Do hospitalists or physicians with greater inpatient HIV experience improve HIV care in the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy? Results from a multicenter trial of academic hospitalists

Ordering Patterns and Costs of Specialized Laboratory Testing by Hospitalists and House Staff in Hospitalized Patients With HIV at a County Hospital: An Opportunity for Diagnostic Stewardship

Background

Inpatient HIV care often requires specialized laboratory testing with which practitioners may not be familiar. In addition, computerized physician order entry allows for ordering tests without understanding test indications, but it can also provide a venue for education and diagnostic stewardship.

Methods

All charts of HIV-positive patients hospitalized at a tertiary care public safety net hospital in Houston, Texas, between January 1, 2014, and June 30, 2014, were reviewed for a set list of laboratory tests. Appropriateness of test ordering was assessed by 2 providers. Cost estimates for each test were obtained from Medicaid and a national nonprofit health care charge database.

Results

A total of 274 HIV-positive patients were admitted 429 times in the 6-month study period. During the study period, 45% of the study laboratory tests ordered were not indicated. A total of 532 hepatitis serologies were ordered, only 52% of which were indicated. Overall, 71 serum qualitative cytomegalovirus (CMV) polymerase chain reactions (PCRs) and eight CMV quantitative PCRs were ordered, with most (85%) qualitative PCRs ordered for nonspecific signs of infection (eg, fever). Other tests ordered without clear indications included Aspergillus IgE (7), serum Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) PCR (5), parvovirus serology (7), and Toxoplasma IgM (18). Overall, the estimated laboratory cost of inappropriate testing over the study period was between $14 000 and $92 000, depending on which cost database was used.

Conclusions

Many tests ordered in HIV-positive inpatients do not have indications, representing a substantial source of health care waste and cost and potentially leading to inappropriate treatment. Opportunities exist to decrease waste through education of trainees and hospitalists and through implementation of diagnostic stewardship via the electronic medical record.

Larger is not necessarily better! Impact of HIV care unit characteristics on virological success: results from the French national representative ANRS-VESPA2 study

OBJECTIVES

To determine the impact of hospital caseload size on HIV virological success when taking into account individual patient characteristics.

METHODS

Data from the ANRS-VESPA2 survey representative of people living with HIV in France was used. Analyses were carried out on the 2612 (86.4% out of 3022) individuals receiving antiretroviral (ARV) treatment for at least one year. Outcomes correspond to two definitions of virological success (VS1 and VS2 respectively) and were analyzed under a multi-level modeling framework with a special focus on the effect of the caseload size on VS.

RESULTS

Structures with caseloads <1700 patients were more likely to have increased the proportion of patients achieving virological success (59% and 81% for VS1 and VS2, respectively) than structures whose caseloads numbered ≥1700 patients. Our results highlight that patients in the 11 largest care units in the sample were exposed to a context where their VS was potentially compromised by care unit characteristics, independently of both their individual characteristics and their own HIV treatment adherence behavior.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that - at least in the case of HIV care - in France large care units are not necessarily better. This result serves as an evidence-based warning to public authorities to ensure that health outcomes are guaranteed in an era when the French hospital sector is being substantially restructured.

Virologic and Immunologic Outcomes of the Second-Line Regimens of Antiretroviral Therapy Among HIV-Infected Patients in Thailand

Goal of the second-line therapy among HIV-1-infected patients is to re-establish virological suppression, although treatment options in resource-limited settings are limited. An observational cohort of patients with first-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) failure was conducted in a university hospital in Thailand. Of 95 patients, mean age 39 years, 65% were male. Median CD4 and HIV-1 RNA at second-line ART initiation were 158 cells/mm(3) and 4.1 copies/mL, respectively. Boosted protease inhibitor plus 2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs), indicated by genotype results, was commonly used as second-line regimen. At 6, 12, 24, and 36 months of second-line ART, 67%, 62%, 84%, and 90% of patients achieved HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL; median CD4 were 258, 366, 444, and 522 cells/mm( 3), respectively. Good adherence, high baseline CD4, and early Centers for Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) staging were associated with virologic success (P < .05). Second-line ART based on the results of genotype testing yields the good virologic and immunologic outcomes in a resource-limited setting, and scaling-up of second-line ART is indicated.

The laborist model of obstetric care: we need more evidence

Literature suggesting improved patient outcomes and patient satisfaction with the hospitalist model of inpatient medical care coupled with the desire to improve provider satisfaction led to the introduction of the laborist in obstetrics. This represents a significant change in the way obstetrics has been experienced and practiced from both a patient and provider perspective. The laborist was designed as a plausible model of obstetric care delivery where hospitals employ physicians to provide continuous coverage of labor and delivery units without other competing clinical duties. Anecdotal use of the laborist model in the provision of obstetric care is growing rapidly, despite the lack of research regarding its impact on maternal outcomes, neonatal outcomes, patient and provider satisfaction, and graduate medical education. We provide an overview of both the positive and negative attributes of this model of obstetric care delivery, discuss the current state of research addressing these attributes, and propose a research strategy to improve understanding of the impact of this model of care delivery.

The association of hospital, clinic and provider volume with HIV/AIDS care and mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis

The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to examine the association between hospital, clinic and provider patient volumes on HIV/AIDS patient outcomes including mortality, antiretroviral (ARV) use and proportion of patients on indicated opportunistic infection (OI) prophylaxis. We searched MEDLINE and nine other electronic databases from 1 January 1980 through 29 May 2009. Experimental and controlled observational studies of persons with HIV/AIDS were included. Studies examined the volume or concentration of patients with HIV/AIDS in hospitals, clinics or individual providers. Outcomes included mortality, ARV use and proportion of patients on indicated OI prophylaxis. We reviewed 22,692 titles and/or abstracts. Patient characteristics, study design, volume measures, medical outcomes and study confounders were abstracted. Data were extracted independently by two reviewers. Twenty-two studies were included in the final review. High volume hospital care was associated with lower in-hospital mortality (pooled odds ratio (OR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57-0.90 p = 0.004) and lower mortality 30 days from admission (pooled OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.47-0.81 p = 0.0004). Higher volume provider care was associated with significantly higher ARV use (pooled OR 4.41, 95% CI 2.70-7.18 p<0.00001). Differences in volume definitions and controlling for confounding variables did not appreciably alter the results. Higher volume hospitals, clinics and providers were associated with significantly decreased mortality for people living with HIV/AIDS and higher volume providers and clinics had higher ARV use. Heterogeneity of volume thresholds and absence of studies from resource-limited settings are major limitations.

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.

Inpatient health services utilization among HIV-infected adult patients in care 2002-2007

OBJECTIVE

This study examines the frequency of inpatient hospitalization, the number of inpatient days, and factors associated with inpatient utilization in a multistate HIV cohort between 2002 and 2007.

DESIGN

A prospective cohort study of HIV-infected adults in care at 11 US HIV primary and specialty care sites located in different geographic regions.

METHODS

Demographic, clinical, and resource utilization data were collected from medical records for the years 2002-2007. Rates of resource use were calculated for number of hospital admissions, total inpatient days, and mean length of stay per admission.

RESULTS

Annual inpatient hospitalization rates significantly decreased from 35 to 27 per 100 persons from 2002 to 2007. The number of inpatient days per year significantly decreased over time, whereas mean length of stay per admission was stable. Women, patients 50 years or older, blacks, injection drug users, and patients without private insurance had higher hospitalization rates than their counterparts. Admission rates were lower for patients with high CD4 counts and low HIV-1 RNA levels.

CONCLUSIONS

Inpatient hospitalization rates and number of inpatient days decreased for HIV patients in this multistate cohort between 2002 and 2007. Sociodemographic disparities in inpatient utilization persist.

Hospital readmission in general medicine patients: a prediction model

BACKGROUND

Previous studies of hospital readmission have focused on specific conditions or populations and generated complex prediction models.

OBJECTIVE

To identify predictors of early hospital readmission in a diverse patient population and derive and validate a simple model for identifying patients at high readmission risk.

DESIGN

Prospective observational cohort study.

PATIENTS

Participants encompassed 10,946 patients discharged home from general medicine services at six academic medical centers and were randomly divided into derivation (n = 7,287) and validation (n = 3,659) cohorts.

MEASUREMENTS

We identified readmissions from administrative data and 30-day post-discharge telephone follow-up. Patient-level factors were grouped into four categories: sociodemographic factors, social support, health condition, and healthcare utilization. We performed logistic regression analysis to identify significant predictors of unplanned readmission within 30 days of discharge and developed a scoring system for estimating readmission risk.

RESULTS

Approximately 17.5% of patients were readmitted in each cohort. Among patients in the derivation cohort, seven factors emerged as significant predictors of early readmission: insurance status, marital status, having a regular physician, Charlson comorbidity index, SF12 physical component score, >or=1 admission(s) within the last year, and current length of stay >2 days. A cumulative risk score of >or=25 points identified 5% of patients with a readmission risk of approximately 30% in each cohort. Model discrimination was fair with a c-statistic of 0.65 and 0.61 for the derivation and validation cohorts, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Select patient characteristics easily available shortly after admission can be used to identify a subset of patients at elevated risk of early readmission. This information may guide the efficient use of interventions to prevent readmission.

Do hospitalists affect clinical outcomes and efficiency for patients with acute upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (UGIH)?

BACKGROUND

Care by hospitalists has been associated with improved/similar clinical outcomes and efficiency. However, less is known about their effect on conditions dependent upon specialists for procedures/treatment plans. Our objective was to compare care for upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (UGIH) patients attended by academic hospitalists and nonhospitalists.

METHODS

The study included 450 UGIH patients admitted to general medical services of 6 teaching hospitals. Outcomes included in-hospital mortality and complications (ie, recurrent bleeding, intensive care unit [ICU] transfer, decompensation, transfusion, reendoscopy, 30-day readmission). Efficiency was measured by hospital costs and length of stay (LOS).

RESULTS

Of 450 patients, 40% (177) were cared for by hospitalists with no differences between groups by endoscopic diagnosis, performance of early esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), Rockall risk score, or Charlson comorbidity index. Unadjusted clinical outcomes between hospitalists and nonhospitalists were similar except for 2 outcomes: patients cared for by hospitalists were more likely to receive a transfusion (74% vs. 63%; P = 0.02) or be readmitted within 30 days (7.3% vs. 3.3%; P = 0.05). However, differences in adverse outcomes between providers were not seen after multivariable adjustments. Median LOS was similar for hospitalists and nonhospitalists (4 days; P = 0.69), but patients cared for by hospitalists had higher median costs ($7,359 vs. $6,181; P < 0.01). In multivariable analyses, LOS was similar (5.2 vs. 4.7 days; P = 0.15) and costs remained higher for the hospitalist-led teams (P < 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite having similar overall outcomes and LOS, costs were higher in UGIH patients attended by hospitalists. These results suggest that the academic hospitalist model may be tempered in patients requiring specialists for procedures or management.

A systematic review of outcomes and quality measures in adult patients cared for by hospitalists vs nonhospitalists

A systematic review of English-language literature was undertaken to answer the question, "Are there differences in cost or quality of inpatient medical care provided to adults by hospitalists vs nonhospitalists?" A computerized search was performed, using hospitalist and either quality, outcome, or cost as search terms. References from relevant articles were searched by hand. A standard data-extraction tool was used, and articles were included on the basis of quality and relevance. The reports that were included (N=33) show general agreement that hospitalist care leads to shorter length of stay and lower cost per stay. Three reports show improvement in outcomes for orthopedic surgery patients who had hospitalist consultation or comanagement, 3 reports show improvement in markers of quality of care for patients with pneumonia, and 2 reports show improvement in aspects of heart failure management. Further research should seek to determine why differences in care exist, whether these improvements might be generalized to other physicians, and whether hospitalists provide demonstrable benefit in other areas of care.

A systematic review of outcomes and quality measures in adult patients cared for by hospitalists vs nonhospitalists

A systematic review of English-language literature was undertaken to answer the question, "Are there differences in cost or quality of inpatient medical care provided to adults by hospitalists vs nonhospitalists?" A computerized search was performed, using hospitalist and either quality, outcome, or cost as search terms. References from relevant articles were searched by hand. A standard data-extraction tool was used, and articles were included on the basis of quality and relevance. The reports that were included (N=33) show general agreement that hospitalist care leads to shorter length of stay and lower cost per stay. Three reports show improvement in outcomes for orthopedic surgery patients who had hospitalist consultation or comanagement, 3 reports show improvement in markers of quality of care for patients with pneumonia, and 2 reports show improvement in aspects of heart failure management. Further research should seek to determine why differences in care exist, whether these improvements might be generalized to other physicians, and whether hospitalists provide demonstrable benefit in other areas of care.

Structures of care in the clinics of the HIV Research Network

As the HIV epidemic has evolved to become a chronic, treatable condition the focus of HIV care has shifted from the inpatient to the outpatient arena. The optimal structure of HIV care in the outpatient setting is unknown. Using the HIV Research Network (HIVRN), a federally sponsored consortium of 21 sites that provide care to HIV-infected individuals, this study attempted to: (1) document key features of the organization of care in HIVRN adult clinics and (2) estimate variability among clinics in these parameters. A cross-sectional survey of adult clinic directors regarding patient volume, follow-up care, provider characteristics, acute patient care issues, wait times, patient safety procedures, and prophylaxis practices was conducted from July to December 2007. All 15 adult HIVRN clinic sites responded: 9 academic and 6 community-based. The results demonstrate variability in key practice parameters. Median (range) of selected practice characteristics were: (1) annual patient panel size, 1300 (355-5600); (2) appointment no-show rate, 28% (8%-40%); (3) annual loss to follow-up, 15% (5%-25%); (4) wait time for new appointments, 5 days (0.5-22.5), and follow-up appointment, 8 days (0-30). The majority of clinics had an internal mechanism to handle acute patient care issues and provide a number of onsite consultative services. Nurse practitioners and physician assistants were highly utilized. These data will facilitate improvements in chronic care management of persons living with HIV.