Hospitalists, value and the future

Building a thriving academic hospitalist workforce: A rapid qualitative analysis identifying key areas of focus in the field

BACKGROUND

The hospitalist workforce has been at the forefront of the pandemic and has been stretched in both clinical and nonclinical domains. We aimed to understand current and future workforce concerns, as well as strategies to cultivate a thriving hospital medicine workforce.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

We conducted qualitative, semistructured focus groups with practicing hospitalists via video conferencing (Zoom). Utilizing components from the Brainwriting Premortem Approach, attendees were split into small focus groups and listed their thoughts about workforce issues that hospitalists may encounter in the next 3 years, identifying the highest priority workforce issues for the hospital medicine community. Each small group discussed the most pressing workforce issues. These ideas were then shared across the entire group and ranked. We used rapid qualitative analysis to guide a structured exploration of themes and subthemes.

RESULTS

Five focus groups were held with 18 participants from 13 academic institutions. We identified five key areas: (1) support for workforce wellness; (2) staffing and pipeline development to maintain an adequate workforce to match clinical growth; (3) scope of work, including how hospitalist work is defined and whether the clinical skillset should be expanded; (4) commitment to the academic mission in the setting of rapid and unpredictable clinical growth; and (5) alignment between the duties of hospitalists and resources of hospitals. Hospitalists voiced numerous concerns about the future of our workforce. Several domains were identified as high-priority areas of focus to address current and future challenges.

Comparing Japanese University Hospitals' and Community Healthcare Facilities' Research Contributions on PubMed

Purpose

Although research in general medicine is important, the contributions and characteristics of general medicine physicians (GMPs) in university hospitals (UH) and community healthcare facilities (CHF) remains unclear. Therefore, this study examines the popularity of research by affiliation, characteristics of journal publication, annual trends, and differences in impact factors (IFs) of journal publications.

Methods

This study is a secondary bibliometric analysis of articles in international journals published in PubMed over the past six years (2015-2020). The analysis compared English articles published by either UH- or CHF-affiliated GMPs in Japan in terms of, among other things, article type, research field, and IF.

Results

Of the 2372 articles analyzed, 1688 (71.2%) were published by physicians affiliated with UHs, 62.6% of which were original. Basic research, international collaboration, and ratio of IFs were significantly higher for such papers. In contrast, the number of CHF articles were significantly higher in the areas of clinical research and practice, with a greater proportion of case reports. There was no significant difference in IF between the disciplines within each affiliation, but the IF was the highest in experimental basic research and the lowest in medical and clinical education. In the six-year time series, the number of original papers by UHs and CHFs increased roughly twofold between 2015 and 2020, but the number of articles in the areas of medical education and healthcare quality and safety remained mostly unchanged.

Conclusion

The number of international papers published by Japanese GMPs has increased since 2015, particularly in terms of original papers and clinical research from UHs. However, there was no significant difference in the IF between UH and CHF publications. Our findings can guide the development of indicators, research, and education strategies regarding Japanese GMPs' research performance.

Research Trends and Impact Factor on PubMed Among General Medicine Physicians in Japan: A Cross-Sectional Bibliometric Analysis

Background

Japan created a specialty system for general medicine in 2018. However, Japanese academic generalists’ contribution to research remains unclear. This study examines the popularity of Japanese general medicine research, the characteristics of journal publications, annual trends, and the characteristics/differences among publications in journals with an impact factor (IF).

Methods

This bibliometric analysis extracted international, English-language, journal articles published on PubMed between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2020. Analysis included articles with either the first, second, or last author in general medicine. We classified articles according to publication or article type and field of research. We obtained standard descriptive statistics for each publication type. Chi-squared test or Fisher’s exact test was used to compare nominal variables. For continuous variables, t-tests or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used, as appropriate.

Results

Of the 2372 articles analyzed, original articles were most common (56.3%), followed by case reports (30.1%), reviews (7.63%), and letters/others (5.9%). Publication volume increased 2.64-fold annually over 5 years. Clinical research (60.5%) was most common among original articles, followed by basic experimental research (17.5%) and public health/epidemiology (12.7%). Medical quality and safety (4.1%), medical and clinical education (3.1%), and health services (1.42%) received comparatively little attention. Eighty percent of articles were published in journals with IF; however, these journals rarely published case reports. Among original articles, the likelihood of publishing in journals with IF was high for basic laboratory medicine articles with higher IF (median IF 3.83, OR 1.71, 95% CI 2.20–5.95, p=0.044) and lower for clinical education research with the lowest IF (median IF 1.83, OR 0.56, 95% CI 01.8–0.75, p<0.001).

Discussion

General medicine physicians’ international research output is increasing in Japan; however, research achievements have not been generalized, but rather much influenced by clinical subspecialty backgrounds. This will likely continue unless an academic generalist discipline is established.

Objective Impact of Hematology-Oncology Hospitalist Care in an Inpatient Setting

PURPOSE:

The utilization of the hospitalist care model has increased over the past decade because of improved cost-effectiveness, quality of care, and value that it provides. Studies have shown that compared with the traditional care model, use of hospitalists provides cost-saving and improved value to hospital systems. However, the data for the use of oncology hospitalists (ONC Hosp) are sparse. In this study, we investigate the impact of inpatient ONC Hosp on 30-day readmissions, length of stay (LOS), discharge to hospice, and inpatient mortality when compared with a traditional model where outpatient oncologists manage the acute issues of hospitalized patients with cancer.

METHODS:

Rhode Island Hospital hired ONC Hosps to attend on the inpatient oncology service. To determine the impact of this new patient care model, we performed a retrospective review of oncology patients admitted to Rhode Island Hospital between July 1, 2012, and June 30, 2018, and compared quality outcomes of 30-day readmission, LOS, discharge to hospice, and inpatient mortality to those from the traditional care model.

RESULTS:

Compared with outpatient oncologists care, care by ONC Hosp was associated with a significant decrease in 30-day readmissions (23.0% v 29.6%, P = .019) and a significant increase in discharge to hospice (18.1% v 12.1%, P < .001). No significant difference was detected between LOS ( P = .833) or inpatient mortality ( P = .332).

CONCLUSION:

This study shows that compared with the traditional care model, the use of ONC Hosps has a positive impact on patient care and the potential to add value to the hospital system.

Perspectives on and barriers to research among advanced practice provider and physician hospitalists

Advanced practice providers and physicians at an academic healthcare system comprising more than 15 hospitals across four US states were surveyed to identify barriers to participation in research. Overall, barriers reported by advanced practice providers and physicians were more similar than different, highlighting system-level opportunities to build research skills and accelerate academic productivity.

The future physician

Both hospital-based care and physician training have undergone significant changes within the past decade. Current physician training in the UK is failing to meet the needs of patients, with significant numbers of acute and general medicine posts unfilled. Building on the themes of the 2013 Shape of Training review, we propose a model that places an alternative model of generalist - the 'future hospitalist' - at the centre of patient care and medical training. The reinstatement of the general physician at the heart of hospital care will increase flexibility in both training and workforce planning, and embed active leadership, patient safety and quality improvement in care delivery.