Practice Management

Among the pressures felt by hospitalists are concerns about being subject to a malpractice claim. Anxiety about malpractice influences the way hospitalists practice, giving rise to defensive medicine.

One survey, which asked hospitalists to retrospectively rate which of their orders represented defensive medicine, found that 28% of orders were deemed defensive.¹ Defensive medicine can lead to low-value medical care, drive up health care costs, and potentially subject patients to unnecessary testing.^2,3

Encouragingly, medical malpractice claims rates have, overall, been downtrending. An analysis of data from the National Practitioner Data Bank, which is a repository of all paid malpractice claims against individual physicians, found that malpractice claims rates decreased by 55.7% from 1992 to 2014 among all specialties, and by 46.1% for internal medicine physicians.⁴ The data used in this analysis did not separate hospitalists from other internal medicine physicians. An older study of malpractice claims against hospitalists found that hospitalists had significantly lower claims rates than non-hospitalist internal medicine physicians.⁵

Current malpractice environment for hospitalists

Seeking to shed light on the current malpractice environment faced by hospitalists, a recent study examined claims against hospitalists using the Comparative Benchmarking System (CBS), a national database of malpractice claims containing approximately 30% of all U.S. malpractice claims, which is maintained by CRICO, the malpractice insurer for the Harvard-affiliated medical institutions.⁶

Claims in the CBS database are examined by trained nurse coders who review the claims, along with the associated medical and legal records, to understand the contributing factors behind the adverse event leading to the claim.

Contrary to the trends for nearly all other physician specialties, the malpractice claims rates of hospitalists were not downtrending, going from 1.77 claims per 100 physician-years from 2009-2013 to 2.08 claims per 100 physician-years from 2014-2018. The overall claims rate for hospitalists was significantly higher than that for internal medicine subspecialists (though roughly the same as the claims rate for non-hospitalist general internal medicine physicians). These sobering findings raise the important question of why hospitalists claims rates are heading in the wrong direction.

One possible answer relates the ever-broadening scope of hospitalist practice. Hospitalists are being asked to care for surgical patients and other patient populations that they may have less familiarity with, increasing the risk of medical errors. Among the other specialties most commonly also named in hospitalist claims, general surgery and orthopedic surgery are in the top five. The extraordinary growth in the field of hospital medicine has meant a need to hire an increasing number of hospitalists, leading to less-experienced physicians entering the field.
 

Making hospital medicine safer

A more urgent question than what is driving the trends in hospitalist claims rates is what can be done to avoid adverse events and make hospital medicine safer. One potential answer is thoughtful collaboration arrangements with the surgical and other specialties with whom hospitalists may be co-managing patients.

Questions about who responds to what types of clinical issues that might arise and specific domains of responsibility should be defined in advance, so that a lack of role clarity does not negatively impact patient care. Given that hospitalists will be less comfortable addressing more technical surgical issues, expectations about surgeons’ availability should be established. Nocturnists may be tasked with overnight cross-coverage of patients on services, such as oncology and cardiology, that subspecialty physicians have responsibility for during the day. Agreeing upon triggers for when the nocturnist should contact the daytime subspecialty attending (for example, if a rapid response is called on their patient) should be considered, so that nocturnists are not left deciding, in the moment, whether to call the daytime attending. Measures such as this ensure that everyone’s expectations are aligned. In addition, new hospitalists need to be offered support, in the form of training and mentorship.

CBS malpractice data, which includes the contributing factors underlying what went wrong, illuminates potential targets for programs designed to enhance patient safety. In the recent hospitalist malpractice study, the two contributing factors that were the best predictors of a hospitalist malpractice claim closing with payment to the claimant were clinical judgment errors and communication breakdowns. Identifying measures that are effective in promoting patient safety by refining the clinical judgement of clinicians is a challenge, and there are limited data demonstrating what programs are effective in this area.

Clinical decision support (CDS) systems have shown promise in promoting guideline-concordant care.⁷ However, the role of CDS in aiding the higher-stakes clinical decisions that may be called into question after an adverse outcome is not well defined. Alerts that a patient may be developing sepsis is one type of CDS that has been extensively studied and has been shown to be of some benefit.⁸ The importance of clinical judgment to whether payment is made on a malpractice claim can inform risk management strategies. Hospitalists should document the thought process behind their decision making in the chart, especially for important clinical decisions. A note showing that the clinician was thoughtfully weighing the risks and benefits using the data available at the time will help make a case defensible if an adverse outcome occurs.

The effect of communication breakdowns on hospitalist case outcomes highlights the importance of measures to improve and systematize communication among clinicians, particularly at vulnerable junctures – such as handoffs from the day team to the night team, and transitions from one care setting to another. An example of an intervention to improve handoffs with cogent evidence to support it is I-PASS, which is an approach to handoffs between teams in which information about the patient’s illness severity, clinical background, and contingencies is conveyed and synthesized in a structured manner. A study of the effect of implementation of I-PASS among nine pediatric residency programs demonstrated a 30% reduction in preventable adverse events.⁹

Applying insights from malpractice claims analysis to clinical practice

The systematic review of malpractice cases to determine the contributing factors and other case attributes is an important source of patient safety insights. The process breakdowns described by the contributing factors can inform the design of patient safety initiatives. In addition, malpractice data provides information on which specialties and what types of clinicians are being named together in malpractice claims.

In the hospitalist malpractice study, in addition to general surgery and orthopedic surgery, the other clinical services most commonly subject to claims along with hospitalists were nursing, emergency medicine, and cardiology. Another observation was that physician assistants and nurse practitioners are increasingly being named in hospitalist claims. This information is crucial to guiding who needs to be in the room with hospitalists when efforts are undertaken to enhance patient safety within hospital medicine.

An understandable response to the finding that hospitalist claims rates are not decreasing is for hospitalists to seek ways to lower their risk of being named in a malpractice claim. Of course, avoiding adverse events by providing the safest possible care is paramount. Even when patients do suffer adverse events due to a physician negligence, only rarely, less than 5% of the time, does this result in a malpractice claim.¹⁰ Important lessons in risk management can be learned from examining why patients decide to sue when mistakes lead to bad outcomes.

An analysis of plaintiffs’ depositions found that the key reasons that patients decided to file a malpractice claim include a poor relationship with the physician – specifically, a lack of empathy from the physician, feeling deserted by the physician, and feeling devalued by the physician.¹¹ These findings support the use of programs that assist physicians in compassionately disclosing adverse events to patients. Among inpatient physicians, patient satisfaction survey questions about the time the physician spent with the patient and the physician’s concern for the patient are better predictors of the physicians’ risk management performance than is the question about the skill of the physician.¹² In the aftermath of an adverse event, focusing on maintaining a strong patient-physician relationship is not only the right the thing to do, the data tell us that it is also a sensible approach to reducing medicolegal risk.
 

Dr. Schaffer practices as a member of the Hospital Medicine Unit at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, where he serves as an attending physician on the inpatient general medicine services. An instructor at Harvard Medical School, his academic interests include research using large medical malpractice databases to examine temporal trends in medical malpractice.

References

1. Rothberg MB, et al. The cost of defensive medicine on 3 hospital medicine services. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(11):1867-1868. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.4649.

2. Kachalia A, et al. Overuse of testing in preoperative evaluation and syncope: A survey of hospitalists. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(2):100-108. doi: 10.7326/M14-0694.

3. Mello MM, et al. National costs of the medical liability system. Health Aff (Millwood). 2010;29(9):1569-1577. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2009.0807.

4. Schaffer AC, et al. Rates and characteristics of paid malpractice claims among U.S. physicians by specialty, 1992-2014. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(5):710-718. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.0311.

5. Schaffer AC, et al. Liability impact of the hospitalist model of care. J Hosp Med. 2014;9(12):750-755. doi: 10.1002/jhm.2244.

6. Schaffer AC, et al. Rates and characteristics of medical malpractice claims against hospitalists. J Hosp Med. 2021 Jul;16(7):390-396. doi: 10.12788/jhm.3557.

7. Poon EG. Clinical decision support: a tool of the hospital trade. J Hosp Med. 2015;10(1):60-61. doi: 10.1002/jhm.2295.

8. Makam AN, Nguyen OK, Auerbach AD. Diagnostic accuracy and effectiveness of automated electronic sepsis alert systems: A systematic review. J Hosp Med. 2015;10(6):396-402. doi: 10.1002/jhm.2347.

9. Starmer AJ, et al. Changes in medical errors after implementation of a handoff program. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(19):1803-1812. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa1405556.

10. Localio AR, et al. Relation between malpractice claims and adverse events due to negligence. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study III. N Engl J Med. 1991;325(4):245-251. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199107253250405.

11. Beckman HB, et al. The doctor-patient relationship and malpractice. Lessons from plaintiff depositions. Arch Intern Med. 1994;154(12):1365-1370. doi:10.1001/archinte.1994.00420120093010.

12. Stelfox HT, et al. The relation of patient satisfaction with complaints against physicians and malpractice lawsuits. Am J Med. 2005;118(10):1126-1133. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2005.01.060.

Among the pressures felt by hospitalists are concerns about being subject to a malpractice claim. Anxiety about malpractice influences the way hospitalists practice, giving rise to defensive medicine.

One survey, which asked hospitalists to retrospectively rate which of their orders represented defensive medicine, found that 28% of orders were deemed defensive.¹ Defensive medicine can lead to low-value medical care, drive up health care costs, and potentially subject patients to unnecessary testing.^2,3

Encouragingly, medical malpractice claims rates have, overall, been downtrending. An analysis of data from the National Practitioner Data Bank, which is a repository of all paid malpractice claims against individual physicians, found that malpractice claims rates decreased by 55.7% from 1992 to 2014 among all specialties, and by 46.1% for internal medicine physicians.⁴ The data used in this analysis did not separate hospitalists from other internal medicine physicians. An older study of malpractice claims against hospitalists found that hospitalists had significantly lower claims rates than non-hospitalist internal medicine physicians.⁵

Current malpractice environment for hospitalists

Seeking to shed light on the current malpractice environment faced by hospitalists, a recent study examined claims against hospitalists using the Comparative Benchmarking System (CBS), a national database of malpractice claims containing approximately 30% of all U.S. malpractice claims, which is maintained by CRICO, the malpractice insurer for the Harvard-affiliated medical institutions.⁶

Claims in the CBS database are examined by trained nurse coders who review the claims, along with the associated medical and legal records, to understand the contributing factors behind the adverse event leading to the claim.

Contrary to the trends for nearly all other physician specialties, the malpractice claims rates of hospitalists were not downtrending, going from 1.77 claims per 100 physician-years from 2009-2013 to 2.08 claims per 100 physician-years from 2014-2018. The overall claims rate for hospitalists was significantly higher than that for internal medicine subspecialists (though roughly the same as the claims rate for non-hospitalist general internal medicine physicians). These sobering findings raise the important question of why hospitalists claims rates are heading in the wrong direction.

One possible answer relates the ever-broadening scope of hospitalist practice. Hospitalists are being asked to care for surgical patients and other patient populations that they may have less familiarity with, increasing the risk of medical errors. Among the other specialties most commonly also named in hospitalist claims, general surgery and orthopedic surgery are in the top five. The extraordinary growth in the field of hospital medicine has meant a need to hire an increasing number of hospitalists, leading to less-experienced physicians entering the field.
 

Making hospital medicine safer

A more urgent question than what is driving the trends in hospitalist claims rates is what can be done to avoid adverse events and make hospital medicine safer. One potential answer is thoughtful collaboration arrangements with the surgical and other specialties with whom hospitalists may be co-managing patients.

Questions about who responds to what types of clinical issues that might arise and specific domains of responsibility should be defined in advance, so that a lack of role clarity does not negatively impact patient care. Given that hospitalists will be less comfortable addressing more technical surgical issues, expectations about surgeons’ availability should be established. Nocturnists may be tasked with overnight cross-coverage of patients on services, such as oncology and cardiology, that subspecialty physicians have responsibility for during the day. Agreeing upon triggers for when the nocturnist should contact the daytime subspecialty attending (for example, if a rapid response is called on their patient) should be considered, so that nocturnists are not left deciding, in the moment, whether to call the daytime attending. Measures such as this ensure that everyone’s expectations are aligned. In addition, new hospitalists need to be offered support, in the form of training and mentorship.

CBS malpractice data, which includes the contributing factors underlying what went wrong, illuminates potential targets for programs designed to enhance patient safety. In the recent hospitalist malpractice study, the two contributing factors that were the best predictors of a hospitalist malpractice claim closing with payment to the claimant were clinical judgment errors and communication breakdowns. Identifying measures that are effective in promoting patient safety by refining the clinical judgement of clinicians is a challenge, and there are limited data demonstrating what programs are effective in this area.

Clinical decision support (CDS) systems have shown promise in promoting guideline-concordant care.⁷ However, the role of CDS in aiding the higher-stakes clinical decisions that may be called into question after an adverse outcome is not well defined. Alerts that a patient may be developing sepsis is one type of CDS that has been extensively studied and has been shown to be of some benefit.⁸ The importance of clinical judgment to whether payment is made on a malpractice claim can inform risk management strategies. Hospitalists should document the thought process behind their decision making in the chart, especially for important clinical decisions. A note showing that the clinician was thoughtfully weighing the risks and benefits using the data available at the time will help make a case defensible if an adverse outcome occurs.

The effect of communication breakdowns on hospitalist case outcomes highlights the importance of measures to improve and systematize communication among clinicians, particularly at vulnerable junctures – such as handoffs from the day team to the night team, and transitions from one care setting to another. An example of an intervention to improve handoffs with cogent evidence to support it is I-PASS, which is an approach to handoffs between teams in which information about the patient’s illness severity, clinical background, and contingencies is conveyed and synthesized in a structured manner. A study of the effect of implementation of I-PASS among nine pediatric residency programs demonstrated a 30% reduction in preventable adverse events.⁹

Applying insights from malpractice claims analysis to clinical practice

The systematic review of malpractice cases to determine the contributing factors and other case attributes is an important source of patient safety insights. The process breakdowns described by the contributing factors can inform the design of patient safety initiatives. In addition, malpractice data provides information on which specialties and what types of clinicians are being named together in malpractice claims.

In the hospitalist malpractice study, in addition to general surgery and orthopedic surgery, the other clinical services most commonly subject to claims along with hospitalists were nursing, emergency medicine, and cardiology. Another observation was that physician assistants and nurse practitioners are increasingly being named in hospitalist claims. This information is crucial to guiding who needs to be in the room with hospitalists when efforts are undertaken to enhance patient safety within hospital medicine.

An understandable response to the finding that hospitalist claims rates are not decreasing is for hospitalists to seek ways to lower their risk of being named in a malpractice claim. Of course, avoiding adverse events by providing the safest possible care is paramount. Even when patients do suffer adverse events due to a physician negligence, only rarely, less than 5% of the time, does this result in a malpractice claim.¹⁰ Important lessons in risk management can be learned from examining why patients decide to sue when mistakes lead to bad outcomes.

An analysis of plaintiffs’ depositions found that the key reasons that patients decided to file a malpractice claim include a poor relationship with the physician – specifically, a lack of empathy from the physician, feeling deserted by the physician, and feeling devalued by the physician.¹¹ These findings support the use of programs that assist physicians in compassionately disclosing adverse events to patients. Among inpatient physicians, patient satisfaction survey questions about the time the physician spent with the patient and the physician’s concern for the patient are better predictors of the physicians’ risk management performance than is the question about the skill of the physician.¹² In the aftermath of an adverse event, focusing on maintaining a strong patient-physician relationship is not only the right the thing to do, the data tell us that it is also a sensible approach to reducing medicolegal risk.
 

Dr. Schaffer practices as a member of the Hospital Medicine Unit at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, where he serves as an attending physician on the inpatient general medicine services. An instructor at Harvard Medical School, his academic interests include research using large medical malpractice databases to examine temporal trends in medical malpractice.

References

1. Rothberg MB, et al. The cost of defensive medicine on 3 hospital medicine services. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(11):1867-1868. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.4649.

2. Kachalia A, et al. Overuse of testing in preoperative evaluation and syncope: A survey of hospitalists. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(2):100-108. doi: 10.7326/M14-0694.

3. Mello MM, et al. National costs of the medical liability system. Health Aff (Millwood). 2010;29(9):1569-1577. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2009.0807.

4. Schaffer AC, et al. Rates and characteristics of paid malpractice claims among U.S. physicians by specialty, 1992-2014. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(5):710-718. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.0311.

5. Schaffer AC, et al. Liability impact of the hospitalist model of care. J Hosp Med. 2014;9(12):750-755. doi: 10.1002/jhm.2244.

6. Schaffer AC, et al. Rates and characteristics of medical malpractice claims against hospitalists. J Hosp Med. 2021 Jul;16(7):390-396. doi: 10.12788/jhm.3557.

7. Poon EG. Clinical decision support: a tool of the hospital trade. J Hosp Med. 2015;10(1):60-61. doi: 10.1002/jhm.2295.

8. Makam AN, Nguyen OK, Auerbach AD. Diagnostic accuracy and effectiveness of automated electronic sepsis alert systems: A systematic review. J Hosp Med. 2015;10(6):396-402. doi: 10.1002/jhm.2347.

9. Starmer AJ, et al. Changes in medical errors after implementation of a handoff program. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(19):1803-1812. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa1405556.

10. Localio AR, et al. Relation between malpractice claims and adverse events due to negligence. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study III. N Engl J Med. 1991;325(4):245-251. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199107253250405.

11. Beckman HB, et al. The doctor-patient relationship and malpractice. Lessons from plaintiff depositions. Arch Intern Med. 1994;154(12):1365-1370. doi:10.1001/archinte.1994.00420120093010.

12. Stelfox HT, et al. The relation of patient satisfaction with complaints against physicians and malpractice lawsuits. Am J Med. 2005;118(10):1126-1133. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2005.01.060.

Among the pressures felt by hospitalists are concerns about being subject to a malpractice claim. Anxiety about malpractice influences the way hospitalists practice, giving rise to defensive medicine.

One survey, which asked hospitalists to retrospectively rate which of their orders represented defensive medicine, found that 28% of orders were deemed defensive.¹ Defensive medicine can lead to low-value medical care, drive up health care costs, and potentially subject patients to unnecessary testing.^2,3

Encouragingly, medical malpractice claims rates have, overall, been downtrending. An analysis of data from the National Practitioner Data Bank, which is a repository of all paid malpractice claims against individual physicians, found that malpractice claims rates decreased by 55.7% from 1992 to 2014 among all specialties, and by 46.1% for internal medicine physicians.⁴ The data used in this analysis did not separate hospitalists from other internal medicine physicians. An older study of malpractice claims against hospitalists found that hospitalists had significantly lower claims rates than non-hospitalist internal medicine physicians.⁵

Current malpractice environment for hospitalists

Seeking to shed light on the current malpractice environment faced by hospitalists, a recent study examined claims against hospitalists using the Comparative Benchmarking System (CBS), a national database of malpractice claims containing approximately 30% of all U.S. malpractice claims, which is maintained by CRICO, the malpractice insurer for the Harvard-affiliated medical institutions.⁶

Claims in the CBS database are examined by trained nurse coders who review the claims, along with the associated medical and legal records, to understand the contributing factors behind the adverse event leading to the claim.

Contrary to the trends for nearly all other physician specialties, the malpractice claims rates of hospitalists were not downtrending, going from 1.77 claims per 100 physician-years from 2009-2013 to 2.08 claims per 100 physician-years from 2014-2018. The overall claims rate for hospitalists was significantly higher than that for internal medicine subspecialists (though roughly the same as the claims rate for non-hospitalist general internal medicine physicians). These sobering findings raise the important question of why hospitalists claims rates are heading in the wrong direction.

One possible answer relates the ever-broadening scope of hospitalist practice. Hospitalists are being asked to care for surgical patients and other patient populations that they may have less familiarity with, increasing the risk of medical errors. Among the other specialties most commonly also named in hospitalist claims, general surgery and orthopedic surgery are in the top five. The extraordinary growth in the field of hospital medicine has meant a need to hire an increasing number of hospitalists, leading to less-experienced physicians entering the field.
 

Making hospital medicine safer

A more urgent question than what is driving the trends in hospitalist claims rates is what can be done to avoid adverse events and make hospital medicine safer. One potential answer is thoughtful collaboration arrangements with the surgical and other specialties with whom hospitalists may be co-managing patients.

Questions about who responds to what types of clinical issues that might arise and specific domains of responsibility should be defined in advance, so that a lack of role clarity does not negatively impact patient care. Given that hospitalists will be less comfortable addressing more technical surgical issues, expectations about surgeons’ availability should be established. Nocturnists may be tasked with overnight cross-coverage of patients on services, such as oncology and cardiology, that subspecialty physicians have responsibility for during the day. Agreeing upon triggers for when the nocturnist should contact the daytime subspecialty attending (for example, if a rapid response is called on their patient) should be considered, so that nocturnists are not left deciding, in the moment, whether to call the daytime attending. Measures such as this ensure that everyone’s expectations are aligned. In addition, new hospitalists need to be offered support, in the form of training and mentorship.

CBS malpractice data, which includes the contributing factors underlying what went wrong, illuminates potential targets for programs designed to enhance patient safety. In the recent hospitalist malpractice study, the two contributing factors that were the best predictors of a hospitalist malpractice claim closing with payment to the claimant were clinical judgment errors and communication breakdowns. Identifying measures that are effective in promoting patient safety by refining the clinical judgement of clinicians is a challenge, and there are limited data demonstrating what programs are effective in this area.

Clinical decision support (CDS) systems have shown promise in promoting guideline-concordant care.⁷ However, the role of CDS in aiding the higher-stakes clinical decisions that may be called into question after an adverse outcome is not well defined. Alerts that a patient may be developing sepsis is one type of CDS that has been extensively studied and has been shown to be of some benefit.⁸ The importance of clinical judgment to whether payment is made on a malpractice claim can inform risk management strategies. Hospitalists should document the thought process behind their decision making in the chart, especially for important clinical decisions. A note showing that the clinician was thoughtfully weighing the risks and benefits using the data available at the time will help make a case defensible if an adverse outcome occurs.

The effect of communication breakdowns on hospitalist case outcomes highlights the importance of measures to improve and systematize communication among clinicians, particularly at vulnerable junctures – such as handoffs from the day team to the night team, and transitions from one care setting to another. An example of an intervention to improve handoffs with cogent evidence to support it is I-PASS, which is an approach to handoffs between teams in which information about the patient’s illness severity, clinical background, and contingencies is conveyed and synthesized in a structured manner. A study of the effect of implementation of I-PASS among nine pediatric residency programs demonstrated a 30% reduction in preventable adverse events.⁹

Applying insights from malpractice claims analysis to clinical practice

The systematic review of malpractice cases to determine the contributing factors and other case attributes is an important source of patient safety insights. The process breakdowns described by the contributing factors can inform the design of patient safety initiatives. In addition, malpractice data provides information on which specialties and what types of clinicians are being named together in malpractice claims.

In the hospitalist malpractice study, in addition to general surgery and orthopedic surgery, the other clinical services most commonly subject to claims along with hospitalists were nursing, emergency medicine, and cardiology. Another observation was that physician assistants and nurse practitioners are increasingly being named in hospitalist claims. This information is crucial to guiding who needs to be in the room with hospitalists when efforts are undertaken to enhance patient safety within hospital medicine.

An understandable response to the finding that hospitalist claims rates are not decreasing is for hospitalists to seek ways to lower their risk of being named in a malpractice claim. Of course, avoiding adverse events by providing the safest possible care is paramount. Even when patients do suffer adverse events due to a physician negligence, only rarely, less than 5% of the time, does this result in a malpractice claim.¹⁰ Important lessons in risk management can be learned from examining why patients decide to sue when mistakes lead to bad outcomes.

An analysis of plaintiffs’ depositions found that the key reasons that patients decided to file a malpractice claim include a poor relationship with the physician – specifically, a lack of empathy from the physician, feeling deserted by the physician, and feeling devalued by the physician.¹¹ These findings support the use of programs that assist physicians in compassionately disclosing adverse events to patients. Among inpatient physicians, patient satisfaction survey questions about the time the physician spent with the patient and the physician’s concern for the patient are better predictors of the physicians’ risk management performance than is the question about the skill of the physician.¹² In the aftermath of an adverse event, focusing on maintaining a strong patient-physician relationship is not only the right the thing to do, the data tell us that it is also a sensible approach to reducing medicolegal risk.
 

Dr. Schaffer practices as a member of the Hospital Medicine Unit at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, where he serves as an attending physician on the inpatient general medicine services. An instructor at Harvard Medical School, his academic interests include research using large medical malpractice databases to examine temporal trends in medical malpractice.

References

1. Rothberg MB, et al. The cost of defensive medicine on 3 hospital medicine services. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(11):1867-1868. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.4649.

2. Kachalia A, et al. Overuse of testing in preoperative evaluation and syncope: A survey of hospitalists. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(2):100-108. doi: 10.7326/M14-0694.

3. Mello MM, et al. National costs of the medical liability system. Health Aff (Millwood). 2010;29(9):1569-1577. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2009.0807.

4. Schaffer AC, et al. Rates and characteristics of paid malpractice claims among U.S. physicians by specialty, 1992-2014. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(5):710-718. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.0311.

5. Schaffer AC, et al. Liability impact of the hospitalist model of care. J Hosp Med. 2014;9(12):750-755. doi: 10.1002/jhm.2244.

6. Schaffer AC, et al. Rates and characteristics of medical malpractice claims against hospitalists. J Hosp Med. 2021 Jul;16(7):390-396. doi: 10.12788/jhm.3557.

7. Poon EG. Clinical decision support: a tool of the hospital trade. J Hosp Med. 2015;10(1):60-61. doi: 10.1002/jhm.2295.

8. Makam AN, Nguyen OK, Auerbach AD. Diagnostic accuracy and effectiveness of automated electronic sepsis alert systems: A systematic review. J Hosp Med. 2015;10(6):396-402. doi: 10.1002/jhm.2347.

9. Starmer AJ, et al. Changes in medical errors after implementation of a handoff program. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(19):1803-1812. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa1405556.

10. Localio AR, et al. Relation between malpractice claims and adverse events due to negligence. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study III. N Engl J Med. 1991;325(4):245-251. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199107253250405.

11. Beckman HB, et al. The doctor-patient relationship and malpractice. Lessons from plaintiff depositions. Arch Intern Med. 1994;154(12):1365-1370. doi:10.1001/archinte.1994.00420120093010.

12. Stelfox HT, et al. The relation of patient satisfaction with complaints against physicians and malpractice lawsuits. Am J Med. 2005;118(10):1126-1133. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2005.01.060.

Jason Persoff, MD, SFHM, now a hospitalist at University of Colorado Hospital in Aurora and an amateur storm chaser, got a close look at how natural disasters can impact hospital care when a tornado destroyed St. John’s Regional Medical Center in Joplin, Mo., on May 22, 2011.

He and a colleague who had been following the storm responded to injuries on the highway before reporting for a long day’s service at the other hospital in Joplin, Freeman Hospital West, caring for patients transferred from St. John’s on an impromptu unit without access to their medical records.

“During my medical training, I had done emergency medicine as an EMT, so I was interested in how the system responds to emergencies,” he explained. “At Joplin I learned how it feels when the boots on the ground in a crisis are not connected to an incident command structure.” Another thing he learned was the essential role for hospitalists in a hospital’s response to a crisis – and thus the need to involve them well in advance in the hospital’s planning for future emergencies.

“Disaster preparation – when done right – helps you ‘herd cats’ in a crisis situation,” he said. “The tornado and its wake served as defining moments for me. I used them as the impetus to improve health care’s response to disasters.” Part of that commitment was to help hospitalists understand their part in emergency preparation.¹

Dr. Persoff is now the assistant medical director of emergency preparedness at University of Colorado Hospital. He also helped to create a position called physician support supervisor, which is filled by physicians who have held leadership positions in a hospital to help coordinate the disparate needs of all clinicians in a crisis and facilitate rapid response.²

But then along came the COVID pandemic – which in many locales around the world was unprecedented in scope. Dr. Persoff said his hospital was fairly well prepared, after a decade of engagement with emergency planning. It drew on experience with H1N1, also known as swine flu, and the Ebola virus, which killed 11,323 people, primarily in West Africa, from 2013 to 2016, as models. In a matter of days, the CU division of hospital medicine was able to modify and deploy its existing disaster plans to quickly respond to an influx of COVID patients.³

“Basically, what we set out to do was to treat COVID patients as if they were Ebola patients, cordoning them off in a small area of the hospital. That was naive of us,” he said. “We weren’t able to grasp the scale at the outset. It does defy the imagination – how the hospital could fill up with just one type of patient.”

What is disaster planning?

Emergency preparation for hospitals emerged as a recognized medical specialization in the 1970s. Initially it was largely considered the realm of emergency physicians, trauma services, or critical care doctors. Resources such as the World Health Organization, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and similar groups recommend an all-hazards approach, a broad and flexible strategy for managing emergencies that could include natural disasters – earthquakes, storms, tornadoes, or wildfires – or human-caused events, such as mass shootings or terrorist attacks. The Joint Commission requires accredited hospitals to conduct several disaster drills annually.

The U.S. Hospital Preparedness Program was created in 2002 to enhance the ability of hospitals and health systems to prepare for and respond to bioterrorism attacks on civilians and other public health emergencies, including natural disasters and pandemics. It offers a foundation for national preparedness and a primary source of federal funding for health care system preparedness. The hospital, at the heart of the health care system, is expected to receive the injured and infected, because patients know they can obtain care there.

One of the fundamental tools for crisis response is the incident command system (ICS), which spells out how to quickly establish a command structure and assign responsibility for key tasks as well as overall leadership. The National Incident Management System organizes emergency management across all government levels and the private sector to ensure that the most pressing needs are met and precious resources are used without duplication. ICS is a standardized approach to command, control, and coordination of emergency response using a common hierarchy recognized across organizations, with advance training in how it should be deployed.
 

A crisis like never before

Nearly every hospital or health system goes through drills for an emergency, said Hassan Khouli, MD, chair of the department of critical care medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, and coauthor of an article in the journal Chest last year outlining 10 principles of emergency preparedness derived from its experience with the COVID pandemic.⁴ Some of these include: don’t wait; engage a variety of stakeholders; identify sources of truth; and prioritize hospital employees’ safety and well-being.

Part of the preparation is doing table-top exercises, with case scenarios or actual situations presented, working with clinicians on brainstorming and identifying opportunities for improvement, Dr. Khouli said. “These drills are so important, regardless of what the disaster turns out to be. We’ve done that over the years. We are a large health system, very process and detail oriented. Our emergency incident command structure was activated before we saw our first COVID patient,” he said.

“This was a crisis like never before, with huge amounts of uncertainty,” he noted. “But I believe the Cleveland Clinic system did very well, measured by outcomes such as surveys of health care teams across the system, which gave us reassuring results, and clinical outcomes with lower ICU and hospital mortality rates.”

Christopher Whinney, MD, SFHM, department chair of hospital medicine at Cleveland Clinic, said hospitalists worked hand in hand with the health system’s incident command structure and took responsibility for managing non-ICU COVID patients at six hospitals in the system.

“Hospitalists had a place at the table, and we collaborated well with incident command, enterprise redeployment committees, and emergency and critical care colleagues,” he noted. Hospitalists were on the leadership team for a number of planning meetings, and key stakeholders for bringing information back to their groups.

“First thing we did was to look at our workforce. The challenge was how to respond to up to a hundred COVID admissions per day – how to mobilize providers and build surge teams that incorporated primary care providers and medical trainees. We onboarded 200 providers to do hospital care within 60 days,” he said.

“We realized that communication with patients and families was a big part of the challenge, so we assigned people with good communication skills to fill this role. While we were fortunate not to get the terrible surges they had in other places, we felt we were prepared for the worst.”
 

Challenges of surge capacity

Every disaster is different, said Srikant Polepalli, MD, associate hospitalist medical director for Staten Island University Hospital in New York, part of the Northwell Health system. He brought the experience of being part of the response to Superstorm Sandy in October 2012 to the COVID pandemic.

“Specifically for hospitalists, the biggest challenge is working on surge capacity for a sudden influx of patients,” he said. “But with Northwell as our umbrella, we can triage and load-balance to move patients from hospital to hospital as needed. With the pandemic, we started with one COVID unit and then expanded to fill the entire hospital.”

Dr. Polepalli was appointed medical director for a temporary field hospital installed at South Beach Psychiatric Center, also in Staten Island. “We were able to acquire help and bring in people ranging from hospitalists to ER physicians, travel nurses, operation managers and the National Guard. Our command center did a phenomenal job of allocating and obtaining resources. It helped to have a structure that was already established and to rely on the resources of the health system,” Dr. Polepalli said. Not every hospital has a structure like Northwell’s.

“We’re not out of the pandemic yet, but we’ll continue with disaster drills and planning,” he said. “We must continue to adapt and have converted our temporary facilities to COVID testing centers, antibody infusion centers, and vaccination centers.”

For Alfred Burger, MD, SFHM, a hospitalist at Mount Sinai’s Beth Israel campus in New York, hospital medicine, now in its maturing phase, is still feeling its way through hospital and health care system transformation.

“My group is an academic, multicampus hospitalist group employed by the hospital system. When I meet other hospitalists at SHM conferences, whether they come from privately owned, corporately owned, or contracted models, they vary widely in terms of how involved the hospitalists are in crisis planning and their ability to respond to crises. At large academic medical centers like ours, one or more doctors is tasked with being involved in preparing for the next disaster,” he said.

“I think we responded the best we could, although it was difficult as we lost many patients to COVID. We were trying to save lives using the tools we knew from treating pneumonias and other forms of acute inflammatory lung injuries. We used every bit of our training in situations where no one had the right answers. But disasters teach us how to be flexible and pivot on the fly, and what to do when things don’t go our way.”
 

What is disaster response?

Medical response to a disaster essentially boils down to three main things: stuff, staff, and space, Dr. Persoff said. Those are the cornerstones of an emergency plan.

“There is not a hazard that exists that you can’t take an all-hazards approach to dealing with fundamental realities on the ground. No plan can be comprehensive enough to deal with all the intricacies of an emergency. But many plans can have the bones of a response that will allow you to face adverse circumstances,” he said.

“We actually became quite efficient early on in the pandemic, able to adapt in the moment. We were able to build an effective bridge between workers on the ground and our incident command structure, which seemed to reduce a lot of stress and create situational awareness. We implemented ICS as soon as we heard that China was building a COVID hospital, back in February of 2020.”

When one thinks about mass trauma, such as a 747 crash, Dr. Persoff said, the need is to treat burn victims and trauma victims in large numbers. At that point, the ED downstairs is filled with medical patients. Hospital medicine can rapidly admit those patients to clear out room in the ED. Surgeons are also dedicated to rapidly treating those patients, but what about patients who are on the floor following their surgeries? Hospitalists can offer consultations or primary management so the surgeons can stay in the OR, and the same in the ICU, while safely discharging hospitalized patients in a timely manner to make room for incoming patients.

“The lessons of COVID have been hard-taught and hard-earned. No good plan survives contact with the enemy,” he said. “But I think we’ll be better prepared for the next pandemic.”

Maria Frank, MD, FACP, SFHM, a hospitalist at Denver Health who chairs SHM’s Disaster Management Special Interest Group, says she got the bug for disaster preparation during postresidency training as an internist in emergency medicine. “I’m also the medical director for our biocontainment unit, created for infections like Ebola.” SHM’s SIG, which has 150 members, is now writing a review article on disaster planning for the field.

“I got a call on Dec. 27, 2019, about this new pneumonia, and they said, ‘We don’t know what it is, but it’s a coronavirus,’” she recalled. “When I got off the phone, I said, ‘Let’s make sure our response plan works and we have enough of everything on hand.’” Dr. Frank said she was expecting something more like SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome). “When they called the public health emergency of international concern for COVID, I was at a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention meeting in Atlanta. It really wasn’t a surprise for us.”

All hospitals plan for disasters, although they use different names and have different levels of commitment, Dr. Frank said. What’s not consistent is the participation of hospitalists. “Even when a disaster is 100% trauma related, consider a hospital like mine that has at least four times as many hospitalists as surgeons at any given time. The hospitalists need to take overall management for the patients who aren’t actually in the operating room.”
 

Time to debrief

Dr. Frank recommends debriefing on the hospital’s and the hospitalist group’s experience with COVID. “Look at the biggest challenges your group faced. Was it staffing, or time off, or the need for day care? Was it burnout, lack of knowledge, lack of [personal protective equipment]?” Each hospital could use its own COVID experience to work on identifying the challenges and the problems, she said. “I’d encourage each department and division to do this exercise individually. Then come together to find common ground with other departments in the hospital.”

This debriefing exercise isn’t just for doctors – it’s also for nurses, environmental services, security, and many other departments, she said. “COVID showed us how crisis response is a group effort. What will bring us together is to learn the challenges each of us faced. It was amazing to see hospitalists doing what they do best.” Post pandemic, hospitalists should also consider getting involved in research and publications, in order to share their lessons.

“One of the things we learned is that hospitalists are very versatile,” Dr. Frank added. But it’s also good for the group to have members specialize, for example, in biocontainment. “We are experts in discharging patients, in patient flow and operations, in coordinating complex medical care. So we would naturally take the lead in, for example, opening a geographic unit or collaborating with other specialists to create innovative models. That’s our job. It’s essential that we’re involved well in advance.”

COVID may be a once-in-a-lifetime experience, but there will be other disasters to come, she said. “If your hospital doesn’t have a disaster plan for hospitalists, get involved in establishing one. Each hospitalist group should have its own response plan. Talk to your peers at other hospitals, and get involved at the institutional level. I’m happy to share our plan; just contact me.” Readers can contact Dr. Frank at maria.frank@dhha.org.
 

References

1. Persoff J et al. The role of hospital medicine in emergency preparedness: A framework for hospitalist leadership in disaster preparedness, response and recovery. J Hosp Med. 2018 Oct;13(10):713-7. doi: 10.12788/jhm.3073.

2. Persoff J et al. Expanding the hospital incident command system with a physician-centric role during a pandemic: The role of the physician clinical support supervisor. J Hosp Adm. 2020;9(3):7-10. doi: 10.5430/jha.v9n3p7.

3. Bowden K et al. Harnessing the power of hospitalists in operational disaster planning: COVID-19. J Gen Intern Med. 2020 Sep;35(9):273-7. doi: 10.1007/s11606-020-05952-6.

4. Orsini E et al. Lessons on outbreak preparedness from the Cleveland Clinic. Chest. 2020;158(5):2090-6. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.06.009.

Jason Persoff, MD, SFHM, now a hospitalist at University of Colorado Hospital in Aurora and an amateur storm chaser, got a close look at how natural disasters can impact hospital care when a tornado destroyed St. John’s Regional Medical Center in Joplin, Mo., on May 22, 2011.

He and a colleague who had been following the storm responded to injuries on the highway before reporting for a long day’s service at the other hospital in Joplin, Freeman Hospital West, caring for patients transferred from St. John’s on an impromptu unit without access to their medical records.

“During my medical training, I had done emergency medicine as an EMT, so I was interested in how the system responds to emergencies,” he explained. “At Joplin I learned how it feels when the boots on the ground in a crisis are not connected to an incident command structure.” Another thing he learned was the essential role for hospitalists in a hospital’s response to a crisis – and thus the need to involve them well in advance in the hospital’s planning for future emergencies.

“Disaster preparation – when done right – helps you ‘herd cats’ in a crisis situation,” he said. “The tornado and its wake served as defining moments for me. I used them as the impetus to improve health care’s response to disasters.” Part of that commitment was to help hospitalists understand their part in emergency preparation.¹

Dr. Persoff is now the assistant medical director of emergency preparedness at University of Colorado Hospital. He also helped to create a position called physician support supervisor, which is filled by physicians who have held leadership positions in a hospital to help coordinate the disparate needs of all clinicians in a crisis and facilitate rapid response.²

But then along came the COVID pandemic – which in many locales around the world was unprecedented in scope. Dr. Persoff said his hospital was fairly well prepared, after a decade of engagement with emergency planning. It drew on experience with H1N1, also known as swine flu, and the Ebola virus, which killed 11,323 people, primarily in West Africa, from 2013 to 2016, as models. In a matter of days, the CU division of hospital medicine was able to modify and deploy its existing disaster plans to quickly respond to an influx of COVID patients.³

“Basically, what we set out to do was to treat COVID patients as if they were Ebola patients, cordoning them off in a small area of the hospital. That was naive of us,” he said. “We weren’t able to grasp the scale at the outset. It does defy the imagination – how the hospital could fill up with just one type of patient.”

What is disaster planning?

Emergency preparation for hospitals emerged as a recognized medical specialization in the 1970s. Initially it was largely considered the realm of emergency physicians, trauma services, or critical care doctors. Resources such as the World Health Organization, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and similar groups recommend an all-hazards approach, a broad and flexible strategy for managing emergencies that could include natural disasters – earthquakes, storms, tornadoes, or wildfires – or human-caused events, such as mass shootings or terrorist attacks. The Joint Commission requires accredited hospitals to conduct several disaster drills annually.

The U.S. Hospital Preparedness Program was created in 2002 to enhance the ability of hospitals and health systems to prepare for and respond to bioterrorism attacks on civilians and other public health emergencies, including natural disasters and pandemics. It offers a foundation for national preparedness and a primary source of federal funding for health care system preparedness. The hospital, at the heart of the health care system, is expected to receive the injured and infected, because patients know they can obtain care there.

One of the fundamental tools for crisis response is the incident command system (ICS), which spells out how to quickly establish a command structure and assign responsibility for key tasks as well as overall leadership. The National Incident Management System organizes emergency management across all government levels and the private sector to ensure that the most pressing needs are met and precious resources are used without duplication. ICS is a standardized approach to command, control, and coordination of emergency response using a common hierarchy recognized across organizations, with advance training in how it should be deployed.
 

A crisis like never before

Nearly every hospital or health system goes through drills for an emergency, said Hassan Khouli, MD, chair of the department of critical care medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, and coauthor of an article in the journal Chest last year outlining 10 principles of emergency preparedness derived from its experience with the COVID pandemic.⁴ Some of these include: don’t wait; engage a variety of stakeholders; identify sources of truth; and prioritize hospital employees’ safety and well-being.

Part of the preparation is doing table-top exercises, with case scenarios or actual situations presented, working with clinicians on brainstorming and identifying opportunities for improvement, Dr. Khouli said. “These drills are so important, regardless of what the disaster turns out to be. We’ve done that over the years. We are a large health system, very process and detail oriented. Our emergency incident command structure was activated before we saw our first COVID patient,” he said.

“This was a crisis like never before, with huge amounts of uncertainty,” he noted. “But I believe the Cleveland Clinic system did very well, measured by outcomes such as surveys of health care teams across the system, which gave us reassuring results, and clinical outcomes with lower ICU and hospital mortality rates.”

Christopher Whinney, MD, SFHM, department chair of hospital medicine at Cleveland Clinic, said hospitalists worked hand in hand with the health system’s incident command structure and took responsibility for managing non-ICU COVID patients at six hospitals in the system.

“Hospitalists had a place at the table, and we collaborated well with incident command, enterprise redeployment committees, and emergency and critical care colleagues,” he noted. Hospitalists were on the leadership team for a number of planning meetings, and key stakeholders for bringing information back to their groups.

“First thing we did was to look at our workforce. The challenge was how to respond to up to a hundred COVID admissions per day – how to mobilize providers and build surge teams that incorporated primary care providers and medical trainees. We onboarded 200 providers to do hospital care within 60 days,” he said.

“We realized that communication with patients and families was a big part of the challenge, so we assigned people with good communication skills to fill this role. While we were fortunate not to get the terrible surges they had in other places, we felt we were prepared for the worst.”
 

Challenges of surge capacity

Every disaster is different, said Srikant Polepalli, MD, associate hospitalist medical director for Staten Island University Hospital in New York, part of the Northwell Health system. He brought the experience of being part of the response to Superstorm Sandy in October 2012 to the COVID pandemic.

“Specifically for hospitalists, the biggest challenge is working on surge capacity for a sudden influx of patients,” he said. “But with Northwell as our umbrella, we can triage and load-balance to move patients from hospital to hospital as needed. With the pandemic, we started with one COVID unit and then expanded to fill the entire hospital.”

Dr. Polepalli was appointed medical director for a temporary field hospital installed at South Beach Psychiatric Center, also in Staten Island. “We were able to acquire help and bring in people ranging from hospitalists to ER physicians, travel nurses, operation managers and the National Guard. Our command center did a phenomenal job of allocating and obtaining resources. It helped to have a structure that was already established and to rely on the resources of the health system,” Dr. Polepalli said. Not every hospital has a structure like Northwell’s.

“We’re not out of the pandemic yet, but we’ll continue with disaster drills and planning,” he said. “We must continue to adapt and have converted our temporary facilities to COVID testing centers, antibody infusion centers, and vaccination centers.”

For Alfred Burger, MD, SFHM, a hospitalist at Mount Sinai’s Beth Israel campus in New York, hospital medicine, now in its maturing phase, is still feeling its way through hospital and health care system transformation.

“My group is an academic, multicampus hospitalist group employed by the hospital system. When I meet other hospitalists at SHM conferences, whether they come from privately owned, corporately owned, or contracted models, they vary widely in terms of how involved the hospitalists are in crisis planning and their ability to respond to crises. At large academic medical centers like ours, one or more doctors is tasked with being involved in preparing for the next disaster,” he said.

“I think we responded the best we could, although it was difficult as we lost many patients to COVID. We were trying to save lives using the tools we knew from treating pneumonias and other forms of acute inflammatory lung injuries. We used every bit of our training in situations where no one had the right answers. But disasters teach us how to be flexible and pivot on the fly, and what to do when things don’t go our way.”
 

What is disaster response?

Medical response to a disaster essentially boils down to three main things: stuff, staff, and space, Dr. Persoff said. Those are the cornerstones of an emergency plan.

“There is not a hazard that exists that you can’t take an all-hazards approach to dealing with fundamental realities on the ground. No plan can be comprehensive enough to deal with all the intricacies of an emergency. But many plans can have the bones of a response that will allow you to face adverse circumstances,” he said.

“We actually became quite efficient early on in the pandemic, able to adapt in the moment. We were able to build an effective bridge between workers on the ground and our incident command structure, which seemed to reduce a lot of stress and create situational awareness. We implemented ICS as soon as we heard that China was building a COVID hospital, back in February of 2020.”

When one thinks about mass trauma, such as a 747 crash, Dr. Persoff said, the need is to treat burn victims and trauma victims in large numbers. At that point, the ED downstairs is filled with medical patients. Hospital medicine can rapidly admit those patients to clear out room in the ED. Surgeons are also dedicated to rapidly treating those patients, but what about patients who are on the floor following their surgeries? Hospitalists can offer consultations or primary management so the surgeons can stay in the OR, and the same in the ICU, while safely discharging hospitalized patients in a timely manner to make room for incoming patients.

“The lessons of COVID have been hard-taught and hard-earned. No good plan survives contact with the enemy,” he said. “But I think we’ll be better prepared for the next pandemic.”

Maria Frank, MD, FACP, SFHM, a hospitalist at Denver Health who chairs SHM’s Disaster Management Special Interest Group, says she got the bug for disaster preparation during postresidency training as an internist in emergency medicine. “I’m also the medical director for our biocontainment unit, created for infections like Ebola.” SHM’s SIG, which has 150 members, is now writing a review article on disaster planning for the field.

“I got a call on Dec. 27, 2019, about this new pneumonia, and they said, ‘We don’t know what it is, but it’s a coronavirus,’” she recalled. “When I got off the phone, I said, ‘Let’s make sure our response plan works and we have enough of everything on hand.’” Dr. Frank said she was expecting something more like SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome). “When they called the public health emergency of international concern for COVID, I was at a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention meeting in Atlanta. It really wasn’t a surprise for us.”

All hospitals plan for disasters, although they use different names and have different levels of commitment, Dr. Frank said. What’s not consistent is the participation of hospitalists. “Even when a disaster is 100% trauma related, consider a hospital like mine that has at least four times as many hospitalists as surgeons at any given time. The hospitalists need to take overall management for the patients who aren’t actually in the operating room.”
 

Time to debrief

Dr. Frank recommends debriefing on the hospital’s and the hospitalist group’s experience with COVID. “Look at the biggest challenges your group faced. Was it staffing, or time off, or the need for day care? Was it burnout, lack of knowledge, lack of [personal protective equipment]?” Each hospital could use its own COVID experience to work on identifying the challenges and the problems, she said. “I’d encourage each department and division to do this exercise individually. Then come together to find common ground with other departments in the hospital.”

This debriefing exercise isn’t just for doctors – it’s also for nurses, environmental services, security, and many other departments, she said. “COVID showed us how crisis response is a group effort. What will bring us together is to learn the challenges each of us faced. It was amazing to see hospitalists doing what they do best.” Post pandemic, hospitalists should also consider getting involved in research and publications, in order to share their lessons.

“One of the things we learned is that hospitalists are very versatile,” Dr. Frank added. But it’s also good for the group to have members specialize, for example, in biocontainment. “We are experts in discharging patients, in patient flow and operations, in coordinating complex medical care. So we would naturally take the lead in, for example, opening a geographic unit or collaborating with other specialists to create innovative models. That’s our job. It’s essential that we’re involved well in advance.”

COVID may be a once-in-a-lifetime experience, but there will be other disasters to come, she said. “If your hospital doesn’t have a disaster plan for hospitalists, get involved in establishing one. Each hospitalist group should have its own response plan. Talk to your peers at other hospitals, and get involved at the institutional level. I’m happy to share our plan; just contact me.” Readers can contact Dr. Frank at maria.frank@dhha.org.
 

References

1. Persoff J et al. The role of hospital medicine in emergency preparedness: A framework for hospitalist leadership in disaster preparedness, response and recovery. J Hosp Med. 2018 Oct;13(10):713-7. doi: 10.12788/jhm.3073.

2. Persoff J et al. Expanding the hospital incident command system with a physician-centric role during a pandemic: The role of the physician clinical support supervisor. J Hosp Adm. 2020;9(3):7-10. doi: 10.5430/jha.v9n3p7.

3. Bowden K et al. Harnessing the power of hospitalists in operational disaster planning: COVID-19. J Gen Intern Med. 2020 Sep;35(9):273-7. doi: 10.1007/s11606-020-05952-6.

4. Orsini E et al. Lessons on outbreak preparedness from the Cleveland Clinic. Chest. 2020;158(5):2090-6. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.06.009.

Jason Persoff, MD, SFHM, now a hospitalist at University of Colorado Hospital in Aurora and an amateur storm chaser, got a close look at how natural disasters can impact hospital care when a tornado destroyed St. John’s Regional Medical Center in Joplin, Mo., on May 22, 2011.

He and a colleague who had been following the storm responded to injuries on the highway before reporting for a long day’s service at the other hospital in Joplin, Freeman Hospital West, caring for patients transferred from St. John’s on an impromptu unit without access to their medical records.

“During my medical training, I had done emergency medicine as an EMT, so I was interested in how the system responds to emergencies,” he explained. “At Joplin I learned how it feels when the boots on the ground in a crisis are not connected to an incident command structure.” Another thing he learned was the essential role for hospitalists in a hospital’s response to a crisis – and thus the need to involve them well in advance in the hospital’s planning for future emergencies.

“Disaster preparation – when done right – helps you ‘herd cats’ in a crisis situation,” he said. “The tornado and its wake served as defining moments for me. I used them as the impetus to improve health care’s response to disasters.” Part of that commitment was to help hospitalists understand their part in emergency preparation.¹

Dr. Persoff is now the assistant medical director of emergency preparedness at University of Colorado Hospital. He also helped to create a position called physician support supervisor, which is filled by physicians who have held leadership positions in a hospital to help coordinate the disparate needs of all clinicians in a crisis and facilitate rapid response.²

But then along came the COVID pandemic – which in many locales around the world was unprecedented in scope. Dr. Persoff said his hospital was fairly well prepared, after a decade of engagement with emergency planning. It drew on experience with H1N1, also known as swine flu, and the Ebola virus, which killed 11,323 people, primarily in West Africa, from 2013 to 2016, as models. In a matter of days, the CU division of hospital medicine was able to modify and deploy its existing disaster plans to quickly respond to an influx of COVID patients.³

“Basically, what we set out to do was to treat COVID patients as if they were Ebola patients, cordoning them off in a small area of the hospital. That was naive of us,” he said. “We weren’t able to grasp the scale at the outset. It does defy the imagination – how the hospital could fill up with just one type of patient.”

What is disaster planning?

Emergency preparation for hospitals emerged as a recognized medical specialization in the 1970s. Initially it was largely considered the realm of emergency physicians, trauma services, or critical care doctors. Resources such as the World Health Organization, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and similar groups recommend an all-hazards approach, a broad and flexible strategy for managing emergencies that could include natural disasters – earthquakes, storms, tornadoes, or wildfires – or human-caused events, such as mass shootings or terrorist attacks. The Joint Commission requires accredited hospitals to conduct several disaster drills annually.

The U.S. Hospital Preparedness Program was created in 2002 to enhance the ability of hospitals and health systems to prepare for and respond to bioterrorism attacks on civilians and other public health emergencies, including natural disasters and pandemics. It offers a foundation for national preparedness and a primary source of federal funding for health care system preparedness. The hospital, at the heart of the health care system, is expected to receive the injured and infected, because patients know they can obtain care there.

One of the fundamental tools for crisis response is the incident command system (ICS), which spells out how to quickly establish a command structure and assign responsibility for key tasks as well as overall leadership. The National Incident Management System organizes emergency management across all government levels and the private sector to ensure that the most pressing needs are met and precious resources are used without duplication. ICS is a standardized approach to command, control, and coordination of emergency response using a common hierarchy recognized across organizations, with advance training in how it should be deployed.
 

A crisis like never before

Nearly every hospital or health system goes through drills for an emergency, said Hassan Khouli, MD, chair of the department of critical care medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, and coauthor of an article in the journal Chest last year outlining 10 principles of emergency preparedness derived from its experience with the COVID pandemic.⁴ Some of these include: don’t wait; engage a variety of stakeholders; identify sources of truth; and prioritize hospital employees’ safety and well-being.

Part of the preparation is doing table-top exercises, with case scenarios or actual situations presented, working with clinicians on brainstorming and identifying opportunities for improvement, Dr. Khouli said. “These drills are so important, regardless of what the disaster turns out to be. We’ve done that over the years. We are a large health system, very process and detail oriented. Our emergency incident command structure was activated before we saw our first COVID patient,” he said.

“This was a crisis like never before, with huge amounts of uncertainty,” he noted. “But I believe the Cleveland Clinic system did very well, measured by outcomes such as surveys of health care teams across the system, which gave us reassuring results, and clinical outcomes with lower ICU and hospital mortality rates.”

Christopher Whinney, MD, SFHM, department chair of hospital medicine at Cleveland Clinic, said hospitalists worked hand in hand with the health system’s incident command structure and took responsibility for managing non-ICU COVID patients at six hospitals in the system.

“Hospitalists had a place at the table, and we collaborated well with incident command, enterprise redeployment committees, and emergency and critical care colleagues,” he noted. Hospitalists were on the leadership team for a number of planning meetings, and key stakeholders for bringing information back to their groups.

“First thing we did was to look at our workforce. The challenge was how to respond to up to a hundred COVID admissions per day – how to mobilize providers and build surge teams that incorporated primary care providers and medical trainees. We onboarded 200 providers to do hospital care within 60 days,” he said.

“We realized that communication with patients and families was a big part of the challenge, so we assigned people with good communication skills to fill this role. While we were fortunate not to get the terrible surges they had in other places, we felt we were prepared for the worst.”
 

Challenges of surge capacity

Every disaster is different, said Srikant Polepalli, MD, associate hospitalist medical director for Staten Island University Hospital in New York, part of the Northwell Health system. He brought the experience of being part of the response to Superstorm Sandy in October 2012 to the COVID pandemic.

“Specifically for hospitalists, the biggest challenge is working on surge capacity for a sudden influx of patients,” he said. “But with Northwell as our umbrella, we can triage and load-balance to move patients from hospital to hospital as needed. With the pandemic, we started with one COVID unit and then expanded to fill the entire hospital.”

Dr. Polepalli was appointed medical director for a temporary field hospital installed at South Beach Psychiatric Center, also in Staten Island. “We were able to acquire help and bring in people ranging from hospitalists to ER physicians, travel nurses, operation managers and the National Guard. Our command center did a phenomenal job of allocating and obtaining resources. It helped to have a structure that was already established and to rely on the resources of the health system,” Dr. Polepalli said. Not every hospital has a structure like Northwell’s.

“We’re not out of the pandemic yet, but we’ll continue with disaster drills and planning,” he said. “We must continue to adapt and have converted our temporary facilities to COVID testing centers, antibody infusion centers, and vaccination centers.”

For Alfred Burger, MD, SFHM, a hospitalist at Mount Sinai’s Beth Israel campus in New York, hospital medicine, now in its maturing phase, is still feeling its way through hospital and health care system transformation.

“My group is an academic, multicampus hospitalist group employed by the hospital system. When I meet other hospitalists at SHM conferences, whether they come from privately owned, corporately owned, or contracted models, they vary widely in terms of how involved the hospitalists are in crisis planning and their ability to respond to crises. At large academic medical centers like ours, one or more doctors is tasked with being involved in preparing for the next disaster,” he said.

“I think we responded the best we could, although it was difficult as we lost many patients to COVID. We were trying to save lives using the tools we knew from treating pneumonias and other forms of acute inflammatory lung injuries. We used every bit of our training in situations where no one had the right answers. But disasters teach us how to be flexible and pivot on the fly, and what to do when things don’t go our way.”
 

What is disaster response?

Medical response to a disaster essentially boils down to three main things: stuff, staff, and space, Dr. Persoff said. Those are the cornerstones of an emergency plan.

“There is not a hazard that exists that you can’t take an all-hazards approach to dealing with fundamental realities on the ground. No plan can be comprehensive enough to deal with all the intricacies of an emergency. But many plans can have the bones of a response that will allow you to face adverse circumstances,” he said.

“We actually became quite efficient early on in the pandemic, able to adapt in the moment. We were able to build an effective bridge between workers on the ground and our incident command structure, which seemed to reduce a lot of stress and create situational awareness. We implemented ICS as soon as we heard that China was building a COVID hospital, back in February of 2020.”

When one thinks about mass trauma, such as a 747 crash, Dr. Persoff said, the need is to treat burn victims and trauma victims in large numbers. At that point, the ED downstairs is filled with medical patients. Hospital medicine can rapidly admit those patients to clear out room in the ED. Surgeons are also dedicated to rapidly treating those patients, but what about patients who are on the floor following their surgeries? Hospitalists can offer consultations or primary management so the surgeons can stay in the OR, and the same in the ICU, while safely discharging hospitalized patients in a timely manner to make room for incoming patients.

“The lessons of COVID have been hard-taught and hard-earned. No good plan survives contact with the enemy,” he said. “But I think we’ll be better prepared for the next pandemic.”

Maria Frank, MD, FACP, SFHM, a hospitalist at Denver Health who chairs SHM’s Disaster Management Special Interest Group, says she got the bug for disaster preparation during postresidency training as an internist in emergency medicine. “I’m also the medical director for our biocontainment unit, created for infections like Ebola.” SHM’s SIG, which has 150 members, is now writing a review article on disaster planning for the field.

“I got a call on Dec. 27, 2019, about this new pneumonia, and they said, ‘We don’t know what it is, but it’s a coronavirus,’” she recalled. “When I got off the phone, I said, ‘Let’s make sure our response plan works and we have enough of everything on hand.’” Dr. Frank said she was expecting something more like SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome). “When they called the public health emergency of international concern for COVID, I was at a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention meeting in Atlanta. It really wasn’t a surprise for us.”

All hospitals plan for disasters, although they use different names and have different levels of commitment, Dr. Frank said. What’s not consistent is the participation of hospitalists. “Even when a disaster is 100% trauma related, consider a hospital like mine that has at least four times as many hospitalists as surgeons at any given time. The hospitalists need to take overall management for the patients who aren’t actually in the operating room.”
 

Time to debrief

Dr. Frank recommends debriefing on the hospital’s and the hospitalist group’s experience with COVID. “Look at the biggest challenges your group faced. Was it staffing, or time off, or the need for day care? Was it burnout, lack of knowledge, lack of [personal protective equipment]?” Each hospital could use its own COVID experience to work on identifying the challenges and the problems, she said. “I’d encourage each department and division to do this exercise individually. Then come together to find common ground with other departments in the hospital.”

This debriefing exercise isn’t just for doctors – it’s also for nurses, environmental services, security, and many other departments, she said. “COVID showed us how crisis response is a group effort. What will bring us together is to learn the challenges each of us faced. It was amazing to see hospitalists doing what they do best.” Post pandemic, hospitalists should also consider getting involved in research and publications, in order to share their lessons.

“One of the things we learned is that hospitalists are very versatile,” Dr. Frank added. But it’s also good for the group to have members specialize, for example, in biocontainment. “We are experts in discharging patients, in patient flow and operations, in coordinating complex medical care. So we would naturally take the lead in, for example, opening a geographic unit or collaborating with other specialists to create innovative models. That’s our job. It’s essential that we’re involved well in advance.”

COVID may be a once-in-a-lifetime experience, but there will be other disasters to come, she said. “If your hospital doesn’t have a disaster plan for hospitalists, get involved in establishing one. Each hospitalist group should have its own response plan. Talk to your peers at other hospitals, and get involved at the institutional level. I’m happy to share our plan; just contact me.” Readers can contact Dr. Frank at maria.frank@dhha.org.
 

References

1. Persoff J et al. The role of hospital medicine in emergency preparedness: A framework for hospitalist leadership in disaster preparedness, response and recovery. J Hosp Med. 2018 Oct;13(10):713-7. doi: 10.12788/jhm.3073.

2. Persoff J et al. Expanding the hospital incident command system with a physician-centric role during a pandemic: The role of the physician clinical support supervisor. J Hosp Adm. 2020;9(3):7-10. doi: 10.5430/jha.v9n3p7.

3. Bowden K et al. Harnessing the power of hospitalists in operational disaster planning: COVID-19. J Gen Intern Med. 2020 Sep;35(9):273-7. doi: 10.1007/s11606-020-05952-6.

4. Orsini E et al. Lessons on outbreak preparedness from the Cleveland Clinic. Chest. 2020;158(5):2090-6. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.06.009.

Bullying in academic medicine, especially among women, is rife, underreported, and remains largely unaddressed, new research suggests.

Investigators reviewed close to 70 studies, encompassing over 82,000 medical consultants or trainees in academic medical settings, and found that men were identified as the most common perpetrators – close to 70% of respondents – whereas women were the most common victims (56%).

Collectively, respondents in all of the studies identified the most common bullies to be consultants (54%), followed by residents (22%), and nurses (15%).

Disturbingly, less than one-third of victims overall reported that they were bullied, and close to 60% who formally reported the abuse said they did not have a positive outcome.

“We found that bullies are commonly men and senior consultants, while more than half of their victims are women,” senior author Harriette G.C. Van Spall, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine and director of e-health and virtual care, Division of Cardiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said in an interview.

“The greatest barriers to addressing academic bullying are the fear of reprisal, lack of impact of reporting, and non-enforcement of anti-bullying policies,” she added.

The study was published online July 12 in BMJ Open.
 

Personal experience

The study was “inspired by experiences that I endured over a period of time and am grateful to have survived,” said Dr. Van Spall.

“Some behaviors were excruciating to deal with, protesting against them would bring more on, and every day was filled with dread. It took sheer will to show up at work to care for patients, to complete research I was leading, and to have hope, and my academic output, income, and personal well-being dropped during those years,” she added.

Dr. Van Spall thought the subject “merited research because our performance as clinicians, researchers, and educators relies on our work environment.”

To investigate, the researchers reviewed 68 studies (n = 82,349 respondents) conducted between 1999 and 2021 in academic medical settings, in which victims were either consultants or trainees. Many of the studies (31) were conducted in the U.S.

Other countries included the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Pakistan, Egypt, Iran, Turkey, New Zealand, Lithuania, Greece, India, Germany, Nigeria, Oman, and Finland.

Studies were required to describe the method and impact of bullying; characteristics of the perpetrators and victims; or interventions that were used to address the bullying.

“Bullying” was defined as “the abuse of authority by a perpetrator who targets the victim in an academic setting through punishing behaviors that include overwork, destabilization, and isolation in order to impede the education or career of the target.”
 

Systemic sexism

Bullying behaviors, reported in 28 studies (n = 35,779 respondents), were grouped into destabilization, threats to professional status, overwork, and isolation, with overwork found to be the most common form of bullying.

The most common impact of being bullied was psychological distress, reported by 39.1% of respondents in 14 studies, followed by considerations of quitting (35.9%; 7 studies), and worsening of clinical performance (34.6%, 8 studies).

“Among demographic groups, men were identified as the most common perpetrators (67.2% of 4,722 respondents in 5 studies) and women the most common victims (56.2% of 15,246 respondents in 27 studies),” the authors report.

“Academic medicine in many institutions is encumbered by systemic sexism that is evident in processes around remuneration, recognition, opportunities for advancement, and leadership positions,” said Dr. Van Spall.

“There are fewer women at decision-making tables in academic medicine, the climb is uphill at the best of times, and women are likely easier targets for bullies, as their voices are easier to drown out,” she added.

She noted that many men do “exhibit wonderful attributes of professionalism and decency,” but “some in positions of power are given impunity by virtue of other accomplishments.”
 

Multiple deterrents

Thirty-one studies (n = 15,868) described characteristics of the bullies and showed the most common to be consultants (53.6% [30 studies]), residents (22% [22 studies]), and nurses (14.9% [21 studies]).

Only a minority of victims (28.9% of 9,410 victims [10 studies]) formally reported the bullying. The researchers identified multiple deterrents to reporting.

When a formal complaint was submitted (n = 1,139 respondents), it most frequently had no perceived effect (35.6%); more than one-fifth (21.9%) experienced worsening of the bullying, and only 13.7% reported improvement.

The common institutional facilitators of bullying, described in 25 studies, included lack of enforcement of anti-bullying policies (13 studies), the hierarchical structure of medicine (7 studies), and normalization of bullying (10 studies).

Forty-nine studies looked at strategies to address academic bullying, including anti-bullying policies, mandatory workshops on mistreatment, establishing an anti-bullying oversight committee, and institutional support for victims. However, the studies testing the effectiveness of these interventions “had a high risk of bias.”
 

Support available

Commenting on the research for this news organization, Roberta Gebhard, DO, past president of the American Medical Women’s Association (AMWA) and a member of the advisory board for Physician Just Equity, called it a “good study, large, international, and well-written.”

Dr. Gebhard, a member of the Governing Council for the American Medical Association Women Physician Section, was not associated with this study but said she is currently researching women who left medical school and residency.

“A common reason for leaving is being bullied. Bullying is often not reported and if reported, often not addressed. Or, if addressed, the person who reports it is often retaliated against, which is a common experience, especially in women.”

She advised female physicians who are bullied to get support from other female physicians – for example, by joining the AMWA, which has an online women’s leadership group.

“Having other women physicians throughout the country you can call for advice and support can be helpful,” said Dr. Gebhard, a family practice physician based in Grand Island, New York.

Dr. Van Spall receives support from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Heart and Stroke Foundation, the Women As One Escalator Award, and McMaster Department of Medicine. The study authors and Dr. Gebhard have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Bullying in academic medicine, especially among women, is rife, underreported, and remains largely unaddressed, new research suggests.

Investigators reviewed close to 70 studies, encompassing over 82,000 medical consultants or trainees in academic medical settings, and found that men were identified as the most common perpetrators – close to 70% of respondents – whereas women were the most common victims (56%).

Collectively, respondents in all of the studies identified the most common bullies to be consultants (54%), followed by residents (22%), and nurses (15%).

Disturbingly, less than one-third of victims overall reported that they were bullied, and close to 60% who formally reported the abuse said they did not have a positive outcome.

“We found that bullies are commonly men and senior consultants, while more than half of their victims are women,” senior author Harriette G.C. Van Spall, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine and director of e-health and virtual care, Division of Cardiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said in an interview.

“The greatest barriers to addressing academic bullying are the fear of reprisal, lack of impact of reporting, and non-enforcement of anti-bullying policies,” she added.

The study was published online July 12 in BMJ Open.
 

Personal experience

The study was “inspired by experiences that I endured over a period of time and am grateful to have survived,” said Dr. Van Spall.

“Some behaviors were excruciating to deal with, protesting against them would bring more on, and every day was filled with dread. It took sheer will to show up at work to care for patients, to complete research I was leading, and to have hope, and my academic output, income, and personal well-being dropped during those years,” she added.

Dr. Van Spall thought the subject “merited research because our performance as clinicians, researchers, and educators relies on our work environment.”

To investigate, the researchers reviewed 68 studies (n = 82,349 respondents) conducted between 1999 and 2021 in academic medical settings, in which victims were either consultants or trainees. Many of the studies (31) were conducted in the U.S.

Other countries included the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Pakistan, Egypt, Iran, Turkey, New Zealand, Lithuania, Greece, India, Germany, Nigeria, Oman, and Finland.

Studies were required to describe the method and impact of bullying; characteristics of the perpetrators and victims; or interventions that were used to address the bullying.

“Bullying” was defined as “the abuse of authority by a perpetrator who targets the victim in an academic setting through punishing behaviors that include overwork, destabilization, and isolation in order to impede the education or career of the target.”
 

Systemic sexism

Bullying behaviors, reported in 28 studies (n = 35,779 respondents), were grouped into destabilization, threats to professional status, overwork, and isolation, with overwork found to be the most common form of bullying.

The most common impact of being bullied was psychological distress, reported by 39.1% of respondents in 14 studies, followed by considerations of quitting (35.9%; 7 studies), and worsening of clinical performance (34.6%, 8 studies).

“Among demographic groups, men were identified as the most common perpetrators (67.2% of 4,722 respondents in 5 studies) and women the most common victims (56.2% of 15,246 respondents in 27 studies),” the authors report.

“Academic medicine in many institutions is encumbered by systemic sexism that is evident in processes around remuneration, recognition, opportunities for advancement, and leadership positions,” said Dr. Van Spall.

“There are fewer women at decision-making tables in academic medicine, the climb is uphill at the best of times, and women are likely easier targets for bullies, as their voices are easier to drown out,” she added.

She noted that many men do “exhibit wonderful attributes of professionalism and decency,” but “some in positions of power are given impunity by virtue of other accomplishments.”
 

Multiple deterrents

Thirty-one studies (n = 15,868) described characteristics of the bullies and showed the most common to be consultants (53.6% [30 studies]), residents (22% [22 studies]), and nurses (14.9% [21 studies]).

Only a minority of victims (28.9% of 9,410 victims [10 studies]) formally reported the bullying. The researchers identified multiple deterrents to reporting.

When a formal complaint was submitted (n = 1,139 respondents), it most frequently had no perceived effect (35.6%); more than one-fifth (21.9%) experienced worsening of the bullying, and only 13.7% reported improvement.

The common institutional facilitators of bullying, described in 25 studies, included lack of enforcement of anti-bullying policies (13 studies), the hierarchical structure of medicine (7 studies), and normalization of bullying (10 studies).

Forty-nine studies looked at strategies to address academic bullying, including anti-bullying policies, mandatory workshops on mistreatment, establishing an anti-bullying oversight committee, and institutional support for victims. However, the studies testing the effectiveness of these interventions “had a high risk of bias.”
 

Support available

Commenting on the research for this news organization, Roberta Gebhard, DO, past president of the American Medical Women’s Association (AMWA) and a member of the advisory board for Physician Just Equity, called it a “good study, large, international, and well-written.”

Dr. Gebhard, a member of the Governing Council for the American Medical Association Women Physician Section, was not associated with this study but said she is currently researching women who left medical school and residency.

“A common reason for leaving is being bullied. Bullying is often not reported and if reported, often not addressed. Or, if addressed, the person who reports it is often retaliated against, which is a common experience, especially in women.”

She advised female physicians who are bullied to get support from other female physicians – for example, by joining the AMWA, which has an online women’s leadership group.

“Having other women physicians throughout the country you can call for advice and support can be helpful,” said Dr. Gebhard, a family practice physician based in Grand Island, New York.

Dr. Van Spall receives support from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Heart and Stroke Foundation, the Women As One Escalator Award, and McMaster Department of Medicine. The study authors and Dr. Gebhard have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Bullying in academic medicine, especially among women, is rife, underreported, and remains largely unaddressed, new research suggests.

Investigators reviewed close to 70 studies, encompassing over 82,000 medical consultants or trainees in academic medical settings, and found that men were identified as the most common perpetrators – close to 70% of respondents – whereas women were the most common victims (56%).

Collectively, respondents in all of the studies identified the most common bullies to be consultants (54%), followed by residents (22%), and nurses (15%).

Disturbingly, less than one-third of victims overall reported that they were bullied, and close to 60% who formally reported the abuse said they did not have a positive outcome.

“We found that bullies are commonly men and senior consultants, while more than half of their victims are women,” senior author Harriette G.C. Van Spall, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine and director of e-health and virtual care, Division of Cardiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said in an interview.

“The greatest barriers to addressing academic bullying are the fear of reprisal, lack of impact of reporting, and non-enforcement of anti-bullying policies,” she added.

The study was published online July 12 in BMJ Open.
 

Personal experience

The study was “inspired by experiences that I endured over a period of time and am grateful to have survived,” said Dr. Van Spall.

“Some behaviors were excruciating to deal with, protesting against them would bring more on, and every day was filled with dread. It took sheer will to show up at work to care for patients, to complete research I was leading, and to have hope, and my academic output, income, and personal well-being dropped during those years,” she added.

Dr. Van Spall thought the subject “merited research because our performance as clinicians, researchers, and educators relies on our work environment.”

To investigate, the researchers reviewed 68 studies (n = 82,349 respondents) conducted between 1999 and 2021 in academic medical settings, in which victims were either consultants or trainees. Many of the studies (31) were conducted in the U.S.

Other countries included the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Pakistan, Egypt, Iran, Turkey, New Zealand, Lithuania, Greece, India, Germany, Nigeria, Oman, and Finland.

Studies were required to describe the method and impact of bullying; characteristics of the perpetrators and victims; or interventions that were used to address the bullying.

“Bullying” was defined as “the abuse of authority by a perpetrator who targets the victim in an academic setting through punishing behaviors that include overwork, destabilization, and isolation in order to impede the education or career of the target.”
 

Systemic sexism

Bullying behaviors, reported in 28 studies (n = 35,779 respondents), were grouped into destabilization, threats to professional status, overwork, and isolation, with overwork found to be the most common form of bullying.

The most common impact of being bullied was psychological distress, reported by 39.1% of respondents in 14 studies, followed by considerations of quitting (35.9%; 7 studies), and worsening of clinical performance (34.6%, 8 studies).

“Among demographic groups, men were identified as the most common perpetrators (67.2% of 4,722 respondents in 5 studies) and women the most common victims (56.2% of 15,246 respondents in 27 studies),” the authors report.

“Academic medicine in many institutions is encumbered by systemic sexism that is evident in processes around remuneration, recognition, opportunities for advancement, and leadership positions,” said Dr. Van Spall.

“There are fewer women at decision-making tables in academic medicine, the climb is uphill at the best of times, and women are likely easier targets for bullies, as their voices are easier to drown out,” she added.

She noted that many men do “exhibit wonderful attributes of professionalism and decency,” but “some in positions of power are given impunity by virtue of other accomplishments.”
 

Multiple deterrents

Thirty-one studies (n = 15,868) described characteristics of the bullies and showed the most common to be consultants (53.6% [30 studies]), residents (22% [22 studies]), and nurses (14.9% [21 studies]).

Only a minority of victims (28.9% of 9,410 victims [10 studies]) formally reported the bullying. The researchers identified multiple deterrents to reporting.

When a formal complaint was submitted (n = 1,139 respondents), it most frequently had no perceived effect (35.6%); more than one-fifth (21.9%) experienced worsening of the bullying, and only 13.7% reported improvement.

The common institutional facilitators of bullying, described in 25 studies, included lack of enforcement of anti-bullying policies (13 studies), the hierarchical structure of medicine (7 studies), and normalization of bullying (10 studies).

Forty-nine studies looked at strategies to address academic bullying, including anti-bullying policies, mandatory workshops on mistreatment, establishing an anti-bullying oversight committee, and institutional support for victims. However, the studies testing the effectiveness of these interventions “had a high risk of bias.”
 

Support available

Commenting on the research for this news organization, Roberta Gebhard, DO, past president of the American Medical Women’s Association (AMWA) and a member of the advisory board for Physician Just Equity, called it a “good study, large, international, and well-written.”

Dr. Gebhard, a member of the Governing Council for the American Medical Association Women Physician Section, was not associated with this study but said she is currently researching women who left medical school and residency.

“A common reason for leaving is being bullied. Bullying is often not reported and if reported, often not addressed. Or, if addressed, the person who reports it is often retaliated against, which is a common experience, especially in women.”

She advised female physicians who are bullied to get support from other female physicians – for example, by joining the AMWA, which has an online women’s leadership group.

“Having other women physicians throughout the country you can call for advice and support can be helpful,” said Dr. Gebhard, a family practice physician based in Grand Island, New York.

Dr. Van Spall receives support from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Heart and Stroke Foundation, the Women As One Escalator Award, and McMaster Department of Medicine. The study authors and Dr. Gebhard have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A hectic Friday morning at the hospital seemed less stressful amid morning greetings and humor from colleagues. In a team room full of hospitalists, life and death are often discussed in detail, ranging from medical discussions to joys and frustrations of the day to philosophy, politics, and more. It is almost impossible to miss something interesting.

People breaking into their native languages over the phone call from home always make me smile. The mention of a “complicated Indian patient unable to use interpreter” caught my attention.

My friend and colleague asked if I would be willing to take over the patient since I could speak Hindi. I was doubtful if I would add anything to make a meaningful difference, given the patient wasn’t even participating in a conversation. However, my colleague’s concern for the patient and faith in me was enough to say, “Sure, let me add her to my list.”

At the bedside, it felt like a classic “acute on chronic” hot mess situation. The patient presented with a generalized rash, anasarca, renal failure, multifocal pneumonia, and delirium. All I could gather from the patient were some incomprehensible words that sounded like Hindi. I called the family to obtain some history and to provide updates. Her son was excited to hear from me, and it didn’t take him long to guess that I was from India. But that could still mean that I might speak any of the twenty-two or more Indian languages.

Answering my questions one by one in perfectly understandable English, he was short and sweet. Suspicious of missing out on details, I offered hesitantly, “You could speak in Hindi with me.” Then came a flood of information with the details, concerns, questions, and what was lost in the translation.

We all attend to patients and families with limited English proficiency (LEP), immigrants, and nonimmigrants. LEP is a term used to describe individuals who do not speak English as their primary language and have a limited ability to read, speak, write, or understand English.¹ Recent data from the American Community Survey (2005-2009) reports that 8.6% of the population (24 million Americans) have LEP.² It’s a large and growing population that needs help overcoming language barriers and the appropriate use of professional medical interpreter services – a backbone to safe, quality, and cost-effective patient care.

The following day at bedside rounds, the nurse reported that the patient was looking and responding better. She could cooperate with interpreter services and could speak “some English.” Over the years, one thing that sounds more alarming than “no English” is “some English” or “enough English.” Around noon I received a page that the patient was refusing intravenous Lasix. At the bedside, however, the patient seemed unaware of the perceived refusal. Further discussions with the nurse lead to a familiar culprit, a relatively common gesture in South Asian cultures, a head bobble or shake.

The nurse reported that the patient shook her head side to side, seemed upset, and said “NO” when trying to administer the medication. On the other hand, the patient reported that she was upset to be at the hospital but had “NO” problem with the medicine.

My patient’s “some English” was indeed “enough English” to put her at risk due to medical error, which is highly likely when patients or providers can speak or understand a language to “get by” or to “make do.” Like my patient, the LEP patient population is more likely to experience medical errors, longer hospital stays, hospital-acquired complications, surgical delays, and readmissions. They are also less likely to receive preventive care, have access to regular care, or be satisfied with their care. They are much more likely to have adverse effects from drug complications, poor understanding of diagnoses, a greater risk of being misunderstood by their physicians or ancillary staff, and less likely to follow physician instructions.^3-5 One study analyzed over 1,000 adverse-incident reports from six Joint Commission-accredited hospitals for LEP and English-speaking patients and found that 49% of LEP patients experienced physical harm versus 29.5% of English-speaking patients.⁶

I updated the patient’s LEP status that was missing in the chart, likely due to altered mental status at the time of admission. Reliable language and English proficiency data are usually entered at the patient’s point of entry with documentation of the language services required during the patient-provider encounter. The U.S. Census Bureau’s operational definition for LEP is a patient’s self-assessed ability to speak English less than “very well,” but how well it correlates with a patient’s actual English ability needs more study. Also, one’s self-assessed perception of ability might vary day to day, and language ability, by itself, is not static; it can differ from moment to moment and situation to situation. It may be easier to understand words in English when the situation is simple and less stressful than when things are complicated and stressful.

With a definition of LEP rather vague and the term somewhat derogatory, its meaning is open to interpretation. One study found that though speaking English less than “very well” was the most sensitive measure for identifying all of the patients who reported that they were unable to communicate effectively with their physicians, it was also the least specific.⁷ This lower specificity could lead to misclassification of some patients as LEP who are, in fact, able to effectively communicate in English with their physicians. This type of misclassification might lead to costly language assistance and carry the potential to cause conflicts between patient and provider. Telling a patient or family that they may have a “limited English proficiency” when they have believed otherwise and feel confident about their skills may come as a challenge. Some patients may also pretend to understand English to avoid being embarrassed about their linguistic abilities or perceive that they might be judged on their abilities in general.

Exiting the room, I gently reminded the RN to use the interpreter services. “Who has never been guilty of using an ad hoc interpreter or rushing through a long interpreter phone call due to time constraints?” I thought. A study from 2011 found that 43% of hospitalized patients with LEP had communicated without an interpreter present during admission, and 40% had communicated without an interpreter present after admission.⁸ In other words, a system in place does not mean service in use. But, the use of a trained interpreter is not only an obligation for care providers but a right for patients as per legal requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the Standards for Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services (CLAS) by the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HSS) Office of Minority Health.⁹ In January 2010, The Joint Commission released a set of new and revised standards for patient-centered communication as part of an initiative to advance effective communication, cultural competence, and patient- and family-centered care.

Despite the requirements and availability of qualified medical interpreter services, there are multiple perceived and experienced barriers to the use of interpreter services. The most common one is that what comes as a free service for patients is a time commitment for providers. A long list of patients, acuity of the situation, and ease of use/availability of translation aids can change the calculus. One may be able to bill a prolonged service code (99354-99357) in addition to the appropriate E/M code, although a patient cannot be billed for the actual service provided by the interpreter. Longstanding CMS policy also permits reimbursement for translation/interpretation activities, so long as they are not included and paid for as part of the rate for direct service.¹⁰

The patient, however, insisted that she would rather have her son as the interpreter on the 3-way over the phone (OPI) conference call for interpretation. “He speaks good English and knows my medical history well,” she said. I counseled the patient on the benefits of using interpreter services and explained how to use the call button light and the visual aids.

Placing emphasis on educating patients about the benefits of using, and risks of not using, interpreter services is as essential as emphasizing that care providers use the services. Some patients may voluntarily choose to provide their own interpreter. Use of family members, friends, or unqualified staff as interpreters is one of the most commonly reported causes of errors by frontline staff. Using in-language collateral may help these patients understand how medical interpretation may create a better patient experience and outcome. A short factsheet, in different languages, on qualified interpreters’ expected benefits: meaning-for-meaning communication, impartiality, medical privacy, and improved patient safety and satisfaction, can also come in handy.

However, if the patient still refuses, providers should document the refusal of the offer of free language services, the name of the interpreter designated by the patient, the interpreter’s relationship to the LEP person, and the time or portions of the patient encounter that the interpreter’s services were used. Yet, language interpretation alone can be inadequate without document translation. According to one study, despite the availability of on-site professional interpreter services, hospitalized patients who do not speak English are less likely to have signed consent forms in their medical records.¹¹ Health care professionals, therefore, need well-translated documents to treat LEP patients. Translated documents of consent forms for medical procedures, post-discharge instructions, prescription and medical device labels, and drug usage information may enhance informed decision making, safety and reduce stress and medical errors.

An unpopular and underused service needs it all: availability, convenience, monitoring, reporting, and team effort. Due to the sheer unpopularity and underuse of interpreter services, institutions should enhance ease of availability, monitor the use and quality of interpreter services, and optimize reporting of language-related errors. Ease of availability goes hand in hand with tapping local resources. Over the years, and even more so during the pandemic, in-person interpretation has transitioned to telephonic or video interpretation due to availability, safety, and cost issues. There are challenges in translating a language, and the absence of a visual channel adds another layer of complexity.

The current body of evidence does not indicate a superior interpreting method. Still, in one study providers and interpreters exposed to all three methods were more critical of remote methods and preferred videoconferencing to the telephone as a remote method. The significantly shorter phone interviews raised questions about the prospects of miscommunication in telephonic interpretation, given the absence of a visual channel.¹²

One way to bypass language barriers is to recognize the value added by hiring and training bilingual health care providers and fostering cultural competence. International medical graduates in many parts of the country aid in closing language barriers. Language-concordant care enhances trust between patients and physicians, optimizes health outcomes, and advances health equity for diverse populations.^13-15 The presence of bilingual providers means more effective and timelier communication and improved patient satisfaction. But, according to a Doximity study, there is a significant “language gap” between those languages spoken by physicians and their patients.¹⁶ Hospitals, therefore, should assess, qualify, and incentivize staff who can serve as on-site medical interpreters for patients as a means to facilitate language concordant care for LEP patients.

The Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) also has a guide on how hospitals can better identify, report, monitor, and prevent medical errors in patients with LEP. Included is the TeamSTEPPS LEP module to help develop and deploy a customized plan to train staff in teamwork skills and lead a medical teamwork improvement initiative.¹⁷

“Without my family, I was scared that nobody would understand me”

Back to the case. My patient was recovering well, and I was tying up loose ends on the switch day for the hospitalist teams.

“You will likely be discharged in a couple of days,” I said. She and the family were grateful and satisfied with the care. She had used the interpreter services and also received ethnocultural and language concordant and culturally competent care. Reducing language barriers is one of the crucial ways to reduce racial and ethnic disparities in quality of care and health outcomes, and it starts – in many cases – with identifying LEP patients. Proper use and monitoring of interpreter services, reporting language-related errors, hiring and testing bilingual staff’s language proficiency, and educating staff on cultural awareness are essential strategies for caring for LEP patients.

At my weeks’ end, in my handoff note to the incoming providers, I highlighted: “Patient will benefit from a Hindi speaking provider, Limited English Proficiency.”
 

Dr. Saigal is a hospitalist and clinical assistant professor of medicine in the division of hospital medicine at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus.

References

1. Questions and Answers. Limited English Proficiency: A federal interagency website. www.lep.gov/commonly-asked-questions.

2. United States Census Bureau. Percent of people 5 years and over who speak English less than ‘very well’. www.census.gov/library/visualizations/interactive/people-that-speak-english-less-than-very-well.html.

3. Jacobs EA, et al. Overcoming language barriers in health care: Costs and benefits of interpreter services. Am J Public Health. 2004;94(5):866–869. doi: 10.2105/ajph.94.5.866.

4. Gandhi TK, et al. Drug complications in outpatients. J Gen Intern Med. 2000;15(3):149–154. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2000.04199.x.

5. Karliner LS, et al. Do professional interpreters improve clinical care for patients with limited English proficiency? A systematic review of the literature. Health Serv Res. 2007;42(2):727–754. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00629.x.

6. Divi C, et al. Language proficiency and adverse events in US hospitals: a pilot study. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007 Apr;19(2):60-7. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzl069.

7. Karliner LS, et al. Identification of limited English proficient patients in clinical care. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23(10):1555-1560. doi:10.1007/s11606-008-0693-y.

8. Schenker Y, et al. Patterns of interpreter use for hospitalized patients with limited English proficiency. J Gen Intern Med. 2011 Jul;26(7):712-7. doi: 10.1007/s11606-010-1619-z.

9. Office of Minority Health, US Department of Health and Human Services. National Standards for Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services in Health Care: Final Report. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2001. https://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/assets/pdf/checked/finalreport.pdf.

10. www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/financial-management/medicaid-administrative-claiming/translation-and-interpretation-services/index.html

11. Schenker Y, et al. The Impact of Language Barriers on Documentation of Informed Consent at a Hospital with On-Site Interpreter Services. J Gen Intern Med. 2007 Nov;22 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):294-9. doi: 10.1007/s11606-007-0359-1.

12. Locatis C, et al. Comparing in-person, video, and telephonic medical interpretation. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25(4):345-350. doi:10.1007/s11606-009-1236-x.

13. Dunlap JL, et al. The effects of language concordant care on patient satisfaction and clinical understanding for Hispanic pediatric surgery patients. J Pediatr Surg. 2015 Sep;50(9):1586-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2014.12.020.

14. Diamond L, et al. A Systematic Review of the Impact of Patient–Physician Non-English Language Concordance on Quality of Care and Outcomes. J Gen Intern Med. 2019 Aug;34(8):1591-1606. doi: 10.1007/s11606-019-04847-5.

15. Ngo-Metzger Q, et al. Providing high-quality care for limited English proficient patients: the importance of language concordance and interpreter use. J Gen Intern Med. 2007 Nov;22 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):324-30. doi: 10.1007/s11606-007-0340-z.

16. https://press.doximity.com/articles/first-ever-national-study-to-examine-different-languages-spoken-by-us-doctors.

17. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Patients with Limited English Proficiency. www.ahrq.gov/teamstepps/lep/index.html.

A hectic Friday morning at the hospital seemed less stressful amid morning greetings and humor from colleagues. In a team room full of hospitalists, life and death are often discussed in detail, ranging from medical discussions to joys and frustrations of the day to philosophy, politics, and more. It is almost impossible to miss something interesting.

People breaking into their native languages over the phone call from home always make me smile. The mention of a “complicated Indian patient unable to use interpreter” caught my attention.

My friend and colleague asked if I would be willing to take over the patient since I could speak Hindi. I was doubtful if I would add anything to make a meaningful difference, given the patient wasn’t even participating in a conversation. However, my colleague’s concern for the patient and faith in me was enough to say, “Sure, let me add her to my list.”

At the bedside, it felt like a classic “acute on chronic” hot mess situation. The patient presented with a generalized rash, anasarca, renal failure, multifocal pneumonia, and delirium. All I could gather from the patient were some incomprehensible words that sounded like Hindi. I called the family to obtain some history and to provide updates. Her son was excited to hear from me, and it didn’t take him long to guess that I was from India. But that could still mean that I might speak any of the twenty-two or more Indian languages.

Answering my questions one by one in perfectly understandable English, he was short and sweet. Suspicious of missing out on details, I offered hesitantly, “You could speak in Hindi with me.” Then came a flood of information with the details, concerns, questions, and what was lost in the translation.

We all attend to patients and families with limited English proficiency (LEP), immigrants, and nonimmigrants. LEP is a term used to describe individuals who do not speak English as their primary language and have a limited ability to read, speak, write, or understand English.¹ Recent data from the American Community Survey (2005-2009) reports that 8.6% of the population (24 million Americans) have LEP.² It’s a large and growing population that needs help overcoming language barriers and the appropriate use of professional medical interpreter services – a backbone to safe, quality, and cost-effective patient care.

The following day at bedside rounds, the nurse reported that the patient was looking and responding better. She could cooperate with interpreter services and could speak “some English.” Over the years, one thing that sounds more alarming than “no English” is “some English” or “enough English.” Around noon I received a page that the patient was refusing intravenous Lasix. At the bedside, however, the patient seemed unaware of the perceived refusal. Further discussions with the nurse lead to a familiar culprit, a relatively common gesture in South Asian cultures, a head bobble or shake.

The nurse reported that the patient shook her head side to side, seemed upset, and said “NO” when trying to administer the medication. On the other hand, the patient reported that she was upset to be at the hospital but had “NO” problem with the medicine.

My patient’s “some English” was indeed “enough English” to put her at risk due to medical error, which is highly likely when patients or providers can speak or understand a language to “get by” or to “make do.” Like my patient, the LEP patient population is more likely to experience medical errors, longer hospital stays, hospital-acquired complications, surgical delays, and readmissions. They are also less likely to receive preventive care, have access to regular care, or be satisfied with their care. They are much more likely to have adverse effects from drug complications, poor understanding of diagnoses, a greater risk of being misunderstood by their physicians or ancillary staff, and less likely to follow physician instructions.^3-5 One study analyzed over 1,000 adverse-incident reports from six Joint Commission-accredited hospitals for LEP and English-speaking patients and found that 49% of LEP patients experienced physical harm versus 29.5% of English-speaking patients.⁶

I updated the patient’s LEP status that was missing in the chart, likely due to altered mental status at the time of admission. Reliable language and English proficiency data are usually entered at the patient’s point of entry with documentation of the language services required during the patient-provider encounter. The U.S. Census Bureau’s operational definition for LEP is a patient’s self-assessed ability to speak English less than “very well,” but how well it correlates with a patient’s actual English ability needs more study. Also, one’s self-assessed perception of ability might vary day to day, and language ability, by itself, is not static; it can differ from moment to moment and situation to situation. It may be easier to understand words in English when the situation is simple and less stressful than when things are complicated and stressful.

With a definition of LEP rather vague and the term somewhat derogatory, its meaning is open to interpretation. One study found that though speaking English less than “very well” was the most sensitive measure for identifying all of the patients who reported that they were unable to communicate effectively with their physicians, it was also the least specific.⁷ This lower specificity could lead to misclassification of some patients as LEP who are, in fact, able to effectively communicate in English with their physicians. This type of misclassification might lead to costly language assistance and carry the potential to cause conflicts between patient and provider. Telling a patient or family that they may have a “limited English proficiency” when they have believed otherwise and feel confident about their skills may come as a challenge. Some patients may also pretend to understand English to avoid being embarrassed about their linguistic abilities or perceive that they might be judged on their abilities in general.

Exiting the room, I gently reminded the RN to use the interpreter services. “Who has never been guilty of using an ad hoc interpreter or rushing through a long interpreter phone call due to time constraints?” I thought. A study from 2011 found that 43% of hospitalized patients with LEP had communicated without an interpreter present during admission, and 40% had communicated without an interpreter present after admission.⁸ In other words, a system in place does not mean service in use. But, the use of a trained interpreter is not only an obligation for care providers but a right for patients as per legal requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the Standards for Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services (CLAS) by the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HSS) Office of Minority Health.⁹ In January 2010, The Joint Commission released a set of new and revised standards for patient-centered communication as part of an initiative to advance effective communication, cultural competence, and patient- and family-centered care.

Despite the requirements and availability of qualified medical interpreter services, there are multiple perceived and experienced barriers to the use of interpreter services. The most common one is that what comes as a free service for patients is a time commitment for providers. A long list of patients, acuity of the situation, and ease of use/availability of translation aids can change the calculus. One may be able to bill a prolonged service code (99354-99357) in addition to the appropriate E/M code, although a patient cannot be billed for the actual service provided by the interpreter. Longstanding CMS policy also permits reimbursement for translation/interpretation activities, so long as they are not included and paid for as part of the rate for direct service.¹⁰

The patient, however, insisted that she would rather have her son as the interpreter on the 3-way over the phone (OPI) conference call for interpretation. “He speaks good English and knows my medical history well,” she said. I counseled the patient on the benefits of using interpreter services and explained how to use the call button light and the visual aids.

Placing emphasis on educating patients about the benefits of using, and risks of not using, interpreter services is as essential as emphasizing that care providers use the services. Some patients may voluntarily choose to provide their own interpreter. Use of family members, friends, or unqualified staff as interpreters is one of the most commonly reported causes of errors by frontline staff. Using in-language collateral may help these patients understand how medical interpretation may create a better patient experience and outcome. A short factsheet, in different languages, on qualified interpreters’ expected benefits: meaning-for-meaning communication, impartiality, medical privacy, and improved patient safety and satisfaction, can also come in handy.

However, if the patient still refuses, providers should document the refusal of the offer of free language services, the name of the interpreter designated by the patient, the interpreter’s relationship to the LEP person, and the time or portions of the patient encounter that the interpreter’s services were used. Yet, language interpretation alone can be inadequate without document translation. According to one study, despite the availability of on-site professional interpreter services, hospitalized patients who do not speak English are less likely to have signed consent forms in their medical records.¹¹ Health care professionals, therefore, need well-translated documents to treat LEP patients. Translated documents of consent forms for medical procedures, post-discharge instructions, prescription and medical device labels, and drug usage information may enhance informed decision making, safety and reduce stress and medical errors.

An unpopular and underused service needs it all: availability, convenience, monitoring, reporting, and team effort. Due to the sheer unpopularity and underuse of interpreter services, institutions should enhance ease of availability, monitor the use and quality of interpreter services, and optimize reporting of language-related errors. Ease of availability goes hand in hand with tapping local resources. Over the years, and even more so during the pandemic, in-person interpretation has transitioned to telephonic or video interpretation due to availability, safety, and cost issues. There are challenges in translating a language, and the absence of a visual channel adds another layer of complexity.

The current body of evidence does not indicate a superior interpreting method. Still, in one study providers and interpreters exposed to all three methods were more critical of remote methods and preferred videoconferencing to the telephone as a remote method. The significantly shorter phone interviews raised questions about the prospects of miscommunication in telephonic interpretation, given the absence of a visual channel.¹²

One way to bypass language barriers is to recognize the value added by hiring and training bilingual health care providers and fostering cultural competence. International medical graduates in many parts of the country aid in closing language barriers. Language-concordant care enhances trust between patients and physicians, optimizes health outcomes, and advances health equity for diverse populations.^13-15 The presence of bilingual providers means more effective and timelier communication and improved patient satisfaction. But, according to a Doximity study, there is a significant “language gap” between those languages spoken by physicians and their patients.¹⁶ Hospitals, therefore, should assess, qualify, and incentivize staff who can serve as on-site medical interpreters for patients as a means to facilitate language concordant care for LEP patients.

The Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) also has a guide on how hospitals can better identify, report, monitor, and prevent medical errors in patients with LEP. Included is the TeamSTEPPS LEP module to help develop and deploy a customized plan to train staff in teamwork skills and lead a medical teamwork improvement initiative.¹⁷

“Without my family, I was scared that nobody would understand me”

Back to the case. My patient was recovering well, and I was tying up loose ends on the switch day for the hospitalist teams.

“You will likely be discharged in a couple of days,” I said. She and the family were grateful and satisfied with the care. She had used the interpreter services and also received ethnocultural and language concordant and culturally competent care. Reducing language barriers is one of the crucial ways to reduce racial and ethnic disparities in quality of care and health outcomes, and it starts – in many cases – with identifying LEP patients. Proper use and monitoring of interpreter services, reporting language-related errors, hiring and testing bilingual staff’s language proficiency, and educating staff on cultural awareness are essential strategies for caring for LEP patients.

At my weeks’ end, in my handoff note to the incoming providers, I highlighted: “Patient will benefit from a Hindi speaking provider, Limited English Proficiency.”
 

Dr. Saigal is a hospitalist and clinical assistant professor of medicine in the division of hospital medicine at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus.

References

1. Questions and Answers. Limited English Proficiency: A federal interagency website. www.lep.gov/commonly-asked-questions.

2. United States Census Bureau. Percent of people 5 years and over who speak English less than ‘very well’. www.census.gov/library/visualizations/interactive/people-that-speak-english-less-than-very-well.html.

3. Jacobs EA, et al. Overcoming language barriers in health care: Costs and benefits of interpreter services. Am J Public Health. 2004;94(5):866–869. doi: 10.2105/ajph.94.5.866.

4. Gandhi TK, et al. Drug complications in outpatients. J Gen Intern Med. 2000;15(3):149–154. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2000.04199.x.

5. Karliner LS, et al. Do professional interpreters improve clinical care for patients with limited English proficiency? A systematic review of the literature. Health Serv Res. 2007;42(2):727–754. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00629.x.

6. Divi C, et al. Language proficiency and adverse events in US hospitals: a pilot study. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007 Apr;19(2):60-7. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzl069.

7. Karliner LS, et al. Identification of limited English proficient patients in clinical care. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23(10):1555-1560. doi:10.1007/s11606-008-0693-y.

8. Schenker Y, et al. Patterns of interpreter use for hospitalized patients with limited English proficiency. J Gen Intern Med. 2011 Jul;26(7):712-7. doi: 10.1007/s11606-010-1619-z.

9. Office of Minority Health, US Department of Health and Human Services. National Standards for Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services in Health Care: Final Report. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2001. https://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/assets/pdf/checked/finalreport.pdf.

10. www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/financial-management/medicaid-administrative-claiming/translation-and-interpretation-services/index.html

11. Schenker Y, et al. The Impact of Language Barriers on Documentation of Informed Consent at a Hospital with On-Site Interpreter Services. J Gen Intern Med. 2007 Nov;22 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):294-9. doi: 10.1007/s11606-007-0359-1.

12. Locatis C, et al. Comparing in-person, video, and telephonic medical interpretation. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25(4):345-350. doi:10.1007/s11606-009-1236-x.

13. Dunlap JL, et al. The effects of language concordant care on patient satisfaction and clinical understanding for Hispanic pediatric surgery patients. J Pediatr Surg. 2015 Sep;50(9):1586-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2014.12.020.

14. Diamond L, et al. A Systematic Review of the Impact of Patient–Physician Non-English Language Concordance on Quality of Care and Outcomes. J Gen Intern Med. 2019 Aug;34(8):1591-1606. doi: 10.1007/s11606-019-04847-5.

15. Ngo-Metzger Q, et al. Providing high-quality care for limited English proficient patients: the importance of language concordance and interpreter use. J Gen Intern Med. 2007 Nov;22 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):324-30. doi: 10.1007/s11606-007-0340-z.

16. https://press.doximity.com/articles/first-ever-national-study-to-examine-different-languages-spoken-by-us-doctors.

17. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Patients with Limited English Proficiency. www.ahrq.gov/teamstepps/lep/index.html.

A hectic Friday morning at the hospital seemed less stressful amid morning greetings and humor from colleagues. In a team room full of hospitalists, life and death are often discussed in detail, ranging from medical discussions to joys and frustrations of the day to philosophy, politics, and more. It is almost impossible to miss something interesting.

People breaking into their native languages over the phone call from home always make me smile. The mention of a “complicated Indian patient unable to use interpreter” caught my attention.

My friend and colleague asked if I would be willing to take over the patient since I could speak Hindi. I was doubtful if I would add anything to make a meaningful difference, given the patient wasn’t even participating in a conversation. However, my colleague’s concern for the patient and faith in me was enough to say, “Sure, let me add her to my list.”

At the bedside, it felt like a classic “acute on chronic” hot mess situation. The patient presented with a generalized rash, anasarca, renal failure, multifocal pneumonia, and delirium. All I could gather from the patient were some incomprehensible words that sounded like Hindi. I called the family to obtain some history and to provide updates. Her son was excited to hear from me, and it didn’t take him long to guess that I was from India. But that could still mean that I might speak any of the twenty-two or more Indian languages.

Answering my questions one by one in perfectly understandable English, he was short and sweet. Suspicious of missing out on details, I offered hesitantly, “You could speak in Hindi with me.” Then came a flood of information with the details, concerns, questions, and what was lost in the translation.

We all attend to patients and families with limited English proficiency (LEP), immigrants, and nonimmigrants. LEP is a term used to describe individuals who do not speak English as their primary language and have a limited ability to read, speak, write, or understand English.¹ Recent data from the American Community Survey (2005-2009) reports that 8.6% of the population (24 million Americans) have LEP.² It’s a large and growing population that needs help overcoming language barriers and the appropriate use of professional medical interpreter services – a backbone to safe, quality, and cost-effective patient care.

The following day at bedside rounds, the nurse reported that the patient was looking and responding better. She could cooperate with interpreter services and could speak “some English.” Over the years, one thing that sounds more alarming than “no English” is “some English” or “enough English.” Around noon I received a page that the patient was refusing intravenous Lasix. At the bedside, however, the patient seemed unaware of the perceived refusal. Further discussions with the nurse lead to a familiar culprit, a relatively common gesture in South Asian cultures, a head bobble or shake.

The nurse reported that the patient shook her head side to side, seemed upset, and said “NO” when trying to administer the medication. On the other hand, the patient reported that she was upset to be at the hospital but had “NO” problem with the medicine.

My patient’s “some English” was indeed “enough English” to put her at risk due to medical error, which is highly likely when patients or providers can speak or understand a language to “get by” or to “make do.” Like my patient, the LEP patient population is more likely to experience medical errors, longer hospital stays, hospital-acquired complications, surgical delays, and readmissions. They are also less likely to receive preventive care, have access to regular care, or be satisfied with their care. They are much more likely to have adverse effects from drug complications, poor understanding of diagnoses, a greater risk of being misunderstood by their physicians or ancillary staff, and less likely to follow physician instructions.^3-5 One study analyzed over 1,000 adverse-incident reports from six Joint Commission-accredited hospitals for LEP and English-speaking patients and found that 49% of LEP patients experienced physical harm versus 29.5% of English-speaking patients.⁶

I updated the patient’s LEP status that was missing in the chart, likely due to altered mental status at the time of admission. Reliable language and English proficiency data are usually entered at the patient’s point of entry with documentation of the language services required during the patient-provider encounter. The U.S. Census Bureau’s operational definition for LEP is a patient’s self-assessed ability to speak English less than “very well,” but how well it correlates with a patient’s actual English ability needs more study. Also, one’s self-assessed perception of ability might vary day to day, and language ability, by itself, is not static; it can differ from moment to moment and situation to situation. It may be easier to understand words in English when the situation is simple and less stressful than when things are complicated and stressful.

With a definition of LEP rather vague and the term somewhat derogatory, its meaning is open to interpretation. One study found that though speaking English less than “very well” was the most sensitive measure for identifying all of the patients who reported that they were unable to communicate effectively with their physicians, it was also the least specific.⁷ This lower specificity could lead to misclassification of some patients as LEP who are, in fact, able to effectively communicate in English with their physicians. This type of misclassification might lead to costly language assistance and carry the potential to cause conflicts between patient and provider. Telling a patient or family that they may have a “limited English proficiency” when they have believed otherwise and feel confident about their skills may come as a challenge. Some patients may also pretend to understand English to avoid being embarrassed about their linguistic abilities or perceive that they might be judged on their abilities in general.

Exiting the room, I gently reminded the RN to use the interpreter services. “Who has never been guilty of using an ad hoc interpreter or rushing through a long interpreter phone call due to time constraints?” I thought. A study from 2011 found that 43% of hospitalized patients with LEP had communicated without an interpreter present during admission, and 40% had communicated without an interpreter present after admission.⁸ In other words, a system in place does not mean service in use. But, the use of a trained interpreter is not only an obligation for care providers but a right for patients as per legal requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the Standards for Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services (CLAS) by the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HSS) Office of Minority Health.⁹ In January 2010, The Joint Commission released a set of new and revised standards for patient-centered communication as part of an initiative to advance effective communication, cultural competence, and patient- and family-centered care.

Despite the requirements and availability of qualified medical interpreter services, there are multiple perceived and experienced barriers to the use of interpreter services. The most common one is that what comes as a free service for patients is a time commitment for providers. A long list of patients, acuity of the situation, and ease of use/availability of translation aids can change the calculus. One may be able to bill a prolonged service code (99354-99357) in addition to the appropriate E/M code, although a patient cannot be billed for the actual service provided by the interpreter. Longstanding CMS policy also permits reimbursement for translation/interpretation activities, so long as they are not included and paid for as part of the rate for direct service.¹⁰

The patient, however, insisted that she would rather have her son as the interpreter on the 3-way over the phone (OPI) conference call for interpretation. “He speaks good English and knows my medical history well,” she said. I counseled the patient on the benefits of using interpreter services and explained how to use the call button light and the visual aids.

Placing emphasis on educating patients about the benefits of using, and risks of not using, interpreter services is as essential as emphasizing that care providers use the services. Some patients may voluntarily choose to provide their own interpreter. Use of family members, friends, or unqualified staff as interpreters is one of the most commonly reported causes of errors by frontline staff. Using in-language collateral may help these patients understand how medical interpretation may create a better patient experience and outcome. A short factsheet, in different languages, on qualified interpreters’ expected benefits: meaning-for-meaning communication, impartiality, medical privacy, and improved patient safety and satisfaction, can also come in handy.

However, if the patient still refuses, providers should document the refusal of the offer of free language services, the name of the interpreter designated by the patient, the interpreter’s relationship to the LEP person, and the time or portions of the patient encounter that the interpreter’s services were used. Yet, language interpretation alone can be inadequate without document translation. According to one study, despite the availability of on-site professional interpreter services, hospitalized patients who do not speak English are less likely to have signed consent forms in their medical records.¹¹ Health care professionals, therefore, need well-translated documents to treat LEP patients. Translated documents of consent forms for medical procedures, post-discharge instructions, prescription and medical device labels, and drug usage information may enhance informed decision making, safety and reduce stress and medical errors.

An unpopular and underused service needs it all: availability, convenience, monitoring, reporting, and team effort. Due to the sheer unpopularity and underuse of interpreter services, institutions should enhance ease of availability, monitor the use and quality of interpreter services, and optimize reporting of language-related errors. Ease of availability goes hand in hand with tapping local resources. Over the years, and even more so during the pandemic, in-person interpretation has transitioned to telephonic or video interpretation due to availability, safety, and cost issues. There are challenges in translating a language, and the absence of a visual channel adds another layer of complexity.

The current body of evidence does not indicate a superior interpreting method. Still, in one study providers and interpreters exposed to all three methods were more critical of remote methods and preferred videoconferencing to the telephone as a remote method. The significantly shorter phone interviews raised questions about the prospects of miscommunication in telephonic interpretation, given the absence of a visual channel.¹²

One way to bypass language barriers is to recognize the value added by hiring and training bilingual health care providers and fostering cultural competence. International medical graduates in many parts of the country aid in closing language barriers. Language-concordant care enhances trust between patients and physicians, optimizes health outcomes, and advances health equity for diverse populations.^13-15 The presence of bilingual providers means more effective and timelier communication and improved patient satisfaction. But, according to a Doximity study, there is a significant “language gap” between those languages spoken by physicians and their patients.¹⁶ Hospitals, therefore, should assess, qualify, and incentivize staff who can serve as on-site medical interpreters for patients as a means to facilitate language concordant care for LEP patients.

The Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) also has a guide on how hospitals can better identify, report, monitor, and prevent medical errors in patients with LEP. Included is the TeamSTEPPS LEP module to help develop and deploy a customized plan to train staff in teamwork skills and lead a medical teamwork improvement initiative.¹⁷

“Without my family, I was scared that nobody would understand me”

Back to the case. My patient was recovering well, and I was tying up loose ends on the switch day for the hospitalist teams.

“You will likely be discharged in a couple of days,” I said. She and the family were grateful and satisfied with the care. She had used the interpreter services and also received ethnocultural and language concordant and culturally competent care. Reducing language barriers is one of the crucial ways to reduce racial and ethnic disparities in quality of care and health outcomes, and it starts – in many cases – with identifying LEP patients. Proper use and monitoring of interpreter services, reporting language-related errors, hiring and testing bilingual staff’s language proficiency, and educating staff on cultural awareness are essential strategies for caring for LEP patients.

At my weeks’ end, in my handoff note to the incoming providers, I highlighted: “Patient will benefit from a Hindi speaking provider, Limited English Proficiency.”
 

Dr. Saigal is a hospitalist and clinical assistant professor of medicine in the division of hospital medicine at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus.

References

1. Questions and Answers. Limited English Proficiency: A federal interagency website. www.lep.gov/commonly-asked-questions.

2. United States Census Bureau. Percent of people 5 years and over who speak English less than ‘very well’. www.census.gov/library/visualizations/interactive/people-that-speak-english-less-than-very-well.html.

3. Jacobs EA, et al. Overcoming language barriers in health care: Costs and benefits of interpreter services. Am J Public Health. 2004;94(5):866–869. doi: 10.2105/ajph.94.5.866.

4. Gandhi TK, et al. Drug complications in outpatients. J Gen Intern Med. 2000;15(3):149–154. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2000.04199.x.

5. Karliner LS, et al. Do professional interpreters improve clinical care for patients with limited English proficiency? A systematic review of the literature. Health Serv Res. 2007;42(2):727–754. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00629.x.

6. Divi C, et al. Language proficiency and adverse events in US hospitals: a pilot study. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007 Apr;19(2):60-7. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzl069.

7. Karliner LS, et al. Identification of limited English proficient patients in clinical care. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23(10):1555-1560. doi:10.1007/s11606-008-0693-y.

8. Schenker Y, et al. Patterns of interpreter use for hospitalized patients with limited English proficiency. J Gen Intern Med. 2011 Jul;26(7):712-7. doi: 10.1007/s11606-010-1619-z.

9. Office of Minority Health, US Department of Health and Human Services. National Standards for Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services in Health Care: Final Report. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2001. https://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/assets/pdf/checked/finalreport.pdf.

10. www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/financial-management/medicaid-administrative-claiming/translation-and-interpretation-services/index.html

11. Schenker Y, et al. The Impact of Language Barriers on Documentation of Informed Consent at a Hospital with On-Site Interpreter Services. J Gen Intern Med. 2007 Nov;22 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):294-9. doi: 10.1007/s11606-007-0359-1.

12. Locatis C, et al. Comparing in-person, video, and telephonic medical interpretation. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25(4):345-350. doi:10.1007/s11606-009-1236-x.

13. Dunlap JL, et al. The effects of language concordant care on patient satisfaction and clinical understanding for Hispanic pediatric surgery patients. J Pediatr Surg. 2015 Sep;50(9):1586-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2014.12.020.

14. Diamond L, et al. A Systematic Review of the Impact of Patient–Physician Non-English Language Concordance on Quality of Care and Outcomes. J Gen Intern Med. 2019 Aug;34(8):1591-1606. doi: 10.1007/s11606-019-04847-5.

15. Ngo-Metzger Q, et al. Providing high-quality care for limited English proficient patients: the importance of language concordance and interpreter use. J Gen Intern Med. 2007 Nov;22 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):324-30. doi: 10.1007/s11606-007-0340-z.

16. https://press.doximity.com/articles/first-ever-national-study-to-examine-different-languages-spoken-by-us-doctors.

17. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Patients with Limited English Proficiency. www.ahrq.gov/teamstepps/lep/index.html.

Editor’s note: This article has been provided by The Doctors Company, the exclusively endorsed medical malpractice carrier for the Society of Hospital Medicine.

The pandemic has raised pressing questions around preventive measures, vaccines, and safe treatment, but it has also obscured one key lingering uncertainty for medical professionals: Where are all the medical malpractice claims?

A variety of factors create a cloud of uncertainty around when, if ever, we will see the claims we expected from care provided just before the pandemic, much less claims deriving from care during the pandemic of both COVID-19 and non–COVID-19 patients.
 

Malpractice claims take time to surface

We won’t know until 2022 or later whether there will be an increase in claims related to the pandemic. When a medical error occurs, it’s not like an automobile accident. Everybody nearby knows when there’s been an automobile accident because they hear screeching tires, a loud crash, and then sirens. But when a medical error occurs, generally speaking, neither the doctor nor the patient immediately knows that something is amiss. It can take months or years for people to realize that something untoward has occurred.

Claims from medical errors that occurred before the pandemic bring additional uncertainties. In 2020, we saw fewer than expected overall claims filed from events occurring 18-24 months before the pandemic. In total, 20% fewer claims were filed than in 2019. This may have had to do with courts shutting down, people being reluctant to meet with attorneys to discuss a claim, and/or lawyers working from home. We may see these claims filed later than expected, or maybe we won’t see them at all.

But without a doubt, pandemic-related claims will be filed. The pandemic’s impact on physicians increases the risk of claims. Burnout is a major cause of medical errors, and a recent study found that out of 60 countries, U.S. health care providers showed the highest rates of burnout. We’re concerned about the stress affecting physicians’ performance – not just the physical stress of the demands put on them while treating COVID-19 patients, but all of the worry. For instance, a lot of doctors at the start of this pandemic stayed at hotels because they didn’t want to bring the virus home to their families – if they got exposed. Those sorts of stressors from life disruptions, on top of the stress of treating COVID-19 patients and the stress of treating non–COVID-19 patients within overtaxed health care systems, contribute to the possibilities for error.
 

Immunity protections are not fail-safe

And while health care providers have medical liability protections during the pandemic, these protections may not prevent claims. Health care provider pandemic-related liability laws vary from state to state, and they will be tested in the courts as to whether they’re constitutional. For example, there is pending legislation in New York state that would repeal the provider protections created there at the start of the pandemic. Further, some expert witnesses will couch their statements in terms of what it takes to get around one of these statutes. Therefore, physicians do have reason for concern, even in states with strong liability protections.

The following case example, which is one of about 40 COVID-19–related claims made against our members so far, is a poster child for why these protections are necessary: A quadriplegic patient with COVID-19 had reached the point of organ failure before he reached the ED. There was really nothing medical science could do for him at that point, in terms of a chance at recovery. Therefore, the patient’s physician and conservator placed him in assisted living for palliative care. This was a sad but reasonable decision during a pandemic, with hospital beds needed for patients with a shot at surviving. Following that patient’s death, the physician is being sued.
 

Defending claims regarding treatment vs. regarding infection control

We are very confident in our ability to protect our members against claims where they are being sued over the treatment of the disease. Claims arising out of treatment are not concerning to us because there is no cure for COVID-19 – one can only treat the symptoms as the virus runs its course.

On the other hand, suits harder to defend would be those that revolve around transmitting the disease because providers didn’t follow guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or there wasn’t enough personal protective equipment. That’s why we stress the importance of following CDC guidelines, and why we’ve taken proactive steps to communicate with the entire medical community throughout the pandemic as part of our commitment to serve those who provide care.

Mr. White is chief operating officer at The Doctors Company. The guidelines suggested here are not rules, do not constitute legal advice, and do not ensure a successful outcome. The ultimate decision regarding the appropriateness of any treatment must be made by each health care provider considering the circumstances of the individual situation and in accordance with the laws of the jurisdiction in which the care is rendered.

Editor’s note: This article has been provided by The Doctors Company, the exclusively endorsed medical malpractice carrier for the Society of Hospital Medicine.

The pandemic has raised pressing questions around preventive measures, vaccines, and safe treatment, but it has also obscured one key lingering uncertainty for medical professionals: Where are all the medical malpractice claims?

A variety of factors create a cloud of uncertainty around when, if ever, we will see the claims we expected from care provided just before the pandemic, much less claims deriving from care during the pandemic of both COVID-19 and non–COVID-19 patients.
 

Malpractice claims take time to surface

We won’t know until 2022 or later whether there will be an increase in claims related to the pandemic. When a medical error occurs, it’s not like an automobile accident. Everybody nearby knows when there’s been an automobile accident because they hear screeching tires, a loud crash, and then sirens. But when a medical error occurs, generally speaking, neither the doctor nor the patient immediately knows that something is amiss. It can take months or years for people to realize that something untoward has occurred.

Claims from medical errors that occurred before the pandemic bring additional uncertainties. In 2020, we saw fewer than expected overall claims filed from events occurring 18-24 months before the pandemic. In total, 20% fewer claims were filed than in 2019. This may have had to do with courts shutting down, people being reluctant to meet with attorneys to discuss a claim, and/or lawyers working from home. We may see these claims filed later than expected, or maybe we won’t see them at all.

But without a doubt, pandemic-related claims will be filed. The pandemic’s impact on physicians increases the risk of claims. Burnout is a major cause of medical errors, and a recent study found that out of 60 countries, U.S. health care providers showed the highest rates of burnout. We’re concerned about the stress affecting physicians’ performance – not just the physical stress of the demands put on them while treating COVID-19 patients, but all of the worry. For instance, a lot of doctors at the start of this pandemic stayed at hotels because they didn’t want to bring the virus home to their families – if they got exposed. Those sorts of stressors from life disruptions, on top of the stress of treating COVID-19 patients and the stress of treating non–COVID-19 patients within overtaxed health care systems, contribute to the possibilities for error.
 

Immunity protections are not fail-safe

And while health care providers have medical liability protections during the pandemic, these protections may not prevent claims. Health care provider pandemic-related liability laws vary from state to state, and they will be tested in the courts as to whether they’re constitutional. For example, there is pending legislation in New York state that would repeal the provider protections created there at the start of the pandemic. Further, some expert witnesses will couch their statements in terms of what it takes to get around one of these statutes. Therefore, physicians do have reason for concern, even in states with strong liability protections.

The following case example, which is one of about 40 COVID-19–related claims made against our members so far, is a poster child for why these protections are necessary: A quadriplegic patient with COVID-19 had reached the point of organ failure before he reached the ED. There was really nothing medical science could do for him at that point, in terms of a chance at recovery. Therefore, the patient’s physician and conservator placed him in assisted living for palliative care. This was a sad but reasonable decision during a pandemic, with hospital beds needed for patients with a shot at surviving. Following that patient’s death, the physician is being sued.
 

Defending claims regarding treatment vs. regarding infection control

We are very confident in our ability to protect our members against claims where they are being sued over the treatment of the disease. Claims arising out of treatment are not concerning to us because there is no cure for COVID-19 – one can only treat the symptoms as the virus runs its course.

On the other hand, suits harder to defend would be those that revolve around transmitting the disease because providers didn’t follow guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or there wasn’t enough personal protective equipment. That’s why we stress the importance of following CDC guidelines, and why we’ve taken proactive steps to communicate with the entire medical community throughout the pandemic as part of our commitment to serve those who provide care.

Mr. White is chief operating officer at The Doctors Company. The guidelines suggested here are not rules, do not constitute legal advice, and do not ensure a successful outcome. The ultimate decision regarding the appropriateness of any treatment must be made by each health care provider considering the circumstances of the individual situation and in accordance with the laws of the jurisdiction in which the care is rendered.

Editor’s note: This article has been provided by The Doctors Company, the exclusively endorsed medical malpractice carrier for the Society of Hospital Medicine.

The pandemic has raised pressing questions around preventive measures, vaccines, and safe treatment, but it has also obscured one key lingering uncertainty for medical professionals: Where are all the medical malpractice claims?

A variety of factors create a cloud of uncertainty around when, if ever, we will see the claims we expected from care provided just before the pandemic, much less claims deriving from care during the pandemic of both COVID-19 and non–COVID-19 patients.
 

Malpractice claims take time to surface

We won’t know until 2022 or later whether there will be an increase in claims related to the pandemic. When a medical error occurs, it’s not like an automobile accident. Everybody nearby knows when there’s been an automobile accident because they hear screeching tires, a loud crash, and then sirens. But when a medical error occurs, generally speaking, neither the doctor nor the patient immediately knows that something is amiss. It can take months or years for people to realize that something untoward has occurred.

Claims from medical errors that occurred before the pandemic bring additional uncertainties. In 2020, we saw fewer than expected overall claims filed from events occurring 18-24 months before the pandemic. In total, 20% fewer claims were filed than in 2019. This may have had to do with courts shutting down, people being reluctant to meet with attorneys to discuss a claim, and/or lawyers working from home. We may see these claims filed later than expected, or maybe we won’t see them at all.

But without a doubt, pandemic-related claims will be filed. The pandemic’s impact on physicians increases the risk of claims. Burnout is a major cause of medical errors, and a recent study found that out of 60 countries, U.S. health care providers showed the highest rates of burnout. We’re concerned about the stress affecting physicians’ performance – not just the physical stress of the demands put on them while treating COVID-19 patients, but all of the worry. For instance, a lot of doctors at the start of this pandemic stayed at hotels because they didn’t want to bring the virus home to their families – if they got exposed. Those sorts of stressors from life disruptions, on top of the stress of treating COVID-19 patients and the stress of treating non–COVID-19 patients within overtaxed health care systems, contribute to the possibilities for error.
 

Immunity protections are not fail-safe

And while health care providers have medical liability protections during the pandemic, these protections may not prevent claims. Health care provider pandemic-related liability laws vary from state to state, and they will be tested in the courts as to whether they’re constitutional. For example, there is pending legislation in New York state that would repeal the provider protections created there at the start of the pandemic. Further, some expert witnesses will couch their statements in terms of what it takes to get around one of these statutes. Therefore, physicians do have reason for concern, even in states with strong liability protections.

The following case example, which is one of about 40 COVID-19–related claims made against our members so far, is a poster child for why these protections are necessary: A quadriplegic patient with COVID-19 had reached the point of organ failure before he reached the ED. There was really nothing medical science could do for him at that point, in terms of a chance at recovery. Therefore, the patient’s physician and conservator placed him in assisted living for palliative care. This was a sad but reasonable decision during a pandemic, with hospital beds needed for patients with a shot at surviving. Following that patient’s death, the physician is being sued.
 

Defending claims regarding treatment vs. regarding infection control

We are very confident in our ability to protect our members against claims where they are being sued over the treatment of the disease. Claims arising out of treatment are not concerning to us because there is no cure for COVID-19 – one can only treat the symptoms as the virus runs its course.

On the other hand, suits harder to defend would be those that revolve around transmitting the disease because providers didn’t follow guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or there wasn’t enough personal protective equipment. That’s why we stress the importance of following CDC guidelines, and why we’ve taken proactive steps to communicate with the entire medical community throughout the pandemic as part of our commitment to serve those who provide care.

Mr. White is chief operating officer at The Doctors Company. The guidelines suggested here are not rules, do not constitute legal advice, and do not ensure a successful outcome. The ultimate decision regarding the appropriateness of any treatment must be made by each health care provider considering the circumstances of the individual situation and in accordance with the laws of the jurisdiction in which the care is rendered.

Background: The opioid crisis is in the forefront as a public health emergency and there are concerns regarding addiction stemming from opioid prescriptions written in the acute setting, such as the ED and hospitals.

Dr. Wang is a hospitalist and associate professor of medicine at University of Texas Health, San Antonio.

Background: The opioid crisis is in the forefront as a public health emergency and there are concerns regarding addiction stemming from opioid prescriptions written in the acute setting, such as the ED and hospitals.

Dr. Wang is a hospitalist and associate professor of medicine at University of Texas Health, San Antonio.

Background: The opioid crisis is in the forefront as a public health emergency and there are concerns regarding addiction stemming from opioid prescriptions written in the acute setting, such as the ED and hospitals.

Dr. Wang is a hospitalist and associate professor of medicine at University of Texas Health, San Antonio.

Background: As technology and medical advances improve patient care, physicians and patients have become more dissatisfied with their interactions and relationships. Practices are needed to improve the connection between physician and patient.

Study design: Mixed-methods.

Setting: Three diverse primary care settings (academic medical center, Veterans Affairs facility, federally qualified health center).

Synopsis: Initial evidence- and narrative-based practices were identified from a systematic literature review, clinical observations of primary care encounters, and qualitative discussions with physicians, patients, and nonmedical professionals. A three-round modified Delphi process was performed with experts representing different aspects of the patient-physician relationship.

Five recommended clinical practices were recognized to foster presence and meaningful connections with patients: 1. Prepare with intention (becoming familiar with the patient before you meet them); 2. Listen intently and completely (sit down, lean forward, and don’t interrupt, but listen); 3. Agree on what matters most (discover your patient’s goals and fit them into the visit); 4. Connect with the patient’s story (take notice of efforts by the patient and successes); 5. Explore emotional cues (be aware of your patient’s emotions). Limitations of this study include the use of convenience sampling for the qualitative research, lack of international diversity of the expert panelists, and the lack of validation of the five practices as a whole.

Bottom line: The five practices of prepare with intention, listen intently and completely, agree on what matters most, connect with the patient’s story, and explore emotional cues may improve the patient-physician connection.

Citation: Zulman DM et al. Practices to foster physician presence and connection with patients in the clinical encounter. JAMA. 2020;323(1):70-81.

Dr. Trammell-Velasquez is a hospitalist and associate professor of medicine at University of Texas Health, San Antonio.

Background: As technology and medical advances improve patient care, physicians and patients have become more dissatisfied with their interactions and relationships. Practices are needed to improve the connection between physician and patient.

Study design: Mixed-methods.

Setting: Three diverse primary care settings (academic medical center, Veterans Affairs facility, federally qualified health center).

Synopsis: Initial evidence- and narrative-based practices were identified from a systematic literature review, clinical observations of primary care encounters, and qualitative discussions with physicians, patients, and nonmedical professionals. A three-round modified Delphi process was performed with experts representing different aspects of the patient-physician relationship.

Five recommended clinical practices were recognized to foster presence and meaningful connections with patients: 1. Prepare with intention (becoming familiar with the patient before you meet them); 2. Listen intently and completely (sit down, lean forward, and don’t interrupt, but listen); 3. Agree on what matters most (discover your patient’s goals and fit them into the visit); 4. Connect with the patient’s story (take notice of efforts by the patient and successes); 5. Explore emotional cues (be aware of your patient’s emotions). Limitations of this study include the use of convenience sampling for the qualitative research, lack of international diversity of the expert panelists, and the lack of validation of the five practices as a whole.

Bottom line: The five practices of prepare with intention, listen intently and completely, agree on what matters most, connect with the patient’s story, and explore emotional cues may improve the patient-physician connection.

Citation: Zulman DM et al. Practices to foster physician presence and connection with patients in the clinical encounter. JAMA. 2020;323(1):70-81.

Dr. Trammell-Velasquez is a hospitalist and associate professor of medicine at University of Texas Health, San Antonio.

Background: As technology and medical advances improve patient care, physicians and patients have become more dissatisfied with their interactions and relationships. Practices are needed to improve the connection between physician and patient.

Study design: Mixed-methods.

Setting: Three diverse primary care settings (academic medical center, Veterans Affairs facility, federally qualified health center).

Synopsis: Initial evidence- and narrative-based practices were identified from a systematic literature review, clinical observations of primary care encounters, and qualitative discussions with physicians, patients, and nonmedical professionals. A three-round modified Delphi process was performed with experts representing different aspects of the patient-physician relationship.

Five recommended clinical practices were recognized to foster presence and meaningful connections with patients: 1. Prepare with intention (becoming familiar with the patient before you meet them); 2. Listen intently and completely (sit down, lean forward, and don’t interrupt, but listen); 3. Agree on what matters most (discover your patient’s goals and fit them into the visit); 4. Connect with the patient’s story (take notice of efforts by the patient and successes); 5. Explore emotional cues (be aware of your patient’s emotions). Limitations of this study include the use of convenience sampling for the qualitative research, lack of international diversity of the expert panelists, and the lack of validation of the five practices as a whole.

Bottom line: The five practices of prepare with intention, listen intently and completely, agree on what matters most, connect with the patient’s story, and explore emotional cues may improve the patient-physician connection.

Citation: Zulman DM et al. Practices to foster physician presence and connection with patients in the clinical encounter. JAMA. 2020;323(1):70-81.

Dr. Trammell-Velasquez is a hospitalist and associate professor of medicine at University of Texas Health, San Antonio.

Background: In the United States, 5% of the population use half of the annual spending for health care services and 1% account for approximately a quarter of annual spending, considered “superutilizers” of U.S. health care services. The Camden Coalition of Healthcare Providers (the Coalition) developed a model using hospital admission data to identify superutilizers, termed “hotspotting,” which has gained national recognition. Unlike other similar programs, this model targets a more diverse population with higher utilization than other programs that have been studied.
 

Study design: Randomized, controlled trial.

Setting: Two hospitals in Camden, N.J., from June 2, 2014, to March 31, 2018.

Synopsis: Eight-hundred superutilizers (at least one hospital admission at any of the four Camden-area hospital systems in the past 6 months, greater than one chronic medical condition, more than one high-risk traits/conditions) were randomly assigned to the intervention group or usual care. Once enrolled in the hospital, a multidisciplinary team began working with the patient in the intervention group on discharge. Team members conducted home visits, scheduled/took patients to appointments, managed medications, monitored and coached patients in disease-specific self-care, and assisted with applying for social and other assistive programs.

The readmission rate within 180 days after hospital discharge (primary outcome) between groups was not significant, with 62.3% readmitted in the intervention group and 61.7% in the control group. There was also no effect on the defined secondary outcomes (number of readmissions, proportion of patients with more than two readmissions, hospital days, charges, payments received, mortality).

The trial was not powered to detect smaller reductions in readmissions or to analyze effects within specific subgroups.

Bottom line: The addition of the Coalition’s program to patients with very high use of health care services did not decrease hospital readmission rate when compared to usual care.

Citation: Finkelstein A et al. Health care hotspotting – a randomized, controlled trial. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:152-62.

Dr. Trammell-Velasquez is a hospitalist and associate professor of medicine at University of Texas Health, San Antonio.

Background: In the United States, 5% of the population use half of the annual spending for health care services and 1% account for approximately a quarter of annual spending, considered “superutilizers” of U.S. health care services. The Camden Coalition of Healthcare Providers (the Coalition) developed a model using hospital admission data to identify superutilizers, termed “hotspotting,” which has gained national recognition. Unlike other similar programs, this model targets a more diverse population with higher utilization than other programs that have been studied.
 

Study design: Randomized, controlled trial.

Setting: Two hospitals in Camden, N.J., from June 2, 2014, to March 31, 2018.

Synopsis: Eight-hundred superutilizers (at least one hospital admission at any of the four Camden-area hospital systems in the past 6 months, greater than one chronic medical condition, more than one high-risk traits/conditions) were randomly assigned to the intervention group or usual care. Once enrolled in the hospital, a multidisciplinary team began working with the patient in the intervention group on discharge. Team members conducted home visits, scheduled/took patients to appointments, managed medications, monitored and coached patients in disease-specific self-care, and assisted with applying for social and other assistive programs.

The readmission rate within 180 days after hospital discharge (primary outcome) between groups was not significant, with 62.3% readmitted in the intervention group and 61.7% in the control group. There was also no effect on the defined secondary outcomes (number of readmissions, proportion of patients with more than two readmissions, hospital days, charges, payments received, mortality).

The trial was not powered to detect smaller reductions in readmissions or to analyze effects within specific subgroups.

Bottom line: The addition of the Coalition’s program to patients with very high use of health care services did not decrease hospital readmission rate when compared to usual care.

Citation: Finkelstein A et al. Health care hotspotting – a randomized, controlled trial. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:152-62.

Dr. Trammell-Velasquez is a hospitalist and associate professor of medicine at University of Texas Health, San Antonio.

Background: In the United States, 5% of the population use half of the annual spending for health care services and 1% account for approximately a quarter of annual spending, considered “superutilizers” of U.S. health care services. The Camden Coalition of Healthcare Providers (the Coalition) developed a model using hospital admission data to identify superutilizers, termed “hotspotting,” which has gained national recognition. Unlike other similar programs, this model targets a more diverse population with higher utilization than other programs that have been studied.
 

Study design: Randomized, controlled trial.

Setting: Two hospitals in Camden, N.J., from June 2, 2014, to March 31, 2018.

Synopsis: Eight-hundred superutilizers (at least one hospital admission at any of the four Camden-area hospital systems in the past 6 months, greater than one chronic medical condition, more than one high-risk traits/conditions) were randomly assigned to the intervention group or usual care. Once enrolled in the hospital, a multidisciplinary team began working with the patient in the intervention group on discharge. Team members conducted home visits, scheduled/took patients to appointments, managed medications, monitored and coached patients in disease-specific self-care, and assisted with applying for social and other assistive programs.

The readmission rate within 180 days after hospital discharge (primary outcome) between groups was not significant, with 62.3% readmitted in the intervention group and 61.7% in the control group. There was also no effect on the defined secondary outcomes (number of readmissions, proportion of patients with more than two readmissions, hospital days, charges, payments received, mortality).

The trial was not powered to detect smaller reductions in readmissions or to analyze effects within specific subgroups.

Bottom line: The addition of the Coalition’s program to patients with very high use of health care services did not decrease hospital readmission rate when compared to usual care.

Citation: Finkelstein A et al. Health care hotspotting – a randomized, controlled trial. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:152-62.

Dr. Trammell-Velasquez is a hospitalist and associate professor of medicine at University of Texas Health, San Antonio.