Hospitalists and the doctor-patient relationship

"Physician Advocates": a novel strategy for improving the value of hospital care by employing hospitalists part time to support non-hospitalist physicians

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

At many hospitals, private-practice physicians still admit their own patients and are accustomed to autonomy in clinical practice. This creates challenges for hospital's efforts to improve the efficiency, quality, and value of care. Experienced inpatient-focused physicians-"Physician Advocates"-could act as liaisons between private practitioners and the fast-paced inpatient microsystem.

METHODS

We conducted a controlled pre-post ("differences-in-differences") analysis at an academic medical center where private-practice physicians care for about 40% of medical inpatients and hospitalist groups care for 60%. In the intervention, "Physician Advocates" participated in daily multidisciplinary "Progression of Care Rounds," offering suggestions to increase care quality for private-practice physicians' patients. Controls were cared for by a large, well-established hospitalist group, which convened separate, unchanged multidisciplinary rounds. Outcomes were length of stay (LOS; primary outcome), 30-day readmissions, and inpatient mortality.

RESULTS

In a risk-adjusted analysis of 31,632 medical inpatients, LOS declined by 4 hours more from the baseline period to the post-intervention period in the intervention group relative to the control group (ratio: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.93-0.99, p=0.004). Readmissions declined 22% more in the intervention group (OR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.63-0.97, p=0.023). Mortality was unchanged (OR: 1.23, 95% CI: 0.78-1.93 p-value=0.378).

CONCLUSION

Among inpatients cared for by private practitioners, adding Physician Advocates to multidisciplinary rounds was associated with improved LOS and reduced readmissions-measures of efficiency and value. The Physician Advocates approach should be tested in diverse health systems because it allows hospitals to leverage the expertise of on-site clinicians while respecting the traditional private-practice care model, in which primary care physicians manage their hospitalized patients.

Impact of hospitalists on the efficiency of inpatient care and patient satisfaction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Over the past 20 years, hospitalists have assumed a greater portion of healthcare service for hospitalized patients. This was mainly due to reducing the length of stay (LOS) and hospital costs shown by many studies. In contrast, other studies suggested increased cost and resources utilization associated with hospitalist-run care models. Aim: We aimed to provide class 1 evidence regarding the effect of hospitalist-run care models on the efficiency of care and patient satisfaction. Design: Meta-analysis. Methods: Four electronic medical databases were searched to retrieve all relevant studies. Two authors screened titles and abstracts of search results for eligibility according to predefined criteria. Initially eligible studies were screened for full text inclusion. Included studies were reviewed for data on LOS, hospital cost, readmission, mortality, and patient satisfaction. Available data were abstracted and analyzed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis. Results: Sixty-one studies were included for analysis. The overall effect size favored hospitalist-run care models in terms of LOS (MD = -0.67 day, 95% CI [-0.78, -0.56], p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in terms of hospital cost (MD = $92.1, 95% CI [-910.4, 1094.6], p = 0.86) whereas patient satisfaction was similar or even better in hospitalist compared to non-hospitalist (NH) service. Conclusion: Our analysis showed that hospitalist care is associated with decreased LOS and increased patient satisfaction compared to NH. This indicates an increase in the efficiency of care that does not come at the expense of care quality.

Individualized cost-effectiveness analysis of patient-centered care: a case series of hospitalized patient preferences departing from practice-based guidelines

OBJECTIVE

To develop cases of preference-sensitive care and analyze the individualized cost-effectiveness of respecting patient preference compared to guidelines.

METHODS

Four cases were analyzed comparing patient preference to guidelines: (a) high-risk cancer patient preferring to forgo colonoscopy; (b) decubitus patient preferring to forgo air-fluidized bed use; (c) anemic patient preferring to forgo transfusion; (d) end-of-life patient requesting all resuscitative measures. Decision trees were modeled to analyze cost-effectiveness of alternative treatments that respect preference compared to guidelines in USD per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) at a $100,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold from patient, provider and societal perspectives.

RESULTS

Forgoing colonoscopy dominates colonoscopy from patient, provider, and societal perspectives. Forgoing transfusion and air-fluidized bed are cost-effective from all three perspectives. Palliative care is cost-effective from provider and societal perspectives, but not from the patient perspective.

CONCLUSION

Prioritizing incorporation of patient preferences within guidelines holds good value and should be prioritized when developing new guidelines.

Redesigning care for patients at increased hospitalization risk: the Comprehensive Care Physician model

Patients who have been hospitalized often experience care coordination problems that worsen outcomes and increase costs. One reason is that hospital care and ambulatory care are often provided by different physicians. However, interventions to improve care coordination for hospitalized patients have not consistently improved outcomes and generally have not reduced costs. We describe the rationale for the Comprehensive Care Physician model, in which physicians focus their practice on patients at increased risk of hospitalization so that they can provide both inpatient and outpatient care to their patients. We also describe the design and implementation of a study supported by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation to assess the model's effects on costs and outcomes. Evidence concerning the effectiveness of the program is expected by 2016. If the program is found to be effective, the next steps will be to assess the durability of its benefits and the model's potential for dissemination; evidence to the contrary will provide insights into how to alter the program to address sources of failure.

Type of attending physician influenced feeding tube insertions for hospitalized elderly people with severe dementia

Striking variation has been documented in the rates of feeding tube insertion for hospitalized patients with advanced dementia. This occurs despite the harms of the procedure, which may outweigh its benefits, and the procedure's inconsistency with care focused on the patient's comfort. Among nursing home residents with advanced dementia who were hospitalized in 2001-10 with an infection or dehydration, we found that rates of insertion of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy feeding tube varied by type of attending physician. Insertion rates were markedly lower when all of a patient's attending physicians were hospitalists (1.6 percent) or nonhospitalist generalists (2.2 percent), compared to all subspecialists (11.0 percent) or a mixture of physicians by type, which typically included a subspecialist (15.6 percent). The portion of patients seen by a mixture of attending physicians increased from 28.9 percent in 2001 to 38.3 percent in 2010. Efforts to improve decision making in the care of patients with advanced dementia should include interventions to improve communication among physicians and the education of subspecialists about the merits of using feeding tubes with this population.

Liability impact of the hospitalist model of care

BACKGROUND

An increasingly large proportion of inpatient care is provided by hospitalists. The care discontinuities inherent to hospital medicine raise concerns about malpractice risk. However, little published data exist on the medical liability risks associated with care by hospitalists.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to determine the risks and outcomes of malpractice claims against hospitalists in internal medicine.

DESIGN

Retrospective observational analysis.

MEASUREMENTS

Using claims data from a liability insurer-maintained database of over 52,000 malpractice claims, we measured the rates of malpractice claims against hospitalists compared to other physician specialties, types of allegations against hospitalists, contributing factors, and the severity of injury in and outcomes of these claims.

RESULTS

Hospitalists had a malpractice claims rate of 0.52 claims per 100 physician coverage years (PCYs), which was significantly lower than that of nonhospitalist internal medicine physicians (1.91 claims per 100 PCYs), emergency medicine physicians (3.50 claims per 100 PCYs), general surgeons (4.70 claims per 100 PCYs), and obstetricians-gynecologists (5.56 claims per 100 PCYs) (P < 0.001 for all comparisons). The most common allegation types made against hospitalists were for errors in medical treatment (41.5%) and diagnosis (36.0%). The most common contributing factors underlying claims were deficiencies in clinical judgment (54.4%) and communication (36.4%). Of the claims made against hospitalists, 50.4% involved the death of the patient.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite fears of increased liability from the hospitalist model of care, hospitalists in internal medicine are subject to medical malpractice claims less frequently when compared to other internal medicine physicians and specialties.

Neurohospitalists: perceived need and training requirements in academic neurology

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

We sought to determine the current practices and plans for departmental hiring of neurohospitalists at academic medical centers and to identify the core features of a neurohospitalist training program.

METHODS

We surveyed department chairs or residency program directors at 123 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited US adult neurology training programs.

RESULTS

Sixty-three(51% response rate) responded, 76% of whom were program directors. In all, 24 (38%) academic neurology departments reported employing neurohospitalists, and an additional 10 departments have plans to hire neurohospitalists in the next year. In all, 4 academic neurology departments have created a neurohospitalist training program, and 10 have plans to create a training program within the next 2 years. Hospitals were the most frequent source of funding for established and planned programs (93% of those reporting). Most (n = 39; 65%) respondents felt that neurohospitalist neurology should be an ACGME-accredited fellowship. The highest priority neurohospitalist training elements among respondents included stroke, epilepsy, and consult neurology as well as patient safety and cost-effective inpatient care. The most important procedural skills for a neurohospitalist, as identified by respondents, include performance of brain death evaluations, lumbar punctures, and electroencephalogram interpretation.

CONCLUSIONS

Neurohospitalists have emerged as subspecialists within neurology, growing both in number and in scope of responsibilities in practice. Neurohospitalists are in demand among academic departments, with many departments developing their existing presence or establishing a new presence in the field. A neurohospitalist training program may encompass training in stroke, epilepsy, and consult neurology with additional focus on patient safety and cost-effective care.

Variation in length of stay and outcomes among hospitalized patients attributable to hospitals and hospitalists

BACKGROUND

There have been no prior population-based studies of variation in performance of hospitalists.

OBJECTIVE

To measure the variation in performance of hospitalists.

DESIGN

Retrospective research design of 100 % Texas Medicare data using multilevel, multivariable models.

SUBJECTS

131,710 hospitalized patients cared for by 1,099 hospitalists in 268 hospitals from 2006-2009.

MAIN MEASURES

We calculated, for each hospitalist, adjusted for patient and disease factors (case mix), their patients' average length of stay, rate of discharge home or to skilled nursing facility (SNF) and rate of 30-day mortality, readmissions and emergency room (ER) visits.

KEY RESULTS

In two-level models (admission and hospitalist), there was significant variation in average length of stay and discharge location among hospitalists, but very little variation in 30-day mortality, readmission or emergency room visit rates. There was stability over time (2008-2009 vs. 2006-2007) in hospitalist performance. In three-level models including admissions, hospitalists and hospitals, the variation among hospitalists was substantially reduced. For example, hospitals, hospitalists and case mix contributed 1.02 %, 0.75 % and 42.15 % of the total variance in 30-day mortality rates, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

There is significant variation among hospitalists in length of stay and discharge destination of their patients, but much of the variation is attributable to the hospitals where they practice. The very low variation among hospitalists in 30-day readmission rates suggests that hospitalists are not important contributors to variations in those rates among hospitals.

Who's behind an HCAHPS score?

BACKGROUND

The Hospital Consumer Assessment of Health Care Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey asks patients how frequently their physicians treated them with courtesy and respect, listened carefully, and explained things in a way they could understand. Such summary reports may obscure differences among the types of physicians involved. A study was conducted to examine the association between ratings for different physician types and the overall HCAHPS rating of physicians.

METHODS

A mixed-methods study included closed-ended surveys and in-depth interviews of patients on a hospitalist teaching service. The three HCAHPS physician communication items were used to interview patients about their communication experiences with emergency medicine (EM) physicians, hospitalists, and specialists. The association between the overall score and the scores of each physician type was examined using Spearman correlation coefficients and linear regression. Qualitative data from additional in-depth interviews were analyzed using the constant comparative method to identify recurrent themes.

RESULTS

Ninety-six patients were recruited for the survey, and additional in-depth interviews were conducted with the first 30 patients. Hospitalist and specialist scores were significantly associated (p values < .05) with overall scores. Recurrent themes regarding determinants of patients' ratings were categorized in three broad domains: individual physician behavior, team communication, and system issues. The influence of each domain differed across physician types.

DISCUSSION

Physician communication scores may be most strongly influenced by patient experiences with hospitalists and specialists rather than with EM physicians. Several team communication and system issues represent opportunities for improving physician communication.

Effects of provider characteristics on care coordination under comanagement

BACKGROUND

Care coordination is critical in settings characterized by high levels of uncertainty, time constraints, and interdependent work processes. The effects of provider characteristics on coordination in comanaged teams has never been examined.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize individual providers based on their contribution to team coordination.

PARTICIPANTS

Hospitalists, nonphysician providers, hepatologists, and fellows on a comanaged liver service of an academic hospital.

DESIGN

Between April 2008 and October 2008, participants were surveyed at baseline and repeatedly at the completion of physician rotations to assess their preferred and actual comanagement structures. In addition, they repeatedly rated their comanagers' contributions to overall coordination using an instrument that assessed relational coordination (RC). Providers were categorized into tertiles of RC. Their management preferences and the frequency of a "composite bad outcome" (intensive care unit [ICU] transfer or inpatient death) in each tertile were evaluated.

RESULTS

All (100%) Baseline Surveys and 177/224 (79%) Repeated Surveys were completed by 32 providers. RC was shown to be a stable attribute of providers and not of adverse patient outcomes. Higher coordinators were characterized by their "ownership of patients" (higher 86% vs. lowest 20%, P < 0.01). High compared to low coordinator hepatologists demonstrated leadership through a broader delegation of tasks as well as self-assignment of responsibilities. A trend toward more frequent "composite bad outcomes" was seen for low tertile physicians: hospitalists (low 8.6% vs. high 1.1%, P < 0.01), hepatologists (low 5.2% vs. high 2.0%, P = 0.22), fellows (low 5.8% vs. high 1.8%, P = 0.08).

CONCLUSION

Individual provider's teamwork-related disposition affects perceived coordination on comanaged team and may influence patient outcomes.

U.S. trends in hospitalization and generalist physician workforce and the emergence of hospitalists

BACKGROUND

General internists and other generalist physicians have traditionally cared for their patients during both ambulatory visits and hospitalizations. It has been suggested that the expansion of hospitalists since the mid-1990s has "crowded out" generalists from inpatient care. However, it is also possible that declining hospital utilization relative to the size of the generalist workforce reduced the incentives for generalists to continue providing hospital care.

OBJECTIVE

To examine trends in hospital utilization and the generalist workforce before and after the emergence of hospitalists in the U.S. and to investigate factors contributing to these trends.

DESIGN

Using data from 1980-2005 on inpatient visits from the National Hospital Discharge Survey, and physician manpower data from the American Medical Association, we identified national trends before and after the emergence of hospitalists in the annual number of inpatient encounters relative to the number of generalists.

RESULTS

Inpatient encounters relative to the number of generalists declined steadily before the emergence of hospitalists. Declines in inpatient encounters relative to the number of generalists were driven primarily by reduced hospital length of stay and increased numbers of generalists.

CONCLUSIONS

Hospital utilization relative to generalist workforce declined before the emergence of hospitalists, largely due to declining length of stay and rising generalist workforce. This likely weakened generalist incentives to provide hospital care. Models of care that seek to preserve dual-setting generalist care spanning ambulatory and inpatient settings are most likely to be viable if they focus on patients at high risk of hospitalization.

Determinants of Hospitalist Efficiency

Using qualitative and quantitative methods, the authors develop and test hypotheses about the impact of hospitalists on efficiency and quality of care relative to teaching teams. Departure of actual from self-perceived benefits for hospitalists, both individually and collectively, is studied. It was found that hospitalists are, on average, more efficient diagnosticians and/or enhance throughput, as evidenced by having relatively lower charges, through reductions in testing and length-of-stay, than teaching teams. Much of that benefit is concentrated among patients admitted by intensivists. The authors find little evidence of quality focus or of greater use of community resources among hospitalists. Indeed, hospitalists were found to have no effect on the choice of postdischarge outlets. The authors document variation in care delivery among hospitalists. In particular, it was found that among hospitalists there is more variation in achieving shorter length of stay but less variation in use of diagnostic testing.

Hospital-physician collaboration: landscape of economic integration and impact on clinical integration

CONTEXT

Hospital-physician relationships (HPRs) are an important area of academic research, given their impact on hospitals' financial success. HPRs also are at the center of several federal policy proposals such as gain sharing, bundled payments, and pay-for-performance (P4P).

METHODS

This article analyzes the HPRs that focus on the economic integration of hospitals and physicians and the goals that HPRs are designed to achieve. It then reviews the literature on the impact of HPRs on cost, quality, and clinical integration.

FINDINGS

The goals of the two parties in HPRs overlap only partly, and their primary aim is not reducing cost or improving quality. The evidence base for the impact of many models of economic integration is either weak or nonexistent, with only a few models of economic integration having robust effects. The relationship between economic and clinical integration also is weak and inconsistent. There are several possible reasons for this weak linkage and many barriers to further integration between hospitals and physicians.

CONCLUSIONS

Successful HPRs may require better financial conditions for physicians, internal changes to clinical operations, application of behavioral skills to the management of HPRs, changes in how providers are paid, and systemic changes encompassing several types of integration simultaneously.

Organizational fragmentation and care quality in the U.S healthcare system

Many goods and services can be readily provided through a series of unconnected transactions, but in health care, close coordination over time and within care episodes improves both health outcomes and efficiency. Close coordination is problematic in the U.S. healthcare system because the financing and delivery of care is distributed across a variety of distinct and often competing entities, each with its own objectives, obligations, and capabilities. These fragmented organizational structures lead to disrupted relationships, poor information flows, and misaligned incentives that combine to degrade care quality and increase costs. We illustrate our argument with examples taken from the insurance and hospital industries, and discuss possible responses to the problems resulting from organizational fragmentation.

The Laryngology Hospitalist

The traditional pattern of medical practice is a combination of outpatient and inpatient care. There has been a recent trend for many specialties to separate this care, concentrating on only one of these spheres. A clinician caring only for inpatients is a Hospitalist. The care pattern for airway and swallowing disease adopted at the University of Maryland Hospital is in the form of the laryngology hospitalist. This new surgical specialty is a hybrid of an airway surgery subspecialist and a pure hospitalist. It offers an array of advantages to patients and colleague clinicians. One advantage is that of ubiquitous availability, which offers obvious safety benefits to patients with airway patency problems. Other advantages include the potential for consistent in-depth collaboration with other clinicians such as emergency room physicians, intensivists, neurologists/neurosurgeons, pulmonologists, gastroenterologists, speech and language pathologists, and radiologists. Financial benefits to the clinician include a more favorable ratio of operative disease versus total patient contacts. Benefits to third-party payers include the more efficient and timely delivery of care in the context of an inpatient stay.