Do hospitalists improve quality?

Era of hospitalists

Hospitalists, known as physicians, are an emerging group in the medical field that is focused on the general medical care of hospitalized patients. Specializing in hospital medicine, they often attract a mix of appreciation and criticism. In the present manuscript, we review the pros and cons of a hospitalist in the health-care system. Although experts agree that hospitalists add value to the health-care system by reducing costs, streamlining administrative processes, and contributing to improved health-care outcomes, there is a large degree of disagreement regarding the extent of hospitalist contribution to overall improvements on health-care outcomes. In this paper, new strategies to overcome reported shortcomings and to further improve the quality of health care are discussed. Abbreviations: SHM: Society of Hospital Medicine; BOOST: Better Outcomes by Optimizing Safe Transitions; RED: Re-Engineered Discharge; CHF: chronic heart failure; MI: myocardial infarction; ICU: intensive care unit; PACT: post-acute care transitions; MRSA: methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus; CINAHL: The Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature; PCP: primary care physician.

Do hospitalist physicians improve the quality of inpatient care delivery? A systematic review of process, efficiency and outcome measures

BACKGROUND

Despite more than a decade of research on hospitalists and their performance, disagreement still exists regarding whether and how hospital-based physicians improve the quality of inpatient care delivery. This systematic review summarizes the findings from 65 comparative evaluations to determine whether hospitalists provide a higher quality of inpatient care relative to traditional inpatient physicians who maintain hospital privileges with concurrent outpatient practices.

METHODS

Articles on hospitalist performance published between January 1996 and December 2010 were identified through MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index, CINAHL, NHS Economic Evaluation Database and a hand-search of reference lists, key journals and editorials. Comparative evaluations presenting original, quantitative data on processes, efficiency or clinical outcome measures of care between hospitalists, community-based physicians and traditional academic attending physicians were included (n = 65). After proposing a conceptual framework for evaluating inpatient physician performance, major findings on quality are summarized according to their percentage change, direction and statistical significance.

RESULTS

The majority of reviewed articles demonstrated that hospitalists are efficient providers of inpatient care on the basis of reductions in their patients' average length of stay (69%) and total hospital costs (70%); however, the clinical quality of hospitalist care appears to be comparable to that provided by their colleagues. The methodological quality of hospitalist evaluations remains a concern and has not improved over time. Persistent issues include insufficient reporting of source or sample populations (n = 30), patients lost to follow-up (n = 42) and estimates of effect or random variability (n = 35); inappropriate use of statistical tests (n = 55); and failure to adjust for established confounders (n = 37).

CONCLUSIONS

Future research should include an expanded focus on the specific structures of care that differentiate hospitalists from other inpatient physician groups as well as the development of better conceptual and statistical models that identify and measure underlying mechanisms driving provider-outcome associations in quality.