Physician views on caring for hospitalized patients and the hospitalist model of inpatient care

Primary Care Physicians' Perspectives on High-Quality Discharge Summaries

BACKGROUND

Successful transitions of care require communication between inpatient and outpatient physicians. The discharge summary is the main communication tool used by physicians during these transitions.

OBJECTIVE

With the goal of improving care transitions, we explored primary care physicians (PCPs) perspectives on characteristics of high-quality discharge summaries.

DESIGN

We conducted semi-structured individual interviews in this qualitative study and surveyed participants for sociodemographic characteristics.

PARTICIPANTS

PCPs were recruited from multiple health systems in California.

APPROACH

An interview guide was created by the study authors to solicit PCPs' experiences with discharge summaries and perspectives on four discharge summary templates previously used by large health systems. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and qualitative data were analyzed interactively through thematic analysis.

KEY RESULTS

Twenty PCPs participated in interviews lasting an average of 35 min (range 26-47 min). Sixty percent were female. Most (70%) had trained in internal medicine (IM); 5% had trained in both IM and pediatrics and 25% in family medicine. Some (45%) participants practiced both inpatient and outpatient medicine; 55% had exclusively outpatient practices. Half worked in university-affiliated clinics, 15% community clinics, 15% public health clinics, 5% private practice, and 15% multiple clinic types. Many PCPs (65%) had been in practice for ≥ 10 years. Participants reported multiple concerns with typical discharge summaries, including frustration with lengthy documents containing information irrelevant to outpatient care. Suggested recommendations included beginning the discharge summary with action items, clear identification of incidental findings requiring follow-up, specifying reasons for any medication changes, and including dates for treatment regimens rather than expected duration of treatment. Participants highlighted the importance of feedback to trainees to assist in crafting succinct discharge summaries containing relevant information.

CONCLUSION

Clinical training programs and healthcare systems must optimize discharge summaries for PCPs to achieve goals of providing high-quality care that improves population health.

The Hospitalist Model and Oncology: Oncologist Opinions About Inpatient Cancer Care Delivery

Hospitalists, rather than oncologists, are increasingly providing inpatient medical care to hospitalized patients with cancer, yet the opinions of oncologists regarding this model of care delivery are unknown. A survey was conducted assessing these opinions and experiences with inpatient cancer care delivery at a tertiary cancer center. Only 30% of oncologists agreed that caring for hospitalized patients with cancer was an efficient use of their time, and most believed a hospitalist service allowed them to pursue other interests. Most had a positive experience with hospitalists, agreeing that hospitalists can diagnose and manage toxicities of cancer therapy, exhibit professionalism, and communicate with them and their patients appropriately. Hematologic malignancy specialists were more likely to value inpatient service time and had less confidence in the ability of hospitalists. Overall, the hospitalist model was generally accepted by oncologists and will continue to be an important part of oncologic care delivery.

Harnessing the potential of CRISPR-based platforms to advance the field of hospital medicine

INTRODUCTION

Clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) are segments of nucleic acid that play a role in prokaryotic defense and form the basis of a genome editing technology that allows permanent alteration of genetic material. This methodology, known as CRISPR-Cas9, is poised to revolutionize molecular biology, but no literature yet exists on how these advances will affect hospitalists.

AREAS COVERED

These specialists in inpatient medicine care for a wide variety of hospitalized patients, including those with infectious disease, cancer, cardiovascular disease, autoimmune disease, hematologic disease, and a variety of other conditions that may soon be impacted by advances in gene-modifying technology provided by CRISPR-Cas9. A Literature search was performed using PubMed [1 December 2019-17 April 2020].

EXPERT OPINION

This paper reviews the remarkable diagnostic and therapeutic potential of the CRISPR-Cas9 platform and concludes with a look at ethical issues and technical hurdles pertaining to the implementation of permanent gene modification in the practice of Hospital Medicine.

Hospitalist staffing and patient satisfaction in the national Medicare population

BACKGROUND

Payers are increasingly holding hospitals accountable for patients' experiences with their care. This may conflict with another trend among US hospitals-greater hospitalist care-as hospitalists may have less familiarity with the history and preferences of their patients compared with primary-care physicians.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to better understand the relationship between hospitalist care and patients' experiences with their care.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

The setting was 2843 US acute-care hospitals (bottom tertile or "non-hospitalist" hospitals: median of 0% of general-medicine patients cared for by hospitalists; middle tertile or "mixed" hospitals: median of 39.5%; top tertile or "hospitalist" hospitals: median of 76.5%).

PATIENTS

The patients were 132,814 hospitalized Medicare beneficiaries cared for by a general medicine physician in 2009.

MEASUREMENTS

The measurements were hospitalist use, based on Medicare claims data, and patient satisfaction, as measured by the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey.

RESULTS

"Hospitalist" hospitals had better performance on global measures of patient satisfaction than "mixed" or "non-hospitalist" hospitals (overall satisfaction: 65.6% vs 63.9% vs 63.9%, respectively, P value for difference < 0.001). Hospitalist hospitals performed better in 6 specific domains of care, with the largest difference in satisfaction with discharge compared with mixed or non-hospitalist hospitals (80.3% vs 79.1% vs 78.1%, P < 0.001). Hospitalist care was not associated with patient satisfaction in 2 domains of care: cleanliness of room and communication with physician.

CONCLUSION

For most measures of patient satisfaction, greater hospitalist care was associated with modestly better patient-centered care.

Trends in inpatient continuity of care for a cohort of Medicare patients 1996-2006

BACKGROUND

Little is known about how changes in health care delivery, such as the use of hospitalists, have impacted inpatient continuity.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the extent of inpatient discontinuity (ie, being seen by more than one generalist physician) during hospitalization for selected patients.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort.

SETTING

4,859 US hospitals.

PATIENTS

Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries hospitalized for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), pneumonia, and congestive heart failure (CHF) from 1996 through 2006.

MEASUREMENTS

We analyzed the proportion of Medicare beneficiaries who received care from 1, 2, or 3 or more generalist physicians during hospitalization. We also examined the factors associated with continuity during the hospitalization.

RESULTS

Between 1996 and 2006, 64.3% of patients received care from 1, 26.9% from 2 and 8.8% from 3 or more generalist physicians during hospitalization. The percentage of patients who received care from one generalist physician declined from 70.7% in 1996 to 59.4% in 2006 (P < 0.001). In a multivariable analysis, continuity with one generalist physician decreased by 5.5% (95% CI, 5.3%-5.6%) per year between 1996 and 2006. Patients receiving all care from hospitalists saw fewer generalist physicians compared to those who received all care from a non-hospitalist or both. Older patients, females, non-Hispanic whites, those with higher socioeconomic status, and those with more comorbidities were more likely to receive care from multiple generalist physicians.

LIMITATIONS

The results may not be generalizable to non-Medicare populations.

CONCLUSIONS

Hospitalized patients are experiencing less continuity than 10 years ago. The hospitalist model of care does not appear to play a role in this discontinuity.

Pediatric hospitalists and primary care providers: a communication needs assessment

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

Existing research on hospitalist-primary care provider (PCP) communication focuses mainly on adult hospitalist models with little known about the quality of current pediatric hospitalist-PCP communication. Our objective was to perform a needs assessment by exploring important issues around communication between pediatric hospitalists and PCPs.

METHODS

Six previously identified issues around hospitalist-PCP communication from the adult hospitalist literature were abstracted and incorporated into an open-ended and closed-ended questionnaire. The questionnaire was pretested, revised, and administered by phone to 10 pediatric hospitalists and 12 pediatric PCPs residing in our 5-state catchment area. Interviews were transcribed and openly coded, and themes compared using qualitative methods.

RESULTS

The 6 identified issues were: quality of communication, barriers to communication, methods of information sharing, key data element requirements, critical timing, and perceived benefits. Hospitalists and PCPs rated overall quality of communication from "poor" to "very good." Both groups acknowledge that significant barriers to optimal communication currently exist, yet the barriers differ for each group. Hospitalists and PCPs agree on what information is important to transmit (diagnoses, medications, follow-up needs, and pending laboratory test results) and critical times for communication during the hospitalization (at discharge, admission, and during major clinical changes). Both groups also agree that optimal communication could improve many aspects of patient care.

CONCLUSIONS

Identifying and addressing barriers to these 6 issues may help both hospitalists and PCPs implement targeted interventions aimed at improving communication. Future studies will need to demonstrate the link between improved hospitalist-PCP communication and improved patient care and outcomes.

Physicians' satisfaction with a collaborative disease management program for late-life depression in primary care

OBJECTIVE

This study describes physicians' satisfaction with care for patients with depression before and after the implementation of a primary care-based collaborative care program.

METHOD

Project Improving Mood, Promoting Access to Collaborative Treatment for late-life depression (IMPACT) is a multisite, randomized controlled trial comparing a primary care-based collaborative disease management program for late-life depression with care as usual. A total of 450 primary care physicians at 18 participating clinics participated in a satisfaction survey before and 12 months after IMPACT initiation. The preintervention survey focused on physicians' satisfaction with current mental health resources and ability to provide depression care. The postintervention survey repeated these and added questions about physician's experience with the IMPACT collaborative care model.

RESULTS

Before intervention, about half (54%) of the participating physicians were satisfied with resources to treat patients with depression. After intervention, more than 90% reported the intervention as helpful in treating patients with depression and 82% felt that the intervention improved patients' clinical outcomes. Participating physicians identified proactive patient follow-up and patient education as the most helpful components of the IMPACT model.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians perceived a substantial need for improving depression treatment in primary care. They were very satisfied with the IMPACT collaborative care model for treating depressed older adults and felt that similar care management models would also be helpful for treating other chronic medical illnesses.

Work, career satisfaction, and the position of general internists in the south of Spain

BACKGROUND

A progressive dissatisfaction has been noted among many internists, and the future of the specialty represents a matter of concern. The objectives of this study were to analyze career satisfaction among 182 internists from 34 hospitals in the south of Spain and to assess the opinion of 47 other health care professionals who frequently interact with internists on the present and future role of the specialty.

METHODS

Ours was a multi-institutional, cross-sectional survey of internists that focused on demographics/practice characteristics, education/research, career satisfaction, and opinions regarding the future of internal medicine. Also included were interactive, interdisciplinary focus groups of family physicians, sub-specialists, and managers. The internists were asked to complete a questionnaire that contained items and factors that were measured on a 5-point Likert scale and quantitatively analyzed; the opinions of the focus groups were qualitatively analyzed.

RESULTS

The internists surveyed dedicated most of their time to treating hospitalized patients rather than to diagnostic procedures and technical assessment. Some 54% and 57% of the internists pursued continuing medical education and research, respectively, in their free time. The internists were satisfied with the content of their work and with their interpersonal relationships, but they were dissatisfied with their physical/instrumental environment, management policies, and degree of work stability. No differences were detected in relation to age, gender, community factor, or professional category. With regard to the future of the specialty, the main opportunity detected by internists was a closer collaboration with primary care. An analysis of the strengths, weaknesses, future opportunities and threats to internal medicine expressed by the seven focus groups was highly concordant and added worthwhile information and clear proposals for the development of the specialty.

CONCLUSIONS

Internists in the south of Spain were satisfied with the content of their work and dissatisfied with health care management and job stability. The future of internal medicine was felt to lie in a deeper collaboration between internists and their colleagues in primary care.

Hospitalists: Evolution, evidence, and eventualities

Hospitalists are physicians who spend at least 25% of their professional time serving as the physicians-of-record for inpatients, during which time they accept "hand-offs" of hospitalized patients from primary care providers, returning the patients to their primary care providers at the time of hospital discharge. The hospitalist movement is only about 5 years old, yet at least 7000 hospitalists practice today and an estimated 19,000 will ultimately practice, approximately the current number of emergency medicine physicians. The emerging positivist literature on hospitalists' impact is the subject of this review. It traces the nature and evolution of the hospitalist movement; summarizes empirical evidence about costs, clinical outcomes, patient satisfaction, and education; and appraises whether the hospitalist model is indeed novel. The review concludes by outlining research questions about the hospitalist model's viability over time, the mechanisms by which it produces benefits, and especially hospitalists' longitudinal effect on continuity of patient care. A literature "scorecard" might rank evidence to date on costs as positive, evidence on clinical outcomes and education as nonnegative, and evidence on patient satisfaction and continuity of care as inconclusive. Above all, longitudinal research must illuminate whether hospitalists' advantages comeat the cost of the doctor-patient relationship.

Community and hospital-based physicians' attitudes regarding pediatric hospitalist systems

OBJECTIVE

Pediatric hospitalist systems are being implemented widely. Their implementation may be influenced by physician attitudes, which may vary according to practice type (eg, community or hospital-based practice) and personal characteristics (eg, age and practice location). Little evidence exists to describe factors relevant to pediatric systems. The objective of this study was to determine physicians' attitudes regarding hospitalists and associated physician and practice characteristics.

METHODS

We used a cross-sectional survey of all physicians with admitting privileges at a tertiary-care, pediatric, teaching hospital in the Intermountain West in April 2002. Outcomes included survey responses indicating attitudes toward the effects of the hospitalist system on quality of care, patient satisfaction, and teaching.

RESULTS

A total of 313 of 368 physicians (85%) responded, 191 of whom (61%) were community physicians; 224 respondents (72%) spent the majority of their time in outpatient care. Community physicians more often characterized inpatient care as an inefficient use of time (45% vs 25%) but were less likely to think that hospitalists would improve the quality of care (49% vs 68%) or increase patient satisfaction (10% vs 30%). In multivariate models examining predictors of overall attitudes toward hospitalists, being a community physician (6.4 points more negative) and admitting patients at >1 hospital (3.3 points more negative) were associated with less favorable attitudes. Being <40 years of age (4.5 points more positive) and practicing >13 miles from the hospital (4.3 points more positive) were associated with more positive attitudes.

CONCLUSIONS

Attitudes regarding hospitalist systems differ between physician groups and are influenced by practice characteristics. Understanding these differences and tailoring hospitalist systems to address them will be important as pediatric hospitalist systems are implemented nationwide.