Quality

Clinical question: Can an opiate-prescribing standard that favors oral and subcutaneous over intravenous administration reduce exposure to intravenous opiates for hospitalized adults?

Background: IV opiates, while effective for analgesia, may have a higher addictive potential because of the rapid and intermittent rises of peak concentrations. Subcutaneous and/or oral administration is a proven method of opioid delivery with similar bioavailability and efficacy of intravenous administration with more favorable pharmacokinetics.

Study design: Intervention-based quality improvement project.

Dr. Chowdury is an assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine, University of Colorado, Denver.

Clinical question: Can an opiate-prescribing standard that favors oral and subcutaneous over intravenous administration reduce exposure to intravenous opiates for hospitalized adults?

Background: IV opiates, while effective for analgesia, may have a higher addictive potential because of the rapid and intermittent rises of peak concentrations. Subcutaneous and/or oral administration is a proven method of opioid delivery with similar bioavailability and efficacy of intravenous administration with more favorable pharmacokinetics.

Study design: Intervention-based quality improvement project.

Dr. Chowdury is an assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine, University of Colorado, Denver.

Clinical question: Can an opiate-prescribing standard that favors oral and subcutaneous over intravenous administration reduce exposure to intravenous opiates for hospitalized adults?

Background: IV opiates, while effective for analgesia, may have a higher addictive potential because of the rapid and intermittent rises of peak concentrations. Subcutaneous and/or oral administration is a proven method of opioid delivery with similar bioavailability and efficacy of intravenous administration with more favorable pharmacokinetics.

Study design: Intervention-based quality improvement project.

Dr. Chowdury is an assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine, University of Colorado, Denver.

Hospitalists have focused much attention on reducing 30-day readmission rates, at a time when 15-20% of health care dollars spent on those readmissions is considered potentially preventable.

But until very recently, no study has explored patient perceptions of the likelihood of readmission during index admission. Now, that’s changed.

Reference

Carter J et al. The association between patient experience factors and likelihood of 30-day readmission: A prospective cohort study. BMJ Qual Saf. 16 Nov 2017. Accessed Feb 2, 2018.

Hospitalists have focused much attention on reducing 30-day readmission rates, at a time when 15-20% of health care dollars spent on those readmissions is considered potentially preventable.

But until very recently, no study has explored patient perceptions of the likelihood of readmission during index admission. Now, that’s changed.

Reference

Carter J et al. The association between patient experience factors and likelihood of 30-day readmission: A prospective cohort study. BMJ Qual Saf. 16 Nov 2017. Accessed Feb 2, 2018.

Hospitalists have focused much attention on reducing 30-day readmission rates, at a time when 15-20% of health care dollars spent on those readmissions is considered potentially preventable.

But until very recently, no study has explored patient perceptions of the likelihood of readmission during index admission. Now, that’s changed.

Reference

Carter J et al. The association between patient experience factors and likelihood of 30-day readmission: A prospective cohort study. BMJ Qual Saf. 16 Nov 2017. Accessed Feb 2, 2018.

When hospital medicine and surgical departments (usually orthopedics or neurosurgery) have joined in comanagement programs, improvements in quality metrics and patient satisfaction have often resulted.

At the Level 1 regional trauma center in which he works, Charles L. Kast, MD, and his colleagues wanted to try a comanagement agreement between hospital medicine and trauma surgery.

“The surgical team identified a need within their own department, which was to improve patient mortality and satisfaction in the inpatient setting,” said Dr. Kast, who is based at North Shore University Hospital, Manhasset, N.Y. “Their leadership sought out our hospital medicine leadership team, who then worked together to synthesize their metrics. We were able to identify other quality indicators, such as readmission rates and hospital-acquired conditions, which we felt could also benefit from our services in order to help them improve.”

Five hospitalists became members of the comanagement team. A single hospitalist rotated for 2 weeks at a time, during which they were relieved of routine hospital medicine rounding responsibilities. The hospitalist attended daily interdisciplinary rounds with the trauma surgery team, during which he/she identified patients that could benefit from hospital medicine comanagement: Patients who were over age 65 years, had multiple chronic medical conditions, or were on high-risk medications were preferentially selected. Approximately 10 patients were seen daily.

The comanagement program was well received by trauma surgeons, who talked about improved patient communication and a fostered sense of collegiality. Preliminary quality and patient satisfaction metrics were also positive.

A top takeaway is that the benefits of surgical comanagement can be demonstrated in “atypical” collaborations, depending on the needs of the department and the hospital’s vision.

“The gains in improved patient quality metrics are only half of the story,” Dr. Kast said. “Collaborating in surgical comanagement improves the satisfaction of the hospitalists and surgeons involved and can lead to future quality improvement projects or original research, both of which we are currently pursuing.”
 

Reference

Kast C et al. The successful development of a hospital medicine-trauma surgery co-management program [abstract]. J Hosp Med. 2017;12(suppl 2). Accessed Feb. 2, 2018.

When hospital medicine and surgical departments (usually orthopedics or neurosurgery) have joined in comanagement programs, improvements in quality metrics and patient satisfaction have often resulted.

At the Level 1 regional trauma center in which he works, Charles L. Kast, MD, and his colleagues wanted to try a comanagement agreement between hospital medicine and trauma surgery.

“The surgical team identified a need within their own department, which was to improve patient mortality and satisfaction in the inpatient setting,” said Dr. Kast, who is based at North Shore University Hospital, Manhasset, N.Y. “Their leadership sought out our hospital medicine leadership team, who then worked together to synthesize their metrics. We were able to identify other quality indicators, such as readmission rates and hospital-acquired conditions, which we felt could also benefit from our services in order to help them improve.”

Five hospitalists became members of the comanagement team. A single hospitalist rotated for 2 weeks at a time, during which they were relieved of routine hospital medicine rounding responsibilities. The hospitalist attended daily interdisciplinary rounds with the trauma surgery team, during which he/she identified patients that could benefit from hospital medicine comanagement: Patients who were over age 65 years, had multiple chronic medical conditions, or were on high-risk medications were preferentially selected. Approximately 10 patients were seen daily.

The comanagement program was well received by trauma surgeons, who talked about improved patient communication and a fostered sense of collegiality. Preliminary quality and patient satisfaction metrics were also positive.

A top takeaway is that the benefits of surgical comanagement can be demonstrated in “atypical” collaborations, depending on the needs of the department and the hospital’s vision.

“The gains in improved patient quality metrics are only half of the story,” Dr. Kast said. “Collaborating in surgical comanagement improves the satisfaction of the hospitalists and surgeons involved and can lead to future quality improvement projects or original research, both of which we are currently pursuing.”
 

Reference

Kast C et al. The successful development of a hospital medicine-trauma surgery co-management program [abstract]. J Hosp Med. 2017;12(suppl 2). Accessed Feb. 2, 2018.

When hospital medicine and surgical departments (usually orthopedics or neurosurgery) have joined in comanagement programs, improvements in quality metrics and patient satisfaction have often resulted.

At the Level 1 regional trauma center in which he works, Charles L. Kast, MD, and his colleagues wanted to try a comanagement agreement between hospital medicine and trauma surgery.

“The surgical team identified a need within their own department, which was to improve patient mortality and satisfaction in the inpatient setting,” said Dr. Kast, who is based at North Shore University Hospital, Manhasset, N.Y. “Their leadership sought out our hospital medicine leadership team, who then worked together to synthesize their metrics. We were able to identify other quality indicators, such as readmission rates and hospital-acquired conditions, which we felt could also benefit from our services in order to help them improve.”

Five hospitalists became members of the comanagement team. A single hospitalist rotated for 2 weeks at a time, during which they were relieved of routine hospital medicine rounding responsibilities. The hospitalist attended daily interdisciplinary rounds with the trauma surgery team, during which he/she identified patients that could benefit from hospital medicine comanagement: Patients who were over age 65 years, had multiple chronic medical conditions, or were on high-risk medications were preferentially selected. Approximately 10 patients were seen daily.

The comanagement program was well received by trauma surgeons, who talked about improved patient communication and a fostered sense of collegiality. Preliminary quality and patient satisfaction metrics were also positive.

A top takeaway is that the benefits of surgical comanagement can be demonstrated in “atypical” collaborations, depending on the needs of the department and the hospital’s vision.

“The gains in improved patient quality metrics are only half of the story,” Dr. Kast said. “Collaborating in surgical comanagement improves the satisfaction of the hospitalists and surgeons involved and can lead to future quality improvement projects or original research, both of which we are currently pursuing.”
 

Reference

Kast C et al. The successful development of a hospital medicine-trauma surgery co-management program [abstract]. J Hosp Med. 2017;12(suppl 2). Accessed Feb. 2, 2018.

A 57-year-old man is admitted to the hospital with new back pain, which has been getting worse over the past 6 days. He had been diagnosed with stage 4 lung cancer in mid-2017 and underwent treatment with a platinum-based double therapy.

The man also has a history of heroin use – as recently as two years earlier – and he was divorced not long ago. He has been using an old prescription for Vicodin to treat himself, taking as many as 10-12 tablets a day.

This man is an example of the kind of complicated patient hospitalists are called on to treat – complex pain in an era when opioid abuse is considered a public scourge. How is a hospitalist to handle a case like this?

Pain cases are far from the only types of increasingly complex, often palliative cases in which hospitalists are being asked to provide help. Care for the elderly is also becoming increasingly difficult as the U.S. population ages and as hospitalists step in to provide care in the absence of geriatricians. .

Pain management in the opioid era and the need for new approaches in elderly care were highlighted at the Hospital Medicine 2018 annual conference, with experts drawing attention to subtleties that are often overlooked in these sometimes desperate cases.

James Risser, MD, medical director of palliative care at Regions Hospital in Minneapolis, said the complex problems of the 57-year-old man with back pain amounted to an example of “pain’s greatest hits.”

That particular case underscores the need to identify individual types of pain, he said, because they all need to be handled differently. If hospitalists don’t consider all the different aspects of pain, a patient might endure more suffering than necessary.

“All of this pain is swirling around in a very complicated patient,” Dr. Risser said, noting that it is important to “tease out the individual parts” of a complex patient’s history.

“Pain is a very complicated construct, from the physical to the neurological to the emotional,” Dr. Risser said. “Pain is a subjective experience, and the way people interact with their pain really depends not just on physical pain but also their psychological state, their social state, and even their spiritual state.”

Understanding this array of causes has led Dr. Risser to approach the problem of pain from different angles – including perspectives that might not be traditional, he said.

“One of the things that I’ve gotten better at is taking a spiritual history,” he said. “I don’t know if that’s part of everybody’s armamentarium. But if you’re dealing with people who are very, very sick, sometimes that’s the fundamental fabric of how they live and how they die. If there are unresolved issues along those lines, it’s possible they could be experiencing their pain in a different or more severe way.”
 

Varieties of pain

Treatment depends on the pain type, Dr. Risser said. Somatic pain often responds to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories or steroids.

ah_designs/Getty Images

Neuropathic pain usually responds poorly to anti-inflammatories and to opioids. There is some research suggesting methadone could be helpful, but the data are not very strong. The most common medications prescribed are antiseizure medications and antidepressants, such as gabapentin and serotonin, and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors.

The question of cancer pain versus noncancer pain can be tricky, Dr. Risser said. If a person’s life expectancy is limited, there can be a reason, or even a requirement, to use higher-risk medications. But, he said, that doesn’t mean the patient still won’t have problems with overuse of pain medication.

“We have a lot of patients now living post cancer who have been put on methadone or have been put on Oxycontin, and now we’re trying to figure out what to do with them,” he said. “I don’t think it’s that clear anymore that there’s a massive difference between cancer and noncancer pain, especially for those survivors.”

Clinicians, he said, should “fix what can be fixed” – and with the right tools. “If you have a patient who’s got severe lower abdominal pain because they have a bladder full or urine, really the treatment would probably not be … opioids. It probably would be a Foley catheter,” he said.

Hospitalists should treat patients based on sound principles of pain management, Dr. Risser said, but “while you try to create a diagnostic framework, know that people continually defy the boxes we put them in.”

Indeed, in an era of pain-medication addiction, it might be a good idea to worry about prescribing opioids, but clinicians have to remember that their goal is to help patients get relief – and that they themselves bring biases to the table, said Amy Davis, DO, MS, of Drexel University, Philadelphia.

In a presentation at HM18, Dr. Davis displayed images of a variety of patients on a large screen – different races and genders, some in business attire, some rougher around the edges.

“Would pain decisions change based on what people look like?” she asked. “Can you really spot who the drug traffickers are? We need to remember that our biases play a huge role not only in the treatment of our patients but in their outcomes. I’m challenging everybody to start thinking about these folks not as drug-seekers but as comfort-seekers.”

When it comes right down to it, she said, patients want a better life, not their drug of choice.

“That is the nature of the disease. [The illegal drug] is not what they’re looking for in reality because that does not provide a good quality of life,” Dr. Davis said. “The [practice of medicine] is supposed to be about helping people live their lives, not just checking off boxes.”

People with an opioid use disorder are physically different, she said. The processing of pain stimuli by their brain and spinal cord is physically altered – they have an increased perception of pain and lower pain tolerance.

“This is not a character flaw,” Dr. Davis affirmed. The increased sensitivity to pain does not resolve with opioid cessation; it can last for decades. Clinicians may need to spend more time interacting with certain patients to get a sense of the physical and nonphysical pain from which they suffer.

“Consistent, open, nonjudgmental communication improves not only the information we gather from patients and families, but it actually changes the adherence,” Dr. Davis said. “Ultimately the treatment outcomes are what all of this is about.”
 

Paradigm shift

Another palliative care role that hospitalists often find themselves in is “comforter” of elderly patients.

Dan Burke Photography

References

1. Greysen SR et al. Functional impairment and hospital readmission in medicare seniors. JAMA Intern Med. 2015 Apr;175(4):559-65.

2. Greysen SR et al. Functional impairment: An unmeasured marker of medicare costs for postacute care of older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2017 Sep;65(9):1996-2002.

3. Laura A. Levit, Erin P. Balogh, Sharyl J. Nass, and Patricia A. Ganz, eds. Delivering High-Quality Cancer Care: Charting a New Course for a System in Crisis. (Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US), 2013 Dec 27).

A 57-year-old man is admitted to the hospital with new back pain, which has been getting worse over the past 6 days. He had been diagnosed with stage 4 lung cancer in mid-2017 and underwent treatment with a platinum-based double therapy.

The man also has a history of heroin use – as recently as two years earlier – and he was divorced not long ago. He has been using an old prescription for Vicodin to treat himself, taking as many as 10-12 tablets a day.

This man is an example of the kind of complicated patient hospitalists are called on to treat – complex pain in an era when opioid abuse is considered a public scourge. How is a hospitalist to handle a case like this?

Pain cases are far from the only types of increasingly complex, often palliative cases in which hospitalists are being asked to provide help. Care for the elderly is also becoming increasingly difficult as the U.S. population ages and as hospitalists step in to provide care in the absence of geriatricians. .

Pain management in the opioid era and the need for new approaches in elderly care were highlighted at the Hospital Medicine 2018 annual conference, with experts drawing attention to subtleties that are often overlooked in these sometimes desperate cases.

James Risser, MD, medical director of palliative care at Regions Hospital in Minneapolis, said the complex problems of the 57-year-old man with back pain amounted to an example of “pain’s greatest hits.”

That particular case underscores the need to identify individual types of pain, he said, because they all need to be handled differently. If hospitalists don’t consider all the different aspects of pain, a patient might endure more suffering than necessary.

“All of this pain is swirling around in a very complicated patient,” Dr. Risser said, noting that it is important to “tease out the individual parts” of a complex patient’s history.

“Pain is a very complicated construct, from the physical to the neurological to the emotional,” Dr. Risser said. “Pain is a subjective experience, and the way people interact with their pain really depends not just on physical pain but also their psychological state, their social state, and even their spiritual state.”

Understanding this array of causes has led Dr. Risser to approach the problem of pain from different angles – including perspectives that might not be traditional, he said.

“One of the things that I’ve gotten better at is taking a spiritual history,” he said. “I don’t know if that’s part of everybody’s armamentarium. But if you’re dealing with people who are very, very sick, sometimes that’s the fundamental fabric of how they live and how they die. If there are unresolved issues along those lines, it’s possible they could be experiencing their pain in a different or more severe way.”
 

Varieties of pain

Treatment depends on the pain type, Dr. Risser said. Somatic pain often responds to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories or steroids.

ah_designs/Getty Images

Neuropathic pain usually responds poorly to anti-inflammatories and to opioids. There is some research suggesting methadone could be helpful, but the data are not very strong. The most common medications prescribed are antiseizure medications and antidepressants, such as gabapentin and serotonin, and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors.

The question of cancer pain versus noncancer pain can be tricky, Dr. Risser said. If a person’s life expectancy is limited, there can be a reason, or even a requirement, to use higher-risk medications. But, he said, that doesn’t mean the patient still won’t have problems with overuse of pain medication.

“We have a lot of patients now living post cancer who have been put on methadone or have been put on Oxycontin, and now we’re trying to figure out what to do with them,” he said. “I don’t think it’s that clear anymore that there’s a massive difference between cancer and noncancer pain, especially for those survivors.”

Clinicians, he said, should “fix what can be fixed” – and with the right tools. “If you have a patient who’s got severe lower abdominal pain because they have a bladder full or urine, really the treatment would probably not be … opioids. It probably would be a Foley catheter,” he said.

Hospitalists should treat patients based on sound principles of pain management, Dr. Risser said, but “while you try to create a diagnostic framework, know that people continually defy the boxes we put them in.”

Indeed, in an era of pain-medication addiction, it might be a good idea to worry about prescribing opioids, but clinicians have to remember that their goal is to help patients get relief – and that they themselves bring biases to the table, said Amy Davis, DO, MS, of Drexel University, Philadelphia.

In a presentation at HM18, Dr. Davis displayed images of a variety of patients on a large screen – different races and genders, some in business attire, some rougher around the edges.

“Would pain decisions change based on what people look like?” she asked. “Can you really spot who the drug traffickers are? We need to remember that our biases play a huge role not only in the treatment of our patients but in their outcomes. I’m challenging everybody to start thinking about these folks not as drug-seekers but as comfort-seekers.”

When it comes right down to it, she said, patients want a better life, not their drug of choice.

“That is the nature of the disease. [The illegal drug] is not what they’re looking for in reality because that does not provide a good quality of life,” Dr. Davis said. “The [practice of medicine] is supposed to be about helping people live their lives, not just checking off boxes.”

People with an opioid use disorder are physically different, she said. The processing of pain stimuli by their brain and spinal cord is physically altered – they have an increased perception of pain and lower pain tolerance.

“This is not a character flaw,” Dr. Davis affirmed. The increased sensitivity to pain does not resolve with opioid cessation; it can last for decades. Clinicians may need to spend more time interacting with certain patients to get a sense of the physical and nonphysical pain from which they suffer.

“Consistent, open, nonjudgmental communication improves not only the information we gather from patients and families, but it actually changes the adherence,” Dr. Davis said. “Ultimately the treatment outcomes are what all of this is about.”
 

Paradigm shift

Another palliative care role that hospitalists often find themselves in is “comforter” of elderly patients.

Dan Burke Photography

References

1. Greysen SR et al. Functional impairment and hospital readmission in medicare seniors. JAMA Intern Med. 2015 Apr;175(4):559-65.

2. Greysen SR et al. Functional impairment: An unmeasured marker of medicare costs for postacute care of older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2017 Sep;65(9):1996-2002.

3. Laura A. Levit, Erin P. Balogh, Sharyl J. Nass, and Patricia A. Ganz, eds. Delivering High-Quality Cancer Care: Charting a New Course for a System in Crisis. (Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US), 2013 Dec 27).

A 57-year-old man is admitted to the hospital with new back pain, which has been getting worse over the past 6 days. He had been diagnosed with stage 4 lung cancer in mid-2017 and underwent treatment with a platinum-based double therapy.

The man also has a history of heroin use – as recently as two years earlier – and he was divorced not long ago. He has been using an old prescription for Vicodin to treat himself, taking as many as 10-12 tablets a day.

This man is an example of the kind of complicated patient hospitalists are called on to treat – complex pain in an era when opioid abuse is considered a public scourge. How is a hospitalist to handle a case like this?

Pain cases are far from the only types of increasingly complex, often palliative cases in which hospitalists are being asked to provide help. Care for the elderly is also becoming increasingly difficult as the U.S. population ages and as hospitalists step in to provide care in the absence of geriatricians. .

Pain management in the opioid era and the need for new approaches in elderly care were highlighted at the Hospital Medicine 2018 annual conference, with experts drawing attention to subtleties that are often overlooked in these sometimes desperate cases.

James Risser, MD, medical director of palliative care at Regions Hospital in Minneapolis, said the complex problems of the 57-year-old man with back pain amounted to an example of “pain’s greatest hits.”

That particular case underscores the need to identify individual types of pain, he said, because they all need to be handled differently. If hospitalists don’t consider all the different aspects of pain, a patient might endure more suffering than necessary.

“All of this pain is swirling around in a very complicated patient,” Dr. Risser said, noting that it is important to “tease out the individual parts” of a complex patient’s history.

“Pain is a very complicated construct, from the physical to the neurological to the emotional,” Dr. Risser said. “Pain is a subjective experience, and the way people interact with their pain really depends not just on physical pain but also their psychological state, their social state, and even their spiritual state.”

Understanding this array of causes has led Dr. Risser to approach the problem of pain from different angles – including perspectives that might not be traditional, he said.

“One of the things that I’ve gotten better at is taking a spiritual history,” he said. “I don’t know if that’s part of everybody’s armamentarium. But if you’re dealing with people who are very, very sick, sometimes that’s the fundamental fabric of how they live and how they die. If there are unresolved issues along those lines, it’s possible they could be experiencing their pain in a different or more severe way.”
 

Varieties of pain

Treatment depends on the pain type, Dr. Risser said. Somatic pain often responds to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories or steroids.

ah_designs/Getty Images

Neuropathic pain usually responds poorly to anti-inflammatories and to opioids. There is some research suggesting methadone could be helpful, but the data are not very strong. The most common medications prescribed are antiseizure medications and antidepressants, such as gabapentin and serotonin, and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors.

The question of cancer pain versus noncancer pain can be tricky, Dr. Risser said. If a person’s life expectancy is limited, there can be a reason, or even a requirement, to use higher-risk medications. But, he said, that doesn’t mean the patient still won’t have problems with overuse of pain medication.

“We have a lot of patients now living post cancer who have been put on methadone or have been put on Oxycontin, and now we’re trying to figure out what to do with them,” he said. “I don’t think it’s that clear anymore that there’s a massive difference between cancer and noncancer pain, especially for those survivors.”

Clinicians, he said, should “fix what can be fixed” – and with the right tools. “If you have a patient who’s got severe lower abdominal pain because they have a bladder full or urine, really the treatment would probably not be … opioids. It probably would be a Foley catheter,” he said.

Hospitalists should treat patients based on sound principles of pain management, Dr. Risser said, but “while you try to create a diagnostic framework, know that people continually defy the boxes we put them in.”

Indeed, in an era of pain-medication addiction, it might be a good idea to worry about prescribing opioids, but clinicians have to remember that their goal is to help patients get relief – and that they themselves bring biases to the table, said Amy Davis, DO, MS, of Drexel University, Philadelphia.

In a presentation at HM18, Dr. Davis displayed images of a variety of patients on a large screen – different races and genders, some in business attire, some rougher around the edges.

“Would pain decisions change based on what people look like?” she asked. “Can you really spot who the drug traffickers are? We need to remember that our biases play a huge role not only in the treatment of our patients but in their outcomes. I’m challenging everybody to start thinking about these folks not as drug-seekers but as comfort-seekers.”

When it comes right down to it, she said, patients want a better life, not their drug of choice.

“That is the nature of the disease. [The illegal drug] is not what they’re looking for in reality because that does not provide a good quality of life,” Dr. Davis said. “The [practice of medicine] is supposed to be about helping people live their lives, not just checking off boxes.”

People with an opioid use disorder are physically different, she said. The processing of pain stimuli by their brain and spinal cord is physically altered – they have an increased perception of pain and lower pain tolerance.

“This is not a character flaw,” Dr. Davis affirmed. The increased sensitivity to pain does not resolve with opioid cessation; it can last for decades. Clinicians may need to spend more time interacting with certain patients to get a sense of the physical and nonphysical pain from which they suffer.

“Consistent, open, nonjudgmental communication improves not only the information we gather from patients and families, but it actually changes the adherence,” Dr. Davis said. “Ultimately the treatment outcomes are what all of this is about.”
 

Paradigm shift

Another palliative care role that hospitalists often find themselves in is “comforter” of elderly patients.

Dan Burke Photography

References

1. Greysen SR et al. Functional impairment and hospital readmission in medicare seniors. JAMA Intern Med. 2015 Apr;175(4):559-65.

2. Greysen SR et al. Functional impairment: An unmeasured marker of medicare costs for postacute care of older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2017 Sep;65(9):1996-2002.

3. Laura A. Levit, Erin P. Balogh, Sharyl J. Nass, and Patricia A. Ganz, eds. Delivering High-Quality Cancer Care: Charting a New Course for a System in Crisis. (Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US), 2013 Dec 27).

Clinical question: Does patient experience correlate with specific hospital care coordination and transition strategies, and if so, which strategies most strongly correlate with higher patient experience scores?

Background: Patient experience is an increasingly important measure in value-based payment programs. However, progress has been slow in improving patient experience, and little empirical data exist regarding which strategies are effective. Care transitions are critical times during a hospitalization, with many hospitals already implementing measures to improve the discharge process and prevent readmission of patients. It is not known whether those measures also influence patient experience scores, and if they do improve scores, which measures are most effective at doing so.

Study design: An analytic observational survey design.

Setting: Hospitals eligible for the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) between June 2013 and December 2014.

Synopsis: A survey was developed and given to chief medical officers at 1,600 hospitals between June 2013 and December 2014; the survey assessed care coordination strategies employed by these institutions. 992 hospitals (62% response rate) were subsequently categorized as “low-strategy,” “mid-strategy,” or “high-strategy” hospitals. Patient satisfaction scores from the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey in 2014 were correlated to the number of strategies and the specific strategies each hospital employed. In general, the higher-strategy hospitals had significantly higher HCAHPS survey scores than did low-strategy hospitals (+2.23 points; P less than .001). Specifically, creating and sharing a discharge summary prior to discharge (+1.43 points; P less than .001), using a discharge planner (+1.71 points; P less than .001), and calling patients 48 hours post discharge (+1.64 points; P less than .001) all resulted in overall higher hospital ratings by patients.
 

One limitation of this study is that no causal inference can be made between the specific strategies associated with higher HCAHPS scores and care coordination strategies.

Bottom line: Hospital-led care transition strategies with direct patient interactions led to higher patient satisfaction scores.

Citation: Figueroa JF et al. Hospital-level care coordination strategies associated with better patient experience. BMJ Qual Saf. 2018 Apr 4. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2017-007597.

Dr. Tsien is a hospitalist in the division of hospital medicine in the department of medicine at Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Ill.

Clinical question: Does patient experience correlate with specific hospital care coordination and transition strategies, and if so, which strategies most strongly correlate with higher patient experience scores?

Background: Patient experience is an increasingly important measure in value-based payment programs. However, progress has been slow in improving patient experience, and little empirical data exist regarding which strategies are effective. Care transitions are critical times during a hospitalization, with many hospitals already implementing measures to improve the discharge process and prevent readmission of patients. It is not known whether those measures also influence patient experience scores, and if they do improve scores, which measures are most effective at doing so.

Study design: An analytic observational survey design.

Setting: Hospitals eligible for the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) between June 2013 and December 2014.

Synopsis: A survey was developed and given to chief medical officers at 1,600 hospitals between June 2013 and December 2014; the survey assessed care coordination strategies employed by these institutions. 992 hospitals (62% response rate) were subsequently categorized as “low-strategy,” “mid-strategy,” or “high-strategy” hospitals. Patient satisfaction scores from the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey in 2014 were correlated to the number of strategies and the specific strategies each hospital employed. In general, the higher-strategy hospitals had significantly higher HCAHPS survey scores than did low-strategy hospitals (+2.23 points; P less than .001). Specifically, creating and sharing a discharge summary prior to discharge (+1.43 points; P less than .001), using a discharge planner (+1.71 points; P less than .001), and calling patients 48 hours post discharge (+1.64 points; P less than .001) all resulted in overall higher hospital ratings by patients.
 

One limitation of this study is that no causal inference can be made between the specific strategies associated with higher HCAHPS scores and care coordination strategies.

Bottom line: Hospital-led care transition strategies with direct patient interactions led to higher patient satisfaction scores.

Citation: Figueroa JF et al. Hospital-level care coordination strategies associated with better patient experience. BMJ Qual Saf. 2018 Apr 4. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2017-007597.

Dr. Tsien is a hospitalist in the division of hospital medicine in the department of medicine at Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Ill.

Clinical question: Does patient experience correlate with specific hospital care coordination and transition strategies, and if so, which strategies most strongly correlate with higher patient experience scores?

Background: Patient experience is an increasingly important measure in value-based payment programs. However, progress has been slow in improving patient experience, and little empirical data exist regarding which strategies are effective. Care transitions are critical times during a hospitalization, with many hospitals already implementing measures to improve the discharge process and prevent readmission of patients. It is not known whether those measures also influence patient experience scores, and if they do improve scores, which measures are most effective at doing so.

Study design: An analytic observational survey design.

Setting: Hospitals eligible for the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP) between June 2013 and December 2014.

Synopsis: A survey was developed and given to chief medical officers at 1,600 hospitals between June 2013 and December 2014; the survey assessed care coordination strategies employed by these institutions. 992 hospitals (62% response rate) were subsequently categorized as “low-strategy,” “mid-strategy,” or “high-strategy” hospitals. Patient satisfaction scores from the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey in 2014 were correlated to the number of strategies and the specific strategies each hospital employed. In general, the higher-strategy hospitals had significantly higher HCAHPS survey scores than did low-strategy hospitals (+2.23 points; P less than .001). Specifically, creating and sharing a discharge summary prior to discharge (+1.43 points; P less than .001), using a discharge planner (+1.71 points; P less than .001), and calling patients 48 hours post discharge (+1.64 points; P less than .001) all resulted in overall higher hospital ratings by patients.
 

One limitation of this study is that no causal inference can be made between the specific strategies associated with higher HCAHPS scores and care coordination strategies.

Bottom line: Hospital-led care transition strategies with direct patient interactions led to higher patient satisfaction scores.

Citation: Figueroa JF et al. Hospital-level care coordination strategies associated with better patient experience. BMJ Qual Saf. 2018 Apr 4. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2017-007597.

Dr. Tsien is a hospitalist in the division of hospital medicine in the department of medicine at Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Ill.

Inadequate and fragmented communication between physicians and nurses can lead to unwelcome events for the hospitalized patient and clinicians. Missing orders, medication errors, patient misidentification, and lack of physician awareness of significant changes in patient status are just some examples of how deficits in formal communication can affect health outcomes during acute stays.

A 2000 Institute of Medicine report showed that bad systems, not bad people, account for the majority of errors and injuries caused by complexity, professional fragmentation, and barriers in communication. Their recommendation was to train physicians, nurses, and other professionals in teamwork.^1,2 However, as Milisa Manojlovich, PhD, RN, found, there are significant differences in how physicians and nurses perceive collaboration and communication.³

Nurse-physician rounding was historically standard for patient care during hospitalization. When physicians split time between inpatient and outpatient care, nurses had to maximize their time to collaborate and communicate with physicians whenever the physicians left their outpatient offices to come and round on their patients. Today most inpatient care is delivered by hospitalists on a 24-hour basis. This continuous availability of physicians reduces the perceived need to have joint rounds.

However, health care teams in acute care facilities now face higher and sicker patient volumes, different productivity models and demands, new compliance standards, changing work flows, and increased complexity of treatment and management of patients. This has led to gaps in timely communication and partnership.^4-6 Erosion of the traditional nurse-physician relationships affects the quality of patient care, the patient’s experience, and patient safety.^8-10 Poor communication among health care team members is one of the most common causes of patient care errors.⁴ Poor nurse-physician communication can also lead to medical errors, poor outcomes caused by lack of coordination within the treatment team, increased use of unnecessary resources with inefficiency, and increases in the complexity of communication among team members, and time wastage.^5,7,11 All these lead to poor work flows and directly affect patient safety.⁷

At Lee Health System in Lee County, Fla., we saw an opportunity in this changing health care environment to promote nurse-physician rounding. We created a structured, standardized process for morning rounding and engaged unit clerks, nursing leadership, and hospitalist service line leaders. We envisioned improvement of the patient experience, nurse-physician relationship, quality of care, the discharge planning process, and efficiency, as well as decreasing length of stay, improving communication, and bringing the patient and the treatment team closer, as demonstrated by Bradley Monash, MD, et al.¹²

Some data suggest that patient-centered bedside rounds on hospitalized patients have no effect on patient perceptions or their satisfaction with care.¹³ However, we felt that collaboration among a multidisciplinary team would help us achieve better outcomes. For example, our patients would perceive the care team (MD-RN) as a cohesive unit, and in turn gain trust in the members of the treatment team, as found by Nathalie McIntosh, PhD, et al and by Jason Ramirez, MD.^7,16 Our vision was to empower nurses to be advocates for patients and their family members as they navigated their acute care admission. Nurses could also support physicians by communicating the physicians’ care plans to families and patients. After rounding with the physician, the nurse would be part of the decision-making process and care planning.¹⁷

Every rounding session had discharge planning and hospital stay expectations that were shared with the patient and nurse, who could then partner with case managers and social workers, which would streamline and reduce length of stay.¹⁴ We hoped rounding would also decrease the number of nurse pages to clarify or question orders. This would, in turn, improve daily work flow for the physicians and the nursing team with improvements in employee satisfaction scores.¹⁵ A study also has demonstrated a reduction in readmission rates from nurse-physician rounding.¹⁹

A disconnect in communication and trust between physicians and the nursing staff was reflected in low patient experience scores and perceived quality of care received during in-hospital stay. Gwendolyn Lancaster, EdD, MSN, RN, CCRN, et al, as well as a Joint Commission report, demonstrated how a lack of communication and poor team dynamics can translate to poor patient experience and be a major cause for sentinel events.^6,20 Artificial, forced hierarchies and role perception among health care team members led to frustration, hostility, and distrust, which compromises quality and patient safety.¹

One of our biggest challenges when we started this project was explaining the “Why” to the hospitalist group and nursing staff. Physicians were used to being the dominant partner in the team. Partnering with and engaging nurses in shared decision making and care planning was a seismic shift in culture and work flow within the care team. Early gains helped skeptical team members begin to understand the value in nurse-physician rounding. Near universal adoption of the rounding process at Lee Health has caused improvements in the working relationship and trust among the health care professionals. We have seen improvements in utilization management, as well as appropriateness and timeliness of resource use, because of better communication and understanding of care plans by nursing and physicians. Collaboration with specialists and alignment in care planning are other gains. Hospitalists and nurses are both very satisfied with the decrease in the number of pages during the day, and this has lowered stressors on health care teams.

How we did it

Nurse-physician rounding is a proven method to improve collaboration, communication, and relationships among health care team members in acute care facilities. In the complex health care challenges faced today, this improved work flow for taking care of patients can help advance the Quadruple Aim of high quality, low cost, improved patient experience, physician, and staff satisfaction.²¹

Lee Health System includes four facilities in Lee County, with a total of 1,216 licensed adult acute care beds. The pilot project was started in 2014.

Initially the vice president of nursing and the hospitalist medical director met to create an education plan for nurses and physicians. We chose one adult medicine unit to pilot the project because there already existed a closely knit nursing and hospitalist team. In our facility there is no strict geographical rounding; each hospitalist carries between three and six patients in the unit. As a first step, a nurse floor assignment sheet was faxed in the morning to the hospitalist office with the direct phone numbers of the nurses. The unit clerk, using physician assignments in the EHR, teamed up the physician and nurses for rounding. Once the physician arrived at the unit, he or she checked in with the unit clerk, who alerted nurses that the hospitalist was available on the floor to commence rounding. If the primary nurse was unavailable because of other duties or breaks, the charge nurse rounded with the physician.

Once in the room with the patient, the duo introduced themselves as members of the treatment team and acknowledged the patient’s needs. During the visit, care plans and treatment were reviewed, the patient’s questions were answered, a physical exam was completed, and lab and imaging results were discussed; the nurse also helped raise questions he or she had received from family members so answers could be communicated to the family later. Patients appreciated knowing that their physicians and nurses were working together as a team for their safety and recovery. During the visit, care was taken to focus specially on the course of hospitalization and discharge planning.

We tracked the rounding with a manual paper process maintained by the charge nurse. Our initial rounding rates were 30%-40%, and we continued to promote this initiative to the team, and eventually the importance and value of these rounds caught on with both nurses and physicians, and now our current average rounding rate is 90%. We then decided to scale this to all units in the hospital.

This process was repeated at other hospitals in the system once a standardized work flow was created (See Image 1). This initiative was next presented to the health system board of directors, who agreed that nurse-physician rounding should be the standard of care across our health system. Through partnership and collaboration with the IT department, we developed a tool to track nurse-physician rounding through our EHR system, which gave accountability to both physicians and nurses.

In conclusion, improved communication by timely nurse-physician rounding can lead to better outcomes for patients and also reduce costs and improve patient and staff experience, advancing the Quadruple Aim. Moving forward to build and sustain this work flow, we plan to continue nurse-physician collaboration across the health system consistently and for all areas of acute care operations.

Explaining the “Why,” sharing data on the benefits of the model, and reinforcing documentation of the rounding in our EHR are some steps we have put into action at leadership and staff meetings to sustain the activity. We are soliciting feedback, as well as monitoring and identifying any unaddressed barriers during rounding. Addition of this process measure to our quality improvement bonus opportunity also has helped to sustain performance from our teams.
 

Dr. Laufer is system medical director of hospital medicine and transitional care at Lee Health in Ft. Myers, Fla. Dr. Prasad is chief medical officer of Lee Physician Group, Ft. Myers, Fla.
 

References

1. Leape LL et al. Five years after to err is human: What we have learned? JAMA. 2005;293(19):2384-90.

2. Sutcliffe KM et al. Communication failures: An insidious contributor to medical mishaps. Acad Med. 2004;79(2):186-94.

3. Manojlovich M. Reframing communication with physicians as sensemaking. J Nurs Care Qual. 2013 Oct-Dec;28(4):295-303.

4. Siegele P. Enhancing outcomes in a surgical intensive care unit by implementing daily goals. Crit Care Nurse. 2009 Dec;29(6):58-69.

5. Asthon J et al. Qualitative evaluation of regular morning meeting aimed at improving interdisciplinary communication and patient outcomes. Int J Nurs Pract. 2005 Oct;11(5):206-13.

6. Lancaster G et al. Interdisciplinary Communication and collaboration among physicians, nurses, and unlicensed assistive personnel. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2015 May;47(3):275-84.

7. McIntosh N et al. Impact of provider coordination on nurse and physician perception of patient care quality. J Nurs Care Qual. 2014 Jul-Sep;29(3):269-79.

8. Jo M et al. An organizational assessment of disruptive clinical behavior. J Nurs Care Qual. 2013 Apr-Jun;28(2):110-21.

9. World Health Organization. Framework for action on interprofessional education and collaborative practice. Geneva, 2010.

10. O’Connor P et al. A mixed-methods study of the causes and impact of poor teamwork between junior doctors and nurses. Int J Qual Health Care. 2016 Jun;28(3):339-45.

11. Manojlovich M. Nurse/Physician communication through a sense making lens. Med Care. 2010 Nov;48(11):941-6.

12. Monash B et al. Standardized attending rounds to improve the patient experience: A pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial. J Hosp Med. 2017 Mar;12(3):143-9.

13. O’Leary KJ et al. Effect of patient-centered bedside rounds on hospitalized patients decision control, activation and satisfaction with care. BMJ Qual Saf. 2016 Dec;25(12):921-8.

14. Dutton RP et al. Daily multidisciplinary rounds shorten length of stay for trauma patients. J Trauma. 2003 Nov;55(5):913-9.

15. Manojlovich M et al. Healthy work environments, nurse-physician communication, and patients’ outcomes. Am J Crit Care. 2007 Nov;16(6):536-43.

16. Ramirez J et al. Patient satisfaction with bedside teaching rounds compared with nonbedside rounds. South Med J. 2016 Feb;109(2):112-5.

17. Sollami A et al. Nurse-Physician collaboration: A meta-analytical investigation of survey scores. J Interprof Care. 2015 May;29(3):223-9.

18. House S et al. Nurses and physicians perceptions of nurse-physician collaboration. J Nurs Adm. 2017 Mar;47(3):165-71.

19. Townsend-Gervis M et al. Interdisciplinary rounds and structured communications reduce re-admissions and improve some patients’ outcomes. West J Nurs Res. 2014 Aug;36(7):917-28.

20. The Joint Commission. Sentinel Events. http://www.jointcommission.org/sentinel_event.aspx. Accessed Oct 2017.

21. Bodenheimer T et al. From Triple to Quadruple Aim: Care of the patient requires care of the provider. Ann Fam Med. 2014 Nov-Dec;12(6):573-6.

Inadequate and fragmented communication between physicians and nurses can lead to unwelcome events for the hospitalized patient and clinicians. Missing orders, medication errors, patient misidentification, and lack of physician awareness of significant changes in patient status are just some examples of how deficits in formal communication can affect health outcomes during acute stays.

A 2000 Institute of Medicine report showed that bad systems, not bad people, account for the majority of errors and injuries caused by complexity, professional fragmentation, and barriers in communication. Their recommendation was to train physicians, nurses, and other professionals in teamwork.^1,2 However, as Milisa Manojlovich, PhD, RN, found, there are significant differences in how physicians and nurses perceive collaboration and communication.³

Nurse-physician rounding was historically standard for patient care during hospitalization. When physicians split time between inpatient and outpatient care, nurses had to maximize their time to collaborate and communicate with physicians whenever the physicians left their outpatient offices to come and round on their patients. Today most inpatient care is delivered by hospitalists on a 24-hour basis. This continuous availability of physicians reduces the perceived need to have joint rounds.

However, health care teams in acute care facilities now face higher and sicker patient volumes, different productivity models and demands, new compliance standards, changing work flows, and increased complexity of treatment and management of patients. This has led to gaps in timely communication and partnership.^4-6 Erosion of the traditional nurse-physician relationships affects the quality of patient care, the patient’s experience, and patient safety.^8-10 Poor communication among health care team members is one of the most common causes of patient care errors.⁴ Poor nurse-physician communication can also lead to medical errors, poor outcomes caused by lack of coordination within the treatment team, increased use of unnecessary resources with inefficiency, and increases in the complexity of communication among team members, and time wastage.^5,7,11 All these lead to poor work flows and directly affect patient safety.⁷

At Lee Health System in Lee County, Fla., we saw an opportunity in this changing health care environment to promote nurse-physician rounding. We created a structured, standardized process for morning rounding and engaged unit clerks, nursing leadership, and hospitalist service line leaders. We envisioned improvement of the patient experience, nurse-physician relationship, quality of care, the discharge planning process, and efficiency, as well as decreasing length of stay, improving communication, and bringing the patient and the treatment team closer, as demonstrated by Bradley Monash, MD, et al.¹²

Some data suggest that patient-centered bedside rounds on hospitalized patients have no effect on patient perceptions or their satisfaction with care.¹³ However, we felt that collaboration among a multidisciplinary team would help us achieve better outcomes. For example, our patients would perceive the care team (MD-RN) as a cohesive unit, and in turn gain trust in the members of the treatment team, as found by Nathalie McIntosh, PhD, et al and by Jason Ramirez, MD.^7,16 Our vision was to empower nurses to be advocates for patients and their family members as they navigated their acute care admission. Nurses could also support physicians by communicating the physicians’ care plans to families and patients. After rounding with the physician, the nurse would be part of the decision-making process and care planning.¹⁷

Every rounding session had discharge planning and hospital stay expectations that were shared with the patient and nurse, who could then partner with case managers and social workers, which would streamline and reduce length of stay.¹⁴ We hoped rounding would also decrease the number of nurse pages to clarify or question orders. This would, in turn, improve daily work flow for the physicians and the nursing team with improvements in employee satisfaction scores.¹⁵ A study also has demonstrated a reduction in readmission rates from nurse-physician rounding.¹⁹

A disconnect in communication and trust between physicians and the nursing staff was reflected in low patient experience scores and perceived quality of care received during in-hospital stay. Gwendolyn Lancaster, EdD, MSN, RN, CCRN, et al, as well as a Joint Commission report, demonstrated how a lack of communication and poor team dynamics can translate to poor patient experience and be a major cause for sentinel events.^6,20 Artificial, forced hierarchies and role perception among health care team members led to frustration, hostility, and distrust, which compromises quality and patient safety.¹

One of our biggest challenges when we started this project was explaining the “Why” to the hospitalist group and nursing staff. Physicians were used to being the dominant partner in the team. Partnering with and engaging nurses in shared decision making and care planning was a seismic shift in culture and work flow within the care team. Early gains helped skeptical team members begin to understand the value in nurse-physician rounding. Near universal adoption of the rounding process at Lee Health has caused improvements in the working relationship and trust among the health care professionals. We have seen improvements in utilization management, as well as appropriateness and timeliness of resource use, because of better communication and understanding of care plans by nursing and physicians. Collaboration with specialists and alignment in care planning are other gains. Hospitalists and nurses are both very satisfied with the decrease in the number of pages during the day, and this has lowered stressors on health care teams.

How we did it

Nurse-physician rounding is a proven method to improve collaboration, communication, and relationships among health care team members in acute care facilities. In the complex health care challenges faced today, this improved work flow for taking care of patients can help advance the Quadruple Aim of high quality, low cost, improved patient experience, physician, and staff satisfaction.²¹

Lee Health System includes four facilities in Lee County, with a total of 1,216 licensed adult acute care beds. The pilot project was started in 2014.

Initially the vice president of nursing and the hospitalist medical director met to create an education plan for nurses and physicians. We chose one adult medicine unit to pilot the project because there already existed a closely knit nursing and hospitalist team. In our facility there is no strict geographical rounding; each hospitalist carries between three and six patients in the unit. As a first step, a nurse floor assignment sheet was faxed in the morning to the hospitalist office with the direct phone numbers of the nurses. The unit clerk, using physician assignments in the EHR, teamed up the physician and nurses for rounding. Once the physician arrived at the unit, he or she checked in with the unit clerk, who alerted nurses that the hospitalist was available on the floor to commence rounding. If the primary nurse was unavailable because of other duties or breaks, the charge nurse rounded with the physician.

Once in the room with the patient, the duo introduced themselves as members of the treatment team and acknowledged the patient’s needs. During the visit, care plans and treatment were reviewed, the patient’s questions were answered, a physical exam was completed, and lab and imaging results were discussed; the nurse also helped raise questions he or she had received from family members so answers could be communicated to the family later. Patients appreciated knowing that their physicians and nurses were working together as a team for their safety and recovery. During the visit, care was taken to focus specially on the course of hospitalization and discharge planning.

We tracked the rounding with a manual paper process maintained by the charge nurse. Our initial rounding rates were 30%-40%, and we continued to promote this initiative to the team, and eventually the importance and value of these rounds caught on with both nurses and physicians, and now our current average rounding rate is 90%. We then decided to scale this to all units in the hospital.

This process was repeated at other hospitals in the system once a standardized work flow was created (See Image 1). This initiative was next presented to the health system board of directors, who agreed that nurse-physician rounding should be the standard of care across our health system. Through partnership and collaboration with the IT department, we developed a tool to track nurse-physician rounding through our EHR system, which gave accountability to both physicians and nurses.

In conclusion, improved communication by timely nurse-physician rounding can lead to better outcomes for patients and also reduce costs and improve patient and staff experience, advancing the Quadruple Aim. Moving forward to build and sustain this work flow, we plan to continue nurse-physician collaboration across the health system consistently and for all areas of acute care operations.

Explaining the “Why,” sharing data on the benefits of the model, and reinforcing documentation of the rounding in our EHR are some steps we have put into action at leadership and staff meetings to sustain the activity. We are soliciting feedback, as well as monitoring and identifying any unaddressed barriers during rounding. Addition of this process measure to our quality improvement bonus opportunity also has helped to sustain performance from our teams.
 

Dr. Laufer is system medical director of hospital medicine and transitional care at Lee Health in Ft. Myers, Fla. Dr. Prasad is chief medical officer of Lee Physician Group, Ft. Myers, Fla.
 

References

1. Leape LL et al. Five years after to err is human: What we have learned? JAMA. 2005;293(19):2384-90.

2. Sutcliffe KM et al. Communication failures: An insidious contributor to medical mishaps. Acad Med. 2004;79(2):186-94.

3. Manojlovich M. Reframing communication with physicians as sensemaking. J Nurs Care Qual. 2013 Oct-Dec;28(4):295-303.

4. Siegele P. Enhancing outcomes in a surgical intensive care unit by implementing daily goals. Crit Care Nurse. 2009 Dec;29(6):58-69.

5. Asthon J et al. Qualitative evaluation of regular morning meeting aimed at improving interdisciplinary communication and patient outcomes. Int J Nurs Pract. 2005 Oct;11(5):206-13.

6. Lancaster G et al. Interdisciplinary Communication and collaboration among physicians, nurses, and unlicensed assistive personnel. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2015 May;47(3):275-84.

7. McIntosh N et al. Impact of provider coordination on nurse and physician perception of patient care quality. J Nurs Care Qual. 2014 Jul-Sep;29(3):269-79.

8. Jo M et al. An organizational assessment of disruptive clinical behavior. J Nurs Care Qual. 2013 Apr-Jun;28(2):110-21.

9. World Health Organization. Framework for action on interprofessional education and collaborative practice. Geneva, 2010.

10. O’Connor P et al. A mixed-methods study of the causes and impact of poor teamwork between junior doctors and nurses. Int J Qual Health Care. 2016 Jun;28(3):339-45.

11. Manojlovich M. Nurse/Physician communication through a sense making lens. Med Care. 2010 Nov;48(11):941-6.

12. Monash B et al. Standardized attending rounds to improve the patient experience: A pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial. J Hosp Med. 2017 Mar;12(3):143-9.

13. O’Leary KJ et al. Effect of patient-centered bedside rounds on hospitalized patients decision control, activation and satisfaction with care. BMJ Qual Saf. 2016 Dec;25(12):921-8.

14. Dutton RP et al. Daily multidisciplinary rounds shorten length of stay for trauma patients. J Trauma. 2003 Nov;55(5):913-9.

15. Manojlovich M et al. Healthy work environments, nurse-physician communication, and patients’ outcomes. Am J Crit Care. 2007 Nov;16(6):536-43.

16. Ramirez J et al. Patient satisfaction with bedside teaching rounds compared with nonbedside rounds. South Med J. 2016 Feb;109(2):112-5.

17. Sollami A et al. Nurse-Physician collaboration: A meta-analytical investigation of survey scores. J Interprof Care. 2015 May;29(3):223-9.

18. House S et al. Nurses and physicians perceptions of nurse-physician collaboration. J Nurs Adm. 2017 Mar;47(3):165-71.

19. Townsend-Gervis M et al. Interdisciplinary rounds and structured communications reduce re-admissions and improve some patients’ outcomes. West J Nurs Res. 2014 Aug;36(7):917-28.

20. The Joint Commission. Sentinel Events. http://www.jointcommission.org/sentinel_event.aspx. Accessed Oct 2017.

21. Bodenheimer T et al. From Triple to Quadruple Aim: Care of the patient requires care of the provider. Ann Fam Med. 2014 Nov-Dec;12(6):573-6.

Inadequate and fragmented communication between physicians and nurses can lead to unwelcome events for the hospitalized patient and clinicians. Missing orders, medication errors, patient misidentification, and lack of physician awareness of significant changes in patient status are just some examples of how deficits in formal communication can affect health outcomes during acute stays.

A 2000 Institute of Medicine report showed that bad systems, not bad people, account for the majority of errors and injuries caused by complexity, professional fragmentation, and barriers in communication. Their recommendation was to train physicians, nurses, and other professionals in teamwork.^1,2 However, as Milisa Manojlovich, PhD, RN, found, there are significant differences in how physicians and nurses perceive collaboration and communication.³

Nurse-physician rounding was historically standard for patient care during hospitalization. When physicians split time between inpatient and outpatient care, nurses had to maximize their time to collaborate and communicate with physicians whenever the physicians left their outpatient offices to come and round on their patients. Today most inpatient care is delivered by hospitalists on a 24-hour basis. This continuous availability of physicians reduces the perceived need to have joint rounds.

However, health care teams in acute care facilities now face higher and sicker patient volumes, different productivity models and demands, new compliance standards, changing work flows, and increased complexity of treatment and management of patients. This has led to gaps in timely communication and partnership.^4-6 Erosion of the traditional nurse-physician relationships affects the quality of patient care, the patient’s experience, and patient safety.^8-10 Poor communication among health care team members is one of the most common causes of patient care errors.⁴ Poor nurse-physician communication can also lead to medical errors, poor outcomes caused by lack of coordination within the treatment team, increased use of unnecessary resources with inefficiency, and increases in the complexity of communication among team members, and time wastage.^5,7,11 All these lead to poor work flows and directly affect patient safety.⁷

At Lee Health System in Lee County, Fla., we saw an opportunity in this changing health care environment to promote nurse-physician rounding. We created a structured, standardized process for morning rounding and engaged unit clerks, nursing leadership, and hospitalist service line leaders. We envisioned improvement of the patient experience, nurse-physician relationship, quality of care, the discharge planning process, and efficiency, as well as decreasing length of stay, improving communication, and bringing the patient and the treatment team closer, as demonstrated by Bradley Monash, MD, et al.¹²

Some data suggest that patient-centered bedside rounds on hospitalized patients have no effect on patient perceptions or their satisfaction with care.¹³ However, we felt that collaboration among a multidisciplinary team would help us achieve better outcomes. For example, our patients would perceive the care team (MD-RN) as a cohesive unit, and in turn gain trust in the members of the treatment team, as found by Nathalie McIntosh, PhD, et al and by Jason Ramirez, MD.^7,16 Our vision was to empower nurses to be advocates for patients and their family members as they navigated their acute care admission. Nurses could also support physicians by communicating the physicians’ care plans to families and patients. After rounding with the physician, the nurse would be part of the decision-making process and care planning.¹⁷

Every rounding session had discharge planning and hospital stay expectations that were shared with the patient and nurse, who could then partner with case managers and social workers, which would streamline and reduce length of stay.¹⁴ We hoped rounding would also decrease the number of nurse pages to clarify or question orders. This would, in turn, improve daily work flow for the physicians and the nursing team with improvements in employee satisfaction scores.¹⁵ A study also has demonstrated a reduction in readmission rates from nurse-physician rounding.¹⁹

A disconnect in communication and trust between physicians and the nursing staff was reflected in low patient experience scores and perceived quality of care received during in-hospital stay. Gwendolyn Lancaster, EdD, MSN, RN, CCRN, et al, as well as a Joint Commission report, demonstrated how a lack of communication and poor team dynamics can translate to poor patient experience and be a major cause for sentinel events.^6,20 Artificial, forced hierarchies and role perception among health care team members led to frustration, hostility, and distrust, which compromises quality and patient safety.¹

One of our biggest challenges when we started this project was explaining the “Why” to the hospitalist group and nursing staff. Physicians were used to being the dominant partner in the team. Partnering with and engaging nurses in shared decision making and care planning was a seismic shift in culture and work flow within the care team. Early gains helped skeptical team members begin to understand the value in nurse-physician rounding. Near universal adoption of the rounding process at Lee Health has caused improvements in the working relationship and trust among the health care professionals. We have seen improvements in utilization management, as well as appropriateness and timeliness of resource use, because of better communication and understanding of care plans by nursing and physicians. Collaboration with specialists and alignment in care planning are other gains. Hospitalists and nurses are both very satisfied with the decrease in the number of pages during the day, and this has lowered stressors on health care teams.

How we did it

Nurse-physician rounding is a proven method to improve collaboration, communication, and relationships among health care team members in acute care facilities. In the complex health care challenges faced today, this improved work flow for taking care of patients can help advance the Quadruple Aim of high quality, low cost, improved patient experience, physician, and staff satisfaction.²¹

Lee Health System includes four facilities in Lee County, with a total of 1,216 licensed adult acute care beds. The pilot project was started in 2014.

Initially the vice president of nursing and the hospitalist medical director met to create an education plan for nurses and physicians. We chose one adult medicine unit to pilot the project because there already existed a closely knit nursing and hospitalist team. In our facility there is no strict geographical rounding; each hospitalist carries between three and six patients in the unit. As a first step, a nurse floor assignment sheet was faxed in the morning to the hospitalist office with the direct phone numbers of the nurses. The unit clerk, using physician assignments in the EHR, teamed up the physician and nurses for rounding. Once the physician arrived at the unit, he or she checked in with the unit clerk, who alerted nurses that the hospitalist was available on the floor to commence rounding. If the primary nurse was unavailable because of other duties or breaks, the charge nurse rounded with the physician.

Once in the room with the patient, the duo introduced themselves as members of the treatment team and acknowledged the patient’s needs. During the visit, care plans and treatment were reviewed, the patient’s questions were answered, a physical exam was completed, and lab and imaging results were discussed; the nurse also helped raise questions he or she had received from family members so answers could be communicated to the family later. Patients appreciated knowing that their physicians and nurses were working together as a team for their safety and recovery. During the visit, care was taken to focus specially on the course of hospitalization and discharge planning.

We tracked the rounding with a manual paper process maintained by the charge nurse. Our initial rounding rates were 30%-40%, and we continued to promote this initiative to the team, and eventually the importance and value of these rounds caught on with both nurses and physicians, and now our current average rounding rate is 90%. We then decided to scale this to all units in the hospital.

This process was repeated at other hospitals in the system once a standardized work flow was created (See Image 1). This initiative was next presented to the health system board of directors, who agreed that nurse-physician rounding should be the standard of care across our health system. Through partnership and collaboration with the IT department, we developed a tool to track nurse-physician rounding through our EHR system, which gave accountability to both physicians and nurses.

In conclusion, improved communication by timely nurse-physician rounding can lead to better outcomes for patients and also reduce costs and improve patient and staff experience, advancing the Quadruple Aim. Moving forward to build and sustain this work flow, we plan to continue nurse-physician collaboration across the health system consistently and for all areas of acute care operations.

Explaining the “Why,” sharing data on the benefits of the model, and reinforcing documentation of the rounding in our EHR are some steps we have put into action at leadership and staff meetings to sustain the activity. We are soliciting feedback, as well as monitoring and identifying any unaddressed barriers during rounding. Addition of this process measure to our quality improvement bonus opportunity also has helped to sustain performance from our teams.
 

Dr. Laufer is system medical director of hospital medicine and transitional care at Lee Health in Ft. Myers, Fla. Dr. Prasad is chief medical officer of Lee Physician Group, Ft. Myers, Fla.
 

References

1. Leape LL et al. Five years after to err is human: What we have learned? JAMA. 2005;293(19):2384-90.

2. Sutcliffe KM et al. Communication failures: An insidious contributor to medical mishaps. Acad Med. 2004;79(2):186-94.

3. Manojlovich M. Reframing communication with physicians as sensemaking. J Nurs Care Qual. 2013 Oct-Dec;28(4):295-303.

4. Siegele P. Enhancing outcomes in a surgical intensive care unit by implementing daily goals. Crit Care Nurse. 2009 Dec;29(6):58-69.

5. Asthon J et al. Qualitative evaluation of regular morning meeting aimed at improving interdisciplinary communication and patient outcomes. Int J Nurs Pract. 2005 Oct;11(5):206-13.

6. Lancaster G et al. Interdisciplinary Communication and collaboration among physicians, nurses, and unlicensed assistive personnel. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2015 May;47(3):275-84.

7. McIntosh N et al. Impact of provider coordination on nurse and physician perception of patient care quality. J Nurs Care Qual. 2014 Jul-Sep;29(3):269-79.

8. Jo M et al. An organizational assessment of disruptive clinical behavior. J Nurs Care Qual. 2013 Apr-Jun;28(2):110-21.

9. World Health Organization. Framework for action on interprofessional education and collaborative practice. Geneva, 2010.

10. O’Connor P et al. A mixed-methods study of the causes and impact of poor teamwork between junior doctors and nurses. Int J Qual Health Care. 2016 Jun;28(3):339-45.

11. Manojlovich M. Nurse/Physician communication through a sense making lens. Med Care. 2010 Nov;48(11):941-6.

12. Monash B et al. Standardized attending rounds to improve the patient experience: A pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial. J Hosp Med. 2017 Mar;12(3):143-9.

13. O’Leary KJ et al. Effect of patient-centered bedside rounds on hospitalized patients decision control, activation and satisfaction with care. BMJ Qual Saf. 2016 Dec;25(12):921-8.

14. Dutton RP et al. Daily multidisciplinary rounds shorten length of stay for trauma patients. J Trauma. 2003 Nov;55(5):913-9.

15. Manojlovich M et al. Healthy work environments, nurse-physician communication, and patients’ outcomes. Am J Crit Care. 2007 Nov;16(6):536-43.

16. Ramirez J et al. Patient satisfaction with bedside teaching rounds compared with nonbedside rounds. South Med J. 2016 Feb;109(2):112-5.

17. Sollami A et al. Nurse-Physician collaboration: A meta-analytical investigation of survey scores. J Interprof Care. 2015 May;29(3):223-9.

18. House S et al. Nurses and physicians perceptions of nurse-physician collaboration. J Nurs Adm. 2017 Mar;47(3):165-71.

19. Townsend-Gervis M et al. Interdisciplinary rounds and structured communications reduce re-admissions and improve some patients’ outcomes. West J Nurs Res. 2014 Aug;36(7):917-28.

20. The Joint Commission. Sentinel Events. http://www.jointcommission.org/sentinel_event.aspx. Accessed Oct 2017.

21. Bodenheimer T et al. From Triple to Quadruple Aim: Care of the patient requires care of the provider. Ann Fam Med. 2014 Nov-Dec;12(6):573-6.

Background: Delivery of high-quality, safe care is key to earning the trust and confidence of patients. Patients can be a valuable asset in determining and evaluating the quality and safety of the care they receive. Collectively analyzing patient perceptions remains a challenge.

One in 10 patients identified a PSI. There was variability in classifying incidents as PSIs in some categories. Of the concerns expressed by patients, 65% were not classified as PSI. Limitations included a focus on patient’s concerns rather than safety, PSI estimates based on patient’s feedback without clinical information, and lack of inter-rater reliability estimates.

Bottom line: Effective translation of patient experience can provide valuable insights about safety and quality of care in hospital.

Citation: O’Hara JK et al. What can patients tell us about the quality and safety of hospital care? Findings from a UK multicentre survey study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2018 Mar 15. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2017-006974.

Dr. Chikkanna is an assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of Kentucky, Lexington.

Background: Delivery of high-quality, safe care is key to earning the trust and confidence of patients. Patients can be a valuable asset in determining and evaluating the quality and safety of the care they receive. Collectively analyzing patient perceptions remains a challenge.

One in 10 patients identified a PSI. There was variability in classifying incidents as PSIs in some categories. Of the concerns expressed by patients, 65% were not classified as PSI. Limitations included a focus on patient’s concerns rather than safety, PSI estimates based on patient’s feedback without clinical information, and lack of inter-rater reliability estimates.

Bottom line: Effective translation of patient experience can provide valuable insights about safety and quality of care in hospital.

Citation: O’Hara JK et al. What can patients tell us about the quality and safety of hospital care? Findings from a UK multicentre survey study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2018 Mar 15. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2017-006974.

Dr. Chikkanna is an assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of Kentucky, Lexington.

Background: Delivery of high-quality, safe care is key to earning the trust and confidence of patients. Patients can be a valuable asset in determining and evaluating the quality and safety of the care they receive. Collectively analyzing patient perceptions remains a challenge.

One in 10 patients identified a PSI. There was variability in classifying incidents as PSIs in some categories. Of the concerns expressed by patients, 65% were not classified as PSI. Limitations included a focus on patient’s concerns rather than safety, PSI estimates based on patient’s feedback without clinical information, and lack of inter-rater reliability estimates.

Bottom line: Effective translation of patient experience can provide valuable insights about safety and quality of care in hospital.

Citation: O’Hara JK et al. What can patients tell us about the quality and safety of hospital care? Findings from a UK multicentre survey study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2018 Mar 15. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2017-006974.

Dr. Chikkanna is an assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of Kentucky, Lexington.

Physicians are trained to manage their patients’ diabetes and often do a meticulous job – one on one. But in order to maximize glycemic control outcomes throughout the hospital, you need a kind of diabetic epidemiology team to focus on the data, said Andjela Drincic, MD, an endocrinologist at Nebraska Medicine, the clinical partner of the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha.

Reliable benchmarks

Nebraska Medicine enrolled in eQUIPS in 2012.

“We utilize SHM’s glucometrics (standardized analyses of inpatient glycemic control data).”³ said Dr. Drincic. “I was looking for a reliable glucometric system and some way to make comparisons with other hospitals when I came across the data Dr. Maynard published about SHM via a PubMed search. We needed outcomes that are validated in the literature and comparison groups.”

Nebraska Medicine has also received a certificate of distinction for inpatient diabetes care from the Joint Commission, and Dr. Drincic is active in PRIDE (Planning Research in Inpatient Diabetes), a national consortium of leading investigators in inpatient diabetes care formed to promote collaborative research. The PRIDE group meets yearly at the ADA conference, communicates regularly by email, and publishes articles.

“Once a year I present our glycemic control data to our administration and to the quality and safety committees at the hospital. I have been pleased with the level of support we have received,” Dr. Drincic said. “We needed a mandate to do this, but when I reported the impact on readmissions and other outcomes, I got the full support of administration. This would have been a lot harder without SHM.”

Engagement with hospitalists is another key to the glucose management project’s success, Dr. Drincic said. “We as endocrinologists think we know how to manage diabetes, but hospitalists have the daunting task of dealing with all of the patient’s medical issues. If we don’t have a strong collaboration, how can we change practice hospitalwide?” Rachel Thompson, MD, SFHM, Nebraska Medicine’s chief of hospital medicine, participates in the glucose management project, Dr. Drincic said.

“We occasionally are guests at hospitalist meetings to share new glucose treatment algorithms,” she said. “We’re also looking at collaborating on other quality initiatives, for example, studying how perioperative dexamethasone affects glycemic control. We built this relationship with hospitalists by establishing trust while trying to shed a reputation as ‘sugar police.’ I don’t want hospitalists saying ‘There she goes again’ whenever I come on the unit. We have tried to establish personal relationships and figure out what the hospitalists need, especially relative to EPIC (the hospital’s electronic medical record software).”

Lack of clear metrics

A significant defect in the infrastructure of many glucose management programs is the lack of clear metrics for outcomes, Dr. Maynard said. Nearly one-third of hospitals in the United States have no standardized metric to track the quality of their inpatient glycemic management, a sobering statistic considering that the first step in any QI initiative is to define and measure the problem at hand.

“I believe the main reason that glycemic control has been left off hospitals’ radar screens is that we still have not adopted national, publicly reported quality measures for glycemic control, although those were proposed recently by a government interagency work group,” Dr. Maynard said. “Until that happens, we’ll continue to see uneven response.”

The first step for frontline hospitalists is to learn and understand the basics of glucose control, for example, basal bolus insulin administration, and to stop writing orders for sliding scale insulin as the sole means of controlling hyperglycemia.

“Develop and adopt standards of practice for insulin administration in your hospital,” Dr. Maynard said. “Be part of the solution, not the problem. Once you get into the weeds – patients on steroids or on total parenteral nutrition – it can get tricky. But it’s important to get the basics right and move beyond inertia on this topic.”

Get on the bus

Hospitalists are also integrally involved in a hospital glycemic improvement initiative at Orange Regional Medical Center (ORMC) in Middletown, N.Y.

Photo courtesy of Orange Regional Medical Center

References

1. Corvino L et al. “Management of diabetes and hyperglycemia in hospitalized patients.” Updated 2017 Oct 1 in De Groot LJ et al. editors. Endotext. South Dartmouth (MA): MDText.com 2000.

2. American Diabetes Association. Glycemic targets. Diabetes Care 2017 Jan;40(Suppl 1):S48-56.

3. Maynard G et al. “Design and implementation of a web-based reporting and benchmarking center for inpatient glucometrics.” J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2014 May 12;8(4):630-40.

Physicians are trained to manage their patients’ diabetes and often do a meticulous job – one on one. But in order to maximize glycemic control outcomes throughout the hospital, you need a kind of diabetic epidemiology team to focus on the data, said Andjela Drincic, MD, an endocrinologist at Nebraska Medicine, the clinical partner of the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha.

Reliable benchmarks

Nebraska Medicine enrolled in eQUIPS in 2012.

“We utilize SHM’s glucometrics (standardized analyses of inpatient glycemic control data).”³ said Dr. Drincic. “I was looking for a reliable glucometric system and some way to make comparisons with other hospitals when I came across the data Dr. Maynard published about SHM via a PubMed search. We needed outcomes that are validated in the literature and comparison groups.”

Nebraska Medicine has also received a certificate of distinction for inpatient diabetes care from the Joint Commission, and Dr. Drincic is active in PRIDE (Planning Research in Inpatient Diabetes), a national consortium of leading investigators in inpatient diabetes care formed to promote collaborative research. The PRIDE group meets yearly at the ADA conference, communicates regularly by email, and publishes articles.

“Once a year I present our glycemic control data to our administration and to the quality and safety committees at the hospital. I have been pleased with the level of support we have received,” Dr. Drincic said. “We needed a mandate to do this, but when I reported the impact on readmissions and other outcomes, I got the full support of administration. This would have been a lot harder without SHM.”

Engagement with hospitalists is another key to the glucose management project’s success, Dr. Drincic said. “We as endocrinologists think we know how to manage diabetes, but hospitalists have the daunting task of dealing with all of the patient’s medical issues. If we don’t have a strong collaboration, how can we change practice hospitalwide?” Rachel Thompson, MD, SFHM, Nebraska Medicine’s chief of hospital medicine, participates in the glucose management project, Dr. Drincic said.

“We occasionally are guests at hospitalist meetings to share new glucose treatment algorithms,” she said. “We’re also looking at collaborating on other quality initiatives, for example, studying how perioperative dexamethasone affects glycemic control. We built this relationship with hospitalists by establishing trust while trying to shed a reputation as ‘sugar police.’ I don’t want hospitalists saying ‘There she goes again’ whenever I come on the unit. We have tried to establish personal relationships and figure out what the hospitalists need, especially relative to EPIC (the hospital’s electronic medical record software).”

Lack of clear metrics

A significant defect in the infrastructure of many glucose management programs is the lack of clear metrics for outcomes, Dr. Maynard said. Nearly one-third of hospitals in the United States have no standardized metric to track the quality of their inpatient glycemic management, a sobering statistic considering that the first step in any QI initiative is to define and measure the problem at hand.

“I believe the main reason that glycemic control has been left off hospitals’ radar screens is that we still have not adopted national, publicly reported quality measures for glycemic control, although those were proposed recently by a government interagency work group,” Dr. Maynard said. “Until that happens, we’ll continue to see uneven response.”

The first step for frontline hospitalists is to learn and understand the basics of glucose control, for example, basal bolus insulin administration, and to stop writing orders for sliding scale insulin as the sole means of controlling hyperglycemia.

“Develop and adopt standards of practice for insulin administration in your hospital,” Dr. Maynard said. “Be part of the solution, not the problem. Once you get into the weeds – patients on steroids or on total parenteral nutrition – it can get tricky. But it’s important to get the basics right and move beyond inertia on this topic.”

Get on the bus

Hospitalists are also integrally involved in a hospital glycemic improvement initiative at Orange Regional Medical Center (ORMC) in Middletown, N.Y.

Photo courtesy of Orange Regional Medical Center

References

1. Corvino L et al. “Management of diabetes and hyperglycemia in hospitalized patients.” Updated 2017 Oct 1 in De Groot LJ et al. editors. Endotext. South Dartmouth (MA): MDText.com 2000.

2. American Diabetes Association. Glycemic targets. Diabetes Care 2017 Jan;40(Suppl 1):S48-56.

3. Maynard G et al. “Design and implementation of a web-based reporting and benchmarking center for inpatient glucometrics.” J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2014 May 12;8(4):630-40.

Physicians are trained to manage their patients’ diabetes and often do a meticulous job – one on one. But in order to maximize glycemic control outcomes throughout the hospital, you need a kind of diabetic epidemiology team to focus on the data, said Andjela Drincic, MD, an endocrinologist at Nebraska Medicine, the clinical partner of the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha.

Reliable benchmarks

Nebraska Medicine enrolled in eQUIPS in 2012.

“We utilize SHM’s glucometrics (standardized analyses of inpatient glycemic control data).”³ said Dr. Drincic. “I was looking for a reliable glucometric system and some way to make comparisons with other hospitals when I came across the data Dr. Maynard published about SHM via a PubMed search. We needed outcomes that are validated in the literature and comparison groups.”

Nebraska Medicine has also received a certificate of distinction for inpatient diabetes care from the Joint Commission, and Dr. Drincic is active in PRIDE (Planning Research in Inpatient Diabetes), a national consortium of leading investigators in inpatient diabetes care formed to promote collaborative research. The PRIDE group meets yearly at the ADA conference, communicates regularly by email, and publishes articles.

“Once a year I present our glycemic control data to our administration and to the quality and safety committees at the hospital. I have been pleased with the level of support we have received,” Dr. Drincic said. “We needed a mandate to do this, but when I reported the impact on readmissions and other outcomes, I got the full support of administration. This would have been a lot harder without SHM.”

Engagement with hospitalists is another key to the glucose management project’s success, Dr. Drincic said. “We as endocrinologists think we know how to manage diabetes, but hospitalists have the daunting task of dealing with all of the patient’s medical issues. If we don’t have a strong collaboration, how can we change practice hospitalwide?” Rachel Thompson, MD, SFHM, Nebraska Medicine’s chief of hospital medicine, participates in the glucose management project, Dr. Drincic said.

“We occasionally are guests at hospitalist meetings to share new glucose treatment algorithms,” she said. “We’re also looking at collaborating on other quality initiatives, for example, studying how perioperative dexamethasone affects glycemic control. We built this relationship with hospitalists by establishing trust while trying to shed a reputation as ‘sugar police.’ I don’t want hospitalists saying ‘There she goes again’ whenever I come on the unit. We have tried to establish personal relationships and figure out what the hospitalists need, especially relative to EPIC (the hospital’s electronic medical record software).”

Lack of clear metrics

A significant defect in the infrastructure of many glucose management programs is the lack of clear metrics for outcomes, Dr. Maynard said. Nearly one-third of hospitals in the United States have no standardized metric to track the quality of their inpatient glycemic management, a sobering statistic considering that the first step in any QI initiative is to define and measure the problem at hand.

“I believe the main reason that glycemic control has been left off hospitals’ radar screens is that we still have not adopted national, publicly reported quality measures for glycemic control, although those were proposed recently by a government interagency work group,” Dr. Maynard said. “Until that happens, we’ll continue to see uneven response.”

The first step for frontline hospitalists is to learn and understand the basics of glucose control, for example, basal bolus insulin administration, and to stop writing orders for sliding scale insulin as the sole means of controlling hyperglycemia.

“Develop and adopt standards of practice for insulin administration in your hospital,” Dr. Maynard said. “Be part of the solution, not the problem. Once you get into the weeds – patients on steroids or on total parenteral nutrition – it can get tricky. But it’s important to get the basics right and move beyond inertia on this topic.”

Get on the bus

Hospitalists are also integrally involved in a hospital glycemic improvement initiative at Orange Regional Medical Center (ORMC) in Middletown, N.Y.

Photo courtesy of Orange Regional Medical Center

References

1. Corvino L et al. “Management of diabetes and hyperglycemia in hospitalized patients.” Updated 2017 Oct 1 in De Groot LJ et al. editors. Endotext. South Dartmouth (MA): MDText.com 2000.

2. American Diabetes Association. Glycemic targets. Diabetes Care 2017 Jan;40(Suppl 1):S48-56.

3. Maynard G et al. “Design and implementation of a web-based reporting and benchmarking center for inpatient glucometrics.” J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2014 May 12;8(4):630-40.

The Society of Hospital Medicine is pleased to share successes and resources from a 3-year national quality improvement program called STRIVE (States Targeting Reduction in Infections Via Engagement). This program targeted opportunities to streamline and enhance infection prevention and control efforts in participating hospitals.

SHM was a key partner in the STRIVE program, which was managed by the Health Research & Educational Trust, the not-for-profit research and education affiliate of the American Hospital Association. Other partners included the American Society for Healthcare Engineering, Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and experts from academic institutions and professional societies such as Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.; Rush University, Chicago; and the Association for the Healthcare Environment. SHM provided specific knowledge and experience on HAI prevention and helped develop the STRIVE curriculum and resources. Faculty coaches from SHM also supported STRIVE hospitals by presenting on webinars, attending in-person meetings, and consulting on calls.

Following the U.S. experience with Ebola, the Centers for Disease Control and Infection identified the critical importance of enhancing infection control for all infectious threats to protect both patients and health care personnel. The CDC also recognized that many state and regional organizations and agencies work with the same health care facilities in order to coordinate efforts to address infectious threats. The STRIVE program provided tools and resources to help communities strengthen the relationships among diverse organizations to maximize improvement and coordination.

Closely aligned with SHM’s mission to promote exceptional care for hospitalized patients, the CDC’s STRIVE program goals were as follows:

• To expand the CDC’s Targeting Assessment for Prevention (TAP) strategy of using surveillance data to identify hospitals with a disproportionately high burden of health care–associated infections (HAIs),
• To build and strengthen relationships between state and regional organizations that help hospitals with infection control and prevention, and
• To provide technical assistance to hospitals to improve implementation of infection control practices in existing and newly constructed health care facilities.

The participants in this program included 449 hospitals from 28 states and the District of Columbia. Short-stay and long-term acute care hospitals that had a high burden of Clostridium difficile infection, and a high burden of one or more of the following HAIs – central line–associated bloodstream infection, catheter associated urinary tract infection, and health care–associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteremia – were targeted. Each participant had access to specific education modules, webinars, and learning networks designed to enhance collaboration, performance improvement, and understanding of the successes and barriers to coordinating hospital- and community-based services. Hospitals joined the program in cohorts and engaged in a year-long effort to reduce infection burden. During the program implementation period, many hospitals showed measurable improvement by achieving an HAI-specific relative rate reduction or maintenance of a rate of zero between baseline and intervention periods.

Key successes of the program centered around development of multidisciplinary teams that engaged not only the infection preventionists but also such areas as environmental services and other departments that may not have traditionally been included in infection prevention efforts. These teams focused on establishing competency-based trainings and processes for auditing competencies. One series of STRIVE resources helped hospitals learn new ways to implement best practices and communicate with diverse departments so every team member could participate in removing barriers to infection prevention in the hospital.

SHM was especially pleased to be a part of a program that brought together state health departments, state hospital associations, quality innovation network–quality improvement organizations, and other agencies and health systems committed to infection prevention. The collaboration and partnerships among the STRIVE program participants helped minimize duplication of work and improve efficiency and effectiveness of infection prevention efforts lead by hospitals.

To learn more about the STRIVE resources, visit www.hret.org/quality/projects/strive.shtml.


 

The Society of Hospital Medicine is pleased to share successes and resources from a 3-year national quality improvement program called STRIVE (States Targeting Reduction in Infections Via Engagement). This program targeted opportunities to streamline and enhance infection prevention and control efforts in participating hospitals.

SHM was a key partner in the STRIVE program, which was managed by the Health Research & Educational Trust, the not-for-profit research and education affiliate of the American Hospital Association. Other partners included the American Society for Healthcare Engineering, Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and experts from academic institutions and professional societies such as Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.; Rush University, Chicago; and the Association for the Healthcare Environment. SHM provided specific knowledge and experience on HAI prevention and helped develop the STRIVE curriculum and resources. Faculty coaches from SHM also supported STRIVE hospitals by presenting on webinars, attending in-person meetings, and consulting on calls.

Following the U.S. experience with Ebola, the Centers for Disease Control and Infection identified the critical importance of enhancing infection control for all infectious threats to protect both patients and health care personnel. The CDC also recognized that many state and regional organizations and agencies work with the same health care facilities in order to coordinate efforts to address infectious threats. The STRIVE program provided tools and resources to help communities strengthen the relationships among diverse organizations to maximize improvement and coordination.

Closely aligned with SHM’s mission to promote exceptional care for hospitalized patients, the CDC’s STRIVE program goals were as follows:

• To expand the CDC’s Targeting Assessment for Prevention (TAP) strategy of using surveillance data to identify hospitals with a disproportionately high burden of health care–associated infections (HAIs),
• To build and strengthen relationships between state and regional organizations that help hospitals with infection control and prevention, and
• To provide technical assistance to hospitals to improve implementation of infection control practices in existing and newly constructed health care facilities.

The participants in this program included 449 hospitals from 28 states and the District of Columbia. Short-stay and long-term acute care hospitals that had a high burden of Clostridium difficile infection, and a high burden of one or more of the following HAIs – central line–associated bloodstream infection, catheter associated urinary tract infection, and health care–associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteremia – were targeted. Each participant had access to specific education modules, webinars, and learning networks designed to enhance collaboration, performance improvement, and understanding of the successes and barriers to coordinating hospital- and community-based services. Hospitals joined the program in cohorts and engaged in a year-long effort to reduce infection burden. During the program implementation period, many hospitals showed measurable improvement by achieving an HAI-specific relative rate reduction or maintenance of a rate of zero between baseline and intervention periods.

Key successes of the program centered around development of multidisciplinary teams that engaged not only the infection preventionists but also such areas as environmental services and other departments that may not have traditionally been included in infection prevention efforts. These teams focused on establishing competency-based trainings and processes for auditing competencies. One series of STRIVE resources helped hospitals learn new ways to implement best practices and communicate with diverse departments so every team member could participate in removing barriers to infection prevention in the hospital.

SHM was especially pleased to be a part of a program that brought together state health departments, state hospital associations, quality innovation network–quality improvement organizations, and other agencies and health systems committed to infection prevention. The collaboration and partnerships among the STRIVE program participants helped minimize duplication of work and improve efficiency and effectiveness of infection prevention efforts lead by hospitals.

To learn more about the STRIVE resources, visit www.hret.org/quality/projects/strive.shtml.


 

The Society of Hospital Medicine is pleased to share successes and resources from a 3-year national quality improvement program called STRIVE (States Targeting Reduction in Infections Via Engagement). This program targeted opportunities to streamline and enhance infection prevention and control efforts in participating hospitals.

SHM was a key partner in the STRIVE program, which was managed by the Health Research & Educational Trust, the not-for-profit research and education affiliate of the American Hospital Association. Other partners included the American Society for Healthcare Engineering, Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and experts from academic institutions and professional societies such as Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.; Rush University, Chicago; and the Association for the Healthcare Environment. SHM provided specific knowledge and experience on HAI prevention and helped develop the STRIVE curriculum and resources. Faculty coaches from SHM also supported STRIVE hospitals by presenting on webinars, attending in-person meetings, and consulting on calls.

Following the U.S. experience with Ebola, the Centers for Disease Control and Infection identified the critical importance of enhancing infection control for all infectious threats to protect both patients and health care personnel. The CDC also recognized that many state and regional organizations and agencies work with the same health care facilities in order to coordinate efforts to address infectious threats. The STRIVE program provided tools and resources to help communities strengthen the relationships among diverse organizations to maximize improvement and coordination.

Closely aligned with SHM’s mission to promote exceptional care for hospitalized patients, the CDC’s STRIVE program goals were as follows:

• To expand the CDC’s Targeting Assessment for Prevention (TAP) strategy of using surveillance data to identify hospitals with a disproportionately high burden of health care–associated infections (HAIs),
• To build and strengthen relationships between state and regional organizations that help hospitals with infection control and prevention, and
• To provide technical assistance to hospitals to improve implementation of infection control practices in existing and newly constructed health care facilities.

The participants in this program included 449 hospitals from 28 states and the District of Columbia. Short-stay and long-term acute care hospitals that had a high burden of Clostridium difficile infection, and a high burden of one or more of the following HAIs – central line–associated bloodstream infection, catheter associated urinary tract infection, and health care–associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteremia – were targeted. Each participant had access to specific education modules, webinars, and learning networks designed to enhance collaboration, performance improvement, and understanding of the successes and barriers to coordinating hospital- and community-based services. Hospitals joined the program in cohorts and engaged in a year-long effort to reduce infection burden. During the program implementation period, many hospitals showed measurable improvement by achieving an HAI-specific relative rate reduction or maintenance of a rate of zero between baseline and intervention periods.

Key successes of the program centered around development of multidisciplinary teams that engaged not only the infection preventionists but also such areas as environmental services and other departments that may not have traditionally been included in infection prevention efforts. These teams focused on establishing competency-based trainings and processes for auditing competencies. One series of STRIVE resources helped hospitals learn new ways to implement best practices and communicate with diverse departments so every team member could participate in removing barriers to infection prevention in the hospital.

SHM was especially pleased to be a part of a program that brought together state health departments, state hospital associations, quality innovation network–quality improvement organizations, and other agencies and health systems committed to infection prevention. The collaboration and partnerships among the STRIVE program participants helped minimize duplication of work and improve efficiency and effectiveness of infection prevention efforts lead by hospitals.

To learn more about the STRIVE resources, visit www.hret.org/quality/projects/strive.shtml.


 

During residency, physicians are trained to care for patients and write notes that are clinically useful. However, physicians are often not taught about how documentation affects reimbursement and quality measures. Our purpose here, and in articles to follow, is to give readers tools to enable them to more accurately reflect the complexity and work that is done for accurate reimbursements.

If you were to get in a car accident, the body shop would document the damage done and submit it to the insurance company. It’s the body shop’s responsibility to record the damage, not the insurance company’s. So while documentation can seem onerous, the insurance company is not going to scour the chart to find diagnoses missed in the note. That would be like the body shop doing repair work without documenting the damage but then somehow expecting to get paid.

For the insurance company, “If you didn’t document it, it didn’t happen.” The body shop should not underdocument and say there were only a few scratches on the right rear panel if it was severely damaged. Likewise, it should not overbill and say the front bumper was damaged if it was not. The goal is not to bill as much as possible but rather to document appropriately.
 

Terminology

The expected length of stay (LOS) and the expected mortality for a particular patient is determined by how sick the patient appears to be based on the medical record documentation. So documenting all the appropriate diagnoses makes the LOS index (actual LOS divided by expected LOS) and mortality index more accurate as well. It is particularly important to document when a condition is (or is not) “present on admission”.

While physician payments can be based on evaluation and management coding, the hospital’s reimbursement is largely determined by physician documentation. Hospitals are paid by Medicare on a capitated basis according to the Acute Inpatient Prospective Payment System. The amount paid is determined by the base rate of the hospital multiplied by the relative weight (RW) of the Medicare Severity Diagnosis Related Group (MS-DRG).

The base rate is adjusted by the wage index of the hospital location. Hospitals that serve a high proportion of low income patients receive a Disproportionate Share Hospital adjustment. The base rate is not something hospitalists have control over.

The RW, however, is determined by the primary diagnosis (reason for admission) and whether or not there are complications or comorbidities (CCs) or major complications or comorbidities (MCCs). The more CCs and MCCs a patient has, the higher the severity of illness and expected increased resources needed to care for that patient.

Diagnoses are currently coded using ICD-10 used by the World Health Organization. The ICD-10 of the primary diagnosis is mapped to an MS-DRG. Many, but not all, MS-DRGs have increasing reimbursements for CCs and MCCs. Coders map the ICD-10 of the principal diagnosis along with any associated CCs or MCCs to the MS-DRG code. The relative weights for different DRGs can found on table 5 of the Medicare website (see reference 1).
 

Altered mental status versus delirium versus encephalopathy

As an example, let’s look at the difference in RW, LOS, and reimbursement in an otherwise identical patient based on documenting altered mental status (AMS), delirium, or encephalopathy. (see Table 1)

As one can see, RW, estimated LOS, and reimbursement would significantly increase for the patient with delirium (CC) or encephalopathy (MCC) versus AMS (no CC/MCC). A list of which diagnoses are considered CC’s versus MCC’s are on tables 6J and 6I, respectively, on the same Medicare website as table 5.
 

The difference between AMS, delirium, and encephalopathy

AMS is a sign/symptom complex similar to shortness of breath before an etiology is found. AMS can be the presenting symptom; when a specific etiology is found, however, a more specific diagnosis should be used such as delirium or encephalopathy.

Delirium, according to the DSM-5, is an acute change in the level of attention, cognition, or perception from baseline that developed over hours or days and tends to fluctuate during the course of a day. The change described is not better explained by a preexisting or evolving neurocognitive disorder and does not occur in the context of a severely reduced level of arousal, such as coma. There is evidence from the history, physical examination, or laboratory findings that the disturbance is a direct consequence of a general medical condition, substance intoxication or withdrawal, exposure to a toxin, or more than one cause.

The National Institute of Neurological Diseases and Stroke defines encephalopathy as “any diffuse disease of the brain that alters brain function or structure. Encephalopathy may be caused by an infectious agent, metabolic or mitochondrial dysfunction, brain tumor or increased intracranial pressure, prolonged exposure to toxic elements, chronic progressive trauma, poor nutrition, or lack of oxygen or blood flow to the brain. The hallmark of encephalopathy is an altered mental state.”

It is confusing since there is a lot of overlap in the definitions of delirium and encephalopathy. One way to tease this out conceptually is noting that delirium is listed under mental, behavioral, and neurodevelopmental disorders, while encephalopathy appears under disorders of the nervous system. One can think of delirium as more of a “mental/psychiatric” diagnosis, while encephalopathy is caused by more “medical” causes.

If a patient who is normally not altered presents with confusion because of an infection or metabolic derangement, one can diagnose and document the cause of an acute encephalopathy. However, let’s say a patient is admitted in the morning with an infection, is started on treatment, but is not initially confused. If he/she later becomes confused at night, one could err conservatively and document delirium caused by sundowning.

Differentiating delirium and encephalopathy can be especially difficult in patients who have dementia with episodic confusion when they present with an infection and confusion. If the confusion is within what family members/caretakers say is “normal,” then one shouldn’t document encephalopathy. As a provider, one shouldn’t focus on all the rules and exceptions, just document as specifically and accurately as possible and the coders should take care of the rest.

Dr. Tong is an assistant professor of hospital medicine and an assistant director of the clinical research program at Emory University, Atlanta. Ms. Epps is director of clinical documentation improvement at Emory Healthcare, Atlanta.

References

1. “Acute Inpatient PPS.” Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Accessed 2/17/18. https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/AcuteInpatientPPS/index.html.

2. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing, 2013.

3. “Details for title: FY 2018 Final Rule and Correction Notice Tables.” Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Accessed 2/17/18. https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/AcuteInpatientPPS/FY2018-IPPS-Final-Rule-Home-Page-Items/FY2018-IPPS-Final-Rule-Tables.html.

4. “Encephalopathy Information Page.” National Institute of Neurologic Disorders and Stroke. Accessed on 2/17/18. https://www.ninds.nih.gov/Disorders/All-Disorders/Encephalopathy-Information-Page.

5. The ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders: Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Guidelines. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1992. http://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/37958.

During residency, physicians are trained to care for patients and write notes that are clinically useful. However, physicians are often not taught about how documentation affects reimbursement and quality measures. Our purpose here, and in articles to follow, is to give readers tools to enable them to more accurately reflect the complexity and work that is done for accurate reimbursements.

If you were to get in a car accident, the body shop would document the damage done and submit it to the insurance company. It’s the body shop’s responsibility to record the damage, not the insurance company’s. So while documentation can seem onerous, the insurance company is not going to scour the chart to find diagnoses missed in the note. That would be like the body shop doing repair work without documenting the damage but then somehow expecting to get paid.

For the insurance company, “If you didn’t document it, it didn’t happen.” The body shop should not underdocument and say there were only a few scratches on the right rear panel if it was severely damaged. Likewise, it should not overbill and say the front bumper was damaged if it was not. The goal is not to bill as much as possible but rather to document appropriately.
 

Terminology

The expected length of stay (LOS) and the expected mortality for a particular patient is determined by how sick the patient appears to be based on the medical record documentation. So documenting all the appropriate diagnoses makes the LOS index (actual LOS divided by expected LOS) and mortality index more accurate as well. It is particularly important to document when a condition is (or is not) “present on admission”.

While physician payments can be based on evaluation and management coding, the hospital’s reimbursement is largely determined by physician documentation. Hospitals are paid by Medicare on a capitated basis according to the Acute Inpatient Prospective Payment System. The amount paid is determined by the base rate of the hospital multiplied by the relative weight (RW) of the Medicare Severity Diagnosis Related Group (MS-DRG).

The base rate is adjusted by the wage index of the hospital location. Hospitals that serve a high proportion of low income patients receive a Disproportionate Share Hospital adjustment. The base rate is not something hospitalists have control over.

The RW, however, is determined by the primary diagnosis (reason for admission) and whether or not there are complications or comorbidities (CCs) or major complications or comorbidities (MCCs). The more CCs and MCCs a patient has, the higher the severity of illness and expected increased resources needed to care for that patient.

Diagnoses are currently coded using ICD-10 used by the World Health Organization. The ICD-10 of the primary diagnosis is mapped to an MS-DRG. Many, but not all, MS-DRGs have increasing reimbursements for CCs and MCCs. Coders map the ICD-10 of the principal diagnosis along with any associated CCs or MCCs to the MS-DRG code. The relative weights for different DRGs can found on table 5 of the Medicare website (see reference 1).
 

Altered mental status versus delirium versus encephalopathy

As an example, let’s look at the difference in RW, LOS, and reimbursement in an otherwise identical patient based on documenting altered mental status (AMS), delirium, or encephalopathy. (see Table 1)

As one can see, RW, estimated LOS, and reimbursement would significantly increase for the patient with delirium (CC) or encephalopathy (MCC) versus AMS (no CC/MCC). A list of which diagnoses are considered CC’s versus MCC’s are on tables 6J and 6I, respectively, on the same Medicare website as table 5.
 

The difference between AMS, delirium, and encephalopathy

AMS is a sign/symptom complex similar to shortness of breath before an etiology is found. AMS can be the presenting symptom; when a specific etiology is found, however, a more specific diagnosis should be used such as delirium or encephalopathy.

Delirium, according to the DSM-5, is an acute change in the level of attention, cognition, or perception from baseline that developed over hours or days and tends to fluctuate during the course of a day. The change described is not better explained by a preexisting or evolving neurocognitive disorder and does not occur in the context of a severely reduced level of arousal, such as coma. There is evidence from the history, physical examination, or laboratory findings that the disturbance is a direct consequence of a general medical condition, substance intoxication or withdrawal, exposure to a toxin, or more than one cause.

The National Institute of Neurological Diseases and Stroke defines encephalopathy as “any diffuse disease of the brain that alters brain function or structure. Encephalopathy may be caused by an infectious agent, metabolic or mitochondrial dysfunction, brain tumor or increased intracranial pressure, prolonged exposure to toxic elements, chronic progressive trauma, poor nutrition, or lack of oxygen or blood flow to the brain. The hallmark of encephalopathy is an altered mental state.”

It is confusing since there is a lot of overlap in the definitions of delirium and encephalopathy. One way to tease this out conceptually is noting that delirium is listed under mental, behavioral, and neurodevelopmental disorders, while encephalopathy appears under disorders of the nervous system. One can think of delirium as more of a “mental/psychiatric” diagnosis, while encephalopathy is caused by more “medical” causes.

If a patient who is normally not altered presents with confusion because of an infection or metabolic derangement, one can diagnose and document the cause of an acute encephalopathy. However, let’s say a patient is admitted in the morning with an infection, is started on treatment, but is not initially confused. If he/she later becomes confused at night, one could err conservatively and document delirium caused by sundowning.

Differentiating delirium and encephalopathy can be especially difficult in patients who have dementia with episodic confusion when they present with an infection and confusion. If the confusion is within what family members/caretakers say is “normal,” then one shouldn’t document encephalopathy. As a provider, one shouldn’t focus on all the rules and exceptions, just document as specifically and accurately as possible and the coders should take care of the rest.

Dr. Tong is an assistant professor of hospital medicine and an assistant director of the clinical research program at Emory University, Atlanta. Ms. Epps is director of clinical documentation improvement at Emory Healthcare, Atlanta.

References

1. “Acute Inpatient PPS.” Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Accessed 2/17/18. https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/AcuteInpatientPPS/index.html.

2. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing, 2013.

3. “Details for title: FY 2018 Final Rule and Correction Notice Tables.” Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Accessed 2/17/18. https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/AcuteInpatientPPS/FY2018-IPPS-Final-Rule-Home-Page-Items/FY2018-IPPS-Final-Rule-Tables.html.

4. “Encephalopathy Information Page.” National Institute of Neurologic Disorders and Stroke. Accessed on 2/17/18. https://www.ninds.nih.gov/Disorders/All-Disorders/Encephalopathy-Information-Page.

5. The ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders: Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Guidelines. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1992. http://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/37958.

During residency, physicians are trained to care for patients and write notes that are clinically useful. However, physicians are often not taught about how documentation affects reimbursement and quality measures. Our purpose here, and in articles to follow, is to give readers tools to enable them to more accurately reflect the complexity and work that is done for accurate reimbursements.

If you were to get in a car accident, the body shop would document the damage done and submit it to the insurance company. It’s the body shop’s responsibility to record the damage, not the insurance company’s. So while documentation can seem onerous, the insurance company is not going to scour the chart to find diagnoses missed in the note. That would be like the body shop doing repair work without documenting the damage but then somehow expecting to get paid.

For the insurance company, “If you didn’t document it, it didn’t happen.” The body shop should not underdocument and say there were only a few scratches on the right rear panel if it was severely damaged. Likewise, it should not overbill and say the front bumper was damaged if it was not. The goal is not to bill as much as possible but rather to document appropriately.
 

Terminology

The expected length of stay (LOS) and the expected mortality for a particular patient is determined by how sick the patient appears to be based on the medical record documentation. So documenting all the appropriate diagnoses makes the LOS index (actual LOS divided by expected LOS) and mortality index more accurate as well. It is particularly important to document when a condition is (or is not) “present on admission”.

While physician payments can be based on evaluation and management coding, the hospital’s reimbursement is largely determined by physician documentation. Hospitals are paid by Medicare on a capitated basis according to the Acute Inpatient Prospective Payment System. The amount paid is determined by the base rate of the hospital multiplied by the relative weight (RW) of the Medicare Severity Diagnosis Related Group (MS-DRG).

The base rate is adjusted by the wage index of the hospital location. Hospitals that serve a high proportion of low income patients receive a Disproportionate Share Hospital adjustment. The base rate is not something hospitalists have control over.

The RW, however, is determined by the primary diagnosis (reason for admission) and whether or not there are complications or comorbidities (CCs) or major complications or comorbidities (MCCs). The more CCs and MCCs a patient has, the higher the severity of illness and expected increased resources needed to care for that patient.

Diagnoses are currently coded using ICD-10 used by the World Health Organization. The ICD-10 of the primary diagnosis is mapped to an MS-DRG. Many, but not all, MS-DRGs have increasing reimbursements for CCs and MCCs. Coders map the ICD-10 of the principal diagnosis along with any associated CCs or MCCs to the MS-DRG code. The relative weights for different DRGs can found on table 5 of the Medicare website (see reference 1).
 

Altered mental status versus delirium versus encephalopathy

As an example, let’s look at the difference in RW, LOS, and reimbursement in an otherwise identical patient based on documenting altered mental status (AMS), delirium, or encephalopathy. (see Table 1)

As one can see, RW, estimated LOS, and reimbursement would significantly increase for the patient with delirium (CC) or encephalopathy (MCC) versus AMS (no CC/MCC). A list of which diagnoses are considered CC’s versus MCC’s are on tables 6J and 6I, respectively, on the same Medicare website as table 5.
 

The difference between AMS, delirium, and encephalopathy

AMS is a sign/symptom complex similar to shortness of breath before an etiology is found. AMS can be the presenting symptom; when a specific etiology is found, however, a more specific diagnosis should be used such as delirium or encephalopathy.

Delirium, according to the DSM-5, is an acute change in the level of attention, cognition, or perception from baseline that developed over hours or days and tends to fluctuate during the course of a day. The change described is not better explained by a preexisting or evolving neurocognitive disorder and does not occur in the context of a severely reduced level of arousal, such as coma. There is evidence from the history, physical examination, or laboratory findings that the disturbance is a direct consequence of a general medical condition, substance intoxication or withdrawal, exposure to a toxin, or more than one cause.

The National Institute of Neurological Diseases and Stroke defines encephalopathy as “any diffuse disease of the brain that alters brain function or structure. Encephalopathy may be caused by an infectious agent, metabolic or mitochondrial dysfunction, brain tumor or increased intracranial pressure, prolonged exposure to toxic elements, chronic progressive trauma, poor nutrition, or lack of oxygen or blood flow to the brain. The hallmark of encephalopathy is an altered mental state.”

It is confusing since there is a lot of overlap in the definitions of delirium and encephalopathy. One way to tease this out conceptually is noting that delirium is listed under mental, behavioral, and neurodevelopmental disorders, while encephalopathy appears under disorders of the nervous system. One can think of delirium as more of a “mental/psychiatric” diagnosis, while encephalopathy is caused by more “medical” causes.

If a patient who is normally not altered presents with confusion because of an infection or metabolic derangement, one can diagnose and document the cause of an acute encephalopathy. However, let’s say a patient is admitted in the morning with an infection, is started on treatment, but is not initially confused. If he/she later becomes confused at night, one could err conservatively and document delirium caused by sundowning.

Differentiating delirium and encephalopathy can be especially difficult in patients who have dementia with episodic confusion when they present with an infection and confusion. If the confusion is within what family members/caretakers say is “normal,” then one shouldn’t document encephalopathy. As a provider, one shouldn’t focus on all the rules and exceptions, just document as specifically and accurately as possible and the coders should take care of the rest.

Dr. Tong is an assistant professor of hospital medicine and an assistant director of the clinical research program at Emory University, Atlanta. Ms. Epps is director of clinical documentation improvement at Emory Healthcare, Atlanta.

References

1. “Acute Inpatient PPS.” Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Accessed 2/17/18. https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/AcuteInpatientPPS/index.html.

2. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing, 2013.

3. “Details for title: FY 2018 Final Rule and Correction Notice Tables.” Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Accessed 2/17/18. https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/AcuteInpatientPPS/FY2018-IPPS-Final-Rule-Home-Page-Items/FY2018-IPPS-Final-Rule-Tables.html.

4. “Encephalopathy Information Page.” National Institute of Neurologic Disorders and Stroke. Accessed on 2/17/18. https://www.ninds.nih.gov/Disorders/All-Disorders/Encephalopathy-Information-Page.

5. The ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders: Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Guidelines. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1992. http://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/37958.