with treatment while distracting physicians from the patient encounter.¹

“Patients may be concerned that the decision aids reduce their face-to-face time with physicians,” says lead author Victoria Shaffer, PhD, assistant professor of health and psychological sciences at the University of Missouri. She recommends incorporating computerized systems as teaching tools to engage patients and help them understand their diagnoses and recommendations. “Anything physicians or nurses can do to humanize the process may make patients more comfortable,” she says.

The study presented participants with written descriptions of hypothetical physician-patient encounters, with the physician using unaided judgment, pursuing advice from a medical expert, or using computerized clinical decision support. Physicians using the latter were viewed as less capable, but participants also were less likely to assign those physicians responsibility for negative outcomes.

A concurrent study from Missouri, part of a $14 million project funded by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to reduce avoidable rehospitalizations of nursing home residents, suggests that sophisticated information technology (IT) can lead to more robust and integrated communication strategies among clinical staff, as well as better-coordinated care.² Nursing informatics expert Gregory Alexander found that nursing homes with IT used it to help make clinical decisions, electronically track patient care, and securely relay medical information.

References

1. Shaffer VA, Probst CA, Merkle EC, Arkes HR, Mitchell AM. Why do patients derogate physicians who use a computer-based diagnostic support system? Med Decis Making. 2013;33(1):108-118.
2. Alexander GL, Steege LM, Pasupathy KS, Wise K. Case studies of IT sophistication in nursing homes: a mixed method approach to examine communication strategies about pressure ulcer prevention practices. SciVerse website. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169814112001229. Accessed March 10, 2013.

A recent study from the University of Missouri to explore how patients react to physicians’ use of computerized clinical decision support systems finds that these devices could leave patients feeling ignored and dissatisfied with their medical care, potentially increasing noncompliance with treatment while distracting physicians from the patient encounter.¹

“Patients may be concerned that the decision aids reduce their face-to-face time with physicians,” says lead author Victoria Shaffer, PhD, assistant professor of health and psychological sciences at the University of Missouri. She recommends incorporating computerized systems as teaching tools to engage patients and help them understand their diagnoses and recommendations. “Anything physicians or nurses can do to humanize the process may make patients more comfortable,” she says.

The study presented participants with written descriptions of hypothetical physician-patient encounters, with the physician using unaided judgment, pursuing advice from a medical expert, or using computerized clinical decision support. Physicians using the latter were viewed as less capable, but participants also were less likely to assign those physicians responsibility for negative outcomes.

A concurrent study from Missouri, part of a $14 million project funded by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to reduce avoidable rehospitalizations of nursing home residents, suggests that sophisticated information technology (IT) can lead to more robust and integrated communication strategies among clinical staff, as well as better-coordinated care.² Nursing informatics expert Gregory Alexander found that nursing homes with IT used it to help make clinical decisions, electronically track patient care, and securely relay medical information.

References

1. Shaffer VA, Probst CA, Merkle EC, Arkes HR, Mitchell AM. Why do patients derogate physicians who use a computer-based diagnostic support system? Med Decis Making. 2013;33(1):108-118.
2. Alexander GL, Steege LM, Pasupathy KS, Wise K. Case studies of IT sophistication in nursing homes: a mixed method approach to examine communication strategies about pressure ulcer prevention practices. SciVerse website. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169814112001229. Accessed March 10, 2013.

A computerized patient assignment program to distribute new hospital admissions among 12 hospitalist-led, unit-based teams at Our Lady of the Lake Hospital in Baton Rouge, La., not only saves time and improves coordination of care, but also helps to build trust and satisfaction with patients, according to a poster presented at HM12.

Lead author and hospitalist Eric Wascome, MD, says the automated program takes into account patient medical intensity scores aggregated by hospital team in deciding who should get the next patient, thus smoothing out the referral process and minimizing hard feelings that some physicians are getting more than their fair share of work. The program also adjusts for particular units and room locations and incorporates physician preferences, then spits out the next referral within minutes. It also reduces the need to reassign rooms and allows patients to be told who their next-day hospitalist will be when they are admitted to the hospital overnight.

“It takes a complicated, head-scratching process and makes it a no-brainer,” Dr. Wascome says.

The Web-based, HIPAA-compliant program has thrived since Dr. Wascome’s presentation in April 2012. “A new twist is that we’ve added the capacity to bring in doctors who are not scheduled to work if they are needed on a voluntary basis, to address higher volumes of patients, and to have them on site within an hour,” he says.

Hospitalists say they approve of computerized patient scheduling, which was programmed by Dr. Wascome based on previous spreadsheet-based approaches to scheduling. Automation, he says, makes possible greater numbers of variables.

For more information, email Dr. Wascome at eric@wascome.net.

A computerized patient assignment program to distribute new hospital admissions among 12 hospitalist-led, unit-based teams at Our Lady of the Lake Hospital in Baton Rouge, La., not only saves time and improves coordination of care, but also helps to build trust and satisfaction with patients, according to a poster presented at HM12.

Lead author and hospitalist Eric Wascome, MD, says the automated program takes into account patient medical intensity scores aggregated by hospital team in deciding who should get the next patient, thus smoothing out the referral process and minimizing hard feelings that some physicians are getting more than their fair share of work. The program also adjusts for particular units and room locations and incorporates physician preferences, then spits out the next referral within minutes. It also reduces the need to reassign rooms and allows patients to be told who their next-day hospitalist will be when they are admitted to the hospital overnight.

“It takes a complicated, head-scratching process and makes it a no-brainer,” Dr. Wascome says.

The Web-based, HIPAA-compliant program has thrived since Dr. Wascome’s presentation in April 2012. “A new twist is that we’ve added the capacity to bring in doctors who are not scheduled to work if they are needed on a voluntary basis, to address higher volumes of patients, and to have them on site within an hour,” he says.

Hospitalists say they approve of computerized patient scheduling, which was programmed by Dr. Wascome based on previous spreadsheet-based approaches to scheduling. Automation, he says, makes possible greater numbers of variables.

For more information, email Dr. Wascome at eric@wascome.net.

A computerized patient assignment program to distribute new hospital admissions among 12 hospitalist-led, unit-based teams at Our Lady of the Lake Hospital in Baton Rouge, La., not only saves time and improves coordination of care, but also helps to build trust and satisfaction with patients, according to a poster presented at HM12.

Lead author and hospitalist Eric Wascome, MD, says the automated program takes into account patient medical intensity scores aggregated by hospital team in deciding who should get the next patient, thus smoothing out the referral process and minimizing hard feelings that some physicians are getting more than their fair share of work. The program also adjusts for particular units and room locations and incorporates physician preferences, then spits out the next referral within minutes. It also reduces the need to reassign rooms and allows patients to be told who their next-day hospitalist will be when they are admitted to the hospital overnight.

“It takes a complicated, head-scratching process and makes it a no-brainer,” Dr. Wascome says.

The Web-based, HIPAA-compliant program has thrived since Dr. Wascome’s presentation in April 2012. “A new twist is that we’ve added the capacity to bring in doctors who are not scheduled to work if they are needed on a voluntary basis, to address higher volumes of patients, and to have them on site within an hour,” he says.

Hospitalists say they approve of computerized patient scheduling, which was programmed by Dr. Wascome based on previous spreadsheet-based approaches to scheduling. Automation, he says, makes possible greater numbers of variables.

For more information, email Dr. Wascome at eric@wascome.net.

Number of meals served annually to patients, visitors, and staff by 155 leading U.S. hospitals, which are adopting new standards and criteria for nutritional care at their facilities in order to promote healthier meal options for patients and in their cafeterias. These hospitals belong to the Healthier Hospitals initiative.

(healthierhospitals.org/) led by the Partnership for a Healthier America, a group working to end childhood obesity. Among its goals are to increase the proportion of fruits and vegetables in hospitals’ food purchasing, to remove deep fat-fried products by the end of 2015, and to take advantage of the buying power and community influence hospitals can leverage to increase demand for healthier food.

1. Enguidanos S, Vesper E, Lorenz K. 30-day readmissions among seriously ill older adults. J Palliat Med. 2012;15(12):1356-1361.
2. The Advisory Board Company. Mastering the cardiovascular care continuum: strategies for bridging divides among providers and across time. The Advisory Board Company website. Available at: http://www.advisory.com/Research/Cardiovascular-Roundtable/Studies/2012/Mastering-the-Cardiovascular-Care-Continuum. Accessed Jan. 8, 2013.
3. Misky G, Carlson T, Klem P, et al. Development and implementation of a clinical care pathway for acute VTE reduces hospital utilization and cost at an urban tertiary care center [abstract]. J Hosp Med. 2012;7 Suppl 2:S66-S67.
4. Versel N. Health IT holds key to better care integration. Information Week website. Available at: http://www.informationweek.com/healthcare/interoperability/health-it-holds-key-to-better-care-integ/240012443. Accessed Jan. 8, 2013.
5. Office of Inspector General. Early Assessment Finds That CMS Faces Obstacles in Overseeing the Medicare EHR Incentive Program. Office of Inspector General website. Available at: https://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-05-11-00250.asp. Accessed Jan. 8, 2013.

Number of meals served annually to patients, visitors, and staff by 155 leading U.S. hospitals, which are adopting new standards and criteria for nutritional care at their facilities in order to promote healthier meal options for patients and in their cafeterias. These hospitals belong to the Healthier Hospitals initiative.

(healthierhospitals.org/) led by the Partnership for a Healthier America, a group working to end childhood obesity. Among its goals are to increase the proportion of fruits and vegetables in hospitals’ food purchasing, to remove deep fat-fried products by the end of 2015, and to take advantage of the buying power and community influence hospitals can leverage to increase demand for healthier food.

1. Enguidanos S, Vesper E, Lorenz K. 30-day readmissions among seriously ill older adults. J Palliat Med. 2012;15(12):1356-1361.
2. The Advisory Board Company. Mastering the cardiovascular care continuum: strategies for bridging divides among providers and across time. The Advisory Board Company website. Available at: http://www.advisory.com/Research/Cardiovascular-Roundtable/Studies/2012/Mastering-the-Cardiovascular-Care-Continuum. Accessed Jan. 8, 2013.
3. Misky G, Carlson T, Klem P, et al. Development and implementation of a clinical care pathway for acute VTE reduces hospital utilization and cost at an urban tertiary care center [abstract]. J Hosp Med. 2012;7 Suppl 2:S66-S67.
4. Versel N. Health IT holds key to better care integration. Information Week website. Available at: http://www.informationweek.com/healthcare/interoperability/health-it-holds-key-to-better-care-integ/240012443. Accessed Jan. 8, 2013.
5. Office of Inspector General. Early Assessment Finds That CMS Faces Obstacles in Overseeing the Medicare EHR Incentive Program. Office of Inspector General website. Available at: https://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-05-11-00250.asp. Accessed Jan. 8, 2013.

Number of meals served annually to patients, visitors, and staff by 155 leading U.S. hospitals, which are adopting new standards and criteria for nutritional care at their facilities in order to promote healthier meal options for patients and in their cafeterias. These hospitals belong to the Healthier Hospitals initiative.

(healthierhospitals.org/) led by the Partnership for a Healthier America, a group working to end childhood obesity. Among its goals are to increase the proportion of fruits and vegetables in hospitals’ food purchasing, to remove deep fat-fried products by the end of 2015, and to take advantage of the buying power and community influence hospitals can leverage to increase demand for healthier food.

1. Enguidanos S, Vesper E, Lorenz K. 30-day readmissions among seriously ill older adults. J Palliat Med. 2012;15(12):1356-1361.
2. The Advisory Board Company. Mastering the cardiovascular care continuum: strategies for bridging divides among providers and across time. The Advisory Board Company website. Available at: http://www.advisory.com/Research/Cardiovascular-Roundtable/Studies/2012/Mastering-the-Cardiovascular-Care-Continuum. Accessed Jan. 8, 2013.
3. Misky G, Carlson T, Klem P, et al. Development and implementation of a clinical care pathway for acute VTE reduces hospital utilization and cost at an urban tertiary care center [abstract]. J Hosp Med. 2012;7 Suppl 2:S66-S67.
4. Versel N. Health IT holds key to better care integration. Information Week website. Available at: http://www.informationweek.com/healthcare/interoperability/health-it-holds-key-to-better-care-integ/240012443. Accessed Jan. 8, 2013.
5. Office of Inspector General. Early Assessment Finds That CMS Faces Obstacles in Overseeing the Medicare EHR Incentive Program. Office of Inspector General website. Available at: https://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-05-11-00250.asp. Accessed Jan. 8, 2013.