Innovations in Healthcare

Improving healthcare means taking an efficacious intervention from one setting and effectively implementing it somewhere else.

“It is this key element of adapting what works to new settings that sets improvement in contrast to clinical research. The study of these complex systems will therefore require different methods of inquiry,” according to a recently published paper in the International Journal for Quality in Health Care titled “How Do We Learn about Improving Health Care: A Call for a New Epistemological Paradigm.”

“In biomedical sciences, we’re used to a golden standard that is the randomized controlled trial,” says lead author M. Rashad Massoud, MD, MPH, senior vice president, Quality & Performance Institute, University Research Co., LLC. “Of course, the nature of what we’re trying to do does not lend itself to that type of evaluation. It means that we can’t have an either/or situation where we either continue as we are or we go to flip side—which then inhibits the very nature of improvement from taking place, which is very contextual, very much adaptive in nature. There has to be a happy medium in between, where we can continue to do the improvements without inhibiting them and, at the same time, improve the rigor of the work.”

A new framework for how we learn about improvement could help in the design, implementation, and evaluation of QI by strengthening attribution and better understanding variations in effectiveness in different contexts, the authors assert.

“This will in turn allow us to understand which activities, under which conditions, are most effective at achieving sustained results in health outcomes,” the authors write.

In seeking a new framework for learning about QI, the authors suggest that the following questions must be considered:

• Did the improvements work?
• Why did they work?
• How do we know that the results can be attributed to the changes made?
• How can we replicate them?

“I think hospitalists would probably welcome the idea that not only can they measure improvements in the work that they’re doing but can actually do that in a more rigorous way and actually attribute the results they’re getting to the work that they’re doing,” Dr. Massoud says.

Reference

1. Massoud MR, Barry D, Murphy A, Albrecht Y, Sax S, Parchman M. How do we learn about improving health care: a call for a new epistemological paradigm. Intl J Quality Health Care. doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzw039.

Improving healthcare means taking an efficacious intervention from one setting and effectively implementing it somewhere else.

“It is this key element of adapting what works to new settings that sets improvement in contrast to clinical research. The study of these complex systems will therefore require different methods of inquiry,” according to a recently published paper in the International Journal for Quality in Health Care titled “How Do We Learn about Improving Health Care: A Call for a New Epistemological Paradigm.”

“In biomedical sciences, we’re used to a golden standard that is the randomized controlled trial,” says lead author M. Rashad Massoud, MD, MPH, senior vice president, Quality & Performance Institute, University Research Co., LLC. “Of course, the nature of what we’re trying to do does not lend itself to that type of evaluation. It means that we can’t have an either/or situation where we either continue as we are or we go to flip side—which then inhibits the very nature of improvement from taking place, which is very contextual, very much adaptive in nature. There has to be a happy medium in between, where we can continue to do the improvements without inhibiting them and, at the same time, improve the rigor of the work.”

A new framework for how we learn about improvement could help in the design, implementation, and evaluation of QI by strengthening attribution and better understanding variations in effectiveness in different contexts, the authors assert.

“This will in turn allow us to understand which activities, under which conditions, are most effective at achieving sustained results in health outcomes,” the authors write.

In seeking a new framework for learning about QI, the authors suggest that the following questions must be considered:

• Did the improvements work?
• Why did they work?
• How do we know that the results can be attributed to the changes made?
• How can we replicate them?

“I think hospitalists would probably welcome the idea that not only can they measure improvements in the work that they’re doing but can actually do that in a more rigorous way and actually attribute the results they’re getting to the work that they’re doing,” Dr. Massoud says.

Reference

1. Massoud MR, Barry D, Murphy A, Albrecht Y, Sax S, Parchman M. How do we learn about improving health care: a call for a new epistemological paradigm. Intl J Quality Health Care. doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzw039.

Improving healthcare means taking an efficacious intervention from one setting and effectively implementing it somewhere else.

“It is this key element of adapting what works to new settings that sets improvement in contrast to clinical research. The study of these complex systems will therefore require different methods of inquiry,” according to a recently published paper in the International Journal for Quality in Health Care titled “How Do We Learn about Improving Health Care: A Call for a New Epistemological Paradigm.”

“In biomedical sciences, we’re used to a golden standard that is the randomized controlled trial,” says lead author M. Rashad Massoud, MD, MPH, senior vice president, Quality & Performance Institute, University Research Co., LLC. “Of course, the nature of what we’re trying to do does not lend itself to that type of evaluation. It means that we can’t have an either/or situation where we either continue as we are or we go to flip side—which then inhibits the very nature of improvement from taking place, which is very contextual, very much adaptive in nature. There has to be a happy medium in between, where we can continue to do the improvements without inhibiting them and, at the same time, improve the rigor of the work.”

A new framework for how we learn about improvement could help in the design, implementation, and evaluation of QI by strengthening attribution and better understanding variations in effectiveness in different contexts, the authors assert.

“This will in turn allow us to understand which activities, under which conditions, are most effective at achieving sustained results in health outcomes,” the authors write.

In seeking a new framework for learning about QI, the authors suggest that the following questions must be considered:

• Did the improvements work?
• Why did they work?
• How do we know that the results can be attributed to the changes made?
• How can we replicate them?

“I think hospitalists would probably welcome the idea that not only can they measure improvements in the work that they’re doing but can actually do that in a more rigorous way and actually attribute the results they’re getting to the work that they’re doing,” Dr. Massoud says.

Reference

1. Massoud MR, Barry D, Murphy A, Albrecht Y, Sax S, Parchman M. How do we learn about improving health care: a call for a new epistemological paradigm. Intl J Quality Health Care. doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzw039.

Hospitalists are more than doctors—they are also leaders in their organizations, which is why a new book by retired Army Lieutenant General Mark Hertling is relevant to what they do every day. Hertling, whose numerous military awards include the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star, and the Purple Heart, is the author of Growing Physician Leaders: Empowering Doctors to Improve Our Healthcare, which applies his four decades of military leadership to the world of healthcare.

He wrote the book not long after designing the first physician leader course at Florida Hospital in Orlando.

“Many of the administrators and other doctors saw the changes in the doctors, nurses, and administrators who graduated from the course, and they asked me to write down what we had done,” he says. “The book is partially a description of the course, but it’s also a primer on the basics of leadership.”

The book tells readers how to understand what kind of leader they can be as well as how to better understand the motivations of others; it also outlines a variety of influence techniques they can employ to get things done.

“One of the things we drive home is that all physicians are leaders, whether they are in a leadership role or not,” Hertling says.

One of the concepts he outlines is “leading up”—how to influence your bosses to do the things you want them to do. “What we do during this lesson is show readers how they are other people’s bosses, too,” he says, “and that they need to listen to their own people, too, and allow their folks to contribute to the organizational goals.”

Hospitalists are more than doctors—they are also leaders in their organizations, which is why a new book by retired Army Lieutenant General Mark Hertling is relevant to what they do every day. Hertling, whose numerous military awards include the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star, and the Purple Heart, is the author of Growing Physician Leaders: Empowering Doctors to Improve Our Healthcare, which applies his four decades of military leadership to the world of healthcare.

He wrote the book not long after designing the first physician leader course at Florida Hospital in Orlando.

“Many of the administrators and other doctors saw the changes in the doctors, nurses, and administrators who graduated from the course, and they asked me to write down what we had done,” he says. “The book is partially a description of the course, but it’s also a primer on the basics of leadership.”

The book tells readers how to understand what kind of leader they can be as well as how to better understand the motivations of others; it also outlines a variety of influence techniques they can employ to get things done.

“One of the things we drive home is that all physicians are leaders, whether they are in a leadership role or not,” Hertling says.

One of the concepts he outlines is “leading up”—how to influence your bosses to do the things you want them to do. “What we do during this lesson is show readers how they are other people’s bosses, too,” he says, “and that they need to listen to their own people, too, and allow their folks to contribute to the organizational goals.”

Hospitalists are more than doctors—they are also leaders in their organizations, which is why a new book by retired Army Lieutenant General Mark Hertling is relevant to what they do every day. Hertling, whose numerous military awards include the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star, and the Purple Heart, is the author of Growing Physician Leaders: Empowering Doctors to Improve Our Healthcare, which applies his four decades of military leadership to the world of healthcare.

He wrote the book not long after designing the first physician leader course at Florida Hospital in Orlando.

“Many of the administrators and other doctors saw the changes in the doctors, nurses, and administrators who graduated from the course, and they asked me to write down what we had done,” he says. “The book is partially a description of the course, but it’s also a primer on the basics of leadership.”

The book tells readers how to understand what kind of leader they can be as well as how to better understand the motivations of others; it also outlines a variety of influence techniques they can employ to get things done.

“One of the things we drive home is that all physicians are leaders, whether they are in a leadership role or not,” Hertling says.

One of the concepts he outlines is “leading up”—how to influence your bosses to do the things you want them to do. “What we do during this lesson is show readers how they are other people’s bosses, too,” he says, “and that they need to listen to their own people, too, and allow their folks to contribute to the organizational goals.”

The Affordable Care Act has been law for six years, and during that time, 20 million uninsured nonelderly Americans have been able to acquire health insurance. A survey described in “Liking Health Reform But Turned Off by Toxic Politics,” published in Health Affairs, revealed that the number of respondents believing that reform had little or no impact on access to health insurance fell by 18 percentage points from 2010 to 2015, while respondents who thought the law did have such an impact increased by 19 percentage points.

Reference

1. Jacobs LR, Mettler S. Liking health reform but turned off by toxic politics [published online ahead of print April 2016]. Health Aff. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2015.1313.

The Affordable Care Act has been law for six years, and during that time, 20 million uninsured nonelderly Americans have been able to acquire health insurance. A survey described in “Liking Health Reform But Turned Off by Toxic Politics,” published in Health Affairs, revealed that the number of respondents believing that reform had little or no impact on access to health insurance fell by 18 percentage points from 2010 to 2015, while respondents who thought the law did have such an impact increased by 19 percentage points.

Reference

1. Jacobs LR, Mettler S. Liking health reform but turned off by toxic politics [published online ahead of print April 2016]. Health Aff. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2015.1313.

The Affordable Care Act has been law for six years, and during that time, 20 million uninsured nonelderly Americans have been able to acquire health insurance. A survey described in “Liking Health Reform But Turned Off by Toxic Politics,” published in Health Affairs, revealed that the number of respondents believing that reform had little or no impact on access to health insurance fell by 18 percentage points from 2010 to 2015, while respondents who thought the law did have such an impact increased by 19 percentage points.

Reference

1. Jacobs LR, Mettler S. Liking health reform but turned off by toxic politics [published online ahead of print April 2016]. Health Aff. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2015.1313.

Discharging patients before noon has many advantages: It creates open beds to accommodate the surge in admissions in the afternoon and helps minimize the bottleneck in system-wide patient flow, says Ragu P. Sanjeev, MD, unit-based medical director at Christiana Hospital in Newark, Del.

“Doing so can reduce ER wait times, reduce the percentage of patients leaving the ED without being seen—a safety issue for those patients—and also help to place the right patient in the right bed in a timely manner,” he says. “It’s a not just a patient flow issue; it’s a patient safety issue, as well.”

At his hospital, hospitalists developed a “Discharge by Appointment” process to address the issue systematically and completed a pilot project to test it. Their “‘Discharge by Appointment’ Improves Patient Flow, by Increasing Number of Discharges Before Noon,” was an abstract presented at HM16.1

“Giving patients that have a high predictability of being discharged next day, an appointment, and set off a series of steps to be completed the day before discharge including, notifying the transport team/family members of the appointment, helped improve the number of discharges before noon significantly,” according to the abstract.

Their successful pilot project has led to lasting changes, Dr. Sanjeev says. For about 16 months, the number of discharges before noon has been steadily increasing, helping the acute medicine service line perform better than its “Discharge by Noon” goal by 44.4% this fiscal year.

“As hospitalists, we have a great potential to positively impact the hospital-wide issues like patient flow and patient safety,” Dr. Sanjeev says. “By actively participating in important hospital committees, you can understand better and get inspired by the ongoing improvement efforts. By partnering with your care team, including bedside nurses, case managers, and social workers, we can make a big difference in early discharges. This success can be expanded to discharges throughout the day with appointments, thereby keeping the flow faucet open at all times.”

Reference

1. Sanjeev R, McMillen J, Fedyk A. ‘discharge by Appointment’ Improves Patient Flow, by Increasing Number of Discharges Before Noon [abstract]. J Hosp Med. http://www.shmabstracts.com/abstract/discharge-by-appointment-improves-patient-flow-by-increasing-number-of-discharges-before-noon/. Accessed April 27, 2016.

Discharging patients before noon has many advantages: It creates open beds to accommodate the surge in admissions in the afternoon and helps minimize the bottleneck in system-wide patient flow, says Ragu P. Sanjeev, MD, unit-based medical director at Christiana Hospital in Newark, Del.

“Doing so can reduce ER wait times, reduce the percentage of patients leaving the ED without being seen—a safety issue for those patients—and also help to place the right patient in the right bed in a timely manner,” he says. “It’s a not just a patient flow issue; it’s a patient safety issue, as well.”

At his hospital, hospitalists developed a “Discharge by Appointment” process to address the issue systematically and completed a pilot project to test it. Their “‘Discharge by Appointment’ Improves Patient Flow, by Increasing Number of Discharges Before Noon,” was an abstract presented at HM16.1

“Giving patients that have a high predictability of being discharged next day, an appointment, and set off a series of steps to be completed the day before discharge including, notifying the transport team/family members of the appointment, helped improve the number of discharges before noon significantly,” according to the abstract.

Their successful pilot project has led to lasting changes, Dr. Sanjeev says. For about 16 months, the number of discharges before noon has been steadily increasing, helping the acute medicine service line perform better than its “Discharge by Noon” goal by 44.4% this fiscal year.

“As hospitalists, we have a great potential to positively impact the hospital-wide issues like patient flow and patient safety,” Dr. Sanjeev says. “By actively participating in important hospital committees, you can understand better and get inspired by the ongoing improvement efforts. By partnering with your care team, including bedside nurses, case managers, and social workers, we can make a big difference in early discharges. This success can be expanded to discharges throughout the day with appointments, thereby keeping the flow faucet open at all times.”

Reference

1. Sanjeev R, McMillen J, Fedyk A. ‘discharge by Appointment’ Improves Patient Flow, by Increasing Number of Discharges Before Noon [abstract]. J Hosp Med. http://www.shmabstracts.com/abstract/discharge-by-appointment-improves-patient-flow-by-increasing-number-of-discharges-before-noon/. Accessed April 27, 2016.

Discharging patients before noon has many advantages: It creates open beds to accommodate the surge in admissions in the afternoon and helps minimize the bottleneck in system-wide patient flow, says Ragu P. Sanjeev, MD, unit-based medical director at Christiana Hospital in Newark, Del.

“Doing so can reduce ER wait times, reduce the percentage of patients leaving the ED without being seen—a safety issue for those patients—and also help to place the right patient in the right bed in a timely manner,” he says. “It’s a not just a patient flow issue; it’s a patient safety issue, as well.”

At his hospital, hospitalists developed a “Discharge by Appointment” process to address the issue systematically and completed a pilot project to test it. Their “‘Discharge by Appointment’ Improves Patient Flow, by Increasing Number of Discharges Before Noon,” was an abstract presented at HM16.1

“Giving patients that have a high predictability of being discharged next day, an appointment, and set off a series of steps to be completed the day before discharge including, notifying the transport team/family members of the appointment, helped improve the number of discharges before noon significantly,” according to the abstract.

Their successful pilot project has led to lasting changes, Dr. Sanjeev says. For about 16 months, the number of discharges before noon has been steadily increasing, helping the acute medicine service line perform better than its “Discharge by Noon” goal by 44.4% this fiscal year.

“As hospitalists, we have a great potential to positively impact the hospital-wide issues like patient flow and patient safety,” Dr. Sanjeev says. “By actively participating in important hospital committees, you can understand better and get inspired by the ongoing improvement efforts. By partnering with your care team, including bedside nurses, case managers, and social workers, we can make a big difference in early discharges. This success can be expanded to discharges throughout the day with appointments, thereby keeping the flow faucet open at all times.”

Reference

1. Sanjeev R, McMillen J, Fedyk A. ‘discharge by Appointment’ Improves Patient Flow, by Increasing Number of Discharges Before Noon [abstract]. J Hosp Med. http://www.shmabstracts.com/abstract/discharge-by-appointment-improves-patient-flow-by-increasing-number-of-discharges-before-noon/. Accessed April 27, 2016.

The industry’s first certification for home health and hospices that provide top-caliber community-based palliative care services in the patient’s place of residence is being launched by The Joint Commission.

“As healthcare continues to evolve and the Affordable Care Act is beginning to impact the industry, one of the things that has come to light is that many patients over the years have experienced unnecessary hospitalization admissions when the management of their disease stage really required palliative care,” says Margherita Labson, RN, MSHSA, CPHQ, executive director of The Joint Commission’s Home Care Program. “For those of us in the home care environment in the community, we’ve always tried to manage this, but the current models of care didn’t really meet the needs of these patients because the Medicare benefit is an episodic payment program that’s built for rehab and restoration, not for maintenance.”

The Joint Commission’s new program, she says, provides value to patients, results in a lower rate of a necessary readmission, and contributes to patient satisfaction and improved outcomes of care.

Surveys for Community-Based Palliative Care (CBPC) Certification will begin on July 1. Certification is awarded for a three-year period, and the certification’s framework helps providers design, deliver, and validate patient-centered care and services. Key CBPC certification requirements include:

• A robust interdisciplinary care team
• Customized, comprehensive care plans
• After-hours care and services
• Use of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines
• A defined hand-off communications process

“This helps to address perhaps one of the key frustrations of hospitalists: the repeated readmissions of patients struggling with serious chronic illnesses,” Labson says. “It helps reduce the number of inappropriate hospital admissions and allows the hospitalist to focus on the admission and successful management of those patients that are appropriate for hospital intervention or acute-care intervention at that point.”

The industry’s first certification for home health and hospices that provide top-caliber community-based palliative care services in the patient’s place of residence is being launched by The Joint Commission.

“As healthcare continues to evolve and the Affordable Care Act is beginning to impact the industry, one of the things that has come to light is that many patients over the years have experienced unnecessary hospitalization admissions when the management of their disease stage really required palliative care,” says Margherita Labson, RN, MSHSA, CPHQ, executive director of The Joint Commission’s Home Care Program. “For those of us in the home care environment in the community, we’ve always tried to manage this, but the current models of care didn’t really meet the needs of these patients because the Medicare benefit is an episodic payment program that’s built for rehab and restoration, not for maintenance.”

The Joint Commission’s new program, she says, provides value to patients, results in a lower rate of a necessary readmission, and contributes to patient satisfaction and improved outcomes of care.

Surveys for Community-Based Palliative Care (CBPC) Certification will begin on July 1. Certification is awarded for a three-year period, and the certification’s framework helps providers design, deliver, and validate patient-centered care and services. Key CBPC certification requirements include:

• A robust interdisciplinary care team
• Customized, comprehensive care plans
• After-hours care and services
• Use of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines
• A defined hand-off communications process

“This helps to address perhaps one of the key frustrations of hospitalists: the repeated readmissions of patients struggling with serious chronic illnesses,” Labson says. “It helps reduce the number of inappropriate hospital admissions and allows the hospitalist to focus on the admission and successful management of those patients that are appropriate for hospital intervention or acute-care intervention at that point.”

The industry’s first certification for home health and hospices that provide top-caliber community-based palliative care services in the patient’s place of residence is being launched by The Joint Commission.

“As healthcare continues to evolve and the Affordable Care Act is beginning to impact the industry, one of the things that has come to light is that many patients over the years have experienced unnecessary hospitalization admissions when the management of their disease stage really required palliative care,” says Margherita Labson, RN, MSHSA, CPHQ, executive director of The Joint Commission’s Home Care Program. “For those of us in the home care environment in the community, we’ve always tried to manage this, but the current models of care didn’t really meet the needs of these patients because the Medicare benefit is an episodic payment program that’s built for rehab and restoration, not for maintenance.”

The Joint Commission’s new program, she says, provides value to patients, results in a lower rate of a necessary readmission, and contributes to patient satisfaction and improved outcomes of care.

Surveys for Community-Based Palliative Care (CBPC) Certification will begin on July 1. Certification is awarded for a three-year period, and the certification’s framework helps providers design, deliver, and validate patient-centered care and services. Key CBPC certification requirements include:

• A robust interdisciplinary care team
• Customized, comprehensive care plans
• After-hours care and services
• Use of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines
• A defined hand-off communications process

“This helps to address perhaps one of the key frustrations of hospitalists: the repeated readmissions of patients struggling with serious chronic illnesses,” Labson says. “It helps reduce the number of inappropriate hospital admissions and allows the hospitalist to focus on the admission and successful management of those patients that are appropriate for hospital intervention or acute-care intervention at that point.”

Heart failure patients who had early follow-up (within seven days of discharge) with general medicine or cardiology providers had a lower risk of being readmitted to the hospital within 30 days, according to a study from Kaiser Permanente published in the journal Medical Care.

“We found that follow-up within the first seven days post-discharge—mostly done through in-person clinic visits—was independently associated with a 19% lower chance of readmission, whereas initial follow-up after seven days was not significantly associated with readmission,” says lead researcher Keane K. Lee, MD, MS, a cardiologist and research scientist with Kaiser Permanente. “Perhaps as important, we also observed that telephone visits, mostly done by non-physician providers, within seven days after hospital discharge were associated with a non-statistically significant trend toward lower 30-day readmission rates, even after carefully accounting for potential differences between patients.

“This finding that telephone visits could reduce readmissions has never been reported and has potentially important implications. Contact by telephone with non-physicians may be more convenient for patients and family members and be more practical and cost-effective when implemented on a large scale.”

Dr. Lee suggests hospitalists have a role in creating a system to reliably arrange this follow-up.

“Hospitalists serve as a key part of the process to help patients transition successfully from the hospital back home,” Dr. Lee says.

Reference

1. Lee KK, Yang J, Hernandez AF, Steimle AE, Go S. Post-discharge follow-up characteristics associated with 30-day readmission after heart failure hospitalization. Med Care. 2016;54(4):365-372.

Heart failure patients who had early follow-up (within seven days of discharge) with general medicine or cardiology providers had a lower risk of being readmitted to the hospital within 30 days, according to a study from Kaiser Permanente published in the journal Medical Care.

“We found that follow-up within the first seven days post-discharge—mostly done through in-person clinic visits—was independently associated with a 19% lower chance of readmission, whereas initial follow-up after seven days was not significantly associated with readmission,” says lead researcher Keane K. Lee, MD, MS, a cardiologist and research scientist with Kaiser Permanente. “Perhaps as important, we also observed that telephone visits, mostly done by non-physician providers, within seven days after hospital discharge were associated with a non-statistically significant trend toward lower 30-day readmission rates, even after carefully accounting for potential differences between patients.

“This finding that telephone visits could reduce readmissions has never been reported and has potentially important implications. Contact by telephone with non-physicians may be more convenient for patients and family members and be more practical and cost-effective when implemented on a large scale.”

Dr. Lee suggests hospitalists have a role in creating a system to reliably arrange this follow-up.

“Hospitalists serve as a key part of the process to help patients transition successfully from the hospital back home,” Dr. Lee says.

Reference

1. Lee KK, Yang J, Hernandez AF, Steimle AE, Go S. Post-discharge follow-up characteristics associated with 30-day readmission after heart failure hospitalization. Med Care. 2016;54(4):365-372.

Heart failure patients who had early follow-up (within seven days of discharge) with general medicine or cardiology providers had a lower risk of being readmitted to the hospital within 30 days, according to a study from Kaiser Permanente published in the journal Medical Care.

“We found that follow-up within the first seven days post-discharge—mostly done through in-person clinic visits—was independently associated with a 19% lower chance of readmission, whereas initial follow-up after seven days was not significantly associated with readmission,” says lead researcher Keane K. Lee, MD, MS, a cardiologist and research scientist with Kaiser Permanente. “Perhaps as important, we also observed that telephone visits, mostly done by non-physician providers, within seven days after hospital discharge were associated with a non-statistically significant trend toward lower 30-day readmission rates, even after carefully accounting for potential differences between patients.

“This finding that telephone visits could reduce readmissions has never been reported and has potentially important implications. Contact by telephone with non-physicians may be more convenient for patients and family members and be more practical and cost-effective when implemented on a large scale.”

Dr. Lee suggests hospitalists have a role in creating a system to reliably arrange this follow-up.

“Hospitalists serve as a key part of the process to help patients transition successfully from the hospital back home,” Dr. Lee says.

Reference

1. Lee KK, Yang J, Hernandez AF, Steimle AE, Go S. Post-discharge follow-up characteristics associated with 30-day readmission after heart failure hospitalization. Med Care. 2016;54(4):365-372.

The conceptual models being used in healthcare’s efforts to achieve high reliability may have weaknesses, according to Marc T. Edwards, MD, MBA, author of “An Organizational Learning Framework for Patient Safety,” published in the American Journal of Medical Quality. Those weaknesses could explain why controversy over basic issues around the subject remain.

His paper analyzes those barriers to achieving high reliability in healthcare and points to a way forward—specifically, a different framework for identifying leverage points for improvement based on organizational learning theory.

“Organizations learn from others, from defects, from measurement, and from mindfulness,” he writes. “These learning modes correspond with contemporary themes of collaboration, no blame for human error, accountability for performance, and managing the unexpected. The collaborative model has dominated improvement efforts. Greater attention to the underdeveloped modes of organizational learning may foster more rapid progress in patient safety by increasing organizational capabilities, strengthening a culture of safety, and fixing more of the process problems that contribute to patient harm.”

To help bring this about, hospitalists can contribute by “embracing accountability for clinical performance, developing appropriate measures, and engaging in safety improvement activities — the most salient and important of which is reporting adverse events, near misses, and hazardous conditions affecting their own patients,” Dr. Edwards says. “This means taking responsibility for ending the culture of blame in healthcare, which currently blocks physicians from such self-reporting.”

He adds that hospitalists can do this by changing the model by which they conduct clinical peer review: Instead of focusing on whether individual physicians practiced according to standards, they could look broadly at learning opportunities for improvement in the system of care.

Reference

1. Edwards MT. An organizational learning framework for patient safety [published online ahead of print February 25, 2016]. Am J Med Qual. pii:1062860616632295.

The conceptual models being used in healthcare’s efforts to achieve high reliability may have weaknesses, according to Marc T. Edwards, MD, MBA, author of “An Organizational Learning Framework for Patient Safety,” published in the American Journal of Medical Quality. Those weaknesses could explain why controversy over basic issues around the subject remain.

His paper analyzes those barriers to achieving high reliability in healthcare and points to a way forward—specifically, a different framework for identifying leverage points for improvement based on organizational learning theory.

“Organizations learn from others, from defects, from measurement, and from mindfulness,” he writes. “These learning modes correspond with contemporary themes of collaboration, no blame for human error, accountability for performance, and managing the unexpected. The collaborative model has dominated improvement efforts. Greater attention to the underdeveloped modes of organizational learning may foster more rapid progress in patient safety by increasing organizational capabilities, strengthening a culture of safety, and fixing more of the process problems that contribute to patient harm.”

To help bring this about, hospitalists can contribute by “embracing accountability for clinical performance, developing appropriate measures, and engaging in safety improvement activities — the most salient and important of which is reporting adverse events, near misses, and hazardous conditions affecting their own patients,” Dr. Edwards says. “This means taking responsibility for ending the culture of blame in healthcare, which currently blocks physicians from such self-reporting.”

He adds that hospitalists can do this by changing the model by which they conduct clinical peer review: Instead of focusing on whether individual physicians practiced according to standards, they could look broadly at learning opportunities for improvement in the system of care.

Reference

1. Edwards MT. An organizational learning framework for patient safety [published online ahead of print February 25, 2016]. Am J Med Qual. pii:1062860616632295.

The conceptual models being used in healthcare’s efforts to achieve high reliability may have weaknesses, according to Marc T. Edwards, MD, MBA, author of “An Organizational Learning Framework for Patient Safety,” published in the American Journal of Medical Quality. Those weaknesses could explain why controversy over basic issues around the subject remain.

His paper analyzes those barriers to achieving high reliability in healthcare and points to a way forward—specifically, a different framework for identifying leverage points for improvement based on organizational learning theory.

“Organizations learn from others, from defects, from measurement, and from mindfulness,” he writes. “These learning modes correspond with contemporary themes of collaboration, no blame for human error, accountability for performance, and managing the unexpected. The collaborative model has dominated improvement efforts. Greater attention to the underdeveloped modes of organizational learning may foster more rapid progress in patient safety by increasing organizational capabilities, strengthening a culture of safety, and fixing more of the process problems that contribute to patient harm.”

To help bring this about, hospitalists can contribute by “embracing accountability for clinical performance, developing appropriate measures, and engaging in safety improvement activities — the most salient and important of which is reporting adverse events, near misses, and hazardous conditions affecting their own patients,” Dr. Edwards says. “This means taking responsibility for ending the culture of blame in healthcare, which currently blocks physicians from such self-reporting.”

He adds that hospitalists can do this by changing the model by which they conduct clinical peer review: Instead of focusing on whether individual physicians practiced according to standards, they could look broadly at learning opportunities for improvement in the system of care.

Reference

1. Edwards MT. An organizational learning framework for patient safety [published online ahead of print February 25, 2016]. Am J Med Qual. pii:1062860616632295.

Forty-five years ago, an engineer in Boston sent an electronic message between two computers some 10 feet apart. It took another 10 years or so before the electronic message was dubbed “email”—a term now perhaps more ubiquitous than any other in the lexicon of modern communication.

And yet despite the seemingly definitive place email communication holds for hospitalists—for messages to one another, missives to hospital administrators, instructions to patients, and myriad other uses—there are those who often wonder if email is outmoded. In a world bent on text messaging, Facebook, Twitter, Skype, Vine, Periscope, and Google Talk (not to mention dozens of lesser-known services and a seemingly endless string of startups aiming to be the proverbial next big thing), is email old-fashioned or ineffective?

In a word, no.

But that doesn’t mean email is the only communication method in a hospitalist’s toolbox or the best one for every situation. Physicians and communication experts interviewed by The Hospitalist agree that email has a function and isn’t going anywhere anytime soon. However, that function is dependent on trust, urgency, formality, and relationships.

“It has a place in communication, especially for busy hospitals, but the key is to figure out what is that place,” says Vineet Arora, MD, MAPP, FHM, a hospitalist at the University of Chicago, who has spoken at SHM annual meetings on how hospitalists communicate. “All of the information that is coming to you is in a push-pull model … There is information that you want pushed to you because it’s important and you want to see it. And then there is information that you want to pull because perhaps you know it relates to a patient in front of you … Where does email fit into it?”

Communications consultant A.J. Moore, associate professor of communication at Rider University in Lawrenceville, N.J., put it even more bluntly when assuring that email isn’t going anywhere.

“Research shows, and I know I do it myself, the first thing I do in the morning when I pick up my phone is check my email,” he says. “People often check their email before they check the weather, before they check social media.

“Sure, there are other places to go, there’s other ways of communicating. But I still think that email is the center point. It’s the starting line for your communication.”

A Modus for the Medium

Hospitalist Aaron Jacobs, MD, associate chief medical information officer at University of New Mexico Hospital in Albuquerque, appreciates the academic discussion over the future of email, but he also knows he uses it every day. To him, there are several factors that go into choosing which medium he uses for a particular message.

“It depends on the situation and the message you are sending,” says Dr. Jacobs, associate professor in the Department of Pediatrics at the University of New Mexico School of Medicine. “If I’m friends with the pediatric nephrologist, I may text him a quick question about a [glomerular filtration rate] or a clinical question. But if I’m not on those terms with another subspecialist, I wouldn’t do that.

“There’s definitely a relationship aspect that is relevant.”

Another factor in choosing to send an email versus a text message versus a tweet is timing. In the days when email was the only alternative to in-person communication or a phone call, the electronic message was the fastest way to reach a person. It was the best way to hold a synchronous conversation. But in today’s era of smartphones, tablets, and even wristwatches that have instant access, email is no longer the fastest option. In fact, email today is best tailored to asynchronous conversations, Dr. Arora says.

 

“Texting is really more invasive. It’s more demanding of the recipient’s time in an immediate sort of way,” Dr. Jacobs says. “With email, you’re basically saying, ‘Please take a look at this at your convenience, and when you can, write me back.’ In contrast, when people send text messages, they’re typically expecting a response in minutes. This may seem logical and trivial, but it can also be disruptive. Since some texts are urgent, all texts must at least initially be treated as such.”

The urgency that comes with a text message or a direct message on Facebook or Twitter is the flip side of the formality that comes with an email, says Moore.

“Email has more of a professional connotation to it than a Facebook message,” Moore says. “Even if I work with somebody, even if I’m Facebook friends with somebody and that person is one door away from me, if it is a work conversation, I am going to send them an email.”

Formality is the delineation between social media and what Moore half-jokingly calls “professional media.” And while in some ways technology gaps can often be a generational difference, Moore doesn’t see email usage through that prism and certainly not when he’s interacting with the young adults in his classes.

“I look at myself as a professor, and I have that formal relationship with younger people being students. They could find me on social media. There’s nothing preventing them,” he says. “But still they reach out to me via email, and I communicate with them via email.”

That being said, a generational gap does exist that can cause older physicians to refrain from embracing newer technologies that could be effective alternatives to email, says Howard Landa, chief medical information officer of the Alameda Health System in Oakland, Calif., and vice chairman of the board of advisors for the Association of Medical Directors of Information Systems. Many communication tools (Shortmail, Fridge, Apple Mail) either were discontinued, wrapped into larger technologies, or never became mainstream enough to be worthwhile. So the idea that some technologies won’t catch on discourages some from using anything but email.

“The younger we are, the easier the changes are and the more receptive we are to change,” Landa says. “We have seen a lot of flash-in-the-pan technology, snake oil, new ideas that go crazy for [a while]. They get to the top in the hype cycle, they drop to the bottom of the pit in the depression, and then they never move.

“With the older physicians, I think there is a reluctance to try something just because it’s new, whereas with the younger docs, there is every week a new technology that I want to try because I am willing to go through 20 of them before I find one that works. They have more energy and are more open to it.”

Security Is Job One

The safety of email is a major reason that many continually question its fate. In a broad sense, that is the natural question when a technology is new, says Ben Compaine, director of the fellows program at the Columbia University Institute for Tele-Information and a lecturer in the D’Amore-McKim School of Business at Northeastern University in Boston.

“There are always people who will find something to fear,” Compaine says. “Like when ATMs came along, there was stuff being written about safety concerns: ‘People will go to an ATM, and someone just holds them up and gets their money.’ It’s happened, but given the hundreds of millions of transactions that go on, you don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.”

 

Dr. Arora cautions that the difference for hospitalists is that when a safety mistake is made with email, it can constitute a violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). And while those mistakes can happen innocently enough on social media or via text messaging, she says email issues are the most common.

“I’ve seen HIPAA violations where a patient would send an email to a doctor and the doctor would reply all to all of the [hospitalists] in their group saying, ‘Can anyone help me answer this question?’” she says. “So the forward email and forward and reply all are the most dangerous features because you have to know what you are forwarding and would that person want it shared with everybody.”

Landa believes that part of the problem with the efficacy of email is that it’s become so fast and so easy that people don’t take their time thinking about the impact of each email. Dr. Arora agrees and suggests hospitalists think carefully about what is in an email, particularly when it involves patient information.

“Share the minimum necessary information with a minimum number of people to try to accomplish what you are trying to do,” she adds. “That way, you are not clogging the inbox of everybody involved.”

Another potential pitfall to the efficacy of email is the “lost in translation” phenomenon, Landa says.

“How many times have you written am email and someone misinterpreted sarcasm or a joke or a particular word or a phrase and got upset because of what they thought you were saying?” he says. “I think that when you talk about the synchronous and rapid-fire style of the forms of communication, I think you elevate the risk by an order of magnitude. That’s the reason we have developed all the emoticons and all the visual references that are out there—to make sure that people don’t misinterpret what we’re saying.”

What’s Old Is New

So if hospitalists and communications experts believe email retains a place in the way information is conveyed, why is the question of its impending death a continuing parlor game for some?

“Because there’s always something new,” Moore says. “Because Messenger on Facebook looks a little bit flashier than email. Because now we have Periscope. Now we have Twitter. Now we have different types of platforms that message within each other. They all look flashier.”

But, in essence, each is simply a somewhat more modernized version, more bells and whistles, Moore says. He likes to compare it to the U.S. Postal Service. As technology progressed and communication became more real-time in ways well beyond telephone conversations, many pundits forecasted the end of what is derisively called snail mail, itself an admission of the speed and efficacy of electronic mail.

“You could make the analogy between the death of email and the death of the U.S. mail,” Moore says. “Ten years ago, people were writing this article about the death of the U.S. mail. And it certainly changed. Yes, there are less letters and less traffic and less parcels that the post office sends. But it’s still there. It’s not going away; it’s just adapting in a certain way.

“If you want to pinpoint a time that there is ‘the death of email,’ I think the death of the U.S. mail comes before it.” TH

---

Richard Quinn is a freelance writer in New Jersey.

 

Forty-five years ago, an engineer in Boston sent an electronic message between two computers some 10 feet apart. It took another 10 years or so before the electronic message was dubbed “email”—a term now perhaps more ubiquitous than any other in the lexicon of modern communication.

And yet despite the seemingly definitive place email communication holds for hospitalists—for messages to one another, missives to hospital administrators, instructions to patients, and myriad other uses—there are those who often wonder if email is outmoded. In a world bent on text messaging, Facebook, Twitter, Skype, Vine, Periscope, and Google Talk (not to mention dozens of lesser-known services and a seemingly endless string of startups aiming to be the proverbial next big thing), is email old-fashioned or ineffective?

In a word, no.

But that doesn’t mean email is the only communication method in a hospitalist’s toolbox or the best one for every situation. Physicians and communication experts interviewed by The Hospitalist agree that email has a function and isn’t going anywhere anytime soon. However, that function is dependent on trust, urgency, formality, and relationships.

“It has a place in communication, especially for busy hospitals, but the key is to figure out what is that place,” says Vineet Arora, MD, MAPP, FHM, a hospitalist at the University of Chicago, who has spoken at SHM annual meetings on how hospitalists communicate. “All of the information that is coming to you is in a push-pull model … There is information that you want pushed to you because it’s important and you want to see it. And then there is information that you want to pull because perhaps you know it relates to a patient in front of you … Where does email fit into it?”

Communications consultant A.J. Moore, associate professor of communication at Rider University in Lawrenceville, N.J., put it even more bluntly when assuring that email isn’t going anywhere.

“Research shows, and I know I do it myself, the first thing I do in the morning when I pick up my phone is check my email,” he says. “People often check their email before they check the weather, before they check social media.

“Sure, there are other places to go, there’s other ways of communicating. But I still think that email is the center point. It’s the starting line for your communication.”

A Modus for the Medium

Hospitalist Aaron Jacobs, MD, associate chief medical information officer at University of New Mexico Hospital in Albuquerque, appreciates the academic discussion over the future of email, but he also knows he uses it every day. To him, there are several factors that go into choosing which medium he uses for a particular message.

“It depends on the situation and the message you are sending,” says Dr. Jacobs, associate professor in the Department of Pediatrics at the University of New Mexico School of Medicine. “If I’m friends with the pediatric nephrologist, I may text him a quick question about a [glomerular filtration rate] or a clinical question. But if I’m not on those terms with another subspecialist, I wouldn’t do that.

“There’s definitely a relationship aspect that is relevant.”

Another factor in choosing to send an email versus a text message versus a tweet is timing. In the days when email was the only alternative to in-person communication or a phone call, the electronic message was the fastest way to reach a person. It was the best way to hold a synchronous conversation. But in today’s era of smartphones, tablets, and even wristwatches that have instant access, email is no longer the fastest option. In fact, email today is best tailored to asynchronous conversations, Dr. Arora says.

 

“Texting is really more invasive. It’s more demanding of the recipient’s time in an immediate sort of way,” Dr. Jacobs says. “With email, you’re basically saying, ‘Please take a look at this at your convenience, and when you can, write me back.’ In contrast, when people send text messages, they’re typically expecting a response in minutes. This may seem logical and trivial, but it can also be disruptive. Since some texts are urgent, all texts must at least initially be treated as such.”

The urgency that comes with a text message or a direct message on Facebook or Twitter is the flip side of the formality that comes with an email, says Moore.

“Email has more of a professional connotation to it than a Facebook message,” Moore says. “Even if I work with somebody, even if I’m Facebook friends with somebody and that person is one door away from me, if it is a work conversation, I am going to send them an email.”

Formality is the delineation between social media and what Moore half-jokingly calls “professional media.” And while in some ways technology gaps can often be a generational difference, Moore doesn’t see email usage through that prism and certainly not when he’s interacting with the young adults in his classes.

“I look at myself as a professor, and I have that formal relationship with younger people being students. They could find me on social media. There’s nothing preventing them,” he says. “But still they reach out to me via email, and I communicate with them via email.”

That being said, a generational gap does exist that can cause older physicians to refrain from embracing newer technologies that could be effective alternatives to email, says Howard Landa, chief medical information officer of the Alameda Health System in Oakland, Calif., and vice chairman of the board of advisors for the Association of Medical Directors of Information Systems. Many communication tools (Shortmail, Fridge, Apple Mail) either were discontinued, wrapped into larger technologies, or never became mainstream enough to be worthwhile. So the idea that some technologies won’t catch on discourages some from using anything but email.

“The younger we are, the easier the changes are and the more receptive we are to change,” Landa says. “We have seen a lot of flash-in-the-pan technology, snake oil, new ideas that go crazy for [a while]. They get to the top in the hype cycle, they drop to the bottom of the pit in the depression, and then they never move.

“With the older physicians, I think there is a reluctance to try something just because it’s new, whereas with the younger docs, there is every week a new technology that I want to try because I am willing to go through 20 of them before I find one that works. They have more energy and are more open to it.”

Security Is Job One

The safety of email is a major reason that many continually question its fate. In a broad sense, that is the natural question when a technology is new, says Ben Compaine, director of the fellows program at the Columbia University Institute for Tele-Information and a lecturer in the D’Amore-McKim School of Business at Northeastern University in Boston.

“There are always people who will find something to fear,” Compaine says. “Like when ATMs came along, there was stuff being written about safety concerns: ‘People will go to an ATM, and someone just holds them up and gets their money.’ It’s happened, but given the hundreds of millions of transactions that go on, you don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.”

 

Dr. Arora cautions that the difference for hospitalists is that when a safety mistake is made with email, it can constitute a violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). And while those mistakes can happen innocently enough on social media or via text messaging, she says email issues are the most common.

“I’ve seen HIPAA violations where a patient would send an email to a doctor and the doctor would reply all to all of the [hospitalists] in their group saying, ‘Can anyone help me answer this question?’” she says. “So the forward email and forward and reply all are the most dangerous features because you have to know what you are forwarding and would that person want it shared with everybody.”

Landa believes that part of the problem with the efficacy of email is that it’s become so fast and so easy that people don’t take their time thinking about the impact of each email. Dr. Arora agrees and suggests hospitalists think carefully about what is in an email, particularly when it involves patient information.

“Share the minimum necessary information with a minimum number of people to try to accomplish what you are trying to do,” she adds. “That way, you are not clogging the inbox of everybody involved.”

Another potential pitfall to the efficacy of email is the “lost in translation” phenomenon, Landa says.

“How many times have you written am email and someone misinterpreted sarcasm or a joke or a particular word or a phrase and got upset because of what they thought you were saying?” he says. “I think that when you talk about the synchronous and rapid-fire style of the forms of communication, I think you elevate the risk by an order of magnitude. That’s the reason we have developed all the emoticons and all the visual references that are out there—to make sure that people don’t misinterpret what we’re saying.”

What’s Old Is New

So if hospitalists and communications experts believe email retains a place in the way information is conveyed, why is the question of its impending death a continuing parlor game for some?

“Because there’s always something new,” Moore says. “Because Messenger on Facebook looks a little bit flashier than email. Because now we have Periscope. Now we have Twitter. Now we have different types of platforms that message within each other. They all look flashier.”

But, in essence, each is simply a somewhat more modernized version, more bells and whistles, Moore says. He likes to compare it to the U.S. Postal Service. As technology progressed and communication became more real-time in ways well beyond telephone conversations, many pundits forecasted the end of what is derisively called snail mail, itself an admission of the speed and efficacy of electronic mail.

“You could make the analogy between the death of email and the death of the U.S. mail,” Moore says. “Ten years ago, people were writing this article about the death of the U.S. mail. And it certainly changed. Yes, there are less letters and less traffic and less parcels that the post office sends. But it’s still there. It’s not going away; it’s just adapting in a certain way.

“If you want to pinpoint a time that there is ‘the death of email,’ I think the death of the U.S. mail comes before it.” TH

---

Richard Quinn is a freelance writer in New Jersey.

 

Forty-five years ago, an engineer in Boston sent an electronic message between two computers some 10 feet apart. It took another 10 years or so before the electronic message was dubbed “email”—a term now perhaps more ubiquitous than any other in the lexicon of modern communication.

And yet despite the seemingly definitive place email communication holds for hospitalists—for messages to one another, missives to hospital administrators, instructions to patients, and myriad other uses—there are those who often wonder if email is outmoded. In a world bent on text messaging, Facebook, Twitter, Skype, Vine, Periscope, and Google Talk (not to mention dozens of lesser-known services and a seemingly endless string of startups aiming to be the proverbial next big thing), is email old-fashioned or ineffective?

In a word, no.

But that doesn’t mean email is the only communication method in a hospitalist’s toolbox or the best one for every situation. Physicians and communication experts interviewed by The Hospitalist agree that email has a function and isn’t going anywhere anytime soon. However, that function is dependent on trust, urgency, formality, and relationships.

“It has a place in communication, especially for busy hospitals, but the key is to figure out what is that place,” says Vineet Arora, MD, MAPP, FHM, a hospitalist at the University of Chicago, who has spoken at SHM annual meetings on how hospitalists communicate. “All of the information that is coming to you is in a push-pull model … There is information that you want pushed to you because it’s important and you want to see it. And then there is information that you want to pull because perhaps you know it relates to a patient in front of you … Where does email fit into it?”

Communications consultant A.J. Moore, associate professor of communication at Rider University in Lawrenceville, N.J., put it even more bluntly when assuring that email isn’t going anywhere.

“Research shows, and I know I do it myself, the first thing I do in the morning when I pick up my phone is check my email,” he says. “People often check their email before they check the weather, before they check social media.

“Sure, there are other places to go, there’s other ways of communicating. But I still think that email is the center point. It’s the starting line for your communication.”

A Modus for the Medium

Hospitalist Aaron Jacobs, MD, associate chief medical information officer at University of New Mexico Hospital in Albuquerque, appreciates the academic discussion over the future of email, but he also knows he uses it every day. To him, there are several factors that go into choosing which medium he uses for a particular message.

“It depends on the situation and the message you are sending,” says Dr. Jacobs, associate professor in the Department of Pediatrics at the University of New Mexico School of Medicine. “If I’m friends with the pediatric nephrologist, I may text him a quick question about a [glomerular filtration rate] or a clinical question. But if I’m not on those terms with another subspecialist, I wouldn’t do that.

“There’s definitely a relationship aspect that is relevant.”

Another factor in choosing to send an email versus a text message versus a tweet is timing. In the days when email was the only alternative to in-person communication or a phone call, the electronic message was the fastest way to reach a person. It was the best way to hold a synchronous conversation. But in today’s era of smartphones, tablets, and even wristwatches that have instant access, email is no longer the fastest option. In fact, email today is best tailored to asynchronous conversations, Dr. Arora says.

 

“Texting is really more invasive. It’s more demanding of the recipient’s time in an immediate sort of way,” Dr. Jacobs says. “With email, you’re basically saying, ‘Please take a look at this at your convenience, and when you can, write me back.’ In contrast, when people send text messages, they’re typically expecting a response in minutes. This may seem logical and trivial, but it can also be disruptive. Since some texts are urgent, all texts must at least initially be treated as such.”

The urgency that comes with a text message or a direct message on Facebook or Twitter is the flip side of the formality that comes with an email, says Moore.

“Email has more of a professional connotation to it than a Facebook message,” Moore says. “Even if I work with somebody, even if I’m Facebook friends with somebody and that person is one door away from me, if it is a work conversation, I am going to send them an email.”

Formality is the delineation between social media and what Moore half-jokingly calls “professional media.” And while in some ways technology gaps can often be a generational difference, Moore doesn’t see email usage through that prism and certainly not when he’s interacting with the young adults in his classes.

“I look at myself as a professor, and I have that formal relationship with younger people being students. They could find me on social media. There’s nothing preventing them,” he says. “But still they reach out to me via email, and I communicate with them via email.”

That being said, a generational gap does exist that can cause older physicians to refrain from embracing newer technologies that could be effective alternatives to email, says Howard Landa, chief medical information officer of the Alameda Health System in Oakland, Calif., and vice chairman of the board of advisors for the Association of Medical Directors of Information Systems. Many communication tools (Shortmail, Fridge, Apple Mail) either were discontinued, wrapped into larger technologies, or never became mainstream enough to be worthwhile. So the idea that some technologies won’t catch on discourages some from using anything but email.

“The younger we are, the easier the changes are and the more receptive we are to change,” Landa says. “We have seen a lot of flash-in-the-pan technology, snake oil, new ideas that go crazy for [a while]. They get to the top in the hype cycle, they drop to the bottom of the pit in the depression, and then they never move.

“With the older physicians, I think there is a reluctance to try something just because it’s new, whereas with the younger docs, there is every week a new technology that I want to try because I am willing to go through 20 of them before I find one that works. They have more energy and are more open to it.”

Security Is Job One

The safety of email is a major reason that many continually question its fate. In a broad sense, that is the natural question when a technology is new, says Ben Compaine, director of the fellows program at the Columbia University Institute for Tele-Information and a lecturer in the D’Amore-McKim School of Business at Northeastern University in Boston.

“There are always people who will find something to fear,” Compaine says. “Like when ATMs came along, there was stuff being written about safety concerns: ‘People will go to an ATM, and someone just holds them up and gets their money.’ It’s happened, but given the hundreds of millions of transactions that go on, you don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.”

 

Dr. Arora cautions that the difference for hospitalists is that when a safety mistake is made with email, it can constitute a violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). And while those mistakes can happen innocently enough on social media or via text messaging, she says email issues are the most common.

“I’ve seen HIPAA violations where a patient would send an email to a doctor and the doctor would reply all to all of the [hospitalists] in their group saying, ‘Can anyone help me answer this question?’” she says. “So the forward email and forward and reply all are the most dangerous features because you have to know what you are forwarding and would that person want it shared with everybody.”

Landa believes that part of the problem with the efficacy of email is that it’s become so fast and so easy that people don’t take their time thinking about the impact of each email. Dr. Arora agrees and suggests hospitalists think carefully about what is in an email, particularly when it involves patient information.

“Share the minimum necessary information with a minimum number of people to try to accomplish what you are trying to do,” she adds. “That way, you are not clogging the inbox of everybody involved.”

Another potential pitfall to the efficacy of email is the “lost in translation” phenomenon, Landa says.

“How many times have you written am email and someone misinterpreted sarcasm or a joke or a particular word or a phrase and got upset because of what they thought you were saying?” he says. “I think that when you talk about the synchronous and rapid-fire style of the forms of communication, I think you elevate the risk by an order of magnitude. That’s the reason we have developed all the emoticons and all the visual references that are out there—to make sure that people don’t misinterpret what we’re saying.”

What’s Old Is New

So if hospitalists and communications experts believe email retains a place in the way information is conveyed, why is the question of its impending death a continuing parlor game for some?

“Because there’s always something new,” Moore says. “Because Messenger on Facebook looks a little bit flashier than email. Because now we have Periscope. Now we have Twitter. Now we have different types of platforms that message within each other. They all look flashier.”

But, in essence, each is simply a somewhat more modernized version, more bells and whistles, Moore says. He likes to compare it to the U.S. Postal Service. As technology progressed and communication became more real-time in ways well beyond telephone conversations, many pundits forecasted the end of what is derisively called snail mail, itself an admission of the speed and efficacy of electronic mail.

“You could make the analogy between the death of email and the death of the U.S. mail,” Moore says. “Ten years ago, people were writing this article about the death of the U.S. mail. And it certainly changed. Yes, there are less letters and less traffic and less parcels that the post office sends. But it’s still there. It’s not going away; it’s just adapting in a certain way.

“If you want to pinpoint a time that there is ‘the death of email,’ I think the death of the U.S. mail comes before it.” TH

---

Richard Quinn is a freelance writer in New Jersey.

 

Death is a subject everyone cares about—but we could talk about it more, especially in hospitals, where a lot of people die. “Out of everybody that dies in the entire country, in Canada at least, two-thirds are dying in hospital,” says Daniel Kobewka, MD, of The Ottawa Hospital and lead author of “Quality Gaps Identified through Mortality Review.”

Most divisions within a hospital will have a morbidity or mortality round where they review deaths that occurred in that department, but doing that on an institution-wide level is unusual and important. “It gives a totally different viewpoint,” he says. “When it’s a couple highly selected patients whose cases you examine, you really don’t have an idea at the end if the problems you identified are systemwide issues in your institution.”

The major issue the study identified was an inadequate discussion of goals of care. “This was often a patient who was dying, and in retrospect, it was clear that they were at high risk for death, but there had been no discussion with the patient about prognosis or about symptom management,” Dr. Kobewka says. “It seemed that care was directed at prolonging life. When we looked back at the case, that wasn’t realistic. That accounted for 25% of the quality issues that we identified: The discussion of prognosis and goals of care was inadequate or even absent all together. I think every hospital needs to think about those discussions and how and where and when we have them.”

Another revelation from the study: Errors in care are common but also underdiscussed. “When a physician is aware that maybe there was an error in care, it’s easy for there to be guilt and secrecy,” Dr. Kobewka says. “This is just a reminder that it’s common, and we need an open discussion about it. We need high-level, institution-wide systems to help us with this, but even at the individual provider level, this discussion needs to happen. Any quality improvement process needs engagement of frontline staff.”

Reference

1. Kobewka DM, van Walraven C, Turnbull J, Worthington J, Calder L, Forster A. Quality gaps identified through mortality review [published online ahead of print February 8, 2016]. BMJ Qual Saf. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004735.

Death is a subject everyone cares about—but we could talk about it more, especially in hospitals, where a lot of people die. “Out of everybody that dies in the entire country, in Canada at least, two-thirds are dying in hospital,” says Daniel Kobewka, MD, of The Ottawa Hospital and lead author of “Quality Gaps Identified through Mortality Review.”

Most divisions within a hospital will have a morbidity or mortality round where they review deaths that occurred in that department, but doing that on an institution-wide level is unusual and important. “It gives a totally different viewpoint,” he says. “When it’s a couple highly selected patients whose cases you examine, you really don’t have an idea at the end if the problems you identified are systemwide issues in your institution.”

The major issue the study identified was an inadequate discussion of goals of care. “This was often a patient who was dying, and in retrospect, it was clear that they were at high risk for death, but there had been no discussion with the patient about prognosis or about symptom management,” Dr. Kobewka says. “It seemed that care was directed at prolonging life. When we looked back at the case, that wasn’t realistic. That accounted for 25% of the quality issues that we identified: The discussion of prognosis and goals of care was inadequate or even absent all together. I think every hospital needs to think about those discussions and how and where and when we have them.”

Another revelation from the study: Errors in care are common but also underdiscussed. “When a physician is aware that maybe there was an error in care, it’s easy for there to be guilt and secrecy,” Dr. Kobewka says. “This is just a reminder that it’s common, and we need an open discussion about it. We need high-level, institution-wide systems to help us with this, but even at the individual provider level, this discussion needs to happen. Any quality improvement process needs engagement of frontline staff.”

Reference

1. Kobewka DM, van Walraven C, Turnbull J, Worthington J, Calder L, Forster A. Quality gaps identified through mortality review [published online ahead of print February 8, 2016]. BMJ Qual Saf. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004735.

Death is a subject everyone cares about—but we could talk about it more, especially in hospitals, where a lot of people die. “Out of everybody that dies in the entire country, in Canada at least, two-thirds are dying in hospital,” says Daniel Kobewka, MD, of The Ottawa Hospital and lead author of “Quality Gaps Identified through Mortality Review.”

Most divisions within a hospital will have a morbidity or mortality round where they review deaths that occurred in that department, but doing that on an institution-wide level is unusual and important. “It gives a totally different viewpoint,” he says. “When it’s a couple highly selected patients whose cases you examine, you really don’t have an idea at the end if the problems you identified are systemwide issues in your institution.”

The major issue the study identified was an inadequate discussion of goals of care. “This was often a patient who was dying, and in retrospect, it was clear that they were at high risk for death, but there had been no discussion with the patient about prognosis or about symptom management,” Dr. Kobewka says. “It seemed that care was directed at prolonging life. When we looked back at the case, that wasn’t realistic. That accounted for 25% of the quality issues that we identified: The discussion of prognosis and goals of care was inadequate or even absent all together. I think every hospital needs to think about those discussions and how and where and when we have them.”

Another revelation from the study: Errors in care are common but also underdiscussed. “When a physician is aware that maybe there was an error in care, it’s easy for there to be guilt and secrecy,” Dr. Kobewka says. “This is just a reminder that it’s common, and we need an open discussion about it. We need high-level, institution-wide systems to help us with this, but even at the individual provider level, this discussion needs to happen. Any quality improvement process needs engagement of frontline staff.”

Reference

1. Kobewka DM, van Walraven C, Turnbull J, Worthington J, Calder L, Forster A. Quality gaps identified through mortality review [published online ahead of print February 8, 2016]. BMJ Qual Saf. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004735.

Virtually every hospital system in the country deals with the challenge of readmissions, especially 30-day readmissions, and it’s only getting worse. “With the changes in healthcare and length of stay becoming shorter, patients are being discharged sicker than they used to be,” says Kevin Tolliver, MD, FACP, of Sidney & Lois Eskenazi Hospital Outpatient Care Center. “At our large public hospital system in Indianapolis, we designed an Internal Medicine Transitional Care Practice with the goal of decreasing readmission rates.”

Since October 2015, patients without a primary care doctor and those with a high LACE score have been referred to the new Transitional Care clinic. The first step: While still hospitalized, they meet briefly with Dr. Tolliver, who tells them, “‘You’re a candidate for this hospital follow-up clinic; this is why we think you would benefit.’ Patients, universally, are very thankful and eager to come.” The patients have their follow-up appointment scheduled before they are discharged.

At that appointment, the goal is to head off anything that would put them at risk for readmission. “We have a pharmacy, social workers, substance abuse counselors, diabetes educators—it’s one-stop shopping to address their needs,” Dr. Tolliver says. “Once we ensure that they’re not at risk for readmission, we help them get back to their primary care doctor or help them get one.”

Data for the clinic’s first four months show those patients who met with Dr. Tolliver before leaving the hospital were 50% more likely to keep their hospital follow-up visit. “That’s significant, particularly for us, because we take care of an indigent population; the no-show rate is usually our biggest challenge,” he says. Patients who were seen had a 30-day readmission rate of about 13.9%, while those who qualified but weren’t seen had a readmission rate of 21.8%.

“That has all kinds of positive consequences: less frustration for providers and patients and huge financial implications for the hospital system as well,” Dr. Tolliver says. “That there are these new models of post-discharge clinics out there and that there’s data suggesting that they work, particularly for a high-risk group of people, I think is worth knowing.”

Virtually every hospital system in the country deals with the challenge of readmissions, especially 30-day readmissions, and it’s only getting worse. “With the changes in healthcare and length of stay becoming shorter, patients are being discharged sicker than they used to be,” says Kevin Tolliver, MD, FACP, of Sidney & Lois Eskenazi Hospital Outpatient Care Center. “At our large public hospital system in Indianapolis, we designed an Internal Medicine Transitional Care Practice with the goal of decreasing readmission rates.”

Since October 2015, patients without a primary care doctor and those with a high LACE score have been referred to the new Transitional Care clinic. The first step: While still hospitalized, they meet briefly with Dr. Tolliver, who tells them, “‘You’re a candidate for this hospital follow-up clinic; this is why we think you would benefit.’ Patients, universally, are very thankful and eager to come.” The patients have their follow-up appointment scheduled before they are discharged.

At that appointment, the goal is to head off anything that would put them at risk for readmission. “We have a pharmacy, social workers, substance abuse counselors, diabetes educators—it’s one-stop shopping to address their needs,” Dr. Tolliver says. “Once we ensure that they’re not at risk for readmission, we help them get back to their primary care doctor or help them get one.”

Data for the clinic’s first four months show those patients who met with Dr. Tolliver before leaving the hospital were 50% more likely to keep their hospital follow-up visit. “That’s significant, particularly for us, because we take care of an indigent population; the no-show rate is usually our biggest challenge,” he says. Patients who were seen had a 30-day readmission rate of about 13.9%, while those who qualified but weren’t seen had a readmission rate of 21.8%.

“That has all kinds of positive consequences: less frustration for providers and patients and huge financial implications for the hospital system as well,” Dr. Tolliver says. “That there are these new models of post-discharge clinics out there and that there’s data suggesting that they work, particularly for a high-risk group of people, I think is worth knowing.”

Virtually every hospital system in the country deals with the challenge of readmissions, especially 30-day readmissions, and it’s only getting worse. “With the changes in healthcare and length of stay becoming shorter, patients are being discharged sicker than they used to be,” says Kevin Tolliver, MD, FACP, of Sidney & Lois Eskenazi Hospital Outpatient Care Center. “At our large public hospital system in Indianapolis, we designed an Internal Medicine Transitional Care Practice with the goal of decreasing readmission rates.”

Since October 2015, patients without a primary care doctor and those with a high LACE score have been referred to the new Transitional Care clinic. The first step: While still hospitalized, they meet briefly with Dr. Tolliver, who tells them, “‘You’re a candidate for this hospital follow-up clinic; this is why we think you would benefit.’ Patients, universally, are very thankful and eager to come.” The patients have their follow-up appointment scheduled before they are discharged.

At that appointment, the goal is to head off anything that would put them at risk for readmission. “We have a pharmacy, social workers, substance abuse counselors, diabetes educators—it’s one-stop shopping to address their needs,” Dr. Tolliver says. “Once we ensure that they’re not at risk for readmission, we help them get back to their primary care doctor or help them get one.”

Data for the clinic’s first four months show those patients who met with Dr. Tolliver before leaving the hospital were 50% more likely to keep their hospital follow-up visit. “That’s significant, particularly for us, because we take care of an indigent population; the no-show rate is usually our biggest challenge,” he says. Patients who were seen had a 30-day readmission rate of about 13.9%, while those who qualified but weren’t seen had a readmission rate of 21.8%.

“That has all kinds of positive consequences: less frustration for providers and patients and huge financial implications for the hospital system as well,” Dr. Tolliver says. “That there are these new models of post-discharge clinics out there and that there’s data suggesting that they work, particularly for a high-risk group of people, I think is worth knowing.”